Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:38:38.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantifying the relative contribution of ante- and post-mortem factors to the variability in beef texture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2012

M. Juárez*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
J. A. Basarab
Affiliation:
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
V. S. Baron
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
M. Valera
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. Utrera km. 1, 41013 Seville, Spain
I. L. Larsen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
J. L. Aalhus
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
Get access

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the relative contribution of ante- and post-mortem factors to the final quality of beef. In all, 112 steers (four breed-crosses) were arranged in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental including production system, growth implant and β-adrenergic agonist strategies. Carcasses were suspended by the Achilles tendon or the aitch bone and meat was aged for 2/6/13/21/27 days (longissimus muscle) or 2/27 days (semimembranosus muscle). Meat quality traits related to beef texture were measured. Statistical analyses were developed including ante- and post-mortem factors and their relative contribution to the variability observed for each measured trait was calculated. The main factor responsible for the variability in sarcomere length was the suspension method (91.1%), which also influenced drip-loss (44.3%). Increasing the percentage of British breeds increased (P < 0.05) the intramuscular fat content in longissimus muscle, but only when implants were not used. Thus, the breed-cross, implant strategy and their interaction were responsible for >58% of the variability in this trait. The variability in instrumental and sensory tenderness was mainly affected by post-mortem factors (carcass suspension, ageing time and their interaction), explaining generally ∼70% of the variability in these traits. Breed-cross was the second most important effect (∼15%) when carcass suspension was not considered in the model, but still ageing time was responsible for a much larger proportion of the variability in tenderness (>45%). In conclusion, post-mortem handling of the carcasses may be much more effective in controlling beef tenderness than pre-mortem strategies.

Type
Product quality, human health and well-being
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalhus, JL, Best, DR, Costello, F, Jeremiah, LE 1999. A simple, on-line processing method for improving beef tenderness. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 2734.Google Scholar
Aalhus, JL, Larsen, IL, Dubeski, PL, Jeremiah, LE 2000. Improved beef tenderness using a modified on-line carcass suspension method with, or without low voltage electrical stimulation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 5158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aalhus, JL, Jeremiah, LE, Dugan, MER, Larsen, IL, Gibson, LL 2004. Establishment of consumer thresholds for beef quality attributes. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 631638.Google Scholar
Ahnström, ML, Hessle, A, Johansson, L, Hunt, MC, Lundström, K 2009. Influence of carcass suspension on meat quality of Charolais heifers from two sustainable feeding regimes. Animal 3, 906913.Google Scholar
American Meat Science Association (AMSA) 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL.Google Scholar
American Society for Testing and Materials-International 2009. American Society for Testing and Materials-International. Retrieved December 2009 form http://www.astm.org/Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of AOAC international, 16th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, McCartney, D, Okine, EK, Baron, VS 2007. Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 489502.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, Colazo, MG, Ambrose, DJ, Novak, S, McCartney, D, Baron, VS 2011. Residual feed intake adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding frequency is independent of fertility in beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 573584.Google Scholar
Butchers, A, Ferguson, D, Devine, C, Thompson, J 1998. Interaction between pre-slaughter handling and low voltage electrical stimulation and effect on beef quality. In 44th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain, p. 1050.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1993. Canadian council on animal care. In A guide to the care and use of experimental animals (ed. EB Olfert, BM Cross and AA McWilliams), vol. 1, 2nd edition. CCAC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Christensen, M, Ertbjerg, P, Failla, S, Sañudo, C, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Albertí, P, Juárez, M, Hocquette, JF, Williams, JL 2011. Relationship between collagen characteristics, lipid content and raw and cooked texture of meat from young bulls of fifteen European breeds. Meat Science 87, 6165.Google Scholar
Dikeman, ME, Pollak, EJ, Zhang, Z, Moser, DW, Gill, CA, Dressler, EA 2005. Phenotypic ranges and relationships among carcass and meat palatability traits for fourteen cattle breeds, and heritabilities and expected progeny differences for Warner–Bratzler shear force in three beef cattle breeds. Journal of Animal Science 83, 24612467.Google Scholar
Dubeski, PL, Aalhus, JL, Jones, SDM, Robertson, WM, Dyck, RS 1997. Meat quality of heifers fattened to heavy weights to enhance marbling. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 77, 635643.Google Scholar
Edwards, LJ, Muller, KE, Wolfinger, RD, Qaqish, BF, Schabenberger, O 2008. An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine 27, 61376157.Google Scholar
Eikelenboom, G, Barnier, VMH, Hoving-Bolink, AH, Smulders, FJM, Culioli, J 1998. Effect of pelvic suspension and cooking temperature on the tenderness of electrically stimulated and aged beef, assessed with shear and compression tests. Meat Science 49, 8999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, DM, Bruce, HL, Thompson, JM, Egan, AF, Perry, D, Shorthose, WR 2001. Factors affecting beef palatability – farmgate to chilled carcass. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 879891.Google Scholar
Flowers, W 2011. Beef tenderness should be a current and long term goal for U.S. cattlemen/women. National Cattlemens's Beef Association, Tennessee_Grazing_Coalition.Google Scholar
Foutz, CP, Dolezal, HG, Gardner, TL, Gill, DR, Hensley, JL, Morgan, JB 1997. Anabolic implant effects on steer performance, carcass traits, subprimal yields, and longissimus muscle properties. Journal of Animal Science 75, 12561265.Google Scholar
Hostetler, R, Link, B, Landmann, W, Fitzhugh, H 1972. Effect of carcass suspension on sarcomere length and shear force of some major bovine muscles. Journal of Food Science 38, 264267.Google Scholar
Hunter, RA 2010. Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry. Animal Production Science 50, 637659.Google Scholar
Jayasooriya, SD, Torley, PJ, D'Arcy, BR, Bhandari, BR 2007. Effect of high power ultrasound and ageing on the physical properties of bovine Semitendinosus and Longissimus muscles. Meat Science 75, 628639.Google Scholar
Johnston, DJ, Reverter, A, Robinson, DL, Ferguson, DM 2001. Sources of variation in mechanical shear force measures of tenderness in beef from tropically adapted genotypes, effects of data editing and their implications for genetic parameter estimation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 991996.Google Scholar
Juárez, M, Horcada, A, Alcalde, MJ, Valera, M, Mullen, AM, Molina, A 2008. Estimation of factors influencing fatty acid profiles in light lambs. Meat Science 79, 203210.Google Scholar
Juárez, M, Aldai, N, López-Campos, Ó, Dugan, M, Uttaro, B, Aalhus, J 2012. Beef texture and juiciness. In Handbook of meat and meat processing (ed. YH Hui), pp. 177206. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Juárez, M, Larsen, IL, Gibson, LL, Robertson, WM, Dugan, MER, Aldai, N, Aalhus, JL 2010. Extended ageing time and temperature effects on quality of sub-primal cuts of boxed beef. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90, 361370.Google Scholar
Juárez, M, Dugan, MER, Aldai, N, Basarab, JA, Baron, VS, McAllister, TA, Aalhus, JL 2011. Beef quality attributes as affected by increasing the intramuscular levels of vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids. Meat Science 90, 764769.Google Scholar
Klopfenstein, T, Cooper, R, Jordon, DJ, Shain, D, Milton, T, Calkins, C, Rossi, C 2000. Effects of backgrounding and growing programs on beef carcass quality and yield. Journal of Animal Science 77, 111.Google Scholar
Koohmaraie, M 1994. Muscle proteinases and meat aging. Meat Science 36, 93104.Google Scholar
