T: +27(0)51 401 9111 info@ufs.ac.za www.ufs.ac.za Food Science Division Department of Microbial, Biochemical & Food Biotechnology
Introduction What is Beef Fat Health & Nutritional implications of Beef Fat Factors affecting Composition & Quality of Beef Fat Role of Beef Fat Meat Flavour Conclusions
Food is free SMART food is NOT free! Food Marketed as a commodity Smart Food Convenient, Variety, Healthy, Safe, Cool Moving away from Commodity Driven Perspective Consumer is KING! Meat also free if Producer can t Guarantee an Advantage sold with Meat
Types of Smart Meat already available Grainfed Grass / Pasture fed Free Range Naturally Produced Organic Types of Smart Meat in the pipeline Biologically Produced Biodynamic Produced Permaculture
New Generation Consumer Special eating experience Eating quality & Price Health Prescription Foods Ethical quality Animal Welfare Impact on Environment Wagyu - Definitely Smart Meat
Big difference Food & Other products Food products Ingested Very particular status German Man ist, was man i t or You-are-what-youeat International Agency for Research on Cancer 2015 Processed Meat Carcinogenic to humans Red Meat Probably Carcinogenic to humans Colorectal cancer Serious concern Serious Cognisance Issanchou, 1996; Bouvard et al., 2015
Red meat Consumption Pancreatic & Prostate Cancer Dietary Fat intake Coronary Heart Disease Many years Current high Meat consumption in many countries Criticized for contributing to Chronic Diseases Meat consumption Transition & Future role of Meat in Society influenced Economic Environmental Ethical Health Issues Lin et al., 2004; Bouvard et al., 2015; de Smet & Vossen, 2016
My main Research field Fat in meat & meat products Protein & Amino acid profile of Muscle Relatively Conserved FA Composition of Animal Products More variable & susceptible to manipulation Last Decades - Vast amount of Research Lipid & FA Metabolism in Farm animals Composition of Products Aim Seek methods to change Fat & FA of Meat More Healthy profile de Smet & Vossen, 2016
Fat in Beef Membrane Fat (Phospholipid) Intermuscular Fat: IMF (Between Muscles) Intramuscular Fat (Within Muscle) Subcutaneous Fat (Between Body & Skin) Intermuscular Intramuscular Subcutaneous Cut & Degree of Trimming Fat Content vary Intramuscular content of Lean Beef Low: 2-5 % Marbling Fat White flecks / streaks of Adipose tissue between Bundles of Muscle fibres Marbling fat Intramuscular Fat Content Scollan et al., 2006
Marbling fat Important Meat Quality trait Most interest FA Composition & Human Health Juiciness Aroma Tenderness Fat Depot Flavour Score of Beef Increased with Increasing IMF Content above 4-5% Tenderness controlled Flavour & Juiciness scores show Curvilinear positive relationships with IMF content up to 14-20% Goutefongea & Valin, 1978
Wagyu as high as 40% These relationships + FA Composition of IMF = Increased Awareness of Producers Altering Amount & Composition of IMF Beef More Intramuscular or Marbling Fat More SFA profile Unhealthy? Wagyu? Subcutaneous fat Trimmed by the Butcher or Housewife but Intramuscular & Marbling fat not trimmed Thompson, 2004
Meat Lipids Triglycerides & Phospholipids Saturated Fatty Acids (SFAs) Monounsatured Fatty Acids (MUFAs) Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs) Fat or Neutral fat = Triacylglyceride Mammal may contain 5-25% or more of its Body Weight as Lipid as much as 90% Triacylglyceride Fats derived from Diet & Mobilization of Stored fat Adipocytes Mathews & van Holde, 1990; Gandemer, 2002
Triacylglycerides vary Species Diet Gender Age Environment Depot location in Animal Triglycerides Storage Lipids 3 FAs esterified to Glycerol Richer in SFA Nakamura & Nara, 2004; Mapiye, 2012
Muscle lipids Triacylglycerides Phospholipids Proportion & FA Composition Little Variation Phospholipids Content 0.5-1% of Wet Weight, whatever Total Lipid content of Muscles Phospholipids Functional Lipids Cell Membranes More PUFA than Triglycerides Leaner animal Lower IMF Higher contribution of Phospholipids to Total Fat content More Unsaturated Fat Healthier FA profile Gray & Crackel, 1992; Tejeda et al. 2002
Major Compositional Characteristic Fat FA composition Fatty acid composition of Beef, Lamb, Pork & Chicken Muscle Beef Lamb Pork Chicken FAME (%) C14:0 (myristic) 2.00 4.64 1.07 0.30 C16:0 (palmitic) 25.80 16.47 22.27 24.30 C18:0 (stearic) 17.90 14.33 10.03 8.80 C18:1 n-9 (oleic) 28.50 28.40 34.86 35.95 C18:2 n-6 (linoleic) 11.40 9.20 16.94 16.60 C18:2c9t11 (CLA) 0.53 0.70 - - C18:3 n-3 (α-linolenic) 0.33 1.00 0.37 0.46 C20:4 n-6 (arachidonic) 3.10 8.67 3.38 4.89 C20:5 n-3 (EPA) 0.28 0.69 0.09 0.39 C22:5 n-3 (DPA) 0.59 1.94 0.42 0.33 C22:6 n-3 (DHA) 0.07 0.71 0.08 0.21 FATTY ACID RATIOS P:S 0.33 0.64 0.68 0.66 n-6 : n-3 11.22 4.39 17.83 14.30 Alonso et al., 2015; Gravadar et al., 2016; Horcada et al., 2016; Mpofu et al., 2016
Consumers More Aware Diet & Health Cancer Atherosclerosis Obesity / Type 2 Diabetes Consumer interest Nutritional Quality of Food More important Dimension of Product Quality Recommended Total Energy Intake Total Fat < 15-30% SFA < 10% n-6 PUFA < 5-8% n-3 PUFA < 1-2% Trans FA < 1% Scollan et al., 2006
Encouraged Raise Total & Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL) Cholesterol Reduce SFA Increase n-3 PUFA intake n-3 PUFAs: Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, C20:5n-3) & Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) Important Reducing risk of Cardiovascular Disease Proper Brain & Visual development in the Fetus Maintenance of Neural & Visual tissues throughout life Reducing Cancer & Obesity / Type-2 Diabetes Animal Fats strongly differ in FA composition Too high in SFA Too low in PUFA, especially n-3 PUFA EPA DPA Leaf et al., 2003; WHO, 2003; Calder, 2004
Meat & Eggs, Fish consumption Long chain n-3 PUFA Majority of Population in many high-income Countries DOES NOT consume Fatty Fish on a Regular Basis Meat Main dietary source of Docosapentaenoic acid (DPA, C22:5 n-3) Meat from Mammals & Poultry, not Fish, often @ Higher Concentrations than both EPA & DHA Little Research on Clinical Significance of DPA Inversely related to Risk of Several Chronic Diseases Maybe more beneficial than EPA & DHA McAfee et al., 2010; de Smet & Vossen, 2016
Beef Major source of Oleic acid (C18:1c9) MUFA Omega-9 (n-9) Mediterranean lifestyle (Olive Oil) Currently More emphasis on Oleic acid Oleic acid
Anatomical Position & Fat Deposition Castration Growth Promotors Production system Diet & Dietary Manipulation Feeding Grass Feeding Concentrates enriched with Linseed / Fish Oil Protecting lipids against Ruminal Hydrogenation of n-3 PUFA Genetic & Breed Factors
Differences in FA composition between Breeds Differences in Proportion IMF Change in Ratio of Polyunsaturated to Saturated FA (PUFA / SFA) P:S Ratio decreases with increasing Beef Fat Breed Nutrition Double-muscled Belgian Blue Bulls Low IMF content: <1% Beneficially High P:S Ratio: 0.5 0.6 High n-6:n-3 Ratio: 5-6 Improved Nutritional Intervention Raes et al., 2001; Raes et al., 2003; Scollan et al., 2006
Wagyu Very high IMF content: 20-40% Survey on IMF of South African Beef Breeds Very low Varies between 1.3 & 2.0% Improve Marbling? Effect on Health Properties? Calles et al., 2000
BREED Afrikaner Angus Bonsmara Brahman Limousin Simbra Simmentaler Wagyu PROXIMATE COMPOSITION % Intramuscular fat 1.28 2.04 1.40 1.60 1.43 1.56 1.81 20-40 FATTY ACID COMPOSITION (%) Common name Myristic 3.69 3.19 3.79 4.26 3.18 3.16 3.24 3-4 Palmitic 30.81 31.02 31.98 31.71 32.03 28.10 29.66 28-31 Phytanic 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03? Stearic acid 19.88 20.20 20.50 18.01 21.82 19.66 20.42 9-11 Oleic 31.40 33.87 32.32 33.73 31.46 36.34 35.71 33-53 Vaccenic 0.99 1.66 1.12 1.44 1.38 1.35 0.98? Linoleic 6.61 4.03 4.15 4.06 4.24 4.57 4.07 2-3 α-linolenic 0.35 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.31 0.30? Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.24 0.10 0.20 0.14? Arachidonic 0.79 0.40 0.37 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.29? FATTY ACID RATIOS Total n-6 fatty acids 7.70 4.67 4.67 4.79 4.77 5.28 4.55? Total n-3 fatty acids 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.31? n-6 / n-3 17.76 12.22 15.08 15.06 18.28 15.41 14.74?
FA profiles Health effects & Sensory Characteristics Intramuscular Fat Negative influence Health Aspects Positive influence Juiciness & Flavour Altered FA composition of lipid fraction of Meat = Altered Amount & Type of Volatiles produced Aroma & Flavour Grass- & Concentrate-finished Animals Concentrate-fed Animals Higher concentrations Linoleic acid On cooking 7 compounds @ over 3 times level in Grass-fed Animals Grass-fed Animals Higher concentrations C18:3n-3 Derivatives of Chlorophyll Issanchou, 1996; Wood et al., 2003; Elmore et al., 2004; Mottram et al., 2004
Volatiles Cattle fed forage or Concentrate Meat compared after Pressure-cooking Meat of Grass-fed Animals Green Odour Hexanals Oleic acid (C18:1cis-9) α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) Soapy Odour - Octanals Linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) Concentrate fed Flavour differences Forage-fed & Concentrate-fed (Feedlot) Beef Increased PUFA Lower Oxidative stability Antioxidant status of Meat Influences Flavour Contribute to difference in acceptability of Forage & Grain-fed Beef Oxidation products Influence Flavour Larick & Tirner, 1990; Lorenz et al., 2002; Wood et al., 2008
FAT FROM THE WAGYU 20-40% IMF High IMF Better Juiciness Better Texture (Tenderness) Better Acceptability Consumers DO NOT favour excessive marbling Up to 36 % enhancement in Umami Flavor Nucleic acid & Glutamic acid then Decline Not only % IMF that decides Marbling Quality Motoyama et al., 2016
FAT FROM THE WAGYU Type of Marbling also Important Fine marbling with appearance like frost is more preferred in Japan Coarse marbling least preferred FA profile of Wagyu differs SIGNIFICANTLY from Other Beef breeds Up to 53 % Oleic acid (C18:1) vs 30-36 % for Other Breeds Higher Oleic acid Content Lower Melting Point of Fat Lower Melting Point allows Fat to melt at Mouth Temperature Juicier & more Positive Eating Experience Motoyama et al., 2016
FAT FROM THE WAGYU Several Wagyu brands currently trying to Guarantee an Oleic acid Content of 55% Oleic acid Positive from Meat Flavour as well as Health Point of View Omega-9 Fatty acids part of Healthy Mediteranean Diet Olive Oil has 75 % Oleic acid Fatty acid profile of South African Wagyu? Motoyama et al., 2016
Fat plays a Role Flavour Texture Colour Other Sensory Qualities of Meat Fat Important in Overall Acceptability of Meat Meat Technologist Consumer Belief Until recently Impossible to change SFA composition of beef to more UFA & Healthier profile Hydrogenation of UFAs in Rumen
Various Factors DO however have an Effect on the FA Profile of Meat More IMF (marbling) Usually associated with a more SFA profile & more Unhealthy Meat My initial concern about Wagyu more Unhealthy meat Wagyu Paradox Very high IMF Content (up to 40%) NOT high in SFA! High in MUFA (omega-9, Oleic acid) Capitalize on that Marketing Campaign Healthy Fat Part of Mediteranean Diet
Meat Industry Response to demand for Healthier foods = Continued Success Test for IMF & Fatty acid Profiles UFS can help Prescription Foods Get Wagyu Beef on Prescription!
THANK YOU DANKIE T: +27(0)51 401 9111 info@ufs.ac.za www.ufs.ac.za