Consumer Assessment of New Zealand Forage Finished Beef Compared to US Grain Fed Beef

Abstract

Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine differences in beef palatability between three process-verified feeding programs (New Zealand fodder beet, New Zealand grass/non-fodder beet, US grain). Beef strip loins were selected to represent low or high expected eating quality (based on eligibility for the company’s branded program, which focuses on carcass attributes of marbling, ossification, pH, 12th rib fat, and HCW), resulting in 6 treatments: fodder beet low quality (FBL), fodder beet high quality (FBH), non-fodder beet low quality (NFBL), and non-fodder beet high quality (NFBH), Select (SEL) and Top Choice (TCH). Samples were aged until 21 or 35 d postmortem. Extending postmortem aging positively influenced (P 0.05) on New Zealand fodder beet samples, with the exception that tenderness was improved (P 0.05) on all remaining traits of US grain fed beef loin steaks. When focusing on the high eating quality samples, consumers did not discriminate between finishing systems when samples were aged 35 d, scoring TCH, FBH, and NFBH similarly (P > 0.05) for all palatability traits. The FBL and NFBL were normally scored similarly (P > 0.05) or with a slight advantage over SEL, regardless of aging period. Ultimately, finishing beef cattle using fodder beet in New Zealand can be a viable option to supply high quality beef during winter months, while maintaining the eating quality expectations associated with “grass-fed” beef according to US consumers from the Lubbock, TX area.

Keywords

• eating quality
• consumer
• cattle diet
• fodder beet