Beef quality grading using machine vision

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Jeyamkondan ◽  
N. Ray ◽  
Glenn A. Kranzler ◽  
Nisha Biju
Keyword(s):  
Machine Vision ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Grading

Automatic extraction of lean-tissue contours for beef quality grading

2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Ngoc Huan ◽  
Sun Choi ◽  
Seong-In Cho ◽  
Moo-Ha Lee ◽  
Heon Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Automatic Extraction ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Lean Tissue ◽  
Quality Grading

A 3D machine vision system for quality grading of Atlantic salmon

2016 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øystein Sture ◽  
Elling Ruud Øye ◽  
Amund Skavhaug ◽  
John Reidar Mathiassen
Keyword(s):  
Atlantic Salmon ◽  
Machine Vision ◽  
Vision System ◽  
Machine Vision System ◽  
Quality Grading

scholarly journals International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (11) ◽  
pp. 1465 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. C. Smith ◽  
J. D. Tatum ◽  
K. E. Belk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Carcass Trait ◽  
Grading System ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Live Animal ◽  
States Department ◽  
Quality Grading

The intent, in this manuscript, is to characterise the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Meat Standards Australia (MSA) systems for assessing beef quality and to describe the research evidence that supports the principles involved in grade application. USDA beef quality grading standards rely on carcass-trait-only assessments of approximate age of the animal at harvest and amount of intramuscular fat (as marbling) inside the muscles. USDA beef quality grading started 82 years ago. Then, as now, because no traceability system was in place, each animal’s history (exact age, feeding regimen, management practices, etc.) was incomplete; those who assigned quality grades used indicators of age (physiological maturity) and plane of nutrition (amount of marbling), and they do so still. Since 1926, research studies have identified a multitude of palatability-determining live-animal factors (e.g. genetics, use of hormonal growth promotants, high-energy diet finishing) and carcass-treatment factors (e.g. electrical stimulation, tenderstretch carcass suspension, postmortem aging) that cannot be incorporated into a carcass-trait-only quality assessment system. The USA beef industry has depended on development of more than 100 beef brands – some using palatability assurance critical control point plans, total quality management (TQM) philosophies, USDA certification and process verification programs, or combinations of live-animal factors, carcass-treatment factors and carcass-trait constraints – to further differentiate fresh beef products. The MSA grading system is a TQM grading approach that incorporates animal-specific traits (e.g. genetics, sex, age), control of certain pre-harvest and post-harvest processes in the beef chain, cut-specific quality differences and consumer preferences, into a beef pricing system. A unique aspect of the MSA grading system is that the grades are assigned to cuts or muscles, not carcasses; cuts or muscles from the same carcass are assigned individual (and in many cases, different) grades that reflect differences in expected eating quality performance among the various cuts of beef further adjusted to reflect the influence of cut or muscle aging and alternative cooking methods. The MSA grading system is still being modified and refined (using results of an extensive, ongoing consumer testing program), but it represents the best existing example of a TQM grading approach for improving beef quality and palatability. Research studies have shown that the accuracy of palatability-level prediction by use of the two systems – USDA quality grades for US customers and consumers and MSA grades for Australian customers and consumers – is sufficient to justify their continued use for beef quality assessment.

Potato quality grading based on machine vision and 3D shape analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinghua Su ◽  
Naoshi Kondo ◽  
Minzan Li ◽  
Hong Sun ◽  
Dimas Firmanda Al Riza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Vision ◽  
Shape Analysis ◽  
Potato Quality ◽  
3D Shape ◽  
Quality Grading ◽  
3D Shape Analysis

Differences in carcass grading schemes used in the USA, Japan and Australia

2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 675 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Strong
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Grading System ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Cooking Method ◽  
The Past ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Quality Grading

Over the past 30 years there has been increasing pressure for the establishment of a beef, quality grading system in Australia. During this time, many and varied options have been proposed and comparisons have often been made with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Japanese Meat Grading Association (JMGA) systems. Australia has now developed a grading system that is driven by the consumer — Meat Standards Australia (MSA). Although some years (70+) behind the USDA, the Australian model has been scientifically proven to identify product that can achieve a guaranteed level of satisfaction to the consumer. While this paper evaluates the 3 systems and their specific operations, both the USDA and JMGA systems are compared with the potential performance of the MSA system applied on a cut by grade by cooking method basis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document