Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:39:49.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of carcass suspension on meat quality of Charolais heifers from two sustainable feeding regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

M. L. Ahnström ,
A. Hessle ,
L. Johansson ,
M. C. Hunt  and
K. Lundström
M. L. 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 on the meat quality of M. longissimus dorsi, M. semimembranosus and M. adductor from 35 heifers with at least 75% Charolais breeding. Two-thirds of the heifers were slaughtered directly from pasture at 18 months of age and one-third was finished indoors and slaughtered at 22 months. After slaughter and electrical stimulation one side of each carcass was re-suspended by either the achilles tendon or the pelvic bone. Longissimus muscles were aged 7 or 14 days and were then evaluated for drip loss, colour, shear force and sensory analysis. As compared to 18-month-old heifers, 22-month-old heifers were heavier, more muscular and fatter (P < 0.05). Intramuscular fat content increased with slaughter age (P < 0.003). Pelvic suspension reduced longissimus peak force values, total energy, pH and thawing losses (P < 0.05) in heifers slaughtered at 18 months. Semimembranosus showed the largest response to pelvic suspension with significantly lower peak force and total energy values. Finishing for 4 months did not affect longissimus shear forces. Achilles-suspended samples had lower shear force values after 14 v. 7 days of ageing. Pelvic-suspended samples aged 7 days were, however, just as tender as those aged 14 days. Sensory analysis of longissimus samples aged 14 days showed that samples from pelvic-suspended sides had higher tenderness, lower bite resistance, more meaty taste and less visible marbling compared with samples from achilles-suspended carcasses.

Keywords

beefpelvic suspensionachilles suspensiontendernessshear force
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 906 - 913
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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 2008. Influence of pelvic suspension on beef meat quality. Doctoral Dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2008:61. Available online: http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00001808/Google Scholar
Ahnström, ML, Hansson, I, Wiklund, E, Lundström, K 2005. Shear force and sarcomere length in five pelvic suspended muscles from different bovine genders. In 51st International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
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
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
Bowling, RA, Riggs, JK, Smith, GC, Carpenter, ZL, Reddish, RL, Butler, OD 1978. Production, carcass and palatability characteristics of steers produced by different management systems. Journal of Animal Science 46, 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, HL, Stark, JL, Beilken, SL 2004. The effects of finishing diet and postmortem ageing on the eating quality of the M. longissimus thoracis of electrically stimulated Brahman steer carcasses. Meat Science 67, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle 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
Eikelenboom, G, Barnier, VMH, Hoving-Bolink, AH, Smulders, FJM, Culioli, J 1998. Effect of pelvic suspension and cooking temperature on the tenderness of electrically stimulated and aged beef, assessed with shear and compression tests. Meat Science 49, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enfält, A-C, Lundesjö Ahnström, M, Svensson, K, Hansson, I, Lundström, K 2004. Tenderness in M. Longissimus dorsi from cows – effect of pelvic suspension and ageing time. In 50th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Fisher, AV, Nute, GR, Fursey, GAJ, Cook, G 1994. Post mortem manipulation of beef quality. Meat Focus International 3, 62–65.Google Scholar
Gruber, SL, Tatum, JD, Scanga, JA, Chapman, PL, Smith, GC, Belk, KE 2006. Effects of post mortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner–Bratzler shear force values of seventeen individual beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3387–3396.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
Harper, GS 1999. Trends in skeletal muscle biology and the understanding of toughness in beef. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1105–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, AR, Smith, ME, Allen, DM, Hunt, MC, Kastner, CL, Kropf, DH 1978. Nutritional regime effects on quality and yield characteristics of beef. Journal of Animal Science 47, 383–388.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
Hoving-Bolink, AH, Hanekamp, WJA, Walstra, P 1999. Effects of sire breed and husbandry system on carcass, meat and eating quality of Piemontese and Limousin crossbred bulls and heifers. Livestock Production Science 57, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, KL, Miller, MF, Hoover, LC, Wu, CK, Brittin, HC, Ramsey, CB 1996. Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koohmaraie, M 1996. Biochemical factors regulating the toughening and tenderization processes of meat. Meat Science 43, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, A, Buckley, DJ, Galvin, K, Mullen, AM, Troy, DJ, Kerry, JP 2002. Evaluation of rib steak colour from Friesian, Hereford and Charolais heifers pastured or overwintered prior to slaughter. Meat Science 61, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maher, SC, Mullen, AM, Moloney, AP, Buckley, DJ, Kerry, JP 2004. Quantifying the extent of variation in the eating quality traits of the M. longissimus dorsi and M. semimembranosus of conventionally processed Irish beef. Meat Science 66, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, SC, Mullen, AM, Moloney, AP, Reville, W, Buckley, DJ, Kerry, JP, Troy, DJ 2005. Ultrastructural variation in beef M. longissimus dorsi as an explanation of the variation in beef tenderness. Journal of Food Science 70, E579–E584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, MT, Joo, ST, Kim, B, Troy, DJ 1999. Influence of post mortem hanging methods on beef tenderness. In 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 1989. NMKL No. 131-1989 Fat. Determination according to SBR (Schmid–Bondsyndski–Ratslaff) in meat and meat products. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL), Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Novakofski, J, Brewer, S 2006. The paradox of toughening during the aging of tender steaks. Journal of Food Science 71, S473–S479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, JM, Ferguson, DM, Perry, D, Egan, AF 1998. Mechanism of tenderness improvement in tenderstretched beef carcasses. In 44th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Smulders, FJM, Hiesberger, J, Hofbauer, P, Dogl, B, Dransfield, E 2006. Modified-atmosphere storage under subatmospheric pressure and beef quality: II. Color, drip, cooking loss, sarcomere length, and tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2456–2462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørheim, O, Idland, J, Halvorsen, EC, Frøystein, T, Lea, P, Hildrum, KI 2001. Influence of beef carcass stretching and chilling rate on tenderness of M. longissimus dorsi. Meat Science 57, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ 1995. Effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on the carcass composition of serially slaughtered bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 43, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, M, Therkildsen, M, Henckel, P, Jensen, LR, Andersen, HR, Sejrsen, K 2000. Influence of feeding intensity, grazing and finishing feeding on meat and eating quality of young bulls and the relationship between muscle fibre characteristics, fibre fragmentation and meat tenderness. Meat Science 54, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahlgren, NM, Göransson, M, Linden, H, Willhammar, O 2002. Reducing the influence of animal variation and ageing on beef tenderness. In 48th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Rome, Italy, pp. 240–241.Google Scholar
Wheeler, TL, Shackelford, SD, Johnson, LP, Miller, MF, Miller, RK, Koohmaraie, M 1997. A comparison of Warner–Bratzler shear force assessment within and among institutions. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2423–2432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed