What Makes Quality Tasty Meat - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What makes quality tasty meat l.jpg
Download
1 / 106

  • 249 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: Pets / Animals

What Makes Quality Tasty Meat . Dr. Jan R. Busboom Department of Animal Sciences Washington State University, Pullman. Outline:. Defining Quality Again Quality (Beef value) CP’s - Genetics - Nutrition - Management - Post harvest treatments. Safe Recommendations. Animal Safe

Related searches for What Makes Quality Tasty Meat

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

What Makes Quality Tasty Meat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


What makes quality tasty meat l.jpg

What Makes Quality Tasty Meat

Dr. Jan R. Busboom

Department of Animal SciencesWashington State University, Pullman


Outline l.jpg

Outline:

  • Defining Quality Again

  • Quality (Beef value) CP’s

    - Genetics

    - Nutrition

    - Management

    - Post harvest treatments


Safe recommendations l.jpg

Safe Recommendations

  • Animal

    • Safe

    • Humanely produced

    • High quality and Palatable

    • Nutritious


Humanely produced l.jpg

Humanely Produced:

  • Confinement/mud?

  • Gentle handling


Quality grades l.jpg

Quality Grades

  • Indication of eating quality or palatability


Quality grades7 l.jpg

Quality Grades

  • Prime

  • Choice

  • Select

  • Standard

  • Commercial

  • Utility

  • Cutter

  • Canner


Quality grade factors l.jpg

Quality Grade Factors

  • Maturity

  • Marbling


Yield grade factors l.jpg

Yield Grade Factors

  • Hot carcass wt.

  • Ribeye area

  • Fat thickness

  • %Kidney, Pelvic and Heart Fat (KPH)


Quality palatability l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Palatability: Genetics

  • Differences between breeds

    • Bos indicus vs. Bos taurus

    • (Koch et al., 1976; Wheeler et al., 1996)


Palatability genetics13 l.jpg

Palatability: Genetics

  • Differences among sires within breeds are greater than differences among breeds

    • Wulf et al., 1996; O’Conner et al., 1997


Palatability management l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Bulls generally produce less tender beef

  • Testosterone

    • Collagen

    • Cuts age more slowly


Palatability management15 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Anabolic agents

  • Days on feed

  • Health status

  • Age


Palatability management16 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Marbling 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 management17 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Biological 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 management18 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Many studies indicate about 100 days on feed are required for maximum tenderness


Palatability management19 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Health status

    • Time in and money spent in sick pen is directly correlated to toughness and poor grade


Palatability management20 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Intramuscular injections


Palatability management21 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Intramuscular injections


Palatability management22 l.jpg

Palatability: Management

  • Animals over 30 months of age have greater connective tissue toughness


Preharvest recommendations l.jpg

Preharvest Recommendations

  • Avoid 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 l.jpg

CP2:Pre-harvest management

  • Temperament and/or ante-mortem stress


Post harvest treatment l.jpg

Post-harvest treatment

  • Proper chilling rate

  • Electrical Stimulation

  • Aging

  • Freezing and then aging


Slide27 l.jpg

  • Economically important traits:

    • Reproductive traits

    • 1. No. of pigs born alive :

      • a.ovulation rate

      • b. embryonic & fetal survival

      • c.dystocia

    • 2.21-day litter wt.- function of:

      • a.no. of pigs born alive

      • b.neonatal survival

      • c.sow lactation & baby pig growth


Slide28 l.jpg

  • 3.heritability is low: 10-20% in swine

  • 4.heterosis in response to cross-breeding is high

  • 5.white breeds are best for sow productivity traits:

    • a.Yorkshire

    • b.Landrace

    • c.Chester White

    • d.Large White from Europe


Slide29 l.jpg

  • B. Growth Performance Traits

    • 1.A.D.G.

      • boars for breeding should gain:

        • a.~2.0-2.5 lb/day

        • b.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


Slide30 l.jpg

  • 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.


