Search

Produced from proliferating cells in bioreactors with a controlled culture medium, "cultured meat" has been presented by its supporters, who are mainly private actors (start-ups), as a sustainable solution to meet the growing demand for animal proteins without weaknesses of animal husbandry in terms of environmental impact, animal welfare or even health. The aim of this chapter is to take stock of current knowledge on the potential benefits and pitfalls of this novel product. Since robust scientific arguments are lacking on these aspects, there is no consensus on the health and nutritional qualities of "cultured meat" for human consumption and on its potential low environmental impact. In addition, many issues related to the market, legislation, ethics and consumer perception remain to be addressed. The way in which this new product is regarded appears to be influenced by many factors related mainly to its price, as well as to the perception of safety, sensory traits but also environmental and nutritional issues. Therefore, research by universities and public research institutes indicates that "cultured meat" production does not present any major advantages in economic, nutritional, sensory, environmental, ethical or social terms compared to conventional meat. Thus, a more balanced diet by diversifying our sources of plant and animal proteins, consuming other meat substitutes, and reducing food losses and waste appear to be more effective short-term solutions to the urgent need of producing enough food for the growing human population (while reducing environmental degradation and animal suffering).

This research aimed to study the perception of French consumers on "cultured meat". The respondents (n = 5418) are characterised by an over-representation of young people, meat professional or scientists compared to the French population. Approximately 40-50% of them believed that animal husbandry faced ethical and environmental issues. Only 18-26% of them believed that "cultured meat" could solve these difficulties, a majority thought that it would not be healthy or tasty and that "cultured meat" is an "absurd and/or disgusting" idea. However, 23.9% and 16.9% thought it is a "fun and/or interesting" and a "promising and/or feasible" idea and 91.7% were not prepared to buy "cultured meat" at a higher price than meat. The respondents not familiar with "cultured meat", young people or women are more in support of it due to a greater sensitivity to issues related to livestock systems. Older men and meat professionals are the most reluctant. Thus, the "cultured meat" market would represent at best a niche market.

International audience; Marbling is one of the primary carcass attributes utilized in most beef grading systems for eating quality evaluation. In Europe, the current beef grading system is the EUROP grid, which is focused on carcass commercial value and production yield rather than eating quality estimation. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between marbling and the most common scores for carcass classification in Europe. If there are strong associations between marbling and European classification scores, marbling score may be estimated from the carcass characteristics. However, this study indicated that European classification scores explain only a slight proportion of the variance in marbling score (32%, 46%, 34% and 21% for the entire cattle group, young bulls, females and steers, respectively). Therefore, whereas the EUROP grid is well adapted to estimate yield, it does not reflect marbling at all. The European beef industry should take into account additional indicators related to beef palatability to assist the determination of the commercial value of carcasses.

This study evaluated the contributions of sensory traits to overall liking in Europe. Perceptions by untrained consumers of tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking and overall liking were determined using the Meat Standards Australia protocols. According to European consumer testing with European beef samples, flavor liking was the most important contributor (39%) to beef overall liking, followed by tenderness (31%) and juiciness (24%) (P0.94). The improvement in tenderness over the last decades may explain the highest contribution of flavor liking nowadays. Flavor liking is therefore the main driver of variability in overall liking. Juiciness is the least robust trait which could be influenced by other traits during consumer perception. For outstanding steaks, each sensory trait should have excellent scores and high contributions to overall liking. For medium cuts, one sensory trait with a low score has the potential to be compensated by other traits with higher scores and more emphasis will be placed on the trait with the lowest perception.

International audience; This study used the BIF-Beef data warehouse to determine whether semitendinosus (ST) was a muscle with a faster contraction speed and more glycolytic than longissimus thoracis (LT), regardless of the sex and breed of animals. With more than 500 animals from 7 breeds, we confirmed that LT was more oxidative than ST in males and females, but not in steers, and in all the breeds studied except Montbeliard. The LT had more slow oxidative (SO) and fewer fast oxido-glycolytic (FOG) and fast-glycolytic (FG) muscle fibres than the ST muscle, regardless of sex, in all breeds except Montbeliard and Holstein. SO proportion and the oxidative activity were negatively correlated to FG proportion and to the glycolytic activity. Similarly, FOG proportion was positively correlated to the glycolytic activity and negatively to FG proportion. However, these relationships are not consistent across sexes and breeds. In conclusion, differences in muscle types may be affected by sex or breed but to a moderate extent only.

International audience; Despite efforts by the industry to control the eating quality of beef, there remains a high level of variability in palatability, which is one reason for consumer dissatisfaction. In Europe, there is still no reliable on-line tool to predict beef quality and deliver consistent quality beef to consumers. Beef quality traits depend in part on the physical and chemical properties of the muscles. The determination of these properties (known as muscle profiling) will allow for more informed decisions to be made in the selection of individual muscles for the production of value-added products. Therefore, scientists and professional partners of the ProSafeBeef project have brought together all the data they have accumulated over 20years. The resulting BIF-Beef (Integrated and Functional Biology of Beef) data warehouse contains available data of animal growth, carcass composition, muscle tissue characteristics and beef quality traits. This database is useful to determine the most important muscle characteristics associated with a high tenderness, a high flavour or generally a high quality. Another more consumer driven modelling tool was developed in Australia: the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading scheme that predicts beef quality for each individual muscle×specific cooking method combination using various information on the corresponding animals and post-slaughter processing factors. This system has also the potential to detect variability in quality within muscles. The MSA system proved to be effective in predicting beef palatability not only in Australia but also in many other countries. The results of the work conducted in Europe within the ProSafeBeef project indicate that it would be possible to manage a grading system in Europe similar to the MSA system. The combination of the different modelling approaches (namely muscle biochemistry and a MSA-like meat grading system adapted to the European market) is a promising area of research to improve the prediction of beef quality. In both approaches, the volume of data available not only provides statistically sound correlations between various factors and beef quality traits but also a better understanding of the variability of beef quality according to various criteria (breed, age, sex, pH, marbling etc.).

Background An important controversy in the relationship between beef tenderness and muscle characteristics including biochemical traits exists among meat researchers. The aim of this study is to explain variability in meat tenderness using muscle characteristics and biochemical traits available in the Integrated and Functional Biology of Beef (BIF-Beef) database. The BIF-Beef data warehouse contains characteristic measurements from animal, muscle, carcass, and meat quality derived from numerous experiments. We created three classes for tenderness (high, medium, and low) based on trained taste panel tenderness scores of all meat samples consumed (4,366 observations from 40 different experiments). For each tenderness class, the corresponding means for the mechanical characteristics, muscle fibre type, collagen content, and biochemical traits which may influence tenderness of the muscles were calculated. Results Our results indicated that lower shear force values were associated with more tender meat. In addition, muscles in the highest tenderness cluster had the lowest total and insoluble collagen contents, the highest mitochondrial enzyme activity (isocitrate dehydrogenase), the highest proportion of slow oxidative muscle fibres, the lowest proportion of fast-glycolytic muscle fibres, and the lowest average muscle fibre cross-sectional area. Results were confirmed by correlation analyses, and differences between muscle types in terms of biochemical characteristics and tenderness score were evidenced by Principal Component Analysis (PCA). When the cluster analysis was repeated using only muscle samples from m. Longissimus thoracis (LT), the results were similar; only contrasting previous results by maintaining a relatively constant fibre-type composition between all three tenderness classes. Conclusion Our results show that increased meat tenderness is related to lower shear forces, lower insoluble collagen and total collagen content, lower cross-sectional area of fibres, and an overall fibre type composition displaying more oxidative fibres than glycolytic fibres.