Understanding and Managing Variation in Meat Tenderness T