Eating quality of the longissimus thoracis muscle in beef cattle – Contributing factors to the underlying variability and associations with performance traits

Judge, Michelle M; Conroy, Stephen; Hegarty, P J; Cromie, A.R.; Fanning, Rory; Kelly, David N; Croften, E; Berry, D.P.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108371

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from two sensory locations, each with their own sensory panels, contributed to the database. The linear model fitted in the genetic evaluation was determined as per Berry et al (2021) [12] and Judge et al (2021) [11]:…”

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the identified sires divergent in genetic merits for tenderness with progeny in these herds were considered. Divergence in sire EBV was sought while remaining cognisant of minimising the over-representation of any one breed in either a high or a low genetic merit stratum; this is because breed differences exist in meat tenderness [11]. A total of 40 heifers from 14 different sires were identified from as few herds as possible; all animals were purchased and taken to the ICBF performance test station at, on average (standard deviation), 435 (SE = 27) days of age.…”

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The training of panellists for profiling meat description texture attributes was according to the American Meat Science Association (2015) [16]. The protocol for sensory analysis differed slightly between the two locations and is outlined in detail by Judge et al (2021) [11].…”

Section: Trained Sensory Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sensory Evaluation: Each panellist was directed to cut the steak piece in half across the cooked surface and evaluate the sample in the same fashion (duplicate) using the assessment sheet provided. The steak sample was scored for tenderness, juiciness and flavour using a structured scale [11].…”

Section: Trained Sensory Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Genetic differences in meat quality exist represented both by inter-breed and intrabreed differences [11]. From a review of 10 available studies on meat tenderness in cattle, Berry et al (2017) [12] documented a median heritability estimate of 0.23 for tenderness assessed by trained panels; this therefore suggests that after accounting for differences in systematic environmental effects (e.g., contemporary group, gender, age), 23% of the remaining within-breed variability in tenderness was due to additive genetic differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sensory Consumer and Descriptive Analysis of Steaks from Beef Animals Selected from Tough and Tender Animal Genotypes: Genetic Meat Quality Traits Can Be Detected by Consumers

O’Sullivan

O’Neill

Conroy

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present study was to determine if animals who were genetically divergent in the predicted tenderness of their meat actually produced more tender meat, as well as what the implications were for other organoleptic properties of the meat. The parental average genetic merit for meat tenderness was used to locate 20 “Tough genotype” heifers and 17 “Tender genotype” heifers; M. longissimus thoracis steaks from all heifers were subjected to sensory affective analysis (140 consumers) and sensory profiling using two trained sensory panels. All sample steaks were treated identically regarding pre- and post-mortem handling, storage, cooking and presentation (i.e., randomised, blind coded). For the affective consumer study, eight steaks were sectioned from the same location of the striploin muscles from each of the heifers. In total, 108 steaks from the Tender genotype and 118 from the Tough genotype were tested in the consumer study to determine the preference or liking of these steaks for appearance, aroma, flavour, tenderness, juiciness and overall acceptability. The consumer study found that the Tender genotype scored higher (p < 0.0001) for liking of tenderness, juiciness, flavour and overall acceptability compared to the Tough genotype. Similar results were generally found for the separate consumer age cohorts (18–64 years) with lower sensory acuity in the 65+ age cohort. For the descriptive analysis, the Tender genotype scored numerically more tender, juicy and flavoursome, although the differences were only significant for one of the panels. The critical outcome from this study is that parental average genetic merit can be used to pre-select groups of animals for tenderness, which, in turn, can be detected by consumers.

show abstract

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trained Sensory Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trained Sensory Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sensory Consumer and Descriptive Analysis of Steaks from Beef Animals Selected from Tough and Tender Animal Genotypes: Genetic Meat Quality Traits Can Be Detected by Consumers

O’Sullivan

O’Neill

Conroy

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The colour and sensory characteristics of longissimus muscle from beef cattle that grazed grass or consumed concentrates prior to slaughter

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Grazed grass is an important component of the majority of beef production systems used in temperate climates. Compared to concentrate‐fed beef, ‘grass‐fed’ beef can command a premium in some markets based on perceived differences in appearance and sensory characteristics. The influence of grazed grass per se, as well as the duration of grazing, on selected sensory characteristics of beef within a heifer production system was examined. RESULTS In general, fat from grass‐fed cattle was more yellow than fat from similar cattle fed concentrates, whereas muscle from grass‐fed cattle was darker than muscle from cattle fed concentrates. At the same carcass weight, muscle from grass‐fed cattle had a lower fat concentration than cattle fed concentrates. In the most extreme situation examined, whereby early‐maturing heifers were fed concentrates ad libitum from weaning or grazed grass/conserved grass throughout life, until slaughtered at a similar carcass weight (260 kg) and differed in age by 5 months, beef was rated similarly for tenderness and a range of flavours by a trained sensory panel. CONCLUSION Within the range of beef heifer production systems examined, the sensory characteristics of grass‐fed beef do not differ greatly from concentrate‐fed beef. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Volatile organic compounds in beef and pork by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry: A review

Vilar

O’Sullivan

Kerry

et al. 2022

Separation Science Plus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aroma of meat is an integral part of flavor and therefore an essential element for consumer acceptance. Aroma compounds are challenging to extract, concentrate, separate, identify, and quantify due to the complexity of meat. A wide range of volatile compounds of different properties (molecular weight, polarity, vapor pressure) are present in raw meat at varying concentrations, and further exacerbated post cooking due to the creation of additional volatiles through mainly Maillard reactions and lipid oxidation reactions. The volatiles identified in cooked meats include hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, esters, lactones, ethers, heterocyclic constituents, and sulfur-/halogen-containing components. From published research, some of the key volatiles influencing cooked beef/pork flavor include hexanal,

show abstract

Eating quality of the longissimus thoracis muscle in beef cattle – Contributing factors to the underlying variability and associations with performance traits

Cited by 20 publications

References 42 publications

Sensory Consumer and Descriptive Analysis of Steaks from Beef Animals Selected from Tough and Tender Animal Genotypes: Genetic Meat Quality Traits Can Be Detected by Consumers

Sensory Consumer and Descriptive Analysis of Steaks from Beef Animals Selected from Tough and Tender Animal Genotypes: Genetic Meat Quality Traits Can Be Detected by Consumers

The colour and sensory characteristics of longissimus muscle from beef cattle that grazed grass or consumed concentrates prior to slaughter

Volatile organic compounds in beef and pork by gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About