Implant strategies during feeding: impact on carcass grades and consumer acceptability.

Abstract

Anabolic growth promotants influence beef grade factors and Warner-Bratzler shear force of steaks. No study has assessed the consumer acceptability of beef derived from implanted cattle. This study determined beef carcass grades and consumer acceptability for cooked beef from unimplanted (control) cattle and from cattle implanted with one of seven different implant strategies (initial implant/implant at 59 d = Encore & Component T-S/no implant, Ralgro/Synovex Plus, Ralgro/Revalor-S, Revalor-S/Revalor-S, Revalor-S/no implant, no implant/Synovex Plus, and Synovex Plus/no implant). British crossbred steers (n = 448) were allocated randomly into one of eight pens for each of the control and seven treatment groups. Carcass quality and yield grade (n = 403) and Warner-Bratzler shear force (n = 298) data were collected by trained personnel. Twenty steaks per control or treatment group were selected randomly for use in consumer sensory evaluation. Steaks were evaluated by consumers for overall like, tenderness like, tenderness level, flavor like, flavor intensity, and juiciness level using 9-point, end-anchored hedonic scales. Control carcasses had smaller (P < .05) longissimus muscle areas than carcasses in all treatment groups except those receiving Encore & Component T S/no implant, Ralgro/Synovex Plus, or Revalor S/no implant. Control carcasses had higher (P < .05) marbling scores than carcasses in all treatment groups except those receiving Ralgro/Revalor-S or Encore & Component T-S/no implant. Steaks from control steers had lower (P < .05) Warner-Bratzler shear force values than steaks from steers given Revalor-S/no implant. Consumer ratings for tenderness like and tenderness level were influenced (P < .05) by implant strategy. Effects of implant strategy on overall like, flavor like, and flavor intensity approached significance (P = .07 to .09). Consumers rated steaks from unimplanted steers as more tender (tenderness level; P < .05) than steaks from all treatment groups except that involving Encore & Component T-S/no implant. Consumers rated steaks from unimplanted steers as more desirable (P < .05) for tenderness like than steaks from all treatments except those involving Encore & Component T-S/no implant or Revalor-S/no implant. Although use of implants in this study resulted in heavier hot carcass weights and larger ribeyes, some of the implant strategies reduced consumer preference of tenderness of steaks.

Meta-analysis of the published effects of HGP use on beef palatability in steers as measured by objective and sensory testing

“…et al (1991) 0.12 0.20 Huck et al (1991) 0.23 0.20 Hunt et al (1991) -0.15 0.39 Gerken et al (1995) 0.40 0.25 Samber et al (1996) 0.24 0.10 Foutz et al (1997) 0.32 0.17 Rumsey et al (1999) 0.95 0.33 Pritchard et al (2000) 0.00 0.20 Roeber et al (2000) 0.37 0.11 Barham et al (2003) 0.37 0.11 Platter et al (2003) 0.63 0.19 Reiling & Johnson (2003) WA-1 trial: Thompson et al (2008a) This trial, utilising three cooking methods, covered a wide range of muscles for heifers and steers. The details are covered in full in Thompson et al (2008a).…”

“…There were 47 control steers and 44 treated steers with results given in Table 3. et al (1973) 10.0 8.8 Forrest (1975) 0.8 5.0 Ntunde et al (1977) 1.3 10.8 Nute & Dransfield (1984) -6.4 5.6 Calkins et al (1986 8.8 1.8 Ouali et al (1988) 17.0 3.3 Apple et al (1991) 3.1 1.7 Hunt et al (1991) 0.7 2.6 Thonney et al (1991) 9.3 3.3 Gerken et al (1995) 3.8 2.8 Roeber et al (2000) 7.0 6.3 Barham et al (2003) 1.4 2.0 Platter et al (2003) 9.5 2.8 CRC = DF (2008) 7.1 3.6 CRC = KF (2008) 3.7 3.1 CRC = JF (2008) 3.1 2.5 CRC = DG (2008) 12.7 2.9 CRC = KG (2008) 4.5 2.6 CRC = JG (2008) Negative tenderness (100pt scale) Fig. 3.…”

Effect of growth-promoting technologies on Longissimus lumborum muscle fiber morphometrics, collagen solubility, and cooked meat tenderness12

“…In their review of the literature, Duckett and Pratt (2014) stated that anabolic implants do not or minimally influence 12th rib BF thickness. Perry et al (1991), Gerken et al (1995), and Roeber et al (2000) reported that various anabolic implants do not influence BF thickness. In the current study, BF thickness tended to be reduced by 25% in the IMP carcasses.…”

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

“…Roeber et al (2000) reported that use of a simple implant decreased the incidence of carcasses grading prime or choice by 1.2 (least) to 19.4 (most) percentage points and increased the occurrence of carcasses producing tough steaks by none (least) to 21.4 (most) percentage points. Platter et al (2003a) reported that implanting steers: (i) at branding or weaning did not affect steak marbling, shear force tenderness or overall eating quality; (ii) at backgrounding increased steak shear force but did not affect marbling, tenderness or overall eating quality; and (iii) two, three, four or five times (in their lifetime) resulted in lower marbling scores, higher shear force values, lower tenderness ratings and less desirable overall eating quality.…”