How Much Is H=h=ground Beef in Prteing
Nutrients. 2014 Jun; half-dozen(6): 2217–2228.
Fatty Content and Limerick in Retail Samples of Australian Beef Mince
Flavia Fayet-Moore
1Nutrition Research Commonwealth of australia, Level 13, 167 Macquarie St, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia; E-mail: moc.suarn@aivalf
Tim Stobaus
3National Measurement Institute, Department of Industry, Innovation, Scientific discipline, Enquiry and Tertiary Education 153 Bertie Street, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia; E-Postal service: ua.vog.tnemerusaem@suabots.mit
Veronique Droulez
4Meat & Livestock Australia, forty Mount Street, Due north Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia
Received 2014 Feb 18; Revised 2014 May 4; Accepted 2014 May 22.
Abstract
Nutrient composition information, representative of the retail supply, is required to support labelling and dietetic do. Considering beef mince represents approximately thirty% of all beef dishes prepared in Australian households, a national survey of the different types of mince available for purchase in representative retail outlets was conducted. Threescore-one samples of beef mince from 24 retail outlets in New S Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia were collected in 2010 and analysed for moisture, poly peptide, total fatty and fat acrid contour. A diversity of 18 different descriptors were used at bespeak of sale with "Premium" (n = 15) and "Regular" (northward = 8) the most commonly used terms. The analysed fat content of "Premium" samples varied from 2.2 1000/100 g to 8.0 1000/100 g. Xl-8 percentage (n = 29) of the samples were categorised as low fat (<five m/100 grand; hateful 4.i 1000/100 g), 21% as medium fat (5–x g/100 g; mean 8.ix chiliad/100 yard) and 31% as high fat (>10 grand/100 thousand; mean 10.4 k/100 g). In that location was no significant departure between the types of mince available for buy in low versus high socio-economic suburbs (Chi-square, p > 0.05). In conclusion, the fatty content of the majority of retail beef mince in Commonwealth of australia is <10 g/100 g and a diverseness of descriptors are used at indicate of sale, all of which do not necessarily reverberate analysed fat content.
Keywords: fat, beefiness, mince, limerick, retail, variability, Australian, scarlet meat
i. Introduction
Beef mince is normally consumed in Australia, representing approximately thirty% of all beef dishes served [1]. Up-to-engagement food composition information representative of beef mince as typically consumed by Australians is required to support labelling, nutrition research and dietetic exercise.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand's food and food database, NUTTAB2010 [two], contains nutrient data for 2668 foods available in Australia, including beefiness mince. In that location are two main types of fat-related descriptors used to reflect types of beef mince in the nutrient database. NUTTAB2006 [three], the about contempo database at the fourth dimension of this study, provided data using 4 types of beef mince descriptors: (i) hamburger; (ii) regular; (three) premium and (4) low fat. The current version, NUTTAB2010 provides data for two types of beef mince: (i) low fat including lean or heart smart and (ii) regular. The main deviation between the unlike descriptors used to describe beef mince was their total fat content. In NUTTAB2006, total fatty content varied from 12.1 1000/100 g in "hamburger" mince to 10.8–12.9 thousand/100 m in "regular" mince, 9.9 chiliad/100 g in "premium" mince and vii–nine.9 thou/100 grand in "low fat" mince.
Analyses of individual samples prepared by different butchers showed variability within samples when prepared according to the same specifications. For case, the fatty content of lean samples ranged from 6 g/100 1000 to 9 thousand/100 yard [iv]. At that place are many factors that tin can influence total fat content of beef mince, including the type of beef cuts or trim used to fix the mince and the selection of point of sale descriptor used by the butcher or retail outlet.
Therefore, a sampling program that captures the variability in fat content of beef mince is needed to ensure data accurately reflect beefiness mince available for buy in Australia. Current protocols for analysing the nutrient composition of red meat accept been based on homogenates derived from x samples randomly selected from retail outlets [5,6,7,viii]. Unpublished analyses from individual samples suggest this protocol may not fairly capture the variability inside samples of the aforementioned specification available for purchase in the retail supply [9].
The aim of this study was to determine the total fatty content and fatty acid profile of beef mince available for purchase in Commonwealth of australia utilising a sampling program which better represents retail supply variability by selecting a greater number of samples from central retail outlets supplying beef mince in Australia, including butchers and supermarkets located in dissimilar socio-economic suburbs and for supermarkets, both centralized and store-based preparation systems.
2. Experimental Section
A national survey of the dissimilar types of beef mince available for buy from 24 representative retail outlets in Commonwealth of australia was conducted.
2.1. Sampling
Threescore-ane samples of beef mince were purchased from 24 retail outlets across four Australian states: New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD), Victoria (VIC) and Western Australia (WA) in August 2010. Retail outlets were selected to reflect differences betwixt 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 country, representing a total of 24 retail outlets. High and low socio-economic condition suburbs were adamant using the Index 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 g of each type of beef mince available for purchase were purchased anonymously. The following information was documented during the collection of samples: the number of unlike types of mince available for purchase, the descriptor used to label mince at point of buy, and the proportion of the retail example allocated to each blazon of mince. Information was obtained from each retailer regarding type of cut and level of trim used to ready the beef mince. Mixed meat minces (such equally veal and beef or beef and lamb) were excluded.
ii.2. Sample Preparation
Upon collection, each 500 g sample of raw mince was placed in a labelled plastic purse and stored in cold storage containers to forestall moisture and food losses. Samples were transported to the National Measurement Constitute (NMI, Melbourne, Australia) in a chilled condition within 24 hours of buy. Raw samples were immediately homogenised in a heavy-duty blender and stored in plastic sample containers with screw height lids. The containers were filled to a minimum headspace and stored at −18 °C prior to analysis. Each container was labelled with a sample description and a unique Laboratory Registration Number.
2.3. 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 acid profile past gas chromatography (NMI in house method VL289). In this method, fatty was extracted using a combination of methanol and chloroform 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 cavalcade with Flame Ionisation detection. These methods are the aforementioned as those stated in Williams et al. [8].
Approximately viii months post initial sampling farther analysis was commissioned for cooked samples. Due to deterioration of some samples during storage, a pocket-size 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 3–5 min without the addition of fatty.
ii.4. Statistical Assay
All beef mince samples collected were included in the adding of the average total fat composition for each of the master types of mince purchased. The main types of beef mince bachelor for buy were categorised past full fat content co-ordinate to the descriptor used at point of buy. This was possible for samples where descriptors were suggestive of fat content. Where labelling was non indicative of fat content (i.e., gourmet), beefiness mince was categorised according to the total fatty content equally measured past NMI. All samples were then categorised into depression (<5 g/100 1000), medium (v–10 thou/100 g) or high (>ten yard/100 grand) total fat categories.
The weighted mean total fat content of 61 samples of raw beefiness mince samples and xiv cooked mince samples was determined for each fat category (low, medium and loftier). The weighting for each mince sample was based on the market share [1] of each major retailer outlet within each land (NSW, VIC, QLD and WA). Differences between fatty categories and nutrient limerick were determined using Chi-Foursquare, and statistical significance was ready at p < 0.05. SPSS for Macintosh Version 19.0 (version 19; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to comport out all statistical analyses.
3. Results
Table 1 lists the different descriptors used at point of purchase; the number of retail outlets using these different descriptors; and the average fat content of samples labelled accordingly. Eighteen dissimilar descriptors were used at bespeak of sale to differentiate between the different types of mince available for buy, including All-time Mince; Diet; Extra Lean; Gourmet; Hamburger; Middle Smart; Lean; Premium; Premium grade; Regular; 3- 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 as "Lean", other descriptors referred to its quality (i.east., Ultra Fine or Top Mince) or its utilise (i.due east., Hamburger). "Premium" was the most commonly used descriptor at signal of sale (due north = fifteen). Despite "Premium" beefiness mince containing an boilerplate of 8.0 chiliad/100 g of fat, fat content ranged from 2.2 g/100 g to ten 1000/100 g. Similarly, descriptors such as "Best" and "Diet" were not indicative of the analysed fat content. To ensure the accuracy of the data, the measured fatty content for samples with descriptors which were either non suggestive or indicative of the analysed fat 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 high fat categories.
Table 1
Boilerplate fatty content of retail beef mince past descriptors at point of buy.
| Mince descriptor used by retailer | Number of retail outlets using descriptor | Average fat content ** (thou/100 g) |
|---|---|---|
| Super lean | 2 | 2.2 |
| Regular (lean) | i | 2.5 |
| Premium course | one | 3.4 |
| Ultra fine | 1 | three.four |
| Top mince | ane | 3.v |
| Middle Smart | half-dozen | 4.one |
| 5 star | 5 | four.3 |
| Lean | i | four.seven |
| Extra lean | i | 4.8 |
| four star | 5 | 6.eight |
| Premium * | 15 | eight.0 |
| Regular | viii | 9.one |
| Gourmet | 3 | 9.v |
| Hamburger | 3 | 9.7 |
| Diet | 1 | x.1 |
| iii star | five | 11 |
| Best mince | ane | xiii |
| Topside | 1 | xiv |
Most retailers reported preparing mince on-site, mainly from off-cuts. Offcuts are meat and fat trimmings that remain from regular meat cuts prepared for sale co-ordinate to customer specifications. These are used to make mince with different proportions of meat and fatty trim combined, depending on the type of mince required. For example, depression fat mince may have 95%–98% meat trim and 2%–5% fatty trim. Some retailers reported using round or topside to make lower fatty mince and chuck and gravy beef (too chosen 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 equally low fat, thirteen (21%) every bit medium fat and xix (31%) every bit high fat using the methodology described. Labels respective to low fat samples included Gourmet; Hamburger; Middle Smart; Lean or variation; Premium; Regular; 5 star; Top Mince and Ultra Fine. Labels corresponding to medium fat 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 every bit "Premium" may be depression or medium fat, "Regular" may be low, medium or loftier fatty and "Hamburger" may be either low or high fatty.
Only 26% of the samples (xvi out of the 61 samples collected) used descriptors featured in NUTTAB2010 (Tabular array 2). 5 samples used the term "Lean" or variation of Lean, (Super lean, Extra lean), 8 samples used the term "Regular" and three samples used the term "Hamburger".
Table 2
Number of samples using descriptors indicated for beef mince in NUTTAB2010.
| NUTTAB2010 * | Number of samples | Percentage of samples (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Lean | 5 | two |
| Regular | 8 | xiii |
| Hamburger | three | 5 |
Fourteen retailers offered three dissimilar types and 10 retailers offered two unlike types of mince bachelor for purchase. Of retailers with 3 different types of mince on offer, 13 offered a low, a medium and a high fat option and 1 retailer offered 1 low and two high fat options. Of those with ii dissimilar types of mince on offer, six retailers offered a low and a medium fat option, 3 retailers offered a depression and a loftier fat option and ane retailer offered two loftier fatty options.
Of all samples collected from retail outlets in low socio-economical suburbs, 34.4% were low fat; 33.1% were medium fat and 34.four% were high fatty. Of samples collected from high socio-economic suburbs, 44.8% were low fat, 31.0% were medium fat and 24.1% were high fat. There was no pregnant difference between the types of mince available for purchase in low versus high socio-economic suburbs Table 3 (Chi-square, p > 0.05). The fat content of mince prepared in store (seven.6 ± 1 thou/100 g) did not significantly differ from that of mince prepared centrally (7.0 ± 1 g/100 thousand).
Table iii
Availability of depression, medium and high fatty retail beefiness mince past socio-economic status.
| Fat Content Category | Depression SES (%) | High SES (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Depression | 34.4% (due north = 11) | 44.8% (n = 13) |
| Medium | 31.3% (n = x) | 31.0% (due north = 9) |
| High | 34.4% (n = 11) | 24.ane% (northward = 7) |
The boilerplate weighted fatty acid composition for low, medium and loftier fat mince is listed in Table 4. For raw mince, average fat for depression fat was four.1 low, g/100 g, medium fat was 8.9 fa thou/100 one thousand and high fat was 10.4 at yard/100 grand. For cooked mince, low fat had an average fat content of viii.1 and h k/100 chiliad, medium fat sixteen.iv ow g/100 thou and high fat 18.1 w f g/100 g. Raw and cooked mince on boilerplate, contained iii.4 and 5.7 g/100 g of saturated fatty acids and 0.07 and 0.1 g/100 g of total omega-3 fatty acids (including Linolenic acid C18:3w3), respectively. Both cooked and raw low-fat mince had a higher percentage of long-chain n-three fatty acid docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) than high-fat mince. A higher level of omega-3 in the depression fat mince is consistent with a higher proportion of DPA in muscle meat than meat fat [11].
Tabular array 4
Nutrient composition of raw and cooked retail beef mince (hateful ± SE).
| Nutrient * | Raw Mince | Cooked Mince | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low fatty | Medium fatty | High fat | Total weighted hateful | Low fatty | Medium fatty | High fat | Total weighted hateful | |
| Moisture (g/100 g) | 71.0 ± 2.5 | 67.half dozen ± 4.iii | 65.0 ± 3.2 | 68.eight ± 4.four | 58.5 ± 2.three | 53.half dozen ± 5.9 | 49.5 ± 4.7 | 55.eight ± 4.9 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 22.nine ± ane.five | 22.iv ± ane.1 | 22.v ± 1.3 | 22.7 ± 1.4 | 32.3 ± ane.8 | 29.5 ± ii.6 | 30.iii ± 0.92 | 31.iii ± two.2 |
| Total Fat (g/100 g) | 4.1 ± 1.4 | 8.9 ± 3.9 | ten.4 ± 3.4 | 7.1 ± 4.0 | 8.1 ± ii.half dozen | 16.4 ± iv.5 | 18.ane ± iii.4 | xi.eight ± 5.5 |
| Full SFA (%) | 47.2 ± 1.5 | 47.0 ± ane.ix | 48.5 ± 3.9 | 47.vi ± 2.6 | 48.i ± 1.half dozen | 48.9 ± 1.two | 47.v ± 0.70 | 48.2 ± 1.4 |
| Total MUFA (%) | 44.1 ± 2.4 | 45.4 ± two.2 | 43.6 ± 4.two | 44.3 ± iii.0 | 44.0 ± i.5 | 44.two ± 1.1 | 42.v ± 0.5 | 44.three ± 1.4 |
| Full PUFA (%) | 4.7 ± 0.88 | iii.3 ± 0.51 | 3.2 ± 0.61 | 3.nine ± 1.0 | 3.7 ± 1.4 | 2.3 ± 0.84 | 1.viii ± 0.34 | 3.ane ± 1.4 |
| Full Mono TFA (%) | three.3 ± 0.82 | iii.four ± 1.5 | 3.ix ± 1.vi | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 3.5 ± 0.96 | 4.one ± 0.71 | 4.5 ± 1.0 | three.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.l | 0.61 ± 0.21 | 0.58 ± 0.11 |
| n-3 Fatty Acids (%) | 1.3 ± 0.39 | 0.8 ± 0.25 | one.0 ± 0.33 | one.i ± 0.39 | one.11 ± 0.47 | 0.50 ± 0.eighteen | 0.38 ± 0.09 | 0.84 ± 0.fifty |
| C22:5w3 DPA (%) | 0.44 ± 0.18 | 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 boilerplate fat content of Australian raw beefiness mince available for purchase from retail outlets in Australia was 4.i g/100 g for depression fat mince; 8.ix g/100 g for medium fat mince; and ten.4 yard/100 g for high fatty mince. Approximately 70% of retailers had all three types of mince available for purchase. Low fatty mince was the almost widely available for purchase and sold past all retailers.
At that place were no meaning differences in the fat content of beefiness mince bachelor for purchase past socio-economical area and by location of preparation (i.east., in-shop vs. central distribution). These findings are consistent with others who found that the fat content of retail beef and lamb cuts did not vary systematically with either blazon of retail outlet or socioeconomic area [12,13].
The fatty acrid composition of these retail meat samples, including the findings of measurable levels of long-concatenation PUFAS, is consistent with earlier studies of Australian beefiness [three].
This is the first written report to document descriptors used at signal of sale for each of the samples analysed. Choice of descriptor is often based on the retailer's descriptor of customer needs and tends to be specific to the retailer [14]. Whilst some descriptors described the fat content of the mince, such every bit "Lean", other descriptors referred to the quality or the intended use of the mince, such as "Premium" or "Hamburger". Because it was difficult to categorise samples according to the 3 types of mince described in Australian food composition tables (i.east., lean, regular and hamburger mince), samples were categorised according to fatty content, including low (<5 g/100 one thousand); medium (5–10 g/100 thou); and high (>10 thousand/100 g). Samples were allocated to the relevant category either according to their analysed fat content (where descriptors were not clearly suggestive or indicative of the analysed fat content) or by descriptor (where it was conspicuously suggestive of its low fat content).
The fat content of raw mince available for buy in Australia reported in a retail survey conducted in 2002 [2] was slightly higher than the electric current assay for low fat (half-dozen.8 for Lean vs. iv.1 chiliad/100 g in this report) and high fat mince (16.4 k/100 g for hamburger mince vs. 10.4 yard/100 yard in this study), but similar for medium fat mince (8.7 and x.8 g/100 g for "regular" and "premium" mince vs. viii.9 g/100 thou for "medium" fat in this written report. For cooked mince, differences were also reported: fat content in the low fat category of cooked mince was lower in this report compared to the 2002 study (8.one vs. 9.0 g/100 g), while medium and high fat categories were college: (16.4 g/100 g for "medium" fat vs. 9.9–12.7 grand/100 g for "Premium" and "Regular" mince in 2002; 18.ane g/100 k for "high" fat vs. 12.1 thousand/100 m for "hamburger" mince in 2002).
Several reasons may explicate the differences in fat content observed. Information technology is possible that actual fat content of beefiness mince has changed since 2002. Increasing demand for leaner meat over the years past consumers has led to more trimming by butchers and consequently, a wider availability of lean beef and lamb available for purchase by retail outlets [15]. Differences too exist in the methodology used to obtain average nutrient composition of beefiness mince. In the 2002 study, nutrient limerick was based on a homogenate of 10 samples randomly selected from 10 retail outlets in different socio-economical areas of Melbourne, VIC and Sydney, NSW. In this study, the average nutrient composition was calculated from the analysed nutrient content of 61 individual samples weighted by country and retailer and included several states. In addition, samples in the 2002 study were selected co-ordinate to a descriptor at point of sale suggestive of fat content. In this report, information technology has been shown that the descriptor does non accurately reverberate fat content and consequently, information for each mince category in the 2002 written report may have been skewed due to the inclusion of samples with either higher or lower fatty content than suggested by the descriptor. By analysing private samples, it was possible to determine differences between the fat content of the unlike descriptors used at bespeak of sale. This information are more in depth including analysis of individual samples; and weighting by retail market share.
In the US, the National Food Database [16] classifies basis beef into 6 categories ranging in fat content (5%, ten%, xv%, 20%, 25% and xxx%). The Canadian Nutrient File reports footing beef in four categories, which have specified maximum fat percentage targets, regulated by police [17]. The categories include: extra lean, lean, medium and regular with maximum immune fat content of 10%, 17%, 23% and 30%, respectively. In Norway, the Norwegian Food Composition Tabular array also classifies beef mince according to fat content (maximum of vi% fat or 14% fat) [eighteen]. As the majority of mince available for purchase in Australia fall below ten g/100 m of fat, Australian mince would be classified equally extra lean past the Canadian system and as ten% lean by the American system. The boilerplate fat content of raw Australian mince (7.one yard/100 1000) is in line with the fat content of actress lean ground beefiness in Canada (7.6 g/100 g) [17], well under the boilerplate content of beef mince in Denmark (sixteen chiliad/100 g) [19], and lower than both the extra lean beef mince (ix.6 k/100 g) and beef mince (16.2 grand/100 g) reported by the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Food Databank [xx].
In comparing 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 feature in NUTTAB2010 every bit less than a third of samples (26%) collected used NUTTAB 2006/2010 descriptors. Therefore, these terms may not be reflective of mince available for buy, making it difficult for users to select the most appropriate data. A small-scale pilot study in Scotland compared total fat content of samples of minced beefiness sold and assessed the relationship betwixt product label and total fat content [21]. In line with results of this study, at that place was wide variability in fat content past descriptor. "Minced beefiness", descriptor ranged between 9.eight% to 22.nine% fat. It may therefore be more useful to categorise beef mince in nutrient databases into 3 categories based on their analysed fat content (low, medium and high). Examples of mutual descriptors, such as lean, 5 star and heart smart for low fatty mince, could be provided. In addition, images illustrating raw mince for each of the fat categories (5 chiliad/100 g; v–10 g/100 one thousand; >x m/100 m), such as those in Figure one, could exist provided to assist users in selecting the most appropriate information. The lower the fatty 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; assay of individual samples; and the methodology used to allocate samples co-ordinate to analysed fatty content. In addition, weighting information by retail market share took into account variability in mince available for purchase in Australia. A potential limitation of this report was that information technology did not reflect differences in nutrient limerick due to seasonal variation. In lamb, long-concatenation omega-3 fatty acids were college after spring in comparison to fall, primarily due to higher quality grass consumed in spring [22]. To our knowledge, the influence of seasonal variation on nutrient composition of beefiness in Commonwealth of australia has non been previously documented. Due to storage issues past NMI, not all samples were bachelor to summate 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 South Australia, which may affect the values if there were major differences between these states. Still, previous studies found little evidence of systematic differences in fat content between retail outlets and socio-economic regions [12,13].
5. Conclusions
There is a wide variability in the full 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 bespeak of sale may not fairly represent this variability. Instead, sampling plans based on individual samples representative of retail market share and categorised by fat content is recommended to better capture this variability and improve the accuracy and consistency of information representing beef mince available for purchase in Australia.
Acknowledgments
This inquiry was funded by Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Author Contributions
FFM analysed information, prepared and edited manuscript, JC provided advice on report design and analysis, VD helped with written report design, data interpretation and manuscript preparation, TM conducted the sample analyses.
Conflicts of Interest
Veronique Droulez is employed past Meat & Livestock Commonwealth of australia. The other authors declare no disharmonize of interest.
References
1. Australian Meat Purchasing Data Report. Roy Morgan; Melbourne, Australia: 2010. [Google Scholar]
two. FSANZ . NUTTAB2010. Food Standards Australia New Zealand; Canberra, Australia: 2011. [Google Scholar]
3. FSANZ . NUTTAB2006. Nutrient Standards Australia New Zealand; Canberra, Commonwealth of australia: 2007. [Google Scholar]
four. National Measurement Found . Fat Content and Fatty Acid Profile of Mince Prepared past Dissimilar Butchers According to Specifications. Meat and Livestock Australia; Due north Sydney, Australia: 2008. [Google Scholar]
v. Greenfield H., Kuo Y.L., Hutchinson G.I., Wills R.B.H. Limerick of Australian foods 34. Beefiness and veal. Food Technol. Aust. 1987;39:208–215, 227. [Google Scholar]
vi. Hutchinson G.I., Thomas D., Truswell A. Nutrient limerick of Australian beef. Food Aust. 1987;39:199–201. [Google Scholar]
7. Lewis J., Sadler M., Buick D. Estimation of the nutritional value of retail fatty-trimmed beef cuts from new gross composition data. Food Aust. 1993;45:S13–S19. [Google Scholar]
8. Williams P.Thou., Droulez 5., Levy G., Stobaus T. Nutrient limerick of Australian red meat 2002. ane Gross composition data. Nutrient Aust. 2006;58:173–181. [Google Scholar]
nine. Droulez V. Unpublished piece of work. 2008. Meat and Livestock Australia, Australia.
10. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Australian Bureau of Statistics; Canberra, Australia: 2006. cat. no. 2033.0.55.001. [Google Scholar]
11. Williams P., Droulez G., Levy One thousand., Stobaus T. Composition of Australian red meat 2002 Nutrient Profile. Food Aust. 2007;59:331–341. [Google Scholar]
12. Cobiac Fifty., Droulez V., Leppard P., Lewis J. Utilize of external fat width to depict beef and lamb cuts in nutrient composition tables. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2003;16:133–145. [Google Scholar]
13. Watson M.J., Mann N.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 Australia, Commonwealth of australia. Interview with Roger Bail, Marketing Director of Meat & Livestock. Sydney, Commonwealth of australia, March, 2011.
15. Williams P., Doulez 5. Australian red meat consumption- implications of changes over 20 years on nutrient composition. Food Aust. 2010;62:87–93. [Google Scholar]
16. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agronomical Inquiry Service 2013 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26. [(accessed on 19 April 2014)]. Bachelor online: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods
eighteen. Nutrient Composition Table 2014 Norwegian Nutrient Safety Dominance, Directorate of Wellness and the University of Oslo. [(accessed on 22 Apr 2014)]. Available online: http://www.matvaretabellen.no
xix. Department of Nutrition, National Nutrient Institute- Technical University of Denmark 2009 Danish Food Limerick Databank, Edition vii.01. [(accessed on xix Apr 2014)]. Available online: http://www.foodcomp.dk/v7/fcdb_details.asp?FoodId=1296
21. Seaman C., Bower J., Farrell K. The fat content of minced beef in supermarkets. Br. Food J. 1997;99:125–127. doi: 10.1108/00070709710169058. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Ponnampalam E., Butler K., Pearce Thousand., Mortimer S., Pethick D., Ball A., Hopkins D. Sources of variation of health claimable long concatenation omega-3 fat acids in meat from Australian lamb slaughtered at similar weights. Meat Sci. 2014;96:1095–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.039. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Nutrients are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073145/
Posting Komentar untuk "How Much Is H=h=ground Beef in Prteing"