Slide31 l.jpg

  • 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 sires

    • a.A.D.G.- Duroc is best

    • b.F.E. - Hampshire is best, Duroc is good


Slide32 l.jpg

  • C. Carcass traits

    • 1.backfat thickness over the 10th rib

      • a.should be <1 inch or 2.5 cm at slaughter wt

      • b.measured by backfat probe or ultrasound

    • 2.loin-eye area (L.E.A.)

      • a.should be >5 inches

      • b.measured by ultrasound

    • 3.% lean

      • a.best measure of carcass quality

      • b.requires slaughter


Slide33 l.jpg

  • 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)


Slide34 l.jpg

  • 4.Heritability is high

    • a.backfat thickness

      • live animal = 40%

      • carcass = 50%

    • b.L.E.A. = 50%

    • c.% lean = 45%

  • 5.heterosis in response to cross-breeding is low

  • 6.colored breeds are best for carcass traits -

    • a.Hampshire is best

    • b.Poland China is strong in L.E.A.


Slide35 l.jpg

  • 6.colored breeds are best for carcass traits -

    • a.Hampshire is best

    • b.Poland China is strong in L.E.A.


Slide36 l.jpg

  • D. Soundness traits

    • 1.structural soundness of feet & legs

      • a.support boar during breeding

        • not as important with increased use of artificial insemination

      • b.may spend entire life on concrete

    • 2.reproduction - external genitalia

    • 3.underline

      • a.> 7 pair of teats, evenly spaced & functional


Slide37 l.jpg

  • 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


Slide38 l.jpg

  • 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 l.jpg

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


Definitions40 l.jpg

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


Definitions41 l.jpg

Definitions

  • PSE - Pale, soft and exudative (watery)

  • RSE - Red, soft and exudative

  • RFN - Red, firm and normal

  • DFD - Dark, firm and dry


Slide42 l.jpg

Poor color and texture


Definitions43 l.jpg

Definitions

  • Halothane gene = muscle hypertrophy gene = stress gene

    • NN = Normal

    • Nn = Carrier

    • nn = Mutant stress susceptible pig


Halothane gene l.jpg

Halothane Gene

  • Mutants (nn) are unacceptable

  • Carriers have:

    • Less backfat?

    • Greater muscling

    • Poorer color

    • Less marbling

    • Tougher and drier


Definitions45 l.jpg

Definitions

  • Napole = Hampshire effect

    • Dominant gene

    • Low ultimate pH

    • Low processing yields


Problems with pse l.jpg

Problems with PSE

  • Low processing yields

  • Poor consumer acceptability


Factors causing pse l.jpg

Factors causing PSE

  • Halothane gene

  • Stress

  • Slow chilling


How to reduce pse l.jpg

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


Slide49 l.jpg

Inadequate marbling


Marbling l.jpg

Marbling

  • Low but generally positiverelationship with palatability

  • Highly heritable

  • Breed differences exist

  • Fairly low correlation with fat (.1-.3)

  • Can select for marbling and leanness


Slide54 l.jpg

In sudden disgust the three lionesses realized they had killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


Fat thickness and ribeye area l.jpg

Fat Thickness and Ribeye Area

  • 12th rib

  • Body wall

  • Ribeye, loineye or longissimus muscle area (REA, LEA, LMA)


Quality grades58 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Industry and Consumers Can I Hope Agree that Ideal Will Be:

  • Safe

  • Humanely produced

  • Palatable

  • Nutritious


But defining ideal weight fatness etc is difficult l.jpg

BUT Defining Ideal Weight, Fatness, etc Is Difficult

  • Hot house/ ethnic market

  • Jackpot lambs

  • Niche markets


Slide62 l.jpg

Lean

  • Fat Thickness

    • .16-.25 in. (YG 2.0-2.9)

    • .16 -.20


Slide63 l.jpg

Lean

  • Fat Thickness

    • > .25

    • .1-.14 in.

    • <.1


Weight l.jpg

Weight

  • Depends on frame Size

    • Cheviots & Southdowns - 80 - 110

    • Dorsets & Montadales - 100 -120

    • Rambouillets & Hamps - 100 - 140

    • Suffolks & Columbias - 115 - 150 or more


Weight65 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Weights

  • Carcass weights have increased from 59 to over 70 pounds in the last 20 years


Heavily muscled l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Effect of REA On Dress% and Value


How do we reach the ideal l.jpg

How do we reach the Ideal

  • Genetics most important

  • Feed to Proper weight

  • Proper diet

  • Proper handling (QAAC)

  • Exercize?


Cp1 genetics l.jpg

CP1:Genetics


Effect of sire on progeny rea l.jpg

Effect of Sire on Progeny REA


Effect of sire on progeny carcass wt l.jpg

Effect of Sire on Progeny Carcass Wt


Value increase for 100 progeny l.jpg

Value Increase for 100 Progeny


Cp2 feed to correct weight l.jpg

CP2:Feed to Correct Weight

  • Overfinished vs Underfinished


Slide76 l.jpg

  • Overfinished lamb

    • Small frame size

    • Fed for too long

    • Started with too heavy of a lamb


Slide77 l.jpg

  • Underfinished lamb

    • Poor nutrition

    • Excess frame size

    • Started with too light of a lamb


Why not rams l.jpg

Why Not Rams?

  • Growth

    • Rams > Wethers > Ewes

  • Leaness

    • Rams > Wethers > Ewes

  • Problems with:

    • Feedlot behavior

    • Pelt removal

    • Occasionally flavor


Slide79 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Suffolk


Ram meat terminal sire breeds81 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Norfolk Horn


Ram meat terminal sire breeds82 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Southdown


Ram meat terminal sire breeds83 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Hampshire


Ram meat terminal sire breeds84 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Dorper


Ram meat terminal sire breeds85 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • Texel


Ram meat terminal sire breeds86 l.jpg

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

  • White Suffolk


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Merino


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds88 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Rambouillet


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds89 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Romney


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds90 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Lincoln


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds91 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Columbia


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds92 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Corriedale


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds93 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Border Leicester


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds94 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Coopworth


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds95 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Finn Sheep


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds96 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Dorset


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds97 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Polypay


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds98 l.jpg

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

  • Romanov


Comparison of past audits carcass weight l.jpg

Comparison of Past Audits:Carcass Weight

800

796

Carcass weight

790

787

780

770

759

760

748

750

740

730

720

1991

1995

2000

2005

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005


Comparison of past audits usda quality grade l.jpg

Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Quality Grade

60

***

57

USDA Prime and Choice

55

51

USDA Standard and lower

50

48

40

***Best Result Ever

30

20

10

8

7

5

5

0

1991

1995

2000

2005

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005


Ideal versus actual quality grade consist l.jpg

Ideal Versus Actual Quality Grade Consist

38

35

33

31

29

19

7

5

3

0

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005


Comparison of past audits usda yield grade l.jpg

Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Yield Grade

60

58

Yield Grades 1 & 2

53

Yield Grades 4 & 5

50

50

45

40

30

20

17

14

12

10

8

0

1991

1995

2000

2005

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005


Slide103 l.jpg

"Out Cattle" In The NBQA -- 2005

Excess carcass weight5.0%Dark cutters1.9%

Insufficient carcass weight0.5%Blood splash0.6%

Yellow fat0.3%

Yield Grade 411.8%Calloused ribeye0.1%

Yield Grade 52.3%

Standard and lower5.4%

C-E maturity1.5%NO DISCOUNTS77.5%

>30 MOA0.8%


Beef quality concerns of those who trade beef to export markets l.jpg

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 markets105 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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

Top Ten Quality Challenges Across Four NBQAs

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005


  • Login