RESUMEN
With the increasing concomitant demands for Brazilian beef and in particular high-quality beef, there is a need for observational studies of the effects of pre- and post-slaughter practices on beef carcass traits. We hypothesized in our case study that pre-slaughter transport of bovines over significant distances would induce stress in animals, and that this would reduce carcass quality because of higher pH resulting from long-distance transportation. To test this hypothesis, 30,230 Nellore carcasses from a private slaughterhouse were evaluated 24 h postmortem. Analysis showed correlations between animal maturity, ultimate pH, distance, and carcass weight. More precisely, there was a slight positive correlation between ultimate pH and weight (but not with transportation distance) and a slight positive correlation between maturity and weight. A linear regression model (R2â =â 0.016) failed to show distance having a significant effect on ultimate pH (Pâ =â 0.63), while carcass weight significantly affected ultimate pH (Pâ <â 0.001) with a low coefficient of 0.0003. Maturity negatively affected ultimate pH also (Pâ <â 0.001) but with also a small effect (-0.0008). Results (from 95% confidence intervals of variance of the random effects and of the random errors) showed that the variability within farms was higher than between farms. The linear mixed model showed that maturity had a significant effect on carcass weight value (Pâ <â 0.001) with a large coefficient of 2.90. The R2 of the linear mixed model was 46.03%. In conclusion, while weight and maturity both affect ultimate pH, long distances did not significantly impact ultimate pH and therefore the beef quality from Nellore cattle. This could be because of low stress during transport, as well as the physical characteristics of the Nellore breed that favor greater resistance to tropical climatic conditions.
RESUMEN
The main goal of this online survey was to investigate the attitudes of Brazilians towards "cell-based meat", which has become the subject of great scientific and media enthusiasm. The answers of 4471 respondents concluded that 46.6% of them thought "cell-based meat" was promising and acceptable. More than 66% would be willing to try this novel product compared to 23% who expressed reluctance to do so. Nearly 40% of the total respondents did not want to eat "cell-based meat" regularly at all, whereas 29%, 43.2%, and 39.9% were willing to eat it regularly in restaurants, at home, and/or in ready-made meals, respectively. However, the majority of respondents (71%) were keen to pay much less for "cell-based meat" than conventionally produced meat (or even nothing at all), compared to 24.3% who were willing to pay the same price as conventional meat, whereas only 4.8% were willing to pay more. Approximately 51% of them considered that "cell-based meat" should not be called "meat" for marketing purposes. Job, monthly income, age, and gender were major factors impacting consumer acceptance. Meat professionals and consumers with higher incomes were less willing to eat "cell-based meat" regularly. Women (especially younger women) were the most concerned about the ethical and environmental issues related to meat production and were the most convinced that reducing meat consumption could be a good solution to the meat industry's problems. Respondents who did not accept "cell-based meat" and did not eat meat substitutes had a negative attitude to this novel food (they considered it absurd and/or disgusting) and did not believe that "cell-based meat" should be called "meat" for marketing purposes. In contrast, the people who thought that "cell-based meat" could be called "meat" perceived it in a rather positive way. These results are important for consumers of meat and meat substitutes and for companies aiming to enter the potential future Brazilian market of "cell-based meat".