Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:14:51.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in meat quality characteristics between Sanga (Bos taurus africanus) and Sanga-derived cattle breeds and between Sanga and Brahman (Bos indicus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2010

P. E. Strydom ,
L. Frylinck  and
M. F. Smith
P. E. Strydom*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Animal Production Institute, Private Bag X2, Irene 0062, South Africa
L. Frylinck
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Animal Production Institute, Private Bag X2, Irene 0062, South Africa
M. F. Smith
Affiliation:
Biometry Unit, Agricultural Research Council, PO Box 8783, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Cattle breeds indigenous to Africa (Sanga) compare favourably to Bos indicus breeds with regard to adaptation to harsh environments. This study compared the meat quality of three Sanga breeds (Nguni, Tuli and Drakensberger), a Sanga-related breed (Bonsmara) and a B. indicus breed (Brahman) and supported these results with biochemical and histological measurements on the M. longissimus lumborum. Twelve young grain-fed steers of each breed were slaughtered and carcasses were electrically stimulated. All Sanga (and related) breeds, with the exception of the Tuli, had lower Warner–Bratzler shear force (SF) values at 2 and 21 days post mortem compared with the BR (P < 0.05). Measurements related to the calcium-dependent protease system and myofibrillar fragmentation explained the bulk of the variation among breeds, whereas variation in fibre type, sarcomere length and connective tissue properties gave less convincing support. With the exception of the Tuli, Sanga and Sanga-related breeds produced more tender (according to SF) meat than BR, mainly due to favourable calpain-to-calpastatin ratios. Small differences in colour, drip loss and cooking properties were found among breeds (P < 0.05).

Keywords

SangaBrahmanshear forcecalcium-dependent proteasemuscle fibre types
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 483 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Agricultural Product Standards 1999. Regulations regarding the classification and marketing of meat (Act no. 119 of 1990). National Department of Agriculture, Government Gazette of South Africa no. R 342, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
American Meat Science Association (AMSA) 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness of fresh meat. National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2000. Statistics of the national beef cattle improvement scheme 1993–1998. In Beef breeding in South Africa (ed. MM Scholtz, L Bergh and D Bosman), pp. 147–149. Agricultural Research Council, Animal Improvement Institute, Irene, South Africa.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bergman, I, Loxley, R 1963. Two improved and simplified methods for the spectrophotometric determination of hydroxyproline. Analytical Chemistry 35, 1961–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsma, JC 1980. Cross-breeding, breed creation and the genesis of the Bonsmara. In Livestock production. A global approach (ed. JC Bonsma), pp. 126–136. Tafelberg Publishers Ltd., Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Cartwright, TC 1980. Prognosis of Zebu cattle: research and application. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1221–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casas, E, Cundiff, LV 2003. Maternal grandsire, granddam, and sire breed effects on growth and carcass traits of crossbred cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 904–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crouse, JD, Cundiff, LV, Koch, RM, Koohmaraie, M, Seideman, SC 1989. Comparisons of Bos indicus and Bos taurus inheritance for carcass beef characteristics and meat palatability. Journal of Animal Science 67, 2661–2668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culler, RD, Parrish, FC, Smith, GC, Cross, HR 1978. Relationship of myofibril fragmentation index to certain chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of bovine longissimus muscle. Journal of Food Science 43, 1177–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hertog-Meischke, MJA, Smulders, FJM, Van Logtestijn, JG, Van Knapen, F 1997. The effect of electrical stimulation on the water-holding capacity and protein denaturation of two bovine muscles. Journal of Animal Science 75, 118–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dransfield, E 1994. Modelling post-mortem tenderization – V: inactivation of calpains. Meat Science 37, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dransfield, E 1996. Calpains from thaw rigor muscle. Meat Science 43, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dreyer, JH, Van Rensburg, AJJ, Naudé, RT, Gouws, PJ, Stiemie, S 1979. The effect of chilling temperatures and mode of suspension of beef carcasses on sarcomere length and meat tenderness. South African Journal of Animal Science 9, 1–9.Google Scholar
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, 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frylinck, L, Strydom, PE, Smith, MF, Heinze, PH 2001. Evaluation of meat tenderness of indigenous South African cattle breeds. In Proceedings of the 47th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, 26–31 August 2001, vol 2, pp. 268–269. Krakow, Poland.Google Scholar
Gazzola, C, O’Neill, CJ, Frisch, JE 1999. Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins. Animal Science 69, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geesink, GH, Koohmaraie, M 1999. Effect of calpastatin on degradation of myofibrillar proteins by μ-calpain under postmortem conditions. Journal Animal Science 77, 2685–2692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grau, R, Hamm, R 1953. Eine einfache Methode zur Bestimmung der Wasserbindung im Muskel. Naturwissenschaften 40, 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hector, DA, Brew-Graves, C, Hassen, N, Ledward, DA 1992. Relationship between myosin denaturation and the colour of low-voltage-electrically-stimulated beef. Meat Science 31, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegarty, PVJ, Naudé, RT 1970. The accuracy of measurement of individual skeletal muscle fibres separated by a rapid technique. Laboratory Practice 19, 161–163.Google ScholarPubMed
Heinze, PH, Bruggemann, D 1994. Ageing of beef: Influence of two ageing methods on sensory properties and myofibrillar proteins. Sciences des Aliments 14, 387–399.Google Scholar
Herring, AD, Sanders, JO, Knutson, RE, Lunt, DK 1996. Evaluation of F1 calves sired by Brahman, Boran, and Tuli bulls for birth, growth, size, and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 74, 955–964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, F 1966. The solubility of intramuscular collagen on meat animals of various ages. Journal of Food Science 31, 161–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, RD, Williams, SE, Hargrove, DD, Johnson, DD, Marshall, TT 1990. Effects of percentage Brahman and Angus breeding, age/season of feeding and slaughter endpoint on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2243–2252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irie, M, Izumo, A, Mohri, S 1996. Rapid method for determining water-holding capacity in meat using Video Image Analysis and simple formulae. Meat Science 42, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, MH, Calkins, CR, Huffman, RD, Johnson, DD, Hargrove, DD 1990. Differences in cathepsin B+L and calcium-dependent protease activities among breed type and their relationship to beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2371–2379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, RM, Dikeman, ME, Crouse, JD 1982. Characterization of biological types of cattle (Cycle III). III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. Journal of Animal Science 54, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koohmaraie, M 1992. Effect of pH, temperature, and inhibitors on autolysis and catalytic activity of bovine skeletal muscle μ-calpain. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3071–3080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefaucheur, L 2010. A second look into fibre typing – relation to meat quality. Meat Science 84, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDougall, DB 1977. Colour in meat. In Sensory properties of foods (ed. GG Birch, JG Brennan and KJ Parker), pp. 56–59. Applied Science Publishers, London, UK.Google Scholar
MacDougall, DB 1982. Changes in the colour and opacity of meat. Food Chemistry 9, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malaty, HA, Bourne, GH 1953. Histochemistry of succinic dehydrogenase. Nature 171, 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maule, JP 1973. The role of the indigenous breeds for beef production in Southern Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science 3, 111–132.Google Scholar
Meissner, HH, Roux, CZ 1982. Towards an understanding of the concept of genotype-dietary interaction. South African Journal of Animal Science 12, 347–354.Google Scholar
Meyer, EHH 1984. Chromosomal and biochemical genetic markers of cattle breeds in Southern Africa. In Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding (ed. RA Barton and WC Smith), pp. 328–339.Google Scholar
O’Connor, SF, Tatum, JD, Wulf, DM, Green, RD, Smith, GC 1997. Genetic effects on beef tenderness in Bos indicus composite and Bos taurus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1822–1830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Offer, G 1991. Modeling of the formation of pale, soft and exudative meat: effects of chilling regime and rate and extent of glycolysis. Meat Science 30, 157–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osler, EH, Meyer, JHF, Linington, MJ, Van der Merwe, PJ 1993. Adaptability of indigenous cattle. In Proceedings of the South African Society for Animal Science. Developing areas branch symposium, 11–14 October 1993, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Payne, WJA 1964. The origin of domestic cattle in Africa Empire. Journal of Experimental Agriculture 32, 97–113.Google Scholar
