Inter-animal genetic variability exist in organoleptic properties of prime beef meat

Berry, D.P.; Conroy, Stephen; Hegarty, P J; Evans, R.D.; Pabiou, T.; Judge, Michelle M

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108401

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, all age groups scored the Tender genotype samples higher for liking of Tenderness. Additionally, the Tender genotype samples, as well as scoring higher for liking of tenderness, also scored higher for juiciness, flavour and overall acceptance; this is not unexpected given the moderate to strong phenotypic and genetic correlations that exist between tenderness, juiciness and flavour in cattle striploins [13]. Chong et al (2019) [18] observed that tender samples of beef also scored higher for liking of juiciness, liking of flavour and overall acceptance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Another encouraging feature of the results from the present study was the favourable scoring for the other quality assessments of the meat samples other than just tenderness. Superior assessment for the other sensory qualities, however, is not unexpected given the moderate to strong genetic correlations between tenderness and both juiciness and flavour in cattle [13]. Hence, the alleles associated with greater tenderness are either those associated with improvements in other metrics or are co-inherited with those favourable alleles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A genetic evaluation was undertaken for meat tenderness in Mix99 [13] based on the available dataset, statistical model and variance components described in detail by Berry et al (2021) [12]. In brief, sensory data from trained panellists were available on 5380 animals consisting of 1579 young bulls, 1966 steers and 1835 heifers; the animals originated from 748 sires with the mean number of progeny per sire being 6.9.…”

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…where Y is the dependent variable of mean tenderness across all trained panellists; HSD is the fixed effect of the herd by date of slaughter; DL is the fixed effect of the date by location of sensory analysis; and GENDER is the gender of the animal (i.e., bull, steer or heifer); a is the additive genetic effect ( a ∼ N(Qg, Aσ 2 a ), where Q is a matrix relating a to genetic groups, g is a vector of genetic group means, A is the numerator relationship matrix and σ 2 a is the additive genetic variance; and e represents the residual term, where N(0,Iσ 2 e ) with σ 2 e represents the residual variance and I is an identity matrix. The heritability of mean tenderness score was assumed to be 0.16 as estimated by Berry et al (2021) [12] using this dataset. A pedigree file consisting of all phenotyped animals and their ancestors was used; founder animals were allocated to genetic groups.…”

Section: Source Of Beef and Pre-mortem Managementmentioning

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: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%