What Makes Quality Tasty Meat

Dr. Jan R. Busboom Department of Animal SciencesWashington State University, Pullman

Outline: Defining Quality Again Quality (Beef value) CP’s

- Genetics

- Nutrition

- Management

- Post harvest treatments

Safe Recommendations Animal

Safe Humanely produced High quality and Palatable Nutritious

Humanely Produced:

Confinement/mud? Gentle handling

Quality Grades

Indication of eating quality or palatability

Quality Grades Prime Choice Select Standard Commercial Utility Cutter Canner

Quality Grade Factors Maturity Marbling

Yield Grade Factors Hot carcass wt. Ribeye area Fat thickness %Kidney,

Pelvic and Heart Fat (KPH)

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

Differences between breedsBos indicus vs. Bos taurus(Koch et al., 1976; Wheeler et al., 1996)

Palatability: Genetics

Differences among sires within breeds are greater than differences among breedsWulf et al., 1996; O’Conner et al., 1997

Palatability: Management

Bulls generally produce less tender beef

TestosteroneCollagenCuts age more slowly

Palatability: ManagementAnabolic agentsDays on feedHealth statusAge

Palatability: ManagementMarbling 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: ManagementBiological 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: ManagementMany studies indicate about 100 days on feed are required for maximum tenderness

Palatability: ManagementHealth status

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

Palatability: Management

Intramuscular injections

Palatability: Management

Intramuscular injections

Palatability: ManagementAnimals over 30 months of age have greater connective tissue toughness

Preharvest RecommendationsAvoid 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

Temperament and/or ante-mortem stress

Post-harvest treatment

Proper chilling rateElectrical StimulationAgingFreezing and then aging

Economically important traits:A. Reproductive traits

1. No. of pigs born alive :a. ovulation rateb. embryonic & fetal survivalc. dystocia

2. 21-day litter wt.- function of:a. no. of pigs born aliveb. neonatal survivalc. sow lactation & baby pig

growth

3. heritability is low: 10-20% in swine4. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is high5. white breeds are best for sow productivity traits:

a.Yorkshireb. Landracec. Chester Whited. Large White from Europe

B. Growth Performance Traits1. A.D.G.

• boars for breeding should gain:a. ~2.0-2.5 lb/dayb. 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

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.

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 siresa. A.D.G.- Duroc is best b. F.E. - Hampshire is best, Duroc is good

C. Carcass traits1. backfat thickness over the 10th rib

a. should be <1 inch or 2.5 cm at slaughter wtb. measured by backfat probe or ultrasound

2. loin-eye area (L.E.A.)a. should be >5 inchesb. measured by ultrasound

3. % leana. best measure of carcass qualityb. requires slaughter

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)

4. Heritability is higha. backfat thickness

• live animal = 40%• carcass = 50%

b. L.E.A. = 50%c. % lean = 45%

5. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is low6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits -

a. Hampshire is bestb. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.

6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits -a. Hampshire is bestb. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.

D. Soundness traits1. structural soundness of feet & legs

a. support boar during breeding• not as important with increased use of

artificial inseminationb. may spend entire life on concrete

2. reproduction - external genitalia3. underline

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

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

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 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

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

Definitions

PSE - Pale, soft and exudative (watery)

RSE - Red, soft and exudative RFN - Red, firm and normal DFD - Dark, firm and dry

Poor color and texture

Definitions Halothane gene = muscle hypertrophy gene =

stress gene NN = Normal Nn = Carrier nn = Mutant stress susceptible pig

Halothane Gene

Mutants (nn) are unacceptable Carriers have:

Less backfat? Greater muscling Poorer color Less marbling Tougher and drier

Definitions Napole = Hampshire effect

Dominant gene Low ultimate pH Low processing yields

Problems with PSE Low processing yields Poor consumer acceptability

Factors causing PSE

Halothane gene Stress Slow chilling

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

Inadequate marbling

Marbling Low but generally positive

relationship with palatability Highly heritable Breed differences exist Fairly low correlation with fat (.1-.3) Can select for marbling and leanness

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

obnoxious health antelopes

30.6

8.7

22

9.1

16.7

9.712.8

8.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

At site 1 inch 2 inch 3 inch

InjectedControl

Fat Thickness and Ribeye Area

12th rib Body wall Ribeye, loineye or

longissimus muscle area (REA, LEA, LMA)

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 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:

Safe Humanely

produced Palatable Nutritious

BUT Defining Ideal Weight, Fatness, etc Is Difficult

Hot house/ ethnic market

Jackpot lambs Niche markets

Lean Fat Thickness

.16-.25 in. (YG 2.0-2.9)

.16 -.20

Lean Fat Thickness

> .25 .1-.14 in. <.1

Weight Depends on frame Size

Cheviots & Southdowns - 80 - 110

Dorsets & Montadales - 100 -120

Rambouillets & Hamps - 100 - 140

Suffolks & Columbias - 115 - 150 or more

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 Carcass weights

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

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

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

5054.1

0

$12.30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lamb Dress% Lamb Carcass ValueIncrease

2

3

How do we reach the Ideal Genetics most

important Feed to Proper weight Proper diet Proper handling

(QAAC) Exercize?

CP1:Genetics

Effect of Sire on Progeny REA3.47

3.13

2.462.96

2.65 2.46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Ram REA Progeny REA

S

H

R

Effect of Sire on Progeny Carcass Wt

53.952.7 51.9

80.9 79.0 77.8

162 158 156

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0

Prog Dress % Prog CWt Prog CarcValue

S

H

R

Value Increase for 100 Progeny

$615

$234

$0

$452

$172

$0

$1,067

$406

$0$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Carc Wt ValueIncr.

Cut Yield ValueIncr.

Total Value Incr.

S

H

R

CP2:Feed to Correct WeightOverfinished vs Underfinished

Overfinished lamb•Small frame size•Fed for too long•Started with too heavy of a lamb

Underfinished lamb•Poor nutrition•Excess frame size•Started with too light of a lamb

Why Not Rams? Growth

Rams > Wethers > Ewes Leaness

Rams > Wethers > Ewes Problems with:

Feedlot behavior Pelt removal Occasionally flavor

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

Suffolk

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

Norfolk Horn

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

Southdown

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

Hampshire

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

Dorper

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

Texel

Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire Breeds

White Suffolk

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Merino

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Rambouillet

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Romney

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Lincoln

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Columbia

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Corriedale

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Border Leicester

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Coopworth

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Finn Sheep

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Dorset

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Polypay

Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Romanov

Comparison of Past Audits:Carcass Weight

759

787

796

720

730

740

750

760

770

780

790

800

1991 1995 2000 2005

Carcass weight

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005

748

Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Quality Grade

55

8

48

5

51

7

57

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1991 1995 2000 2005

USDA Prime and Choice

USDA Standard and lower

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005

***

***Best Result Ever

5

35

3

7

Ideal Versus Actual Quality Grade Consist

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%

Prime TopChoice

LowChoice

Select Standardand lower

IdealActual

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005

29

19

3331

38

0

Comparison of Past Audits:USDA Yield Grade

45

17

58

8

50

12

53

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1991 1995 2000 2005

Yield Grades 1 & 2

Yield Grades 4 & 5

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005

"Out Cattle" In The NBQA -- 2005

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

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 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

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

Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005