Meatquality,fattyacidcompositionandflavour analysisinBelgianretailbeef K.Raes a ,A.Balcaen a ,P.Dirinck b ,A.DeWinne b , E.Claeys a ,D.Demeyer a ,S.DeSmet a, * a DepartmentofAnimalProduction,FacultyofAgriculturalandAppliedBiologicalSciences, GhentUniversity,Proefhoevestraat10,9090Melle,Belgium b ChemicalandBiochemicalResearchCentre(CBOK),DepartmentofChemistryandBiochemistry, KaHoSint-Lieven,GebroedersDesmetstraat1,9000Ghent,Belgium Received28June2002;receivedinrevisedform9January2003;accepted9January2003 Abstract Theobjectiveofthisstudywastoevaluatethedifferencesinbiochemical,sensorialandqualitycharacteristicsofretailbeefin Belgium.Fourtypesofbeef(BelgianBluedouble-muscled,Limousin,IrishandArgentine)andtwodifferentmuscles(longissimus lumborum andsemimembranosus)wereboughtattheretaillevelandcomparedwithregardtocolour,shearforce,collagencontent, fattyacidanalysis,tastepanelevaluationaswellasflavouranalysis.BelgianBlueandLimousinbeefhadapalercolour,lower collagen and intramuscular fat contents. Fatty acid profiles were significantly different between the four types, with significantly higherPUFA/SFAandn-6/n-3ratiosforBelgiamBlueandLimousinbeefcomparedtoArgentineandIrishbeef.Thereweresig- nificantdifferencesbetweenthemeattypesfortastepaneltendernessandshearforce,howeverbothmeasurementsdidnotfully correspond.Flavouranalysisbygaschromatography–massspectrometryaswellassensoryanalysisdemonstratedthatIrishand Argentinebeefhadahigherflavourintensityrelatedtohighercontentsofvolatilecompounds.Differencesintendernessandfla- vourbetweenthemeattypeswereprobablyaffectedbydifferencesinageingtime,relatedtoimportvslocalproductionofmeat. # 2003ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved. Keywords: Beefquality;Meatorigin;Fattyacidcomposition;Flavour 1. Introduction Variationinbeefqualityislargeandisduetomany factors, such as differences in genetic background, sex, age,management,nutrition.InBelgium,beefcattleare mostly of the Belgian Blue breed and are fattened indoors on high-concentrate diets. However, at the retail level, imported meat from more extensive grass- based production systems is available and is labelled accordingly.Often,labelsonthesemeatsclaimspecific sensoryorhealthbenefitsandgenerallyhaveapositive publicimageduetotheirmore‘natural’character.Beef from a specific production system represents the com- binedeffectsofbreed,genotype,sex,age,nutritionand management, and these effects can interact at many points. As a consequence, a comparison of retail meat samples does not allow us to attribute differences in meatqualitytooneparticularfactor.However,froma consumer’spointofview,onlytheoveralldifferencesin meatqualityareofinterest,andonecanquestionwhe- thermeatlabelsdifferentiatemeatobjectively. Theconsumer’sdecisiontopurchasebeefisguidedby the perception of healthiness and a variety of sensory traitsincludingcolour,tenderness,juiciness,andaromaor flavour(Verbeke&Viaene,1999).Itisthereforeworth- whileconsideringdifferencesinmeatqualityatthecon- sumerlevel,withrespecttobothsensorytraitsandhealth aspects.Thepurposeofthisworkistopresentobjective measurements of meat quality characteristics (colour, tenderness,juiciness,fattyacidcomposition,sensoryand instrumental flavour analyses) of retail beef samples of fourdifferentorigins,eitherproducedlocallyorimported. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Meatsamples Meat samples of four different origins (combination of breed and nutrition) were obtained in collaboration 0309-1740/03/$-seefrontmatter # 2003ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00031-7 MeatScience65(2003)1237–1246 www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci * Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-9-264-90-03; fax: +32-9-264- 90-99. E-mailaddress: stefaan.desmet@rug.ac.be(S.DeSmet).