Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-jtg5s Total loading time: 0.182 Render date: 2021-09-19T20:32:42.311Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C. Gazzola
Affiliation:
Queensland Beef Industry Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Tropical Beef Centre, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia
C. J. O’Neill
Affiliation:
CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, Tropical Beef Centre, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia
J. E. Frisch
Affiliation:
CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, Tropical Beef Centre, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to rank diverse beef cattle genotypes for meat quality characteristics and to determine whether that ranking changed depending on the environment in which the animals were finished. Breed groups, ranging from 100% Bos indicus to 100% Bos taurus content, were derived from Indian zebu (Brahman), African zebu (Boran), British breeds (Hereford-Shorthorn), continental breeds (Charolais and Simmental) and Sanga (Tuli and Belmont Red). Heavy steers (>600 kg) were raised in a tropical environment and finished either on pasture or in a feedlot.

For striploins (longissimus) from feedlot finished steers, cooking loss was greatest for zebu (Z) steaks, least for British (B) steaks (P < 0·001), and intermediate for the other breeds. For striploins from pasture finished steers and eye rounds (semitendinosus) from both pasture finished and feedlot finished steers, there were no breed differences in cooking loss.

For both feedlot finished and pasture finished steers, striploin steaks from B steers were most tender, and Sanga (S) and zebu × continental cross (ZC) steaks were more tender than Z steaks. Warner-Bratzler initial yields suggested that the lower toughness of these breeds was due to lower myofibrillar toughness. Peak force minus initial yield suggested a smaller, opposite effect of increasing connective tissue toughness associated with increasing Bos taurus content. This breed effect on connective tissue toughness was more prominent in the eye round samples. In the feedlot finished steers, Z eye round was as tender as B eye round. In pasture finished steers, Z eye round had a peak force 1·3 kg lower than B in contrast to the results for striploin where Z was 1·2 kg higher than B. Sanga eye round followed the same trend as B relative to Z but to a lesser extent. From the feedlot, S eye round was more tender than Z eye round and from pasture, S eye round was the same as Z eye round. There was no evidence of heterosis f or any meat quality attribute.

These results are best explained in terms of a model incorporating differential effects of breed on the myofibrillar and connective tissue components of toughness. The implications of this study are that the tenderness of grilling and roasting cuts of meat from the predominantly Brahman-based beef herd of northern Australia can be improved through crossbreeding with any of the taurine breeds studied.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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.)

References

AUS-MEAT. 1996. Users’ guide to Australian meat, first edition. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, Coorparoo, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Crouse, J. D., Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M., Koohmaraie, M. and Seideman, S. C. 1989. Comparisons of Bos indicus and Bos taurus inheritance for carcass beef characteristics and meat palatability. Journal of Animal Science 67: 26612668.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D., Koohmaraie, M., Freetly, H. C. and Lunstra, D. D. 1996. Preliminary results from cycle V of the cattle germplasm evaluation program at the Roman L. Hruška U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. Progress report no. 15. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
DeRouen, S. M., Franke, D. E., Bidner, T. D. and Bluoin, D. C. 1992a. Two-, three-, and four-breed rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle: carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 70: 36653676.Google ScholarPubMed
DeRouen, S. M., Franke, D. E., Bidner, T. D. and Bluoin, D. C. 1992b. Direct and maternal genetic effects for carcass traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 70: 36773685.10.2527/1992.70123677xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, J. E. and O’Neill, C. J. 1998a. Comparative evaluation of beef cattle breeds of African, European and Indian origins. 1. Live weights and heterosis at birth, weaning and 18 months. Animal Science 67: 2738.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and O’Neill, C. J. 1998b. Comparative evaluation of beef cattle breeds of African, European and Indian origins. 2. Resistance to cattle ticks and gastrointestinal nematodes. Animal Science 67: 3948.Google Scholar
Gerken, C. L., Tatum, J. D., Morgan, J. B. and Smith, G. C. 1995. Use of genetically identical (clone) steers to determine the effects of estrogenie and androgenic implants on beef quality and palatability characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 73: 33173324.Google Scholar
Harris, P. V. and Shorthose, W. R. 1988. Meat texture. In Developments in meat science (ed. Lawrie, R.), pp. 245295. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, H. 1992. The effect of genotype on meat quality and the ability of consumers to detect any differences — Australian experience. Report of the meat quality workshop, Yeppoon, 6-8 May 1992, pp. 8088. Meat Research Corporation, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Hedrick, H. B., Krause, G. F., Lasley, J. F., Sibbit, R., Langford, L. and Dyer, A. J. 1975. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of straightbred and reciprocally crossed Angus, Charoláis and Hereford steers. Journal of Animal Science 41: 15811591.Google Scholar
Herring, A. D., Sanders, J. O., Knutson, R. E. and Lunt, D. K. 1996. Evaluation of Fx calves sired by Brahman, Boran, and Tuli bulls for birth, growth, size, and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 74: 955964.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. H., Calkins, C. R., Huffman, R. D., Johnson, D. D. and Hargrove, D. D. 1990. Differences in cathepsin B + L and calcium-dependent protease activities among breed type and their relationship to beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 68: 23712379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1996. Genstat 5, release 3.2, second edition. Rothamsted.Google Scholar
Paschal, J. C., Tipton, N. C., DeLaZerda, M. J. and McNeill, J. W. 1997. Breed group differences in shear force tenderness in the Texas A & M University Ranch to Rail-South program. Journal of Animal Science 75: (suppl. 1) 181.Google Scholar
Pratchett, D., Mclntyre, B. L. and Carrick, M. J. 1988. Meat quality of 2-5 and 3-5 year old Shorthorn, Brahman, Brahman × Shorthorn and Africander × Shorthorn steers raised in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 17: 286289.Google Scholar
Pringle, T. D., Williams, S. E., Lamb, B. S., Johnson, D. D. and West, R. L. 1997. Carcass characteristics, the calpain proteinase system, and aged tenderness of Angus and Brahman crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 75: 29552961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherbeck, J. A., Tatum, J. D., Field, T. G., Morgan, J. B. and Smith, G. C. 1996. Effect of phenotypic expression of Brahman breeding on marbling and tenderness traits. Journal of Animal Science 74: 304309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. M. and Barlow, R. 1981. Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred and straightbred Hereford steers. II. Carcass measurements and composition. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 161181.10.1071/AR9810161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, T. J., Wythes, J. R., Powell, E. E., Crotty, K. J., Shorthose, W. R. and Rudder, T. H. 1986. Liveweight gains and carcase traits of high grade Simmental, Hereford, Africander × Hereford and Brahman × Hereford feedlot yearling steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 26: 651657.10.1071/EA9860651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wythes, J. R., Shorthose, W. R., Dodt, R. M. and Dickinson, R. F. 1989. Carcass and meat quality of Bos indicus × Bos taurus and Bos taurus cattle in northern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 29: 757763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparative evaluation of the meat quality of beef cattle breeds of Indian, African and European origins
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *