Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:15:36.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of slaughter age and carcass suspension on meat quality in Angus heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

M. Lundesjö Ahnström ,
A. Hessle ,
L. Johansson ,
M. C. Hunt  and
K. Lundström
M. Lundesjö Ahnström
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7051, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
A. Hessle
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
L. Johansson
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7051, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
M. C. Hunt
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
K. Lundström*
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7051, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of pelvic suspension and slaughter age on longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) from 40 heifers with at least 75% Angus breeding. A total of 20 heifers were slaughtered directly from pasture at 18 months of age, and carcass sides were hung either by the Achilles tendon or the pelvic bone. The other 20 heifers were assigned to an additional winter housing period and slaughtered at 22 months of age; carcass sides were hung only by Achilles suspension. All carcasses were electrically stimulated and assessed according to the EUROP carcass classification system. In addition, the LTL muscles were aged for 7 or 14 days before meat quality was evaluated for intramuscular fat (IMF), drip loss, colour, shear force, compression and sensory analysis. The 22-month-old heifers were heavier, fatter and had more IMF than 18-month-old heifers. Conformation scores (muscling) did not differ between the two slaughter groups. Pelvic suspension reduced both between- and within-animal variation for peak force, total energy and compression peak force. For the 18-month-old heifers, pelvic suspension also decreased peak force, total energy and compression variables for the LTL muscles from both ageing periods, whereas Achilles-suspended samples had lower shear force values only at day 14. Sensory analysis showed that pelvic-suspended sides had greater tenderness, lower bite resistance, less threadiness, higher juiciness and meat flavour and less visible marbling than meat from Achilles-suspended sides. Pelvic-suspended sides at 18 months of age were similar in peak force and total energy values to the 22-month-old heifers. The importance of ageing the Achilles-suspended sides was more obvious for samples from 18-month-old heifers than from the 22-month-old animals. The correlations between the different instrumental measurements and sensory tenderness were considerably higher for carcasses suspended by the Achilles tendon (r = −0.55 to 0.20) than for those hung by the pelvic bone (r = −0.25 to 0.19). More correlations between sensory-evaluated tenderness and shear variables were significant after 7 days (n = 6) of ageing than after 14 days (n = 4) of ageing. This study clearly shows the benefits of pelvic suspension, which reduces the need for additional feeding after pasture.

Keywords

beefpelvic suspensiontendernessshear forcecompression
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1554 - 1562
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

Ahnström, ML, Enfält, A-C, Hansson, I, Lundström, K 2006. Pelvic suspension improves quality characteristics in M. semimembranosus from Swedish dual purpose young bulls. Meat Science 72, 555–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahnström, ML, Hessle, A, Johansson, L, Hunt, MC, Lundstrom, K 2009. Influence of carcass suspension on meat quality of Charolais heifers from two sustainable feeding regimes. Animal 3, 906–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahnström, ML, Hunt, MC, Lundström, K 2011. Effects of pelvic suspension of beef carcasses on quality and physical traits of five muscles from four gender-age groups. Meat Science 90, 528–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnier, VMH, Smulders, FJM 1994. The effect of pelvic suspension on shear force values in various beef muscles. In 40th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, the Hague, the Netherlands, S-IVB,05.Google Scholar
Boakye, K, Mittal, GS 1993. Changes in pH and water holding properties of longissimus dorsi muscle during beef ageing. Meat Science 34, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouton, PE, Harris, PV 1972. The effects of some post-slaughter treatments on the mechanical properties of bovine and ovine muscle. Journal of Food Science 37, 539–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, PE, Fisher, AL, Harris, PV, Baxter, RI 1973. A comparison of the effects of some post-slaughter treatments on the tenderness of beef. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 8, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, PE, Ford, AL, Harris, PV, Ratcliff, D 1975. Objective-subjective assessment of meat tenderness. Journal of Texture Studies 6, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowling, RA, Smith, GC, Carpenter, ZL, Dutson, TR, Oliver, WM 1977. Comparison of forage-finished and grain-finished beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 45, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, PL, Hunecke, ME 1985. Correlations of sensory and instrumental evaluations of roast beef texture. Journal of Food Science 50, 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, S, Novakofski, J 2008. Consumer sensory evaluations of aging effects on beef quality. Journal of Food Science 73, S78–S82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claus, JR, Wang, H, Marriott, NG 1997. Prerigor carcass muscle stretching effects on tenderness of grain-fed beef under commercial conditions. Journal of Food Science 62, 1231–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 2005. Council regulation determining the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. In Council Regulation 2005/0171, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, p. 13.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, W, Lues, JFR, Joubert, G, Shale, K, Jacoby, A, Hugo, A 2007. Effect of electrical stimulation, suspension method and aging on beef tenderness of the Bonsmara breed. Journal of Muscle Foods 18, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gariepy, C, Jones, SDM, Robertson, WM 1990. Variation in meat quality at 3 sites along the length of the beef longissimus muscle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 707–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunert, KG 1997. What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference 8, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessle, A, Nadeau, E, Johnsson, S 2007. Beef heifer production as affected by indoor feed intensity and slaughter age when grazing semi-natural grasslands in summer. Livestock Science 111, 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honikel, KO 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hostetler, RL, Landmann, WA, Link, BA, Fitzhugh, HA Jr 1970. Influence of carcass position during rigor mortis on tenderness of beef muscles: comparison of two treatments. Journal of Animal Science 31, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostetler, RL, Carpenter, ZL, Smith, GC, Dutson, TR 1975. Comparison of post mortem treatments for improving tenderness of beef. Journal of Food Science 40, 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO 1985. Sensory analysis–methodology–flavour profile methods. Ref. no. ISO 6564:1985. ISO, Geneva.Google Scholar
ISO 1988. Sensory analysis – general guidance for the design of testrooms. Ref. no. ISO 8598:1988 (E). ISO, Geneva.Google Scholar
ISO 1993. Sensory analysis – general guidance for selection, training and monitoring of assessors. Ref. no. ISO 8586-1:1993 (E). ISO, Geneva.Google Scholar
Jeremiah, LE, Dugan, MER, Aalhus, JL, Gibson, LL 2003. Assessment of the chemical and cooking properties of the major beef muscles and muscle groups. Meat Science 65, 985–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larmond, E, Petrasovits, A 1972. Relationship between Warner–Bratzler and sensory determinations of beef tenderness by the method of paired comparisons. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal 5, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, GE, Reed, AW, Rogers, SA 1991a. Influence of feeding regimen on the sensory qualities and fatty acid contents of beef steaks. Journal of Food Science 56, 1102–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, GE, Giles, JE, Rogers, SA, Tan, LT, Naidoo, RJ, Ferguson, DM 1991b. Tenderizing, ageing, and thawing effects on sensory, chemical, and physical properties of beef steaks. Journal of Food Science 56, 1125–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, MT, Joo, ST, Kim, B, Troy, DJ 1999. Influence of post-mortem hanging methods on beef tenderness. Proceedings of the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 466–467.Google Scholar
Ngapo, TM, Dransfield, E 2006. British consumers preferred fatness levels in beef: surveys from 1955, 1982 and 2002. Food Quality and Preference 17, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NMKL (Nordic Committee on Food Analysis) 1989. NMKL no. 131-1989 fat. Determination according to SBR (Schmid-Bondsyndski-Ratslaff) in meat and meat products. NMKL, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Peachey, BM, Purchas, RW, Duizer, LM 2002. Relationships between sensory and objective measures of meat tenderness of beef M. longissimus thoracis from bulls and steers. Meat Science 60, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroeder, JW, Cramer, DA, Bowling, RA 1982. Postmortem muscle alterations in beef carcass temperature, pH and palatability from electrical stimulation. Journal of Animal Science 54, 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture 1998. Directions of classifications of carcasses from the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Proceedings of the SJVFS 127. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jönköping (in Swedish).Google Scholar
Szczesniak, AS 1968. Correlations between objective and sensory texture measurements. Food Technology 22, 49–54.Google Scholar
Toscas, PJ, Shaw, FD, Beilken, SL 1999. Partial least squares (PLS) regression for the analysis of instrument measurements and sensory meat quality data. Meat Science 52, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troy, DJ 1999. Enhancing the tenderness of beef, Research report, The National Food Centre, Dublin, Ireland, No. 11, 28pp. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/foodprocessing/3916/eopr-3916.pdf Google Scholar
Wahlgren, NM, Göransson, M, Linden, H, Willhammar, O 2002. Reducing the influence of animal variation and ageing on beef tenderness. Proceedings of the 48th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Rome, Italy, pp. 240–241.Google Scholar