Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:11:12.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biochemical and organoleptic characteristics of muscle from early and late maturing bulls in different production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

G. B. Mezgebo ,
F. J. Monahan ,
M. McGee ,
E. G. O’Riordan ,
B. Picard ,
R. I. Richardson  and
A. P. Moloney
G. B. Mezgebo
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath, Ireland
F. J. Monahan*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. McGee
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath, Ireland
E. G. O’Riordan
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath, Ireland
B. Picard
Affiliation:
UMR1213 Herbivores, INRA, VetAgro Sup, Clermont Université, Université de Lyon, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
R. I. Richardson
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
A. P. Moloney
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath, Ireland
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In grass-based beef production systems (PS), early maturing (EM) breed types may be preferable to late maturing (LM) breed types in achieving adequate carcass fat cover. Biochemical and organoleptic characteristics of muscle from suckler bulls were investigated in EM and LM (n=28/breed) assigned to one of two PS (ad libitum concentrates and grass silage to slaughter (C) or ad libitum silage plus 2 kg concentrate daily during winter followed by 99 days at pasture and then an indoor finishing period on C (GSPC)) in a 2 breed type×2 PS factorial arrangement of treatments. Bulls were managed to have a common target carcass weight of 380 kg. Intramuscular fat (IMF) content was higher (P<0.05) for EM than LM, and for C than GSPC bulls. Collagen solubility was higher (P<0.05) for C than GSPC bulls. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and phosphofructokinase activities were higher (P<0.05) for LM than EM. Isocitrate dehydrogenase activity and the Type I myosin heavy chain (MyHC) proportion were higher (P<0.05) for EM than LM. The LDH activity and the Type IIX MyHC proportion were higher (P<0.05) for C than GSPC bulls. Sensory ratings for tenderness and juiciness were higher (P<0.01) for beef from EM than LM while sensory ratings for tenderness, flavour liking and overall liking were higher (P<0.001) for C than for GSPC bulls. Differences in sensory quality were largely eliminated when adjusted for IMF. Overall, carcass fat scores, IMF and sensory scores were higher in EM than LM and in C than GSPC bulls but most differences in sensory quality could be attributed to differences in IMF.

