Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:53:18.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass and meat quality research to meet market needs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. J. Kempster
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Winterkill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX
Get access

Abstract

The relationship between carcass and meat quality research and industry requirements is examined with reference to changes in consumer demand.

It is argued that much applied research has not focused sharply enough on commercial requirements and that technology transfer has been slow. But there are signs that the pace of future development will be faster, associated with a reorientation of research objectives. The three key factors stimulating change are as follows.

(1) Increasing demand by retailers for a consistent product (a demand enforced by the buying power of the major multiple grocers).

(2) The reappraisal by breeders of selection objectives.

(3) Recent developments in sensor technology and the exploitation of information technology at the producer-processor interface.

The implications of each of these are discussed.

Driven by these factors research will be targeted increasingly on integrated systems from production to consumption, aimed at specific markets setting different balances between production costs and quality. These will be blueprints for best operating practices and the ‘state of the art’ against which new research developments will be evaluated.

Throughout the review, emphasis is placed on the importance of good communication between research workers and industry to confront change and realize the opportunities created.

Type
Invited Paper
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 1989 , pp. 483 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beck, P. 1987. Present and future trends in European meat demand — the inevitable and controllable. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Fresh Meat and Fish, London.Google Scholar
Bichard, M. 1984. Pig carcase classification and grading — relative importance in determining breeding objectives. In Carcass Evaluation in Beef and Pork — Opportunities and Constraints, pp. 63–70. Research Institute for Animal Production, ‘Schoonoord’.Google Scholar
Commission Of The European Communities. 1979. Development of uniform methods of pig carcass classification in the EC. Information on Agriculture Series No. 70. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Cullimore, C. S. 1984. New directions in meat marketing. Paper presented at 9th International CBF (Irish Livestock and Meat Board) Beef Symposium, Dublin.Google Scholar
Hansson, I. and Lundstrom, K. 1989. Incorporating meat quality in grading systems for pigs. In New Techniques in Pig Carcass Evaluation, pp. 52–59. Centre for Agricultural Publication and Documentation, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1983. Controlling the variability of quality in beef, veal, pig meat and lamb. Paper presented to the European Economic Community Symposium on the Long Term Definition of Meat Quality, Brussels.Google Scholar
James, J. W. 1982. Economic aspects of developing breeding objectives: general considerations. In Future Developments in the Genetic Improvement of Animals, pp. 107–118. Academic Press, Australia.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1984. Cost-benefit analyses of in-vivo estimates of body composition in meat animals. In Invivo Measurements of Body Composition in Meat Animals (ed. Lister, D.), pp. 191–203. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1986. Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from conformation assessments adjusted for fatness. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106: 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Cook, G. L. 1989. Errors in carcass lean prediction with special reference to the EC Grading Scheme. In New Techniques in Pig Carcass Evaluation, pp. 28–36. Centre for Agricultural Publication and Documentation, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Grantley-smith, M. 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness. A review. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1984. Beef carcass classification and grading: methods, developments and perspectives. In Carcass Evaluation in Beef and Pork — Opportunities and Constraints, pp. 21–29. Research Institute for Animal Production, ‘Schoonoord’.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Wood, J. D. 1986. A national programme on factors affecting pig meat quality. In Evaluation and Control of Meat Quality in Pigs (ed. Tarrant, P. V., Eikelenboon, G. and Monin, G.), pp. 359–369. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Lundström, K., Malmfors, B., Vahlun, S., Kempster, A. J., Andresen, O. and Hagelso, M. H. 1985. Recent research on the use of boars for meat production — report from the EAAP Working Group Meeting in Denmark, 1984. Livestock Production Science 13: 303–309.Google Scholar
Meat And Livestock Commission. 1987. The Production of and Market for ‘Alternative“Meat. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Neilsen, N. J. 1981. The effect of environmental factors on meat quality and on deaths during transportation and lairage before slaughter. Proceedings of Symposium on Porcine Stress and Meat Quality, Norway, November 1980, pp. 287–297.Google Scholar
Newman, P. and Wood, J. D. 1989. New techniques for assessment of pig carcasses — video and ultrasonic systems. In New Techniques in Pig Carcass Evaluation, pp. 37–51. Centre for Agricultural Publication and Documentation, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. G. and Ruby, V. 1985. Field tests (for the measurement of skatole in pigs). 36th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Halkidiki, Greece, 1985.Google Scholar
Sorenson, Sv. E. and Butcher, L. 1985. Eating quality of young bull beef as affected by production, genotype and slaughtering practice. 36th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Halkidiki. Greece, 1985.Google Scholar
Tatum, J. D., Smith, G. C. and Carpenter, Z. L. 1982. Inter-relationships marbling, subcutaneous fat thickness and cooked beef palatability. Journal of Animal Science 54: 777–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. J., Southwood, I. O. and Simpson, S. P. 1986. The halothane test in improving meat quality. In Evaluation and Control of Meat Quality in Pigs (ed. Tarrant, P. V., Eikelenboon, G. and Monin, G.), pp. 297–315. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Jones, R. C. D., Francombe, M. A. and Whelehan, O. P. 1986. The effects of fat thickness and sex on pig meat quality with special reference to the problems associated with overleanness. 2. Laboratory and trained taste panel results. Animal Production 43: 535–544.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. and Wilmut, I. 1989. Embryo manipulation in cattle breeding and production. Animal Production 48: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar