medigraphic.com
ISSN 8541-3697 (Print)

2013, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

AbanicoVet 2013; 3 (3)

Impact of: pre and postmortem technological alternatives on beef quality. Sensory evaluation.

Franco-Scognamiglio J, Bianchi-Olascoaga G, Feed-Boliolo O, Garibotto-Carton G, Bentancur-Murgiondo O

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 13-21
PDF size: 297.05 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The effect of premortem (vitamin D3 administration) and postmortem techniques (carcass electrical stimulation and tender-cut (TC) as an altered carcass hanging method and mellowing) on sensorial beef quality was studied. Sixty eight Hereford x Angus cross steers 2 years old, 460 ±, 28,6 kg of live weight and 6,6 ± 3 mm of fat thickness at the 10th rib were used. Samples from the Longissimus dorsis muscle and ripened for 2, 6 and 9 days were taken. TC improved tenderness in mature meat for 6 and 9 days (5,25 vs 6,37; 5,39 vs 6,74 respectively, p ‹ 0,05) but not for 2 days (5,72 vs 5,03 p › 0,05). TC improved meat juiciness mainly in animals with a pre sacrifice administration of vitamin D3 and 2 days of ripening (5,14 vs 4,53 p ‹ 0,05) and wit 6 days (5,42 vs 4,62 p ‹ 0,05), but not (5,05 vs 5,88 p › 0,05) in 9 days ripe meat. It is concluded that TC technique improved meat tenderness and associated with vitamin D3 administration, enhanced juiciness within short periods of maturation.


REFERENCES

  1. AALHUS JL, Best DR, Costello F, Jeremiah LE. A simple on line processing method for improving beef tenderness. Can .J. Anim. Sci. 1999; 70: 27-34.

  2. AALHUS JL, Larsen IL, Dubeski PL, Jeremiah LE. Improved beef Tenderness using a modified on-line carcass suspension method with, or without low voltage electrical stimulation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2000; 80 (1): 51-58.

  3. AHNSTROM ML, Hessle A, Johansson L, Hunt MC, Lundstrom K. Influence of carcass suspension on meat quality of Charolais heifers from two sustainable feeding regimes. Animal. 2009; 3 (6): 906–913.

  4. BOUTON PE, Harris PV, Shorthose WR, Baxter RI. A comparison of the effects of ageing conditioning and skeletal restraint on the tenderness of mutton. Journal of Food Science 1973; 38: 932-937.

  5. BERTRAM HC, Andersen HJ. Applications of NMR in meat science. Annual Reports on NMR Spectroscopy 2004; 53: 158–203.

  6. CLAUS J, Wang H, Marriot N. Pre-rigor carcass muscle stretching effects on tenderness of grain - fed beef under commercial conditions. J. Food Sci. 1997; 62 (6): 1231-1234.

  7. FERGUSON D. Thompson J, Polkinghorne R. Meat Standards Australia, A ‘PACCP’ based beef grading scheme for consumers. 3) PACCP requirements which apply to carcass processing. Presented at the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan. 1999; 45: 18-19.

  8. FRANCO J, Bianchi G, Feed O, Garibotto G, Bentancur O. Impacto de alternativas pre y post-mortem sobre la calidad de la carne vacuna. I. Evaluación instrumental. En prensa. 2013.

  9. GUERRERO L. Determinación sensorial de la calidad de la carne. In: Metodología para el estudio de la calidad de la canal y de la carne en rumiantes. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología – INIA. Madrid, España. 2000:207- 220.

  10. HUFFMAN KL, Miller MF, Hoover LC, Brittin HC, Ramsey CB. Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. J. Anim. Sci. 1996; 74: 91–97

  11. INSTITUTITO Nacional de Carnes (INAC). Anuario estadístico. Existencias / Faena / Precios / Exportación. Montevideo. Uruguay. 2010 ; 152p

  12. KARGES K, Brooks J, Gill D, Breazile J, Owens F, Morgan J. 2001. Effects of supplemental vitamin D3 on feed intake, carcass characteristics, tenderness, and muscle properties of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 2844-2850.

  13. LUDWIG CJ, Claus JR, Marriot NG, Johson J, Wang H. Skeletal alteration to improve beef longissimus muscle tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 1997; 75: 2404-2410.

  14. O’HALLORAN JM, Ferguson DM, Perry D, Egan AF. Mechanism of tenderness improvement in tenderstreched beef Carcasses. 44th International Congress of meat science and technology. Barcelona, España. 1998; 44: 712-713.

  15. PARK BY, Hwan IH, Cho SH, Yoo YM, Kim AJ, LEE AJ, Polkinghorne CR, Thompson JM. Effect of carcass suspension and cooking method on the palatability of three beef muscles as assessed by Korean and Australian consumers. Aust. J. of Exp. Agr. 2008; 48: 1396–1404.

  16. ROBINSON DL, Ferguson DM, Oddy VH, Perry D, Thompson J. Genetic and environmental influences on beef tenderness. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2005; 41 (7): 997- 1003.

  17. SAS/STAT user’s guide release 9.1.3. SAS. Institute Inc. Carey, N.C.2005.

  18. SIMMONS N, Daly C, Mudford C, Richards I, Jarvis G, Pleiter H. Integrated technologies to enchance meat quality. An Australasian perspective. Meat Sci; 2006. 74: 172-179.

  19. THOMPSON JM, Hopkins DL, D’Souza DN, Walker PJ, Baud SR, Pethick DW. The impact of processing on sensory and objective measurements of sheep meat eating quality. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 2005; 45 (5): 561-573.

  20. TROY DJ, Kerry JP. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Science. 2010; 86: 214–226.

  21. WAHLGREN N, Goransoon M, Linden H, Willhammar O. Reducing the influence of animal variation and ageing on beef tenderness. 48th International Congress of Meat and Science Technology. Roma, Italia. 2002:240-241.

  22. WANG C, Claus J, Marriot NG. Selected skeletal alterations to improve tenderness of beef round muscles. J. Muscle Foods. 1994; 5: 137-147.

  23. WATSON R, Gee A, Polkinghorne R, Porter M. Consumer assessment of eating quality-development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008; 48 (11): 1360-1367.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com