Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T22:58:20.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meat quality of Boer goat kids and Mutton Merino lambs 2. Sensory meat evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. Sheridan ,
L.C. Hoffman  and
A.V. Ferreira
R. Sheridan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

The meat palatability, water-holding capacity, colour and shear force values of 32 Boer goat (BG) kids and 32 South African Mutton Merino (MM) lambs were investigated. Two pelleted diets (offered to 16 animals per species) with either a low (LE, 9·9 MJ/kg dry matter (DM)) or a high (HE, 12·1 MJ/kg DM) metabolizable energy level were given to the animals for either 28 or 56 days. Thereafter the animals were slaughtered, the meat cooked and presented to a trained sensory panel. Organoleptically, a difference between goat and lamb was noted. Each one had a specific species flavour, which was not influenced by energy level of the diet. BG meat was perceived to be stringier than that of the MM, but there was no significant difference in Warner-Bratzler shear force values. Tenderness declined with age in both species and there was also a tendency for goat meat to be less juicy than lamb. Chevon had a more pronounced after-taste than lamb. No objective difference could be distinguished between the colour of the cooked goat and lamb, but there was a tendency for fresh lamb to have a higher a*-value (redness) than goat. Although diet did not influence drip loss, drip loss increased with an increase in slaughter age. Only after 56 days did the m. semimembranosus of MM have a significantly higher drip loss than that of BG (LE: 4·84 v. 3·43%; HE: 4·72 v. 3·23%). In the m. semimembranosus of both species cooking loss increased with an increase in slaughter age. It can be concluded that goat meat compares favourably with lamb in terms of water-holding capacity, colour and shear force values. If goats are finished in the feedlot, it can be done on a LE diet, since diet does not influences any of the mentioned characteristics. This may render a direct economic advantage for BG feedlot finishing.

Keywords

colourgoat meatlamborganoleptic propertieswater-holding capacity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 73 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Babiker, S.A., El Khider, I.A. and Shafie, S.A. 1990. Chemical composition and quality attributes of goat meat and lamb. Meat Science 28: 273–277.Google Scholar
Carlucci, A., Girolami, A., Napolitano, F. and Monteleone, E. 1998. Sensory evaluation of young goat meat. Meat Science 50: 131–136.Google Scholar
Crouse, J.D., Field, R.A., Chant, J.L. Jr.,, Ferrell, C.L., Smith, G.M. and Harrison, V.L. 1978. Effect of dietary energy intake on carcass composition and palatability of different weight carcasses from ewe and ram lambs. Journal of Animal Science 47: 1207–1218.Google Scholar
Dryden, F.D. and Marchello, J.A. 1970. Influence of total lipid and fatty acid composition upon the palatability of three bovine muscles. Journal of Animal Science 31: 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, R.A., Williams, J.C., Ferrell, C.L., Crouse, J.D. and Kunsman, J.E. 1978. Dietary alteration of palatability and fatty acids in meat from light and heavy weight ram lambs. Journal of Animal Science 47: 858–864.Google Scholar
Forrest, J.C., Aberle, E.D., Hendrick, H.B., Judge, M.D. and Merkel, R.A. 1975. Title to be inserted. In Principles of meat science (ed. Schweigert, B.S.), pp. 00–00. Freeman, San Francisco CA.Google Scholar
Gaili, S.E. and Ali, A.S. 1985. Meat from Sudan desert sheep and goats. 1. Carcass yield, offals and distribution of carcass tissues. Meat Science 13: 217–227.Google Scholar
Gaili, S.E., Ghanem, Y.S. and Mukhtar, A.M.S. 1972. A comparative study of some carcass characteristics of Sudan desert sheep and goats. Animal Production 14: 351–357.Google Scholar
Honikel, K.O. 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49: 447–457.Google Scholar
Johnson, D.D., McGowen, C.H., Nurse, B. and Anous, M.R. 1995. Breed type and sex effects on carcass traits, composition and tenderness of young goats. Small Ruminant Research 17: 57–63.Google Scholar
Kirton, A.H. 1970. Body and carcass composition and meat quality of the New Zealand feral goat (Capra hircus). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13: 167–181.Google Scholar
Naudé, R.T. and Hofmeyr, H.S. 1981. Meat production. In Goat production (ed. Gall, C.), pp. 285–307. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Owen, J.E. and Norman, G.A. 1977. Studies of the meat production characteristics of Botswana goats and sheep. 2. General body composition, carcass measurements and joint composition. Meat Science 1: 283–306.Google Scholar
Risvik, E. 1994. Sensory properties and preferences. Meat Science 36: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roessler, E.B., Pangborn, R.M., Sidel, J.L. and Stone, H. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired-preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and triangle tests. Journal of Food Science 43: 940–947.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, H.C., Naudé, R.T., Bok, W., Heerden, S.M. van, Smit, R. and Boshoff, E. 1993a. Flavour- and tenderness-related quality characteristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Science 34: 363–379.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, H.C., Naudé, R.T., Bok, W., Heerden, S.M. van, Sowden, L. and Boshoff, E. 1993b. Cooking and juiciness-related quality characteristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Science 34: 381–394.Google Scholar
Sheridan, R., Ferreira, A.V. and Hoffman, L.C. 2002. Production efficiency of SA Mutton Merino lambs and Boer goat kids receiving either a low or a high energy feedlot diet. Small Ruminant Research In press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, R., Hoffman, L.C. and Ferreira, A.V. 2003. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and Mutton Merino lambs. 1. Commercial yields and chemical composition. Animal Science 76: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G.C., Pike, M.I. and Carpenter, Z.L. 1974. Comparison of the palatability of goat meat and meat from four other animal species. Journal of Food Science 39: 1145–1146.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT user’s guide version 6, fourth edition. SAS Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Webb, E.C., Bosman, M.J.C. and Casey, N.H. 1994. Dietary influences on subcutaneous fatty acid profiles and sensory characteristics of Dorper and SA Mutton Merino wethers. South African Journal of Food Science and Nutrition 6: 45–50.Google Scholar