Koohmaraie, M 1996. Biochemical factors regulating the toughening and tenderization processes of meat. Meat Science 43, 193201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koohmaraie, M, Geesink, GH 2006. Contribution of postmortem muscle biochemistry to the delivery of consistent meat quality with particular focus on the calpain system. Meat Science 74, 3443.Google Scholar
Koohmaraie, M, Doumit, ME, Wheeler, TL 1996. Meat toughening does not occur when rigor shortening is prevented. Journal of Animal Science 74, 29352942.Google Scholar
Mandell, IB, Gullett, EA, Wilton, JW, Kemp, RA, Allen, OB 1997. Effects of gender and breed on carcass traits, chemical composition, and palatability attributes in Hereford and Simmental bulls and steers. Livestock Production Science 49, 235248.Google Scholar
Meyer, DL, Kerley, MS, Walker, EL, Keisler, DH, Pierce, VL, Schmidt, TB, Stahl, CA, Linville, ML, Berg, EP 2005. Growth rate, body composition, and meat tenderness in early vs. traditionally weaned beef calves. Journal of Animal Science 83, 27522761.Google Scholar
Mirzaei, HR, Verbyla, AP, Pitchford, WS 2011. Prediction model of a joint analysis of beef growth and carcass quality traits. Genetics and Molecular Research 10, 448458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monsón, F, Sañudo, C, Sierra, I 2005. Influence of breed and ageing time on the sensory meat quality and consumer acceptability in intensively reared beef. Meat Science 71, 471479.Google Scholar
Nassu, RT, Dugan, MER, Juárez, M, Basarab, JA, Baron, VS, Aalhus, JL 2011. Effect of α-tocopherol tissue levels on beef quality. Animal 5, 20102018.Google Scholar
Park, BY, Hwang, IH, Cho, SH, Yoo, YM, Kim, JH, Lee, JM, Polkinghorne, R, Thompson, JM 2008. Effect of carcass suspension and cooking method on the palatability of three beef muscles as assessed by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 13961404.Google Scholar
Pereira, PMRC, Pinto, MF, de Abreu, UGP, de Lara, JAF 2009. Carcass characteristics and beef quality of young bulls from three genetic groups. Características de carcaça e qualidade de carne de novilhos superprecoces de três grupos genéticos 44, 15201527.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Philpott, J, Gee, A, Doljanin, A, Innes, J 2008. Development of a commercial system to apply the Meat Standards Australia grading model to optimise the return on eating quality in a beef supply chain. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 14511458.Google Scholar
Reiling, BA, Johnson, DD 2003. Effects of implant regimens (trenbolone acetate-estradiol administered alone or in combination with zeranol) and vitamin D3 on fresh beef color and quality. Journal of Animal Science 81, 135142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, DL, Ferguson, DM, Oddy, VH, Perry, D, Thompson, J 2001. Genetic and environmental influences on beef tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 9971003.Google Scholar
Roeber, DL, Cannell, RC, Belk, KE, Miller, RK, Tatum, JD, Smith, GC 2000. Implant strategies during feeding: impact on carcass grades and consumer acceptability. Journal of Animal Science 78, 18671874.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. SAS® user's guide: statistics. SAS for windows, version 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Schoonmaker, JP, Loerch, SC, Fluharty, FL, Zerby, HN, Turner, TB 2002. Effect of age at feedlot entry on performance and carcass characteristics of bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 80, 22472254.Google Scholar
Sørheim, O, Idland, J, Halvorsen, EC, Frøystein, T, Lea, P, Hildrum, KI 2001. Influence of beef carcass stretching and chilling rate on tenderness of m. longissimus dorsi. Meat Science 57, 7985.Google Scholar
Strydom, PE, Frylinck, L, Montgomery, JL, Smith, MF 2009. The comparison of three β-agonists for growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of feedlot cattle. Meat Science 81, 557564.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, McIntyre, BM, Tudor, GD, Pethick, DW, Polkinghorne, R, Watson, R 2008. Effects of hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on growth, carcass characteristics, the palatability of different muscles in the beef carcass and their interaction with aging. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 14051414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, TL, Koohmaraie, M 1994. Prerigor and postrigor changes in tenderness of ovine longissimus muscle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 12321238.Google Scholar