Fat Content of Economy Ground Beef
Nutrients. 2014 Jun; six(6): 2217–2228.
Fat Content and Composition in Retail Samples of Australian Beef Mince
Flavia Fayet-Moore
iDiet Inquiry Australia, Level 13, 167 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia; Email: moc.suarn@aivalf
Tim Stobaus
iiiNational Measurement Institute, Department of Manufacture, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Educational activity 153 Bertie Street, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia; E-Mail: ua.vog.tnemerusaem@suabots.mit
Veronique Droulez
fourMeat & Livestock Australia, forty Mount Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060, Commonwealth of australia
Received 2014 February xviii; Revised 2014 May 4; Accepted 2014 May 22.
Abstract
Nutrient composition data, representative of the retail supply, is required to back up labelling and dietetic practice. Considering beef mince represents approximately 30% of all beefiness dishes prepared in Australian households, a national survey of the different types of mince available for purchase in representative retail outlets was conducted. 60-one samples of beef mince from 24 retail outlets in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia were collected in 2010 and analysed for wet, protein, total fat and fat acid contour. A variety of xviii dissimilar descriptors were used at point of sale with "Premium" (n = fifteen) and "Regular" (n = eight) the most commonly used terms. The analysed fat content of "Premium" samples varied from 2.2 g/100 thou to 8.0 grand/100 g. Forty-eight percent (north = 29) of the samples were categorised every bit low fat (<five g/100 chiliad; mean 4.ane g/100 g), 21% as medium fatty (5–10 one thousand/100 g; mean 8.nine g/100 grand) and 31% as high fatty (>x g/100 g; mean ten.four thousand/100 g). There was no significant difference between the types of mince available for buy in low versus high socio-economic suburbs (Chi-square, p > 0.05). In conclusion, the fat content of the majority of retail beefiness mince in Australia is <x g/100 1000 and a multifariousness of descriptors are used at bespeak of sale, all of which exercise non necessarily reflect analysed fat content.
Keywords: fat, beefiness, mince, composition, retail, variability, Australian, red meat
1. Introduction
Beefiness mince is commonly consumed in Commonwealth of australia, representing approximately xxx% of all beef dishes served [1]. Up-to-date nutrient composition information representative of beef mince every bit typically consumed past Australians is required to back up labelling, nutrition research and dietetic practice.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand'due south food and food database, NUTTAB2010 [2], contains nutrient data for 2668 foods available in Australia, including beef mince. There are two main types of fatty-related descriptors used to reflect types of beef mince in the nutrient database. NUTTAB2006 [three], the well-nigh contempo database at the fourth dimension of this report, provided data using four types of beefiness mince descriptors: (i) hamburger; (ii) regular; (three) premium and (iv) depression fat. The current version, NUTTAB2010 provides information for 2 types of beef mince: (i) low fatty including lean or heart smart and (ii) regular. The main divergence betwixt the unlike descriptors used to describe beef mince was their total fat content. In NUTTAB2006, full fat content varied from 12.one g/100 g in "hamburger" mince to 10.8–12.9 g/100 g in "regular" mince, 9.nine g/100 g in "premium" mince and 7–ix.nine g/100 g in "depression fat" mince.
Analyses of individual samples prepared by different butchers showed variability within samples when prepared according to the aforementioned specifications. For case, the fat content of lean samples ranged from vi g/100 g to nine g/100 g [iv]. There are many factors that tin can influence total fat content of beef mince, including the blazon of beef cuts or trim used to fix the mince and the pick of point of auction descriptor used past the butcher or retail outlet.
Therefore, a sampling plan that captures the variability in fat content of beef mince is needed to ensure data accurately reflect beef mince available for buy in Commonwealth of australia. Current protocols for analysing the nutrient limerick of red meat take been based on homogenates derived from ten samples randomly selected from retail outlets [5,six,7,eight]. Unpublished analyses from individual samples suggest this protocol may non adequately capture the variability inside samples of the aforementioned specification available for purchase in the retail supply [9].
The aim of this report was to make up one's mind the total fatty content and fatty acid profile of beef mince available for purchase in Australia utilising a sampling program which amend represents retail supply variability by selecting a greater number of samples from fundamental retail outlets supplying beefiness mince in Australia, including butchers and supermarkets located in dissimilar socio-economical suburbs and for supermarkets, both centralized and shop-based preparation systems.
2. Experimental Department
A national survey of the different types of beef mince available for purchase from 24 representative retail outlets in Commonwealth of australia was conducted.
2.1. Sampling
Sixty-1 samples of beef mince were purchased from 24 retail outlets beyond iv Australian states: New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD), Victoria (VIC) and Western Australia (WA) in Baronial 2010. Retail outlets were selected to reflect differences between the major types of outlets from which Australians purchase beef mince.
Samples were selected from a butcher and a supermarket located in a high and low socio-economic suburb in each state, representing a total of 24 retail outlets. High and depression socio-economical condition suburbs were determined using the Alphabetize of Relative Disadvantage classification system of the Australian Bureau of Statistics [10]. Retail outlets were randomly selected within each land and identified socio-economic suburbs. In addition, samples from four retail outlets (one in WA and three in NSW) where mince is centrally prepared and and so distributed for sale in other stores were collected.
From each of the retail outlets, 500 one thousand of each type of beef mince available for buy were purchased anonymously. The following information was documented during the collection of samples: the number of different types of mince available for buy, the descriptor used to label mince at point of purchase, and the proportion of the retail instance allocated to each type of mince. Data was obtained from each retailer regarding type of cut and level of trim used to prepare the beef mince. Mixed meat minces (such equally veal and beef or beefiness and lamb) were excluded.
2.2. Sample Grooming
Upon drove, each 500 one thousand sample of raw mince was placed in a labelled plastic handbag and stored in cold storage containers to foreclose moisture and nutrient losses. Samples were transported to the National Measurement Plant (NMI, Melbourne, Commonwealth of australia) in a chilled condition inside 24 hours of purchase. Raw samples were immediately homogenised in a heavy-duty blender and stored in plastic sample containers with screw tiptop lids. The containers were filled to a minimum headspace and stored at −xviii °C prior to analysis. Each container was labelled with a sample description and a unique Laboratory Registration Number.
two.three. Analytical Methods
Homogenates were thawed and each sample was analysed for total fat (soxhlet extraction, NMI in house method VL300, based on AOAC 960.39) and fatty acrid contour by gas chromatography (NMI in firm method VL289). In this method, fat was extracted using a combination of methanol and chloroform and and so methylated by sodium methoxide; fatty acid methyl esters were separated using a Agilent 6890 Gas Chromatograph using a 100 m Supelco SP-2560 capillary column with Flame Ionisation detection. These methods are the aforementioned as those stated in Williams et al. [8].
Approximately viii months post initial sampling farther assay was commissioned for cooked samples. Due to deterioration of some samples during storage, a small number (n = 14) of representative beef mince samples, excluding all samples from WA, were cooked and analysed. Mince was cooked on a non-stick frying pan for three–5 min without the improver of fat.
ii.4. Statistical Analysis
All beef mince samples collected were included in the calculation of the average total fatty limerick for each of the master types of mince purchased. The main types of beefiness mince available for purchase were categorised by total fat content according to the descriptor used at point of purchase. This was possible for samples where descriptors were suggestive of fat content. Where labelling was not indicative of fat content (i.e., gourmet), beefiness mince was categorised according to the total fat content equally measured past NMI. All samples were then categorised into low (<v g/100 m), medium (5–10 g/100 thou) or high (>ten k/100 g) total fatty categories.
The weighted mean total fat content of 61 samples of raw beef mince samples and 14 cooked mince samples was determined for each fat category (low, medium and high). The weighting for each mince sample was based on the market share [1] of each major retailer outlet within each state (NSW, VIC, QLD and WA). Differences betwixt fat categories and nutrient composition were determined using Chi-Square, and statistical significance was fix at p < 0.05. SPSS for Macintosh Version 19.0 (version 19; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, U.s.) was used to bear out all statistical analyses.
3. Results
Table 1 lists the different descriptors used at point of buy; the number of retail outlets using these unlike descriptors; and the average fatty content of samples labelled accordingly. Eighteen different descriptors were used at betoken of auction to differentiate between the dissimilar types of mince bachelor for purchase, including All-time Mince; Diet; Extra Lean; Gourmet; Hamburger; Heart Smart; Lean; Premium; Premium grade; Regular; iii- 4- and 5-Star; Super Lean; Top Mince; Topside and Ultra Fine mince. Whilst some descriptors were suggestive of the total fat content of beef mince, such equally "Lean", other descriptors referred to its quality (i.e., Ultra Fine or Acme Mince) or its use (i.e., Hamburger). "Premium" was the most commonly used descriptor at point of auction (north = xv). Despite "Premium" beef mince containing an boilerplate of 8.0 g/100 g of fat, fat content ranged from 2.2 g/100 chiliad to x g/100 chiliad. Similarly, descriptors such as "All-time" and "Diet" were not indicative of the analysed fat content. To ensure the accuracy of the information, the measured fat content for samples with descriptors which were either not suggestive or indicative of the analysed fatty content were used for categorisation purposes. These included "Premium", "Regular", "Ultra fine", "Gourmet", "Diet", "Best mince" and "Topside". The descriptors for the remaining samples were used to categorise the samples into low, medium and loftier fat categories.
Table i
Average fat content of retail beef mince by descriptors at signal of purchase.
| Mince descriptor used by retailer | Number of retail outlets using descriptor | Average fat content ** (g/100 k) |
|---|---|---|
| Super lean | ii | 2.2 |
| Regular (lean) | 1 | two.five |
| Premium grade | 1 | 3.4 |
| Ultra fine | 1 | 3.four |
| Top mince | 1 | 3.5 |
| Heart Smart | vi | iv.1 |
| five star | 5 | 4.3 |
| Lean | 1 | 4.7 |
| Extra lean | i | 4.8 |
| four star | 5 | 6.eight |
| Premium * | xv | 8.0 |
| Regular | 8 | 9.i |
| Gourmet | 3 | 9.5 |
| Hamburger | three | 9.7 |
| Diet | 1 | ten.ane |
| iii star | 5 | 11 |
| Best mince | i | 13 |
| Topside | 1 | 14 |
Most retailers reported preparing mince on-site, mainly from off-cuts. Offcuts are meat and fatty trimmings that remain from regular meat cuts prepared for auction according to customer specifications. These are used to brand mince with dissimilar proportions of meat and fat trim combined, depending on the type of mince required. For example, depression fat mince may take 95%–98% meat trim and 2%–5% fat trim. Some retailers reported using round or topside to make lower fat mince and chuck and gravy beef (also called shin, without bone) cuts for higher fat versions. Some reported trimming fat from the meat flesh before mincing.
Of the 61 samples collected, 29 (48%) were categorised as low fat, xiii (21%) as medium fat and 19 (31%) as high fat using the methodology described. Labels corresponding to low fat samples included Gourmet; Hamburger; Heart Smart; Lean or variation; Premium; Regular; five star; Peak Mince and Ultra Fine. Labels corresponding to medium fatty mince included 4 star; Premium; Gourmet; and Regular. Labels corresponding to high fatty samples included 3 star; Regular; Hamburger; Topside; Best mince; and Diet. Hence, mince labelled with terms such as "Premium" may be low or medium fatty, "Regular" may exist depression, medium or high fat and "Hamburger" may exist either depression or high fat.
Only 26% of the samples (16 out of the 61 samples collected) used descriptors featured in NUTTAB2010 (Tabular array 2). Five samples used the term "Lean" or variation of Lean, (Super lean, Actress lean), 8 samples used the term "Regular" and three samples used the term "Hamburger".
Tabular array ii
Number of samples using descriptors indicated for beef mince in NUTTAB2010.
| NUTTAB2010 * | Number of samples | Percent of samples (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Lean | v | 2 |
| Regular | eight | thirteen |
| Hamburger | iii | 5 |
Fourteen retailers offered three different types and ten retailers offered ii different types of mince available for buy. Of retailers with three unlike types of mince on offer, 13 offered a low, a medium and a high fat option and 1 retailer offered one low and two high fat options. Of those with two different types of mince on offer, half-dozen retailers offered a low and a medium fat option, three retailers offered a depression and a high fat option and 1 retailer offered ii high fat options.
Of all samples collected from retail outlets in low socio-economic suburbs, 34.4% were depression fat; 33.1% were medium fat and 34.4% were loftier fatty. Of samples nerveless from high socio-economical suburbs, 44.8% were low fatty, 31.0% were medium fatty and 24.i% were high fat. There was no significant difference between the types of mince bachelor for buy in low versus loftier socio-economical suburbs Table three (Chi-square, p > 0.05). The fatty content of mince prepared in store (seven.half dozen ± 1 g/100 yard) did not significantly differ from that of mince prepared centrally (7.0 ± 1 g/100 g).
Tabular array 3
Availability of low, medium and high fat retail beef mince by socio-economical status.
| Fatty Content Category | Low SES (%) | High SES (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Low | 34.4% (n = 11) | 44.8% (n = 13) |
| Medium | 31.3% (northward = 10) | 31.0% (n = 9) |
| Loftier | 34.4% (due north = eleven) | 24.ane% (north = 7) |
The average weighted fatty acid limerick for low, medium and loftier fat mince is listed in Table 4. For raw mince, boilerplate fat for low fat was four.1 low, g/100 g, medium fat was eight.9 fa g/100 g and high fatty was 10.iv at g/100 g. For cooked mince, low fat had an average fat content of 8.one and h g/100 g, medium fat 16.iv ow one thousand/100 chiliad and high fat eighteen.1 w f g/100 g. Raw and cooked mince on boilerplate, contained 3.4 and 5.7 yard/100 g of saturated fatty acids and 0.07 and 0.1 k/100 1000 of total omega-three fatty acids (including Linolenic acid C18:3w3), respectively. Both cooked and raw low-fat mince had a higher percentage of long-concatenation n-3 fatty acrid docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) than loftier-fatty mince. A higher level of omega-iii in the low fat mince is consistent with a higher proportion of DPA in muscle meat than meat fat [11].
Table 4
Nutrient limerick of raw and cooked retail beef mince (hateful ± SE).
| Nutrient * | Raw Mince | Cooked Mince | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low fat | Medium fat | Loftier fat | Full weighted mean | Low fatty | Medium fatty | Loftier fat | Total weighted hateful | |
| Moisture (grand/100 thou) | 71.0 ± 2.v | 67.6 ± iv.3 | 65.0 ± iii.2 | 68.8 ± iv.four | 58.5 ± ii.iii | 53.six ± 5.ix | 49.5 ± 4.7 | 55.8 ± 4.9 |
| Protein (g/100 k) | 22.9 ± i.5 | 22.4 ± i.one | 22.5 ± 1.three | 22.vii ± 1.four | 32.3 ± 1.8 | 29.5 ± two.half dozen | thirty.3 ± 0.92 | 31.3 ± ii.2 |
| Total Fatty (g/100 g) | 4.1 ± 1.iv | eight.9 ± 3.nine | x.4 ± 3.four | seven.1 ± four.0 | 8.1 ± 2.vi | sixteen.4 ± iv.five | xviii.1 ± three.4 | 11.8 ± 5.5 |
| Full SFA (%) | 47.2 ± 1.five | 47.0 ± ane.nine | 48.5 ± 3.9 | 47.6 ± 2.6 | 48.1 ± 1.vi | 48.9 ± 1.2 | 47.5 ± 0.lxx | 48.two ± 1.iv |
| Total MUFA (%) | 44.1 ± ii.4 | 45.iv ± two.2 | 43.6 ± 4.2 | 44.three ± 3.0 | 44.0 ± 1.5 | 44.2 ± one.1 | 42.5 ± 0.five | 44.3 ± 1.iv |
| Total PUFA (%) | 4.7 ± 0.88 | 3.three ± 0.51 | iii.ii ± 0.61 | iii.nine ± 1.0 | 3.seven ± 1.4 | 2.iii ± 0.84 | 1.8 ± 0.34 | three.1 ± 1.4 |
| Total Mono TFA (%) | 3.iii ± 0.82 | 3.iv ± ane.five | 3.9 ± 1.6 | 3.v ± 1.iii | 3.v ± 0.96 | 4.1 ± 0.71 | four.5 ± ane.0 | 3.viii ± 0.93 |
| Full Poly TFA (%) | 0.67 ± 0.29 | 0.79 ± 0.28 | 0.80 ± 0.26 | 0.73 ± 0.28 | 0.61 ± 0.x | 0.50 ± 0.50 | 0.61 ± 0.21 | 0.58 ± 0.11 |
| northward-3 Fatty Acids (%) | 1.3 ± 0.39 | 0.8 ± 0.25 | 1.0 ± 0.33 | 1.1 ± 0.39 | 1.eleven ± 0.47 | 0.50 ± 0.18 | 0.38 ± 0.09 | 0.84 ± 0.50 |
| C22:5w3 DPA (%) | 0.44 ± 0.xviii | 0.27 ± 0.11 | 0.29 ± 0.12 | 0.35 ± 0.17 | 0.38 ± 0.25 | 0.07 ± 0.11 | 0.0 | 0.24 ± 0.26 |
| C22:6w3 DHA (%) | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.0 | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.02 ± 0.04 | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 ± 0.03 |
4. Discussion
The average fat content of Australian raw beef mince available for purchase from retail outlets in Commonwealth of australia was iv.1 g/100 1000 for depression fat mince; viii.9 chiliad/100 g for medium fat mince; and 10.4 thou/100 g for high fat mince. Approximately seventy% of retailers had all 3 types of mince bachelor for purchase. Low fat mince was the most widely available for purchase and sold by all retailers.
At that place were no pregnant differences in the fat content of beefiness mince available for buy by socio-economical surface area and by location of preparation (i.east., in-shop vs. cardinal distribution). These findings are consistent with others who found that the fatty content of retail beef and lamb cuts did not vary systematically with either type of retail outlet or socioeconomic area [12,13].
The fatty acid limerick of these retail meat samples, including the findings of measurable levels of long-chain PUFAS, is consequent with earlier studies of Australian beef [3].
This is the first study to document descriptors used at betoken of auction for each of the samples analysed. Option of descriptor is often based on the retailer's descriptor of customer needs and tends to exist specific to the retailer [14]. Whilst some descriptors described the fatty content of the mince, such equally "Lean", other descriptors referred to the quality or the intended use of the mince, such as "Premium" or "Hamburger". Considering information technology was difficult to categorise samples co-ordinate to the three types of mince described in Australian nutrient limerick tables (i.e., lean, regular and hamburger mince), samples were categorised according to fat content, including low (<5 thou/100 g); medium (5–10 grand/100 chiliad); and high (>10 chiliad/100 g). Samples were allocated to the relevant category either co-ordinate to their analysed fatty content (where descriptors were not conspicuously suggestive or indicative of the analysed fat content) or past descriptor (where it was clearly suggestive of its low fat content).
The fatty content of raw mince bachelor for purchase in Australia reported in a retail survey conducted in 2002 [ii] was slightly college than the current assay for depression fat (6.eight for Lean vs. 4.1 thou/100 g in this written report) and high fatty mince (16.4 g/100 thousand for hamburger mince vs. x.4 g/100 g in this study), but like for medium fatty mince (eight.7 and x.viii grand/100 g for "regular" and "premium" mince vs. 8.9 k/100 g for "medium" fatty in this study. For cooked mince, differences were also reported: fat content in the low fatty category of cooked mince was lower in this study compared to the 2002 study (viii.ane vs. ix.0 g/100 yard), while medium and loftier fat categories were higher: (xvi.iv thousand/100 thousand for "medium" fatty vs. 9.nine–12.7 m/100 g for "Premium" and "Regular" mince in 2002; 18.i g/100 m for "high" fat vs. 12.1 1000/100 k for "hamburger" mince in 2002).
Several reasons may explain the differences in fat content observed. Information technology is possible that actual fatty content of beefiness mince has changed since 2002. Increasing demand for leaner meat over the years past consumers has led to more trimming past butchers and consequently, a wider availability of lean beef and lamb available for buy by retail outlets [15]. Differences too exist in the methodology used to obtain average food composition of beef mince. In the 2002 study, food limerick was based on a homogenate of 10 samples randomly selected from 10 retail outlets in different socio-economic areas of Melbourne, VIC and Sydney, NSW. In this study, the average food composition was calculated from the analysed nutrient content of 61 individual samples weighted by state and retailer and included several states. In addition, samples in the 2002 study were selected according to a descriptor at betoken of sale suggestive of fat content. In this study, information technology has been shown that the descriptor does not accurately reflect fatty content and consequently, data for each mince category in the 2002 written report may accept been skewed due to the inclusion of samples with either college or lower fat content than suggested by the descriptor. Past analysing individual samples, it was possible to determine differences betwixt the fat content of the dissimilar descriptors used at point of auction. This data are more in depth including assay of private samples; and weighting by retail market share.
In the US, the National Nutrient Database [16] classifies footing beef into six categories ranging in fatty content (five%, ten%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%). The Canadian Food File reports ground beef in four categories, which have specified maximum fat percentage targets, regulated by law [17]. The categories include: extra lean, lean, medium and regular with maximum allowed fat content of x%, 17%, 23% and 30%, respectively. In Kingdom of norway, the Norwegian Food Composition Table also classifies beefiness mince according to fatty content (maximum of 6% fat or 14% fat) [18]. Every bit the bulk of mince bachelor for purchase in Australia autumn below 10 yard/100 g of fatty, Australian mince would be classified as actress lean by the Canadian organisation and equally ten% lean by the American arrangement. The average fat content of raw Australian mince (seven.1 one thousand/100 grand) is in line with the fat content of extra lean footing beef in Canada (7.six thousand/100 g) [17], well nether the average content of beef mince in Denmark (16 yard/100 thou) [19], and lower than both the actress lean beefiness mince (9.half dozen g/100 yard) and beefiness mince (16.2 g/100 g) reported by the UK Nutrient Databank [20].
In comparison to the United States and Canada, the labelling of fat content of mince (ground beef) is not regulated by law in Australia. It is not surprising that retailers use a wide range of types of descriptors of beef mince). Few of these characteristic in NUTTAB2010 equally less than a third of samples (26%) collected used NUTTAB 2006/2010 descriptors. Therefore, these terms may not exist reflective of mince bachelor for purchase, making it hard for users to select the most appropriate data. A small airplane pilot study in Scotland compared total fat content of samples of minced beef sold and assessed the relationship between production label and total fat content [21]. In line with results of this study, there was wide variability in fat content by descriptor. "Minced beef", descriptor ranged between 9.8% to 22.9% fat. Information technology may therefore exist more useful to categorise beefiness mince in nutrient databases into iii categories based on their analysed fat content (low, medium and high). Examples of common descriptors, such every bit lean, five star and heart smart for low fat mince, could be provided. In add-on, images illustrating raw mince for each of the fat categories (5 yard/100 g; 5–x g/100 yard; >10 g/100 k), such as those in Figure 1, could be provided to help users in selecting the most appropriate data. The lower the fat content, the less "white flecks" of fat are visible in the mince.
Visual representation of beef mince categorised by fat content.
Strengths of this study chronicle to an comeback in the accuracy of the data by including a larger sample size; analysis of individual samples; and the methodology used to classify samples according to analysed fatty content. In improver, weighting data past retail marketplace share took into account variability in mince available for buy in Australia. A potential limitation of this study was that information technology did not reflect differences in food composition due to seasonal variation. In lamb, long-chain omega-iii fatty acids were higher afterward spring in comparing to fall, primarily due to higher quality grass consumed in spring [22]. To our cognition, the influence of seasonal variation on nutrient composition of beef in Australia has not been previously documented. Due to storage issues by NMI, not all samples were available to calculate cooked nutrient limerick. Of the remaining samples, some nutrient losses may have occurred as samples were analysed eight months after the raw sample analysis. Despite weighting of the information, some states were not represented, including Victoria and Southward Australia, which may affect the values if there were major differences betwixt these states. However, previous studies institute little evidence of systematic differences in fatty content between retail outlets and socio-economic regions [12,13].
5. Conclusions
In that location is a wide variability in the total fat content of retail beef mince in Australia. This study suggests that current sampling plans based on a homogenate of 10 random samples and categorised past descriptor at signal of auction may not adequately correspond this variability. Instead, sampling plans based on private samples representative of retail market place share and categorised by fat content is recommended to better capture this variability and improve the accuracy and consistency of data representing beefiness mince available for purchase in Australia.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney, Commonwealth of australia.
Author Contributions
FFM analysed information, prepared and edited manuscript, JC provided communication on study pattern and analysis, VD helped with study blueprint, data interpretation and manuscript preparation, TM conducted the sample analyses.
Conflicts of Involvement
Veronique Droulez is employed by Meat & Livestock Australia. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
i. Australian Meat Purchasing Data Written report. Roy Morgan; Melbourne, Australia: 2010. [Google Scholar]
ii. FSANZ . NUTTAB2010. Nutrient Standards Australia New Zealand; Canberra, Australia: 2011. [Google Scholar]
three. FSANZ . NUTTAB2006. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; Canberra, Australia: 2007. [Google Scholar]
4. National Measurement Constitute . Fat Content and Fatty Acid Profile of Mince Prepared by Unlike Butchers According to Specifications. Meat and Livestock Australia; North Sydney, Commonwealth of australia: 2008. [Google Scholar]
v. Greenfield H., Kuo Y.L., Hutchinson G.I., Wills R.B.H. Composition of Australian foods 34. Beef and veal. Food Technol. Aust. 1987;39:208–215, 227. [Google Scholar]
6. Hutchinson One thousand.I., Thomas D., Truswell A. Nutrient composition of Australian beefiness. Food Aust. 1987;39:199–201. [Google Scholar]
seven. Lewis J., Sadler Grand., Buick D. Estimation of the nutritional value of retail fatty-trimmed beef cuts from new gross composition data. Nutrient Aust. 1993;45:S13–S19. [Google Scholar]
eight. Williams P.Chiliad., Droulez V., Levy G., Stobaus T. Nutrient composition of Australian ruddy meat 2002. 1 Gross composition data. Food Aust. 2006;58:173–181. [Google Scholar]
9. Droulez V. Unpublished work. 2008. Meat and Livestock Australia, Australia.
10. Socio-Economical Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Australian Agency of Statistics; Canberra, Australia: 2006. true cat. no. 2033.0.55.001. [Google Scholar]
11. Williams P., Droulez Chiliad., Levy G., Stobaus T. Composition of Australian cherry meat 2002 Nutrient Profile. Food Aust. 2007;59:331–341. [Google Scholar]
12. Cobiac L., Droulez Five., Leppard P., Lewis J. Use of external fat width to describe beef and lamb cuts in food composition tables. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2003;16:133–145. [Google Scholar]
xiii. Watson Thousand.J., Isle of man Due north.J., Sinclair A.J., O'Dea K. Fat content of untrimmed retail beef and lamb cuts 2: Influence of outlet and neighbourhood over a year. Nutrient Aust. 1992;44:516–518. [Google Scholar]
14. Droulez Five. Meat and Livestock Commonwealth of australia, Australia. Interview with Roger Bail, Marketing Director of Meat & Livestock. Sydney, Commonwealth of australia, March, 2011.
15. Williams P., Doulez 5. Australian ruby-red meat consumption- implications of changes over 20 years on nutrient composition. Food Aust. 2010;62:87–93. [Google Scholar]
16. U.Due south. Department of Agronomics, Agricultural Research Service 2013 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26. [(accessed on nineteen April 2014)]. Available online: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods
18. Nutrient Limerick Table 2014 Norwegian Food Safety Authority, Directorate of Health and the University of Oslo. [(accessed on 22 April 2014)]. Available online: http://world wide web.matvaretabellen.no
19. Section of Nutrition, National Nutrient Institute- Technical University of Kingdom of denmark 2009 Danish Food Composition Databank, Edition 7.01. [(accessed on xix Apr 2014)]. Available online: http://www.foodcomp.dk/v7/fcdb_details.asp?FoodId=1296
21. Seaman C., Bower J., Farrell One thousand. The fat content of minced beef in supermarkets. Br. Food J. 1997;99:125–127. doi: x.1108/00070709710169058. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Ponnampalam E., Butler Chiliad., Pearce K., Mortimer S., Pethick D., Ball A., Hopkins D. Sources of variation of health claimable long chain omega-iii fatty acids in meat from Australian lamb slaughtered at similar weights. Meat Sci. 2014;96:1095–1103. doi: ten.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.039. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Nutrients are provided hither courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Plant (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073145/
0 Response to "Fat Content of Economy Ground Beef"
Post a Comment