Keywords

beefbreed typedietsensoryintramuscular fat
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , September 2017 , pp. 1636 - 1644
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Anon 2005. Handbook of Australian meat, 7th edition. AUS-MEAT Limited, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Moisture and fat in meat and poultry products. Official Methods 985.14 and 985.26 (ed. P Cunniff ), pp. 931–932. AOAC International, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Blanco, M, Jurie, C, Micol, D, Agabriel, J, Picard, B and Garcia-Launay, F 2013. Impact of animal and management factors on collagen characteristics in beef: a meta-analysis approach. Animal 7, 1208–1218.Google Scholar
Bord Bia 2011. Bord Bia – Irish Food Board Report, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Brandstetter, AM, Picard, B and Geay, G 1998. Muscle fibre characteristics in four muscles of growing male cattle: Effect of castration and feeding level. Livestock Production Science 53, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bures, D and Barton, L 2012. Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of bulls and heifers slaughtered at different ages. Czech Journal of Animal Science 57, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassar-Malek, I, Hocquette, JF, Jurie, C, Listrat, A, Jailler, R, Bauchart, D, Briand, Y and Picard, B 2004. Muscle-specific metabolic, histochemical and biochemical responses to a nutritionally induced discontinuous growth path. Animal Science 79, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, D 1994. Colour – its basis and importance. In Quality attributes and their measurement in meat, poultry and fish products – Advances in Meat Research Series (volume 9 ed. AM Pearson and TR Dutson), pp. 34–78. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
Cross, HR, Carpenter, ZL and Smith, GC 1973. Effects of intramuscular collagen and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. Journal of Food Science 38, 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, PG, O’Mara, FP, Monahan, FJ and Moloney, AP 2006. Changes in colour characteristics and pigmentation of subcutaneous adipose tissue and M. longissimus dorsi of heifers fed grass, grass silage or concentrate based diets. Meat Science 74, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O’Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D and Wallace, M 2011. Stochastic simulation of the cost of home-produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 150, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griebenow, RL, Martz, FA and Morrow, RE 1997. Forage based beef finishing systems: a review. Journal of Production Agriculture 10, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henckel, P, Oksbjerg, N, Erlandsen, E, Bartongade, P and Bejerholm, C 1997. Histo- and biochemical characteristics of the longissimus dorsi muscle in pigs and their relationships to performance and meat quality. Meat Science 47, 311–321.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J, Ortigues-Marty, I, Pethick, D, Herpin, P and Fernandez, X 1998. Nutritional and hormonal regulation of energy metabolism in skeletal muscles of meat-producing animals. Livestock Production Science 56, 115–143.Google Scholar
Hornick, JL, Van Eenaeme, C, Gérard, O, Dufrasne, I and Istasse, L 2000. Mechanisms of reduced and compensatory growth. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 19, 121–132.Google Scholar
Jurie, C, Ortigues-Marty, I, Picard, B, Micol, D and Hocquette, J 2006. The separate effects of the nature of diet and grazing mobility on metabolic potential of muscles from Charolais steers. Livestock Science 104, 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurie, C, Robelin, J, Picard, B and Geay, Y 1995. Post-natal changes in the biological characteristics of semitendinosus muscle in male Limousin cattle. Meat Science 41, 125–135.Google Scholar
Keane, MG 2011. Ranking of sire breeds and beef cross breeding of dairy and beef cows. Teagasc Occasional Series No. 9, March 1. Grange Beef Research Centre, County Meath, Ireland http://t-stor.teagasc.ie/bitstream/11019/810/1/Ranking_of_sire_breeds.pdf.Google Scholar
Klont, RE and Lambooy, E 1995. Effects of preslaughter muscle exercise on muscle metabolism and meat quality studied in anesthetized pigs of different halothane genotypes. Journal of Animal Science 73, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolar, K 1990. Colorimetric determination of hydroxyproline as measure of collagen content in meat and meat products: NMKL collaborative study. Journal Association of Official Analytical Chemists 73, 54–57.Google Scholar
Maltin, CA, Lobley, GE, Grant, CM, Miller, LA, Kyle, DJ, Horgan, GW, Matthews, KR and Sinclair, KD 2001. Factors influencing beef eating quality: effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics. Animal Science 72, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marren, D, McGee, M, Moloney, AP, Kelly, A and O’Riordan, EG 2013. Comparison of early- and late-maturing suckler-bred bulls on contrasting production systems, slaughtered at three carcass weights. Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, p. 72. Tullamore, County Offaly, Ireland.Google Scholar
McCormick, RJ 1994. The flexibility of the collagen compartment of muscle. Meat Science 36, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, M 2012. Review of Irish suckler cow types: research perspective. In ‘Setting a New Direction for Suckler Cow Breeding’. Proceedings of the Teagasc-ICBF Suckler Cow Breeding Conference, pp. 1–19. Tullamore, Ireland, 11 October 2012.Google Scholar
Mezgebo, GB, Moloney, AP, O’Riordan, EG, McGee, M, Richardson, IR and Monahan, FJ 2016. Comparison of organoleptic quality and composition of beef from suckler bulls from different production systems. Animal, first published online 30 October 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moloney, AP and Richardson, IR 2013. Sensory characteristics of muscle from Angus×Holstein/Friesian and Belgian Blue×Holstein/Friesian heifers slaughtered at two ages. Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, p. 32. Tullamore, County Offaly, Ireland.Google Scholar
Monin, G and Ouali, A 1991. Muscle differentiation and meat quality. In Developments in meat science (ed. RA Lawrie), pp. 89–157. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.Google Scholar
Nishimura, T 2015. Role of extracellular matrix in development of skeletal muscle and postmortem aging of meat. Meat Science 109, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Riordan, EG, Crosson, P and McGee, M 2011. Finishing male cattle from the beef suckler herd. Irish Grassland Association Journal 45, 131–146.Google Scholar
Oddy, VH, Harper, GS, Greenwood, PL and McDonagh, MB 2001. Nutritional and developmental effects on the intrinsic properties of muscles as they relate to the eating quality of beef. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 921–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picard, B, Barboiron, C, Chadeyron, D and Jurie, C 2011. Protocol for high‐resolution electrophoresis separation of myosin heavy chain isoforms in bovine skeletal muscle. Electrophoresis 32, 1804–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picard, B and Cassar-Malek, I 2009. Evidence for expression of IIb myosin heavy chain isoform in some skeletal muscles of Blonde d’Aquitaine bulls. Meat Science 82, 30–36.Google Scholar
Priolo, A, Micol, D and Agabriel, J 2001. Effects of grass feeding systems on ruminant meat colour and flavour. A review. Animal Research 50, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, K, Lobley, G, Horgan, G, Kyle, D, Porter, A, Matthews, K, Warkup, C and Maltin, C 2001. Factors influencing beef eating quality. 1. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on organoleptic properties and instrumental texture. Animal Science 72, 269–278.Google Scholar
Therkildsen, M, Vestergaard, M, Jensen, LR, Andersen, HR and Sejrsen, K 1998. Effect of feeding level, grazing and fnishing on growth and carcass quality of young Friesian bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 48, 193–201.Google Scholar
Thompson, J 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
Warriss, PD 2010. Meat science: an introductory text, 2nd edition. CABI Publishing, London, UK.Google Scholar