What makes quality tasty meat
Download
1 / 106

What Makes Quality Tasty Meat - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 257 Views
  • Updated On :

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

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' What Makes Quality Tasty Meat ' - EllenMixel


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


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


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



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



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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 12th rib

  • Body wall

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


Quality grades58 l.jpg
Quality Grades killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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: killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Safe

  • Humanely produced

  • Palatable

  • Nutritious


But defining ideal weight fatness etc is difficult l.jpg
BUT Defining Ideal Weight, Fatness, etc Is Difficult killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Hot house/ ethnic market

  • Jackpot lambs

  • Niche markets


Slide62 l.jpg
Lean killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Fat Thickness

    • .16-.25 in. (YG 2.0-2.9)

    • .16 -.20


Slide63 l.jpg
Lean killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Fat Thickness

    • > .25

    • .1-.14 in.

    • <.1


Weight l.jpg
Weight killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

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


Heavily muscled l.jpg
Heavily Muscled killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


How do we reach the ideal l.jpg
How do we reach the Ideal killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Genetics most important

  • Feed to Proper weight

  • Proper diet

  • Proper handling (QAAC)

  • Exercize?


Cp1 genetics l.jpg
CP1:Genetics killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


Effect of sire on progeny rea l.jpg
Effect of Sire on Progeny REA killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


Effect of sire on progeny carcass wt l.jpg
Effect of Sire on Progeny Carcass Wt killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


Value increase for 100 progeny l.jpg
Value Increase for 100 Progeny killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes


Cp2 feed to correct weight l.jpg
CP2:Feed to Correct Weight killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Overfinished vs Underfinished


Slide76 l.jpg

  • Overfinished lamb killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

    • Small frame size

    • Fed for too long

    • Started with too heavy of a lamb


Slide77 l.jpg

  • Underfinished lamb killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

    • Poor nutrition

    • Excess frame size

    • Started with too light of a lamb


Why not rams l.jpg
Why Not Rams? killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Suffolk


Ram meat terminal sire breeds81 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Norfolk Horn


Ram meat terminal sire breeds82 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Southdown


Ram meat terminal sire breeds83 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Hampshire


Ram meat terminal sire breeds84 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Dorper


Ram meat terminal sire breeds85 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Texel


Ram meat terminal sire breeds86 l.jpg
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • White Suffolk


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Merino


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds88 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Rambouillet


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds89 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Romney


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds90 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Lincoln


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds91 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Columbia


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds92 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Corriedale


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds93 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Border Leicester


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds94 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Coopworth


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds95 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Finn Sheep


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds96 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Dorset


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds97 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Polypay


Ewe wool duel purpose breeds98 l.jpg
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

  • Romanov


Comparison of past audits carcass weight l.jpg
Comparison of Past Audits: killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopesCarcass 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: killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopesUSDA 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

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: killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopesUSDA 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 killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes

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 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 Markets

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


ad