Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:56:50.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of animal and management factors on collagen characteristics in beef: a meta-analysis approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

M. Blanco ,
C. Jurie ,
D. Micol ,
J. Agabriel ,
B. Picard  and
F. Garcia-Launay
M. Blanco
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
C. Jurie
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
D. Micol
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
J. Agabriel
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
B. Picard
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
F. Garcia-Launay*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
E-mail: Florence.Garcia-Launay@rennes.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to identify pre-slaughter factors that modify total and insoluble collagen contents in bovine muscle to construct a model of collagen dynamics. The meta-analyses were performed with primary data of total (n = 1165) and insoluble (n = 1145) collagen contents from INRA experiments obtained from different muscles in young bulls, cows and steers. According to both the bibliography and meta-analyses, total collagen content and solubility were greatly affected by the muscle (type). Moreover, the pattern of the evolution of collagen characteristics was similar among Longissimus, Semitendinosus and Triceps brachii muscles in young bulls. In cows, collagen contents in the Triceps brachii muscle had delayed dynamics compared with the other muscles. Collagen characteristics differed among breeds because of variation in the maturity of the breed. Similarly, according to the meta-analyses, total and insoluble collagen content evolutions with the degree of maturity (DOM; proportion of adult weight reached at slaughter) were different in dairy and rustic breeds from those of beef breeds, especially in bulls. Although the relationships between collagen content and DOM were quantified in different muscles and sexes, the precision of the fitted equations was not sufficient for prediction. Consequently, relying on the hypotheses raised by the meta-analysis and the literature, an approach to further develop a dynamic mechanistic model of soluble and insoluble collagen content is proposed.

Keywords

total collageninsoluble collagenmusclebeefmeta-analysis
Type
Product quality, human health and well-being
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1208 - 1218
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Aberle, ED, Reeves, ES, Judge, MD, Hunsley, RE, Perry, TW 1981. Palatability and muscle characteristics of cattle withe controlled weight-gain-time on a high-energy diet. Journal of Animal Science 52, 757–763.Google Scholar
Archile-Contreras, AC, Mandell, IB, Purslow, PP 2010. Disparity of dietary effects on collagen characteristics and toughness between two beef muscles. Meat Science 86, 491–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, AJ 1985. The role of collagen in the development of muscle and its relationship to eating quality. Journal of Animal Science 60, 1580–1587.Google Scholar
Bailey, AJ, Light, ND 1989. Connective tissue in meat and meat products. Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Boccard, RL, Naudé, RT, Cronje, DE, Smit, MC, Venter, HJ, Rossouw, EJ 1979. The influence of age, sex and breed of cattle on their muscle characteristics. Meat Science 3, 261–280.Google Scholar
Burson, DE, Hunt, MC, Unruh, JA, Dikeman, ME 1986. Proportion of type-I and type-III collagen in Longissimus collagen from bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 63, 453–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campo, MM, Santolaria, P, Sañudo, C, Lepetit, J, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Alberti, P 2000. Assessment of breed type and ageing time effects on beef meat quality using two different texture devices. Meat Science 55, 371–378.Google Scholar
Cross, HR, Carpenter, ZL, Smith, GC 1973. Effects of intramuscular collagen and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. Journal of Food Science 38, 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, HR, Schanbacher, BD, Crouse, JD 1984. Sex, age and breed related changes in bovine testosterone and intramuscular collagen. Meat Science 10, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, M, Ertbjerg, P, Failla, S, Sañudo, C, Richardson, RI, Nute, GR, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Albertí, P, Juárez, M, Hocquette, JF, Williams, JL 2011. Relationship between collagen characteristics, lipid content and raw and cooked texture of meat from young bulls of fifteen European breeds. Meat Science 87, 61–65.Google Scholar
Damergi, C 1996. Evolution des caractéristiques du collagèene du muscle squelettique chez le bovin mâle entre 4 et 16 mois: incidences de la castration précoce et de la modulation du rythme de croissance. Thesis PhD, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Destefanis, G, Brugiapaglia, A, Barge, MT, Lazzaroni, C 2003. Effect of castration on meat quality in Piemontese cattle. Meat Science 64, 215–218.Google Scholar
Dikeman, ME, Reddy, GB, Arthaud, VH, Tuma, HJ, Koch, RM, Mandigo, RW, Axe, JB 1986. Longissimus muscle quality, palatability and connective-tissue histological characteristics of bulls and steers fed different energy-levels and slaughtered at 4 ages. Journal of Animal Science 63, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrard, DE, Jones, SJ, Aberle, ED, Lemenager, RP, Diekman, MA, Judge, MD 1987. Collagen stability, testosterone secretion and meat tenderness in growing bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science 65, 1236–1242.Google Scholar
Hammond, J 1952. Farm animals: their breeding, growth and inheritance. Hodder Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Harper, GS 1999. Trends in skeletal muscle biology and the understanding of toughness in beef. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1105–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoch, T, Agabriel, J 2004. A mechanistic dynamic model to estimate beef cattle growth and body composition: 1. Model description. Agricultural Systems 81, 1–15.Google Scholar
Jeremiah, LE, Dugan, MER, Aalhus, JL, Gibson, LL 2003. Assessment of the chemical and cooking properties of the major beef muscles and muscle groups. Meat Science 65, 985–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurie, C, Martin, JF, Listrat, A, Jailler, R, Culioli, J, Picard, B 2005. Effects of age and breed of beef bulls on growth parameters, carcass and muscle characteristics. Animal Science 80, 257–263.Google Scholar
Jurie, C, Martin, JF, Listrat, A, Jailler, R, Culioli, J, Picard, B 2006. Carcass and muscle characteristics of beef cull cows between 4 and 9 years of age. Animal Science 82, 415–421.Google Scholar
Kaps, M, Lamberson, W 2009. Biostatistics for animal science: an introductory text. CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Klastrup, S, Cross, HR, Schanbacher, BD, Mandigo, RW 1984. Effects of castration and electrical-stimulation on beef carcass quality and palatability characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 58, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koohmaraie, M, Kent, MP, Shackelford, SD, Veiseth, E, Wheeler, TL 2002. Meat tenderness and muscle growth: is there any relationship? Meat Science 62, 345–352.Google Scholar
Kuber, PS, Busboom, JR, Duckett, SK, Mir, PS, Mir, Z, McCormick, RJ, Gaskins, CT, Cronrath, JD, Marks, DJ, Reeves, JJ 2004. Effects of biological type and dietary fat treatment on factors associated with tenderness: II. Measurements on beef semitendinosus muscle. Journal of Animal Science 82, 779–784.Google Scholar
Lepetit, J 2008. Collagen contribution to meat toughness: theoretical aspects. Meat Science 80, 960–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liboriussen, T, Bech Andersen, B, Buchter, L, Kousgaard, K, Juel Møller, A 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows IV. Physical, chemical and palatability characteristics of longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles from crossbred young bulls. Livestock Production Science 4, 31–43.Google Scholar
Light, ND 1985. The role of collagen in determining the texture of meat. In Advances in meat research (ed. AM Pearson and TR Dutson), pp. 87–107. AVI Publishing Co., Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Listrat, A, Hocquette, JF 2004. Analytical limits of total and insoluble collagen content measurements and of type I and III collagen analysis by electrophoresis in bovine muscles. Meat Science 68, 127–136.Google Scholar
Mandell, IB, Gullett, EA, Wilton, JW, Kemp, RA, Allen, OB 1997. Effects of gender and breed on carcass traits, chemical composition, and palatability attributes in Hereford and Simmental bulls and steers. Livestock Production Science 49, 235–248.Google Scholar
McCormick, RJ 1999. Extracellular modifications to muscle collagen: implications for meat quality. Poultry Science 78, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMeniman, JP, Tedeschi, LO, Defoor, PJ, Galyean, ML 2010. Development and evaluation of feeding-period average dry matter intake prediction equations from a commercial feedlot database. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3009–3017.Google Scholar
Micol, D, Oury, MP, Picard, B, Hocquette, JF, Briand, M, Dumont, R, Egal, D, Jailler, R, Dubroeucq, H, Agabriel, J 2009. Effect of age at castration on animal performance, muscle characteristics and meat quality traits in 26-month-old Charolais steers. Livestock Science 120, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, T, Hattori, A, Takahashi, K 1999. Structural changes in intramuscular connective tissue during the fattening of Japanese Black cattle: effect of marbling on beef tenderization. Journal of Animal Science 77, 93–104.Google Scholar
Purslow, PP 2005. Intramuscular connective tissue and its role in meat quality. Meat Science 70, 435–447.Google Scholar
Radzicki, MJTaylor, RA 2008. Origin of System Dynamics: Jay W. Forrester and the History of System Dynamics. US Department of Energy's Introduction to System Dynamics. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/start.htm.Google Scholar
Renand, G, Picard, B, Touraille, C, Berge, P, Lepetit, J 2001. Relationships between muscle characteristics and meat quality traits of young Charolais bulls. Meat Science 59, 49–60.Google Scholar
Rhee, MS, Wheeler, TL, Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M 2004. Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science 82, 534–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robelin, J 1986. Composition corporelle des bovins: Evolution au cours du développement et différences entre races. Thesis PhD, Université de Clermont Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Sañudo, C, Albertí, P, Campo, MM, Olleta, JL, Panea, B 1998. Instrumental quality of beef meat from seven Spanish breeds. Archivos de zootecnia 47, 397–402.Google Scholar
Sañudo, C, Macie, ES, Olleta, JL, Villarroel, M, Panea, B, Alberti, P 2004. The effects of slaughter weight, breed type and ageing time on beef meat quality using two different texture devices. Meat Science 66, 925–932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ, St-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O 2004. Mixed model influence diagnostics. Proceedings of the 29th SAS Users Group International Conference, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Schreurs, NM, Garcia-Launay, F, Hoch, T, Jurie, C, Agabriel, C, Micol, D, Picard, B 2010. Dynamic modelling of contractile and metabolic properties of bovine muscle. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. JVM D Sauvant, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 209–217. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schreurs, NM, Garcia, F, Jurie, C, Agabriel, J, Micol, D, Bauchart, D, Listrat, A, Picard, B 2008. Meta-analysis of the effect of animal maturity on muscle characteristics in different muscles, breeds, and sexes of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2872–2887.Google Scholar
Serra, X, Guerrero, L, Guardia, MD, Gil, M, Sanudo, C, Panea, B, Campo, MM, Olleta, JL, Garcia-Cachan, MD, Piedrafita, J, Oliver, MA 2008. Eating quality of young bulls from three Spanish beef breed-production systems and its relationships with chemical and instrumental meat quality. Meat Science 79, 98–104.Google Scholar
Stolowski, GD, Baird, BE, Miller, RK, Savell, JW, Sams, AR, Taylor, JF, Sanders, JO, Smith, SB 2006. Factors influencing the variation in tenderness of seven major beef muscles from three Angus and Brahman breed crosses. Meat Science 73, 475–483.Google Scholar
Tatum, JD, Gronewald, KW, Seideman, SC, Lamm, WD 1990. Composition and quality of beef from steers sired by Piedmontese, Gelbvieh and Red Angus bulls. Journal of Animal Science 68, 1049–1060.Google Scholar
Torrescano, G, Sánchez-Escalante, A, Giménez, B, Roncalés, P, Beltrán, JA 2003. Shear values of raw samples of 14 bovine muscles and their relation to muscle collagen characteristics. Meat Science 64, 85–91.Google Scholar
Unruh, JA, Gray, DG, Dikeman, ME 1986. Implanting young bulls with zeranol from birth to 4 slaughter ages. 2. Carcass quality, palatability and muscle-collagen characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 62, 388–398.Google Scholar
Von Seggern, DD, Calkins, CR, Johnson, DD, Brickler, JE, Gwartney, BL 2005. Muscle profiling: characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round. Meat Science 71, 39–51.Google Scholar
Waritthitham, A, Lambertz, C, Langholz, HJ, Wicke, M, Gauly, M 2010. Assessment of beef production from Brahman × Thai native and Charolais × Thai native crossbred bulls slaughtered at different weights. II: Meat quality. Meat Science 85, 196–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whipple, G, Koohmaraie, M, Dikeman, ME, Crouse, JD 1990. Predicting beef-Longissimus tenderness from various biochemical and histological muscle traits. Journal of Animal Science 68, 4193–4199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed