Post on 21-Dec-2015
What Makes Quality Tasty Meat
Dr. Jan R. Busboom Department of Animal SciencesWashington State University, Pullman
Outline: Defining Quality Again Quality (Beef value) CP’s
- Genetics
- Nutrition
- Management
- Post harvest treatments
Safe Recommendations Animal
Safe Humanely produced High quality and Palatable Nutritious
Humanely Produced:
Confinement/mud? Gentle handling
Quality Grades
Indication of eating quality or palatability
Quality Grades Prime Choice Select Standard Commercial Utility Cutter Canner
Quality Grade Factors Maturity Marbling
Yield Grade Factors Hot carcass wt. Ribeye area Fat thickness %Kidney,
Pelvic and Heart Fat (KPH)
Quality/Palatability
We have too much tough beef (> 20%)
Despite pricing grids we now have more YG4 and YG 5 than in 1995 and 2000.
Palatability: Genetics
Differences between breedsBos indicus vs. Bos taurus(Koch et al., 1976; Wheeler et al., 1996)
Palatability: Genetics
Differences among sires within breeds are greater than differences among breedsWulf et al., 1996; O’Conner et al., 1997
Palatability: Management
Bulls generally produce less tender beef
TestosteroneCollagenCuts age more slowly
Palatability: ManagementAnabolic agentsDays on feedHealth statusAge
Palatability: ManagementMarbling deposition occurs slowly throughout growing and finishing phase.
Ideal is to feed at a rate that meets muscle, bone and marbling growth requirements but does not cause excessive fattening
Palatability: ManagementBiological type
Late maturing rapid growing breeds must be fed hard and early to get marbling.
“If heifer contemporaries reach puberty on backgrounding diet probably no harm to gradability of steers.” Bruns, Pritchard and Boggs, 2005 (SDSU).
Holsteins
Palatability: ManagementMany studies indicate about 100 days on feed are required for maximum tenderness
Palatability: ManagementHealth status
Time in and money spent in sick pen is directly correlated to toughness and poor grade
Palatability: Management
Intramuscular injections
Palatability: Management
Intramuscular injections
Palatability: ManagementAnimals over 30 months of age have greater connective tissue toughness
Preharvest RecommendationsAvoid chronically sick cattle Eliminate intramuscular injections
Slaughter prior to 30 months of age
Positive growth during backgrounding and rapid growth prior to slaughter
CP2:Pre-harvest management
Temperament and/or ante-mortem stress
Post-harvest treatment
Proper chilling rateElectrical StimulationAgingFreezing and then aging
Economically important traits:A. Reproductive traits
1. No. of pigs born alive :a. ovulation rateb. embryonic & fetal survivalc. dystocia
2. 21-day litter wt.- function of:a. no. of pigs born aliveb. neonatal survivalc. sow lactation & baby pig
growth
3. heritability is low: 10-20% in swine4. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is high5. white breeds are best for sow productivity traits:
a.Yorkshireb. Landracec. Chester Whited. Large White from Europe
B. Growth Performance Traits1. A.D.G.
• boars for breeding should gain:a. ~2.0-2.5 lb/dayb. reach 230 lb at < 150 days of age
2. F.E. = lb. of feed/lb. of gain or feed to gain ratio• average of individuals in the herd is ~2.5-3.0
Symbol III• Live weight feed efficiency of 2.4
• Fat free lean gain of .95 lbs/day
• (about 2.4 Live ADG
• Marketed at 156 days of age
• Weighing 270 lbs.
3. heritability is moderate a. A.D.G. = 30%b. F.E. = 25%
4. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is moderate
5. colored breeds are best for growth performance - “boar” breeds or terminal siresa. A.D.G.- Duroc is best b. F.E. - Hampshire is best, Duroc is good
C. Carcass traits1. backfat thickness over the 10th rib
a. should be <1 inch or 2.5 cm at slaughter wtb. measured by backfat probe or ultrasound
2. loin-eye area (L.E.A.)a. should be >5 inchesb. measured by ultrasound
3. % leana. best measure of carcass qualityb. requires slaughter
Symbol III Hot carcass wt of 205 lbs.• LMA of 6.5 (7.1) sq. in.• Belly thickness of 1.0 inches• 10th rib backfat of 0.7 (0.6) inch• Fat-Free Lean Index is 53.0 (54.7)
4. Heritability is higha. backfat thickness
• live animal = 40%• carcass = 50%
b. L.E.A. = 50%c. % lean = 45%
5. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is low6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits -
a. Hampshire is bestb. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.
6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits -a. Hampshire is bestb. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.
D. Soundness traits1. structural soundness of feet & legs
a. support boar during breeding• not as important with increased use of
artificial inseminationb. may spend entire life on concrete
2. reproduction - external genitalia3. underline
a. > 7 pair of teats, evenly spaced & functional
E. Genetic change of economically important traits:– most change by selection pressure on highly
heritable traits– the most economically important traits are reproductive
traits & of low heritability
– fortunately, least heritable traits respond to cross-breeding with a high degree of heterosis
Symbol III Meat quality characteristics: Muscle color score of 4.0 24-hour pH of 5.9 Maximum drip loss of 2.5% Intramuscular fat level of 3.0% Free of within-muscle color variation and coarse
muscle texture. Free of ecchymosis (blood splash).
Definitions pH - the lower the pH the
greater the acidity. A rapid drop in pH (early post mortem causes
PSE DFD pork has a high pH (low acidity)
L* or Minolta reflectance
Definitions Quality refers to traits related to palatability
(tenderness, juiciness, flavor, etc.) and consumer acceptance such as: Color Firmness and texture Marbling Safety No Bruises
Definitions
PSE - Pale, soft and exudative (watery)
RSE - Red, soft and exudative RFN - Red, firm and normal DFD - Dark, firm and dry
Poor color and texture
Definitions Halothane gene = muscle hypertrophy gene =
stress gene NN = Normal Nn = Carrier nn = Mutant stress susceptible pig
Halothane Gene
Mutants (nn) are unacceptable Carriers have:
Less backfat? Greater muscling Poorer color Less marbling Tougher and drier
Definitions Napole = Hampshire effect
Dominant gene Low ultimate pH Low processing yields
Problems with PSE Low processing yields Poor consumer acceptability
Factors causing PSE
Halothane gene Stress Slow chilling
How to reduce PSE
Select against halothane gene Gentle handling and shipping Resting pigs before slaughter Proper handling, stunning and sticking Rapid chilling
Crust freezing Hot fat trimming
Inadequate marbling
Marbling Low but generally positive
relationship with palatability Highly heritable Breed differences exist Fairly low correlation with fat (.1-.3) Can select for marbling and leanness
In sudden disgust the three lionesses realized they had killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s
obnoxious health antelopes
30.6
8.7
22
9.1
16.7
9.712.8
8.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
At site 1 inch 2 inch 3 inch
InjectedControl
Fat Thickness and Ribeye Area
12th rib Body wall Ribeye, loineye or
longissimus muscle area (REA, LEA, LMA)
Quality Grades Indicate palatability Prime, Choice, Good,
Utility and Cull Maturity / Flank
streaking Lambs with over .1 fat
will almost always be Choice or Prime
Yield Grades Indicate cutability 1,2,3,4, and 5 Based on adjusted fat
thickness <=.15 = 1 .16-.25 = 2 .26-.35 = 3 .36-.45 = 4 >.45 = 5
Industry and Consumers Can I Hope Agree that Ideal Will Be:
Safe Humanely
produced Palatable Nutritious
BUT Defining Ideal Weight, Fatness, etc Is Difficult
Hot house/ ethnic market
Jackpot lambs Niche markets
Lean Fat Thickness
.16-.25 in. (YG 2.0-2.9)
.16 -.20
Lean Fat Thickness
> .25 .1-.14 in. <.1
Weight Depends on frame Size
Cheviots & Southdowns - 80 - 110
Dorsets & Montadales - 100 -120
Rambouillets & Hamps - 100 - 140
Suffolks & Columbias - 115 - 150 or more
Weight Packers generally
want 110 to 150 (55 to 80 pound carcasses) but… Niche and Ethnic
Markets Some 85 to 95 pound
carcasses are profitable
Weights Carcass weights
have increased from 59 to over 70 pounds in the last 20 years
Heavily Muscled High Choice to
high Prime leg 2.8 inch2 or larger 14 inch2 beef ribeye
vs 2 inch2 rib chop 3 inch2 is better
Increased Muscling Increases
Increasing REA from 2 to 3 may increase dressing percentage from 50% to over 54%
Lean cut yield- 58 to 62%.
Consumer acceptability
Effect of REA On Dress% and Value
5054.1
0
$12.30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Lamb Dress% Lamb Carcass ValueIncrease
2
3
How do we reach the Ideal Genetics most
important Feed to Proper weight Proper diet Proper handling
(QAAC) Exercize?
CP1:Genetics
Effect of Sire on Progeny REA3.47
3.13
2.462.96
2.65 2.46
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Ram REA Progeny REA
S
H
R
Effect of Sire on Progeny Carcass Wt
53.952.7 51.9
80.9 79.0 77.8
162 158 156
0.020.040.060.080.0
100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0
Prog Dress % Prog CWt Prog CarcValue
S
H
R
Value Increase for 100 Progeny
$615
$234
$0
$452
$172
$0
$1,067
$406
$0$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Carc Wt ValueIncr.
Cut Yield ValueIncr.
Total Value Incr.
S
H
R
CP2:Feed to Correct WeightOverfinished vs Underfinished
Overfinished lamb•Small frame size•Fed for too long•Started with too heavy of a lamb
Underfinished lamb•Poor nutrition•Excess frame size•Started with too light of a lamb
Why Not Rams? Growth
Rams > Wethers > Ewes Leaness
Rams > Wethers > Ewes Problems with:
Feedlot behavior Pelt removal Occasionally flavor
In sudden disgust the three lionesses realized they had killed a Tofudebeast – One of the
Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Suffolk
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Norfolk Horn
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Southdown
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Hampshire
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Dorper
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
Texel
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds
White Suffolk
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Merino
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Rambouillet
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Romney
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Lincoln
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Columbia
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Corriedale
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Border Leicester
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Coopworth
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Finn Sheep
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Dorset
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Polypay
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds
Romanov
Comparison of Past Audits:Carcass Weight
759
787
796
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
1991 1995 2000 2005
Carcass weight
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
748
Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Quality Grade
55
8
48
5
51
7
57
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1991 1995 2000 2005
USDA Prime and Choice
USDA Standard and lower
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
***
***Best Result Ever
5
35
3
7
Ideal Versus Actual Quality Grade Consist
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
%
Prime TopChoice
LowChoice
Select Standardand lower
IdealActual
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
29
19
3331
38
0
Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Yield Grade
45
17
58
8
50
12
53
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1991 1995 2000 2005
Yield Grades 1 & 2
Yield Grades 4 & 5
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
"Out Cattle" In The NBQA -- 2005
Excess carcass weight 5.0% Dark cutters 1.9%
Insufficient carcass weight 0.5% Blood splash 0.6%
Yellow fat 0.3%
Yield Grade 4 11.8% Calloused ribeye 0.1%
Yield Grade 5 2.3%
Standard and lower 5.4%
C-E maturity 1.5% NO DISCOUNTS 77.5%
>30 MOA 0.8%
Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who Trade Beef to Export Markets
Top Five Beef Quality Concerns: Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability) Size and weight variability Insufficient marbling Dull and dark lean color Administration of growth-promoting implants
Other Concerns: Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory Appropriate animal welfare should be assured Tenderness should be genetically assured Beef is excessively fat Should be injection-site free
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who Trade Beef to Export Markets
Top Five Beef Quality Concerns: Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability) Size and weight variability Insufficient marbling Dull and dark lean color Administration of growth-promoting implants
Other Concerns: Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory Appropriate animal welfare should be assured Tenderness should be genetically assured Beef is excessively fat Should be injection-site free
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Top Ten Quality Challenges Across Four NBQAs
Identified in all four audits Excess external fat Inadequate tenderness Insufficient marbling Excess carcass/cut weights
Identified in three audits Hide problems Lack of uniformity
Disappeared from last two audits Injection-site lesions
Brand-new in most recent audit Lack of traceability Need for instrument grading Need for clearer market signals Need for communication among
sectors
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005