Effect of phenotypic expression of Brahman breeding on marbling and tenderness traits.

Sherbeck, J A; Tatum, J. D.; Field, Thomas G.; Morgan, J. B.; Smith, G. C.

doi:10.2527/1996.742304x

Cited by 37 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Genotype rankings and their significance were maintained for sides under TS, though the magnitude of the differences was reduced. These results were consistent with several studies contrasting the meat quality of Brahman cattle with less tropically adapted genotypes (Shackelford et al 1994;Sherbeck et al 1996;O'Connor et al 1997;Ferguson et al 2000). LOSS was also greater for BRAH than TCOMP, though this difference was only significant for sides under AT hanging.…”

Section: Genotype Differencessupporting

confidence: 82%

Genetics of meat quality and carcass traits and the impact of tenderstretching in two tropical beef genotypes

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Meat quality and carcass traits were measured for 2180 feedlot finished Brahman (BRAH) and Tropical Composite (TCOMP) steers to investigate genetic and non-genetic influences on shear force, and other meat quality traits. Genetic and phenotypic correlations were estimated between carcass and meat quality traits, and with live animal measurements collected in steers from weaning to feedlot exit, and their heifer half-sibs up to their first mating, which were managed in Australia's tropical or subtropical environments. Left sides of carcasses were tenderstretched (hung by the aitch-bone) while right sides were conventionally hung (by the Achilles tendon). Tenderstretching reduced mean shear force by 1.04 kg, and phenotypic variance by 77% of that observed in conventionally hung sides. Genotype differences existed for carcass traits, with TCOMP carcasses significantly heavier, fatter, with greater eye muscle area, and lower retail beef yield than BRAH. TCOMP had lower shear force, and higher percent intramuscular fat. Meat quality and carcass traits were moderately heritable, with estimates for shear force and compression of 0.33 and 0.19 for BRAH and 0.32 and 0.20 for TCOMP respectively. In both genotypes, estimates of heritability for carcass traits (carcass weight, P8 and rib fat depths, eye muscle area and retail beef yield) were consistently moderate to high (0.21 to 0.56). Shear force and compression were genetically correlated with percent intramuscular fat (r g = -0.26 and -0.57, respectively), and meat colour (r g = -0.41 and -0.68, respectively). For TCOMP, lower shear force was genetically related to decreased carcass P8 fat depth (r g = 0.51). For BRAH steers and heifers measured at pasture, fatness traits and growth rates were genetically correlated with shear force, although the magnitude of these relationships varied with time of measurement. Net feed intake was significantly genetically correlated with carcass rib fat depth (r g = 0.49), eye muscle area (r g = -0.42) and retail beef yield (r g = -0.61). These results demonstrate that selection to improve production and carcass traits can impact meat quality traits in tropically adapted cattle, and that genotype specific evaluations will be necessary to accommodate different genetic relationships between meat quality, carcass and live animal traits.

show abstract

Section: Genotype Differencessupporting

confidence: 82%

Genetics of meat quality and carcass traits and the impact of tenderstretching in two tropical beef genotypes

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, they were similar to 50% epbi animals, in palatability as well as in their hump height. This was generally consistent with relationships of tenderness in Brahman-based cattle to phenotype reported by Sherbeck et al (1996). Thus, a further adjustment to the epbi conversion for Belmont Reds was not required.…”

Section: Epbi Relationship To Carcass Hump Heightsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Here it is assumed that with the large numbers of samples involved the other factors are averaging out. Negative eating quality effects with Bos indicus cattle have also been widely reported by others including Koch et al (1976), Sherbeck et al (1996) and Koohmaraie et al (1998).…”

Section: Epbimentioning

confidence: 94%

Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability

Watson

Polkinghorne²,

Thompson

2008

Aust. J. Exp. Agric.

137

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, the statistical aspects of the methodology that led to the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability are explained and described. The model proposed here is descriptive: its intention is to describe the large amounts of data collected by MSA. The model is constrained to accord with accepted meat science principles. The combined dataset used in development of the prediction model reported is around 32 000 rows · 140 columns. Each row represents a sample tasted by 10 consumers; each column specifies a variable relating to the sample tested. The developed model represents the interface between experimental data, scientific evaluation and commercial application. The model is used commercially to predict consumer satisfaction, in the form of a score out of 100, which in turn determines a grade outcome. An important improvement of the MSA model relative to other beef grading systems is that it assigns an individual consumer-based grade result to specific muscle portions cooked by designated methods; it does not assign a single grade to a carcass. Additional keywords:Bos indicus content, carcass suspension and carcass weight cooking methods, consumer sensory testing, hormonal growth implants, ossification and marbling scores.

show abstract

“…Tatum (2006) believes that rather than continued, singular focus on measurement and categorisation of beef quality differences at the end of the production process, an alternative and more comprehensive approach -consistent with TQM philosophy -is to focus on understanding the causes of product variability and then work to improve the production process by measuring and monitoring critical variables known to affect variability in finished products. Colorado State University scientists used PACCP decision trees in studies by Sherbeck et al (1995Sherbeck et al ( , 1996 and Tatum et al (1997Tatum et al ( , 1998Tatum et al ( , 1999Tatum et al ( , 2000. ConAgra Beef, working with Colorado State University scientists (Anon.…”

Section: Palatability Prediction Using Usda Quality Gradesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of factors considered of primary importance in determining tenderness and overall palatability of cooked beef in the MSA grading system, there is ample US research-study support for use of marbling (Smith et al 1969(Smith et al , 2007Savell et al 1987Savell et al , 1989George et al 1999;Wyle 2000;Platter et al 2003bPlatter et al , 2005Gruber et al 2006), maturity (Berry et al 1974a(Berry et al , 1974bSmith et al 1982Smith et al , 1988Smith et al , 2008Hilton et al 1998), amount of B. indicus genetics (McKeith et al 1985a(McKeith et al , 1985bSherbeck et al 1995Sherbeck et al , 1996O'Connor et al 1997), sex (Choat et al 2006;Tatum et al 2007), tenderstretch carcass suspension (Smith et al , 1979(Smith et al , 2007Orts et al 1971;Hostetler et al 1975), ultimate pH (Smulders et al 1990;Tatum 1991a, 1994;Eilers et al 1996;Wulf et al 1997), meat colour (Jeremiah et al 1972;Wulf et al 1997;Cannell et al 2000;Wyle et al 2003;Vote et al 2003), fat colour (Hilton et al 1998;Wyle et al 1998Wyle et al , 2003Wyle 2000;Vote et al 2003) and subcu...…”

Section: Advantages Of the Tqm Approach To Assessing Beef Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

Smith

Tatum

Belk

2008

Aust. J. Exp. Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The intent, in this manuscript, is to characterise the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Meat Standards Australia (MSA) systems for assessing beef quality and to describe the research evidence that supports the principles involved in grade application. USDA beef quality grading standards rely on carcass-trait-only assessments of approximate age of the animal at harvest and amount of intramuscular fat (as marbling) inside the muscles. USDA beef quality grading started 82 years ago. Then, as now, because no traceability system was in place, each animal's history (exact age, feeding regimen, management practices, etc.) was incomplete; those who assigned quality grades used indicators of age (physiological maturity) and plane of nutrition (amount of marbling), and they do so still. Since 1926, research studies have identified a multitude of palatability-determining live-animal factors (e.g. genetics, use of hormonal growth promotants, high-energy diet finishing) and carcass-treatment factors (e.g. electrical stimulation, tenderstretch carcass suspension, postmortem aging) that cannot be incorporated into a carcass-trait-only quality assessment system. The USA beef industry has depended on development of more than 100 beef brands -some using palatability assurance critical control point plans, total quality management (TQM) philosophies, USDA certification and process verification programs, or combinations of live-animal factors, carcass-treatment factors and carcass-trait constraints -to further differentiate fresh beef products. The MSA grading system is a TQM grading approach that incorporates animal-specific traits (e.g. genetics, sex, age), control of certain pre-harvest and post-harvest processes in the beef chain, cut-specific quality differences and consumer preferences, into a beef pricing system. A unique aspect of the MSA grading system is that the grades are assigned to cuts or muscles, not carcasses; cuts or muscles from the same carcass are assigned individual (and in many cases, different) grades that reflect differences in expected eating quality performance among the various cuts of beef further adjusted to reflect the influence of cut or muscle aging and alternative cooking methods. The MSA grading system is still being modified and refined (using results of an extensive, ongoing consumer testing program), but it represents the best existing example of a TQM grading approach for improving beef quality and palatability. Research studies have shown that the accuracy of palatability-level prediction by use of the two systems -USDA quality grades for US customers and consumers and MSA grades for Australian customers and consumers -is sufficient to justify their continued use for beef quality assessment.

show abstract

Effect of phenotypic expression of Brahman breeding on marbling and tenderness traits.

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

Genetics of meat quality and carcass traits and the impact of tenderstretching in two tropical beef genotypes

Genetics of meat quality and carcass traits and the impact of tenderstretching in two tropical beef genotypes

Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability

International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About