| Literature DB >> 31336646 |
Mohammed Gagaoua1, Valérie Monteils2, Sébastien Couvreur3, Brigitte Picard4.
Abstract
This trial aimed to integrate metadata that spread over farm-to-fork continuum of 110 Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)Maine-Anjou cows and combine two statistical approaches that are chemometrics and supervised learning; to identify the potential predictors of beef tenderness analyzed using the instrumental Warner-Bratzler Shear force (WBSF). Accordingly, 60 variables including WBSF and belonging to 4 levels of the continuum that are farm-slaughterhouse-muscle-meat were analyzed by Partial Least Squares (PLS) and three decision tree methods (C&RT: classification and regression tree; QUEST: quick, unbiased, efficient regression tree and CHAID: Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) to select the driving factors of beef tenderness and propose predictive decision tools. The former method retained 24 variables from 59 to explain 75% of WBSF. Among the 24 variables, six were from farm level, four from slaughterhouse level, 11 were from muscle level which are mostly protein biomarkers, and three were from meat level. The decision trees applied on the variables retained by the PLS model, allowed identifying three WBSF classes (Tender (WBSF ≤ 40 N/cm2), Medium (40 N/cm2 < WBSF < 45 N/cm2), and Tough (WBSF ≥ 45 N/cm2)) using CHAID as the best decision tree method. The resultant model yielded an overall predictive accuracy of 69.4% by five splitting variables (total collagen, µ-calpain, fiber area, age of weaning and ultimate pH). Therefore, two decision model rules allow achieving tender meat on PDO Maine-Anjou cows: (i) IF (total collagen < 3.6 μg OH-proline/mg) AND (µ-calpain ≥ 169 arbitrary units (AU)) AND (ultimate pH < 5.55) THEN meat was very tender (mean WBSF values = 36.2 N/cm2, n = 12); or (ii) IF (total collagen < 3.6 μg OH-proline/mg) AND (µ-calpain < 169 AU) AND (age of weaning < 7.75 months) AND (fiber area < 3100 µm2) THEN meat was tender (mean WBSF values = 39.4 N/cm2, n = 30).Entities:
Keywords: beef tenderness; carcass; cows; decision trees; farm-to-fork; machine learning; rearing practices
Year: 2019 PMID: 31336646 PMCID: PMC6678335 DOI: 10.3390/foods8070274
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Average values and variations of the data from the farm level describing the 16 variables of animal characteristics and finishing period 1.
| Variables | n | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth weight (kg) | 100 | 49.9 | 4.91 | 38 | 66 |
| Month of birth (1–12) | 110 | - | - | 1 | 12 |
| Genetic type (0: Beef or 1: Dairy) | 110 | - | - | 0 | 1 |
| Age of weaning (month) | 107 | 7.2 | 1.07 | 5 | 11 |
| Weaning duration 2 | 110 | 8.7 | 9.41 | 0 | 36 |
| Age at first calving (month) | 110 | 32.4 | 4.09 | 18 | 43 |
| Number of calving | 110 | 3 | 2.05 | 1 | 9 |
| Suckling score (0–10) | 103 | 5.9 | 1.36 | 3 | 9 |
| Fattening duration (day) | 110 | 98.6 | 29.96 | 37 | 203 |
| Haylage diet (%) | 110 | 27.8 | 36.98 | 0 | 100 |
| Hay diet (%) | 110 | 48.2 | 37.39 | 0 | 100 |
| Grass diet (%) | 110 | 24 | 32.1 | 0 | 100 |
| Daily concentrate diet (kg) | 110 | 7.7 | 2.13 | 2 | 13 |
| Global concentrate diet (kg) | 110 | 738 | 244 | 178 | 1330 |
| Activity (%) | 110 | 54 | 46.21 | 0 | 100 |
| Age at slaughter (month) | 110 | 67.5 | 24.79 | 34 | 120 |
1 These data were obtained for each individual cow following the survey described in the questionnaire conducted by Couvreur et al. [12] including information about the finishing period and animal characteristics. 2 Represent the period between the last weaning and the beginning of the fattening period (days).
Average values and variations of the data from the slaughterhouse level describing the eight carcass characteristics.
| Variables | n | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carcass weight (kg) | 110 | 438.2 | 36.09 | 380 | 553 |
| Conformation score (1–15 scale) 1 | 107 | 7.8 | 0.82 | 6 | 10 |
| 5th rib weight (g) | 110 | 3079 | 638 | 1793 | 5640 |
| Muscle carcass weight (g) 2 | 110 | 1882 | 403 | 1145 | 3478 |
| Fat carcass weight (g) 2 | 110 | 582 | 190 | 216 | 1338 |
| Fat-to-muscle ratio in the 5th rib (% | 110 | 31.3 | 10.17 | 16 | 85 |
| Color score of the carcass (1–5) 3 | 105 | 2.9 | 0.38 | 2 | 4 |
| Tenderness score of the carcass (1–5) 4 | 105 | 3.4 | 0.65 | 2 | 5 |
1 EUROP classification grid for carcass conformation scores from P− = 1 to E+ = 15. 2 Muscle and fat carcass weights were estimated after dissection of the 5th rib as Gagaoua et al. [7]. The equations used are described in detail in the study by Couvreur et al. [12]. 3 Visual score assessing meat color from 1–5 was evaluated by the same experts familiar with the EUROP grid according to the PDO Maine-Anjou agreement. 4 Palpation of the 5th rib allowed determining on 1–5 scale the tenderness potential of the steaks.
Average values and variations of the data from the muscle level describing the 30 quantified characteristics in Longissimus thoracis muscle including protein biomarkers for the 110 cows.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Fiber area. µm2 | 2906 | 646 | 1762 | 5203 |
| MyHC-I, % | 31.2 | 7.37 | 15.22 | 69 |
| MyHC-IIa, % | 56.6 | 12.78 | 23.76 | 84.78 |
| MyHC-IIx/b, % | 12.2 | 14.03 | 0 | 53.91 |
|
| ||||
| LDH (μmol·min−1·g−1) | 1.05 | 0.33 | 0.31 | 2.26 |
| ICDH (μmol·min−1·g−1) | 703 | 109 | 491 | 939 |
|
| ||||
| Total collagen μg OH-prol·mg−1 DM | 3.1 | 0.42 | 2.08 | 4.06 |
| Insoluble collagen μg OH-prol·mg−1 DM | 2.4 | 0.33 | 1.61 | 3.26 |
| Soluble collagen % | 20.8 | 2.94 | 14.85 | 26.58 |
|
| ||||
| Heat shock proteins | ||||
| CRYAB | 226.4 | 83.96 | 59.04 | 576.89 |
| Hsp20 | 164.8 | 45.45 | 59.84 | 306.74 |
| Hsp27 | 79.7 | 19.83 | 36.88 | 134.56 |
| Hsp40 | 130.5 | 20.97 | 96.09 | 280.56 |
| Hsp70-1A | 111.4 | 24.81 | 61.29 | 180.36 |
| Hsp70-1B | 120.1 | 26.16 | 70.38 | 187.36 |
| Hsp70-8 | 184.5 | 49.43 | 50.12 | 432.19 |
| Hsp70-Grp75 | 144.5 | 30.5 | 87.12 | 213.24 |
| Metabolism | ||||
| Enolase 3 (ENO3) | 144.3 | 36.22 | 78.74 | 258.12 |
| Phosphoglucomutase 1 (PGM1) | 101 | 27.26 | 46.88 | 254.36 |
| Structure | ||||
| α-Actin | 122.7 | 40.37 | 56.99 | 266.14 |
| Myosin binding protein H (MyBP-H) | 90.2 | 27.49 | 42.05 | 184.32 |
| Myosin light chain 1F (MyLC-1F) | 63.8 | 12.91 | 33.23 | 91.06 |
| Mysoin heavy chain IIx (MyHC-IIx) | 124.9 | 18.55 | 80.91 | 182.28 |
| Oxidative stress | ||||
| Superoxide dismutase [Cu-Zn] (SOD1) | 101.5 | 37.92 | 23.95 | 167.44 |
| Peroxiredoxin 6 (PRDX6) | 106.2 | 17.41 | 73.78 | 163.74 |
| Protein deglycase (DJ1) | 90.6 | 13.9 | 58.12 | 146.92 |
| Proteolysis | ||||
| µ-calpain | 151.7 | 38.24 | 75.28 | 281.08 |
| m-calpain | 96.1 | 12.62 | 64.69 | 124.75 |
| Apoptosis and signaling | ||||
| Tumor protein p53 (TP53) | 118.3 | 22.31 | 78.36 | 175.78 |
| H2A Histone Family Member X (H2AFX) | 98.7 | 19.01 | 58.72 | 153.83 |
Descriptive statistics of the 6 variables from the meat level corresponding to meat quality traits measured in Longissimus thoracis muscle.
| Variables | n | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warner-Bratzler shear force (N/cm2) | 110 | 44.6 | 11.21 | 23.55 | 81.49 |
| Intramuscular fat (IMF) content (% | 110 | 16.3 | 6.18 | 6.15 | 40.34 |
| Ultimate pH (pHu) | 107 | 5.6 | 0.1 | 5.34 | 6.22 |
| Lightness (L*) | 110 | 39.7 | 2.3 | 34.36 | 46.84 |
| Redness (a*) | 110 | 8.8 | 1.24 | 4.17 | 11.77 |
| Yellowness (b*) | 110 | 7.4 | 1.43 | 4.02 | 11.42 |
Figure 1Summary of the statistical approach highlighting the four main statistical steps followed in this study for the selection of best variables from the 59-continuum data from farm-to-meat and then Warner-Bratzler Shear force (WBSF) prediction/categorization into different classes using 3 decision tree algorithms to select the best method.
Figure 2Histogram highlighting the relative frequency for meat tenderness assessed by WBSF on the 110 PDO Maine-Anjou cows.
Best Partial Least Squares (PLS) model of Warner-Bratzler Shear force (WBSF) showing the ranking of the 24 retained variables from the continuum data from farm-to-meat and their variable importance in the projection (VIP) values.
| Variables of the Continuum from Farm-To-Meat Data | Rank | VIP |
|---|---|---|
| Age of weaning, month | 3 | 1.99 |
| Grass diet, % | 10 | 1.31 |
| Haylage diet, % | 14 | 1.12 |
| Birth month | 15 | 1.11 |
| Type of animal (meat or dairy) | 16 | 0.97 |
| Physical activity at farm, % | 24 | 0.84 |
| Color score, 1–5 scale | 5 | 1.8 |
| Carcass tenderness score, 1–5 scale | 21 | 0.9 |
| Ribeye weight, g | 20 | 0.94 |
| EUROP Conformation score, 1–15 scale | 23 | 0.87 |
| Fiber area, µm2 | 2 | 2.01 |
| SOD1, AU | 4 | 1.94 |
| m-calpain, AU | 6 | 1.64 |
| ICDH, μmol·min−1·g−1 | 7 | 1.57 |
| Protein deglycase (DJ-1), AU | 9 | 1.51 |
| PGM1, AU | 11 | 1.27 |
| Insoluble collagen, μg OH-proline/mg DM | 13 | 1.18 |
| HSP70-8, AU | 17 | 0.97 |
| µ-calpain, AU | 18 | 0.96 |
| Total collagen, μg OH-proline/mg DM | 19 | 0.96 |
| LDH, μmol·min−1·g−1 | 22 | 0.89 |
| Meat level: meat quality traits | ||
| pHu | 1 | 3.29 |
| Redness (a*) | 8 | 1.53 |
| Yellowness (b*) | 12 | 1.27 |
Figure 3Categorization of the 110 steaks into different tenderness categories based on the decision tree. (A) Best decision tree obtained by the Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) method built using the list of variables retained in Table 5 to predict correctly 69.4% of WBSF values into three tenderness categories (Red: Tough meat; Orange: Medium meat; Green: Tender meat). The distribution of the animals in each WBSF cluster was used for accuracy measurement. At the beginning of the decision tree, all of the data (n = 110) are concentrated at a root node located at the top of the tree. This was then divided into two child nodes on the basis of an independent variable (1st splitter = total collagen), that creates the best homogeneity. The cut-off value of each dividing splitter was calculated from the data of all the subjects. Therefore, the data in each child node are more homogenous than those in the upper parent node. This process is continued repeatedly for each child node until all of the data in each node have the greatest possible homogeneity. This node is called a terminal node and no more branches are possible. (B) Variance analysis on the variables retained by the CHAID decision tree among the three WBSF (tenderness) categories that were all significant at p < 0.05 (Tukey’s test). The mean values of WBSF among the three tenderness categories were further given at the bottom right of the graph B. Least-square means in the same graph with different superscript letters (a–c) are significantly different (p < 0.05).