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

135

104

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.

Section: Hgp Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Watson

Polkinghorne²,

Thompson

2008

135

104

“…The effects of such implants on beef palatability have been studied extensively in both the USA and Australia (Thompson et al 2008bWatson 2008;Watson et al 2008c). The NCBA (1996) Beef Palatability Task Force determined that:…”

Section: Advantages Of the Tqm Approach To Assessing Beef Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thompson et al (2008bThompson et al ( , 2008c concluded that the effects of HGP use in reducing flavour, tenderness and overall palatability are much greater in beef from 100% B. indicus cattle than in beef from 50% B. indicus cattle, but that all implant strategies used caused a reduction in meat quality. To assist in the interpretation of the myriad published results, Watson (2008) undertook a meta-analysis of published recent studies in the USA and Australia. He presented evidence that suggests strongly that HGP has a negative effect on eating quality (both sensory and objective laboratory measurements) of beef, especially that of the LD muscle in the striploin.…”

Section: Msa Grading Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Smith

Tatum

Belk

2008

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.

“…In contrast, Dikeman (2007) concluded that whilst tenderness was reduced in implanted compared with non-implanted cattle these effects on tenderness were probably not of commercial importance. While there is variation in the interpretation of the literature, a recent metaanalysis of available published results and unpublished data by Watson (2008) clearly showed that when the results from different experiments were considered collectively, M. longissimus dorsi samples from cattle implanted with HGP had greater shear forces and lower tenderness scores than carcasses from non-implanted cattle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on growth, carcass characteristics, the palatability of different muscles in the beef carcass and their interaction with aging

Thompson

McIntyre

Tudor

et al. 2008

Abstract. Effects of hormonal growth promotant (HGP) implantation on liveweight, carcass and meat quality measurements were examined using 80 Angus yearling cattle. After entry to the feedlot, 40 steers and 40 heifers were implanted with Revalor-S (28 mg oestradiol and 140 mg trenbolone acetate) and Revalor-H (20 mg oestradiol, 200 mg trenbolone acetate), respectively. Cattle were slaughtered after 55 and 65 days on feed. Samples from the Mm. longissimus dorsi, biceps femoris (the cap and body portions), gluteus medius (the eye and D portions), infraspinatus and triceps brachii were prepared for sensory testing after aging for 5 and 21 days after slaughter. A total of 854 muscle samples were cooked by grill (601) or roast (253) methods and served to consumers using the Meat Standards Australia taste panel protocols.When adjusted to the same initial liveweight, implantation with Revalor-H and Revalor-S resulted in a 4 and 7% increase in slaughter weight, respectively. Implantation resulted in an increased ossification score in steers (P < 0.05), but not in heifers. There was a significant interaction (P < 0.05) between HGP implantation and days aged for shear force. There was a small effect of HGP implants on compression (P < 0.05), but not on cook loss and intramuscular fat percentage. Muscles differed in their response to HGP implantation (P < 0.05) for tenderness, overall liking and palatability scores. Muscles also differed in their aging rates after slaughter (P < 0.05). The greatest response in sensory scores to HGP implantation was found in those muscles that had the highest aging rates. Possible mechanisms by which muscles differed in their response to HGP implantation are discussed.