Consumer sensory evaluation and chemical composition of beef gluteus medius and triceps brachii steaks from cattle finished on forage or concentrate diets

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of cattle finishing diet and muscle type on meat quality. Consumer sensory response, proximate composition, Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), fatty acid composition, and volatile compounds were assessed from the gluteus medius (GM) and triceps brachii (TB) muscles of cattle ( = 6 per diet) which were grain-finished (USUGrain) on conventional feedlot or 2 forage diets, a perennial legume, birdsfoot trefoil-finished (USUBFT; ), and grass-finished (USUGrass; ). Diet had an interacting effect with muscle for all sensory attributes ( ≤ 0.002), except aroma and flavor ( ≥ 0.078). In forage-finished beef, tenderness, fattiness, overall liking, and WBSF tenderness of GM was greater ( < 0.05) than TB, whereas for USUGrain, the tenderness, fattiness, overall liking, and WBSF tenderness of both muscles were similar ( > 0.05) but the juiciness of TB was more liked than USUGrain GM ( < 0.05). The juiciness of forage-finished beef did not differ ( > 0.05) between GM and TB. Lower ( < 0.05) intramuscular fat (IMF) percent was determined for USUGrass beef in comparison with USUGrain beef. The IMF percent of USUBFT beef was similar ( > 0.05) to both USUGrass and USUGrain beef. However, IMF percent was not impacted by muscle type ( = 0.092). The ratio of -6:-3 fatty acids was affected by muscle dependent on diet ( = 0.016). The ratio of -6:-3 fatty acids was affected by the interaction of muscle × diet ( = 0.016). Between forage diets (USUGrass and USUBFT), -6:-3 ratios were similar ( > 0.05) between GM and TB, whereas within USUGrain, the GM was greater ( < 0.05) than the TB. Cumulative MUFA was greater ( < 0.05) in USUGrain compared with both USUGrass and USUBFT, which were similar ( > 0.05). Strecker aldehydes, ketones, pyrazines, and methional were affected ( ≤ 0.036) by muscle and found to have a greater concentration in GM compared with TB. Overall, consumers determined that USUGrain GM and TB had similar ( > 0.05) quality ratings. However, within forage-finished beef, the GM was perceived more frequently ( < 0.05) to be of premium quality and the forage-finished TB was more frequently ( < 0.05) rated as having unsatisfactory quality. These findings were in agreement with ratings of tenderness and overall liking. Therefore, in the context of our consumer group grilled GM and TB steaks, grain-finished beef provided more uniform quality and eating experience compared with forage-finished beef.

Effect of Post-Weaning Concentrate Feeding Prior to Forage Finishing on Intramuscular Fat Deposition

“…Feeding concentrates for 120 day post-weaning also increased the total lipid content and total fatty acid content in the longissimus muscle at slaughter by 95% compared to forage-only feeding (PW0). Other authors also reported that cattle consuming a highconcentrate-based diet have greater lipid deposition within the LM in comparison to foragefed beef cattle [1,2,39]. There were no differences in the ash or mineral content between the treatments, which agrees with previous reports [1,2,39] between forage and concentrate-fed beef steers.…”

“…When finished to a similar age endpoint, steers that are forage-finished have lowerquality grades and intramuscular fat content (IMF) compared to their contemporaries that are finished on high-concentrate diets [1,2]. In a review of 15 studies comparing the meat quality of grass-fed and grain-fed beef, grain feeding was related to increased marbling scores in about half of the studies but was variable depending on the finishing endpoint [3].…”

Retail stability of three beef muscles from grass-, legume-, and feedlot-finished cattle1

“…USUGrass. A follow-up panel by Chail et al (2017) found a trend toward an interaction among the diet treatments studied here (grass, legume, and grain finishing) and GM and TB muscles (P = 0.07), wherein consumers gave lower scores to grass-and BFT-finished TB compared with GM. Muscle variation has also been observed for volatile compounds associated with the Maillard reaction and flavor liking in cooked beef samples (Legako et al, 2015;Hunt et al, 2016), corroborating our findings.…”

“…Recently, finishing with the legume birdsfoot trefoil was determined to improve perceived palatability compared with grass finishing and to improve chemical composition in comparison with feedlot finishing (Chail et al, 2016) Furthermore, it was previously demonstrated that finishing diet and muscle type interacted to influence beef composition and quality (Chail et al, 2017). These studies indicated that a legume-finishing diet could improve beef quality relative to grass finishing.…”

Influence of Maternal Carbohydrate Source (Concentrate-Based vs. Forage-Based) on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Meat Quality of Progeny

“…Offspring of dams provided adequate protein during mid-gestation produced offspring with increased concentrations of arachidonic acid compared with protein restricted dams. A study by Chail et al [ 27 ] evaluated the effects of finishing diet on fatty acid composition in the gluteus medius and triceps brachii and observed increased concentration of arachidonic acid when cattle were fed a grain-based diet as compared to a forage-based diet. In a recent review, Ponnampalam et al [ 28 ] outlined that concentrate-based diets are common sources of omega-6 (n-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids compared to forage-based diets, which are common sources of omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids.…”