Payne, RW, Murray, DA, Harding, SA, Baird, DB, Soutar, DM 2007. GenStat for Windows® (10th Edition) Introduction. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Plasse, D, Warnick, AC, Koger, M 1968. Reproductive behaviour of Bos indicus females in a subtropical environment. I. Puberty and ovulation frequency in Brahman and Brahman × British heifers. Journal of Animal Science 27, 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, TD, Williams, SE, Lamb, BS, Johnson, DD, West, RL 1997. Carcass characteristics, the calpain proteinase system, and aged tenderness of Angus and Brahman crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2955–2961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, WL, De Rouen, TM, Moin, S, Koonce, KL 1980. Factors influencing gestation length, birth weight and calf survival of Angus, Zebu and Zebu cross beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 51, 860–867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sammel, LM, Hunt, MC, Kropf, DH, Hachmeister, KA, Kastner, CL, Johnson, DE 2002. Influence of chemical characteristics of beef inside and outside semimembranosus of colour traits. Journal of Food Science 67, 1323–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, SJ 1989. Review: Recent research into the production potential of indigenous cattle with specific reference to Sanga. South African Journal of Animal Science 19, 55–61.Google Scholar
Scholtz, MM 1988. Selection possibilities of hardy beef breeds in Africa: the Nguni example. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeds, 19–23 June 1988, Paris, France, pp. 303–319.Google Scholar
Seideman, SC, Crouse, JD, Cross, HR 1986. The effect of sex condition and growth implants on bovine muscle fiber characteristics. Meat Science 17, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seideman, SC, Koohmaraie, M, Crouse, JD 1987. Factors associated with tenderness in young beef. Meat Science 20, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M, Wheeler, TL 1995. Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. Journal Animal Science 73, 3333–3340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M, Miller, MF, Crouse, JD, Reagan, JO 1991. An evaluation of tenderness of the longissimus muscle of Angus by Hereford versus Brahman crossbred heifers. Journal Animal Science 69, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strydom, PE, Naudé, RT, Scholtz, MM, Van Wyk, JB 2000a. Characterisation of indigenous cattle breeds in relation to carcass characteristics. Animal Production 70, 241–252.Google Scholar
Strydom, PE, Naudé, RT, Scholtz, MM, Van Wyk, JB 2000b. Characterisation of indigenous cattle breeds in relation to meat quality characteristics. Meat Science 55, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strydom, PE, Frylinck, L, Van Der Westhuizen, J, Burrow, HM 2008. Growth performance, feed efficiency and carcass and meat quality of tropically adapted breed types from different farming systems in South Africa. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, G, Lochner, JV, Marsh, BB 1984. Effects of low frequency electrical stimulation on beef tenderness. Meat Science 11, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, RG 2004. Muscle fibre types and meat quality. In Encyclopedia of Meat Science (ed. WK Jensen, C Devine, M Dikeman), pp. 876–882. Elsevier Academic Press, Bristol, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R 1973. The determination of hydroxyproline and chloride in meat and meat products: Simultaneous operation with nitrogen and phosphorus determinations. Technical Report 7, Technicon International Division SA, Geneva.Google Scholar
Wheeler, TL, Koohmaraie, M 1994. Pre-rigor and post rigor changes in tenderness of ovine longissimus muscle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, TL, Cundiff, LV, Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M 2001. Characterization of biological types of cattle (Cycle V): carcass traits and longissimus palatability. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1209–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, TL, Savell, JW, Cross, HR, Lunt, DK, Smith, SB 1990. Mechanisms associated with the variation on tenderness of meat from Brahman and Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68, 4206–4220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whipple, G, Koohmaraie, M, Dikeman, ME, Crouse, JD 1990a. Predicting beef-longissimus tenderness from various biochemical and histological muscle traits. Journal of Animal Science 68, 4193–4199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whipple, G, Koohmaraie, M, Dikeman, ME, Crouse, JD, Hunt, MC, Klemm, RD 1990b. Evaluation of attributes that effect Longissimus muscle tenderness in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2716–2728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed