Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:52:23.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2016

S. P. F. Bonny ,
J.-F. Hocquette ,
D. W. Pethick ,
L. J. Farmer ,
I. Legrand ,
J. Wierzbicki ,
P. Allen ,
R. J. Polkinghorne  and
G. E. Gardner
S. P. F. Bonny*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
J.-F. Hocquette
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
L. J. Farmer
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
I. Legrand
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Service Qualite´ des Viandes, MRAL, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France
J. Wierzbicki
Affiliation:
Polish Beef Association Ul, Kruczkowskiego 3, 00-380 Warszawa, Poland
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Teagasac Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland
R. J. Polkinghorne
Affiliation:
431 Timor Road Murrurundi, NSW 2338, Australia
G. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
†E-mail: s.bonny@murdoch.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Delivering beef of consistent quality to the consumer is vital for consumer satisfaction and will help to ensure demand and therefore profitability within the beef industry. In Australia, this is being tackled with Meat Standards Australia (MSA), which uses carcass traits and processing factors to deliver an individual eating quality guarantee to the consumer for 135 different ‘cut by cooking methods’ from each carcass. The carcass traits used in the MSA model, such as ossification score, carcass weight and marbling explain the majority of the differences between breeds and sexes. Therefore, it was expected that the model would predict with eating quality of bulls and dairy breeds with good accuracy. In total, 8128 muscle samples from 482 carcasses from France, Poland, Ireland and Northern Ireland were MSA graded at slaughter then evaluated for tenderness, juiciness, flavour liking and overall liking by untrained consumers, according to MSA protocols. The scores were weighted (0.3, 0.1, 0.3, 0.3) and combined to form a global eating quality (meat quality (MQ4)) score. The carcasses were grouped into one of the three breed categories: beef breeds, dairy breeds and crosses. The difference between the actual and the MSA-predicted MQ4 scores were analysed using a linear mixed effects model including fixed effects for carcass hang method, cook type, muscle type, sex, country, breed category and postmortem ageing period, and random terms for animal identification, consumer country and kill group. Bulls had lower MQ4 scores than steers and females and were predicted less accurately by the MSA model. Beef breeds had lower eating quality scores than dairy breeds and crosses for five out of the 16 muscles tested. Beef breeds were also over predicted in comparison with the cross and dairy breeds for six out of the 16 muscles tested. Therefore, even after accounting for differences in carcass traits, bulls still differ in eating quality when compared with females and steers. Breed also influenced eating quality beyond differences in carcass traits. However, in this case, it was only for certain muscles. This should be taken into account when estimating the eating quality of meat. In addition, the coefficients used by the Australian MSA model for some muscles, marbling score and ultimate pH do not exactly reflect the influence of these factors on eating quality in this data set, and if this system was to be applied to Europe then the coefficients for these muscles and covariates would need further investigation.

Keywords

MSAprediction of beef eating qualityEuropean Unionsexbreed
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , June 2016 , pp. 987 - 995
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Anonymous 2005. Handbook of Australian meat. AUS-MEAT Ltd, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Accessory Publication: MSA sensory testing protocols. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Anderson, F, Pethick, DW and Gardner, GE 2015. The correlation of intramuscular fat content between muscles of the lamb carcass and the use of computed tomography to predict intramuscular fat percentage in lambs. Animal 9, 1239–1249.Google Scholar
Boccard, RL, Naudé, RT, Cronje, DE, Smit, MC, Venter, HJ and Rossouw, EJ 1979. The influence of age, sex and breed of cattle on their muscle characteristics. Meat Science 3, 261–280.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Gardner, GE, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Polkinghorne, RJ and Hocquette, J-F 2015. Biochemical measurements of beef are a good predictor of untrained consumer sensory scores across muscles. Animal 9, 179–190.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Farmer, LJ, Polkinghorne, RJ, Hocquette, J-F and Gardner, GE 2015. Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age. Animal, First view, 1–11.Google Scholar
Brackebrush, SA MF, Carr, TR and McLaren, DG 1991. Relationship between longissimus composition and the composition of other major muscles of the beef carcass. Journal of Animal Science 69, 631–640.Google Scholar
Choat, WT, Paterson, JA, Rainey, BM, King, MC, Smith, GC, Belk, KE and Lipsey, RJ 2006. The effects of cattle sex on carcass characteristics and longissimus muscle palatability. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1820–1826.Google Scholar
Chriki, S, Gardner, GE, Jurie, C, Picard, B, Micol, D, Brun, JP, Journaux, L and Hocquette, J-F 2012. Cluster analysis application identifies muscle characteristics of importance for beef tenderness. BMC Biochemistry 13, 29.Google Scholar
Chriki, S, Renand, G, Picard, B, Micol, D, Journaux, L and Hocquette, J-F 2013. Meta-analysis of the relationships between beef tenderness and muscle characteristics. Livestock Science 155, 424–434.Google Scholar
Christensen, M, Ertbjerg, P, Failla, S, Sañudo, C, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Albertí, P, Juárez, M, Hocquette, J-F and 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, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dikeman, ME, Reddy, GB, Arthaud, VH, Tuma, HJ, Koch, RM, Mandigo, RW and Axe, JB 1986. Longissimus muscle quality, palatability and connective tissue histological characteristics of bulls and steers fed different energy levels and slaughtered at four ages. Journal of Animal Science 63, 92–101.Google Scholar
Drayer, ML 2003. Evaluation of intact males and steers for growth performance and meat quality. California State University, Fresno, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Field, RA 1971. Effect of castration on meat quality and quantity. Journal of Animal Science 32, 849–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-de-Siles, JL, Ziegler, JH, Wilson, LL and J.D., S 1977. Growth, carcass and muscle characters of Hereford and Holstein steers. Journal of Animal Science 44, 973–984.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J-F and Chatellier, V 2011. Prospects for the European beef sector over the next 30 years. Animal Frontiers 1, 20–28.Google Scholar
Koohmaraie, M, Kent, MP, Shackelford, SD, Veiseth, E and Wheeler, TL 2002. Meat tenderness and muscle growth: is there any relationship? Meat Science 62, 345–352.Google Scholar
Lawrie, RA 1985. Meat science. Pergamon, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Lee, CY, Henricks, DM, Skelley, GC and Grimes, LW 1990. Growth and hormonal response of intact and castrate male cattle to trenbolone acetate and estradiol. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2682–2689.Google Scholar
Lizaso, G, Beriain, MJ, Horcada, A, Chasco, J and Purroy, A 2011. Effect of intended purpose (dairy/beef production) on beef quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 97–102.Google Scholar
Lyford, C, Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Miller, M, Nishimura, T, Neath, K, Allen, P and Belasco, E 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.Google Scholar
Mandell, IB, Gullett, EA, Wilton, JW, Kemp, RA and 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, 235–248.Google Scholar
McKay, DG 1970. Some aspects of meat quality in dairy beef. McGill University, Ann Arbor, Canada.Google Scholar
Mills, EW, Comerford, JW, Hollender, R, Harpster, HW, House, B and Henning, WR 1992. Meat composition and palatability of Holstein and beef steers as influenced by forage type and protein source. Journal of Animal Science 70, 2446–2461.Google Scholar
MLA 2006. Module 6: Meat Standards Australia Grading. version 5.0, pp. 1–111. Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney.Google Scholar
Morgan, JB, Savell, JW, Hale, DS, Miller, RK, Griffin, DB, Cross, HR and Shackelford, SD 1991. National beef tenderness survey. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3274–3283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, JB, Wheeler, TL, Koohmaraie, M, Savell, JW and Crouse, JD 1993. Meat tenderness and the calpain proteolytic system in longissimus muscle of young bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1471–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polkinghorne, R, Thompson, JM, Watson, R, Gee, A and Porter, M 2008a. Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1351–1359.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Watson, R, Thompson, JM and Pethick, DW 2008b. Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1459–1464.Google Scholar
Seideman, SC, Cross, HR and Crouse, JD 1989. Carcass characteristics, sensory properties and mineral content of meat from bulls and steers. Journal of Food Quality 11, 497–507.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM 2004. The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Venkata Reddy, B, Sivakumar, AS, Jeong, DW, Woo, Y-B, Park, S-J, Lee, S-Y, Byun, J-Y, Kim, C-H, Cho, S-H and Hwang, I 2015. Beef quality traits of heifer in comparison with steer, bull and cow at various feeding environments. Animal Science Journal 86, 1–16.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W, Van Wezemael, L, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Hocquette, J-F, Ueland, Ø and Grunert, KG 2010. European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 54, 289–296.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Gee, A, Polkinghorne, R and Porter, M 2008a. Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Polkinghorne, R and Thompson, JM 2008b. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.Google Scholar
Węglarz, A 2010. Quality beef from semi-intensively fattened heifers and bulls. Animal Science Papers and Reports 28, 207–218.Google Scholar