Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:06:04.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of organoleptic quality and composition of beef from suckler bulls from different production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

G. B. Mezgebo ,
A. P. Moloney ,
E. G. O’Riordan ,
M. McGee ,
R. I. Richardson  and
F. J. Monahan
G. B. Mezgebo
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath C15PW93, Ireland
A. P. Moloney*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath C15PW93, Ireland
E. G. O’Riordan
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath C15PW93, Ireland
M. McGee
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, County Meath C15PW93, Ireland
R. I. Richardson
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
F. J. Monahan
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
† E-mail: Aidan.Moloney@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Bull beef production is traditionally based on high concentrate rations fed indoors. Inclusion of grazed grass, which is generally a cheaper feed, would decrease the cost of bull beef production, but may affect beef quality. Accordingly, the organoleptic quality and composition of beef from continental-sired suckler bulls (n=126) assigned to either ad libitum concentrates to slaughter (C), grass silage (GS) ad libitum for 120 days followed by C (GSC) or GS followed by 100 days at pasture and then C (GSPC) and slaughtered at target carcass weights (CW) of 360, 410 or 460 kg was examined. Tenderness, flavour liking and overall liking were lower (P<0.05) for GSPC than for C and GSC. Intramuscular fat content and soluble collagen proportion were lower (P<0.05) for GSPC than GSC which was lower (P<0.05) than C. Soluble collagen proportion was lower (P<0.05) for 460 kg than 410 kg CW, which was lower (P<0.05) than 360 kg CW. Inclusion of a grazing period decreased the ratings of tenderness, flavour liking and overall liking, but age of the bulls at slaughter had no clear influence on sensory characteristics.

Keywords

beeftendernessflavourjuicinessfat colour

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 538 - 546
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anon 2004. Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. EC No. 1208/81 and 2930/81. Published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Anon 2005. Handbook of Australian meat. 7th edition. AUS-MEAT Limited, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Moisture and fat in meat and poultry products. In Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (ed. P Cunniff). AOAC International, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Baublits, RT, Pohlman, FW, Brown, AH, Johnson, ZB, Rule, DC, Onks, DO, Murrieta, CM, Richards, CJ, Sandelin, BA, Loveday, HD and Pugh, RB 2006. Comparison of fatty acid and sensory profiles of beef from forage-fed cattle with retail USDA choice and select beef. Journal of Muscle Foods 17, 311–329.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, 2011. Bord Bia, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (BSI) 1993. BSI assessors for sensory analysis. BS7667, part 1. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors. 1993/ISO 8586 – 1:1993. BSI, London, UK.Google 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.Google Scholar
Caplis, J, Keane, MG, Moloney, AP and O’Mara, FP 2005. Effects of supplementary concentrate level with grass silage, and separate or total mixed ration feeding, on performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 27–43.Google Scholar
Cerdeno, A, Vieira, C, Serrano, E, Lavın, P and Mantecon, AR 2005. Effects of feeding strategy during a short finishing period on performance, carcass and meat quality in previously-grazed young bulls. Meat Science 72, 719–726.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
French, P, Stanton, C, Lawless, F, O’Riordan, EG, Monahan, FJ, Caffrey, PJ and Moloney, AP 2000. Fatty acid composition, including conjugated linoleic acid, of intramuscular fat from steers offered grazed grass, grass silage, or concentrate based diets. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2849–2855.Google 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
Grunert, KG, Bredahl, L and Bunsæ, K 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector: a review. Meat Science 66, 259–272.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
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 ScholarPubMed
MacFie, HJ, Bratchell, N, Greenhoff, K and Vallis, LV 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 4, 129–148.Google Scholar
McCaughey, WP and Cliplef, RL 1996. Carcass and organoleptic characteristics of meat from steers grazed on alfalfa/grass pastures and finished on grain. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 149–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, RJ 1994. The flexibility of the collagen compartment of muscle. Meat Science 36, 79–91.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
Pethick, DW and Rowe, JB 1996. Effect of nutrition and exercise on carcase parameters and the level of glycogen in skeletal muscle of Merino sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 525–537.Google Scholar
Pethick, DW, Rowe, JB and McIntyre, B 1994. Effect of diet and exercise on glycogen levels in the muscle of cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 20, 403.Google Scholar
Priolo, A, Micol, D and Agabriel, J 2001. Effects of grass feeding systems on ruminant meat colour and flavour. A review. Journal of Animal Research 50, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollan, ND, Dannenberger, D, Nuernberg, K, Richardson, I, MacKintosh, S, Hocquette, J-F and Moloney, AP 2014. Enhancing the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Science 97, 384–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, KD, Cuthbertson, A, Rutter, A and Franklin, MF 1998. The effects of age at slaughter, genotype and finishing system on the organoleptic properties and texture of bull beef from suckled calves. Journal of Animal Science 66, 329–340.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, M, Therkildsen, M, Henckel, P, Jensen, LR, Andersen, HR and 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.Google Scholar
Warriss, PD 2010. Meat science: an introductory text, 2nd edition. CABI Publishing, London, UK.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mezgebo supplementary material

Mezgebo supplementary material 1

Download Mezgebo supplementary material(File)
File 55.6 KB