Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T18:45:59.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eating quality of beef from different sire breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. B. Homer,
A. Cuthbertson,
D. L. M. Homer and
P. McMenamin
D. B. Homer
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, Winterkill House, PO Box 44, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX
A. Cuthbertson
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, Winterkill House, PO Box 44, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX
D. L. M. Homer
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, Winterkill House, PO Box 44, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX
P. McMenamin
Affiliation:
Genus, Warren Farm, Sheep Drive, Lambourn, Berkshire RG16 7UU
Get access

Abstract

Three hundred and eight cattle, comprising steers and heifers from continental and British crosses were finished on an 18-month beef production system at Warren Farm, Lambourn, Berkshire and slaughtered across a range of fatness levels. The eating quality of roasting joints (semimembranosus.) and sirloin steaks (longissimus thoracis et lumborumj was evaluated and the chemical composition of the lean tissue was taken on a subset of the samples. Results suggested that the greatest differences between the breeds was in the joints. There were significant (P < 0·01) differences in the lipid, moisture and collagen contents of the lean tissue of the joints from the different sire breeds. The Belgian Blue sire progeny had significantly lower lipid content than the Charolais or Aberdeen Angus crosses, and significantly lower collagen content than the Aberdeen Angus cross. In addition joints from Belgian Blue crosses were more tender than joints from other breed crosses. Although the lipid and moisture contents of the steaks from different sire crosses were significantly different there was no evidence of differences in eating quality. Perhaps surprisingly there were no significant relationships between the eating quality and chemical composition between or within breed. Irrespective of breed, carcass fatness influenced the juiciness of both the joints and the steaks although the response was different for continental crosses and British crosses and depended on carcass sex. Over and above this response, steer meat was generally more juicy than heifer meat.

Keywords

beef breedschemical compositionorganoleptic traits

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , June 1997, pp. 403 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Armbruster, G., Nour, A. Y. M., Thonney, M. L. and Stouffer, J. R. 1983. Changes in cooking losses and sensory attributes of Angus and Holstein beef with increasing carcass weight, marbling score or Longissimus ether extract. Journal of Food Science 48: 835–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, B. W. and Bigner, M. E. 1995. Use of grilling and combination broiler-grilling at various temperatures for beef loin steaks differing in marbling. Journal of Foodservice Systems 8: 65–74.Google Scholar
Buchter, L. 1986. Eating quality in low-fat beef. Manuscript no. 730E. Danísh Meat Research Institute, Maglegardsvej 2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.Google Scholar
Chadwick, J. P., Cuthbertson, A. and Dransfield, E. 1979. Differences in meat quality and carcass composition of Friesian and beef breed × Friesian cattle. Twenty-fifth meeting of European Meat Research Workers.Google Scholar
Cross, H. R., Carpenter, Z. L. and Smith, G. C. 1973. Effects of intramuscular collagen and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. Journal of Food Science 38: 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csiba, A. 1984. A modified method for hydroxyproline (HOP) determination in meat and meat products. Acta Alimentaria 13: 189–196.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D. and Koohmaraie, M. 1994. Carcass and meat characteristics of Tuli, Boran, Brahman, Belgian Blue, Piedmontese, Hereford and Angus breed crosses in the cattle germplasm evaluation program. Proceeding of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 17, pp. 272–275.Google Scholar
Dikeman, M. E. 1987. Fat reduction in animals and the effects on palatability and consumer acceptance of meat products. Reciprocal Meat Conference Proceedings, volume 40, pp. 93–104.Google Scholar
Dikeman, M. E., Kemp, K. E. and Crouse, J. D. 1979. Composition and meat sensory evaluation characteristics of carcasses in the five USDA yield grades, five fatness categories, and five marbling categories. Journal of Animal Science 49: (suppl. 1.) 217 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Johnson, E. R. 1987. Marbling fat in beef. Meat Science 20: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5.2. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
McKeith, F. K., DeVol, D. L., Miles, R. S., Bechtel, P. J. and Carr, T. R. 1985. Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles. Journal of Food Science 50: 869–872.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1995. Beef yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.Google Scholar
Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R. and Smith, G. C. 1986. Percentage ether extractable fat and moisture content of beef longissimus muscle as related to USDA marbling score. Journal of Food Science 51: 838–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uytterhaegen, L., Claeys, E., Demeyer, D., Lippens, M., Fiems, L. O., Boucque, C. Y., Vorde, G. van de and Bastiaens, A. 1994. Effects of double muscling on carcass quality, beef tenderness and myofibrillar protein degradation in Belgian Blue White bulls. Meat Science 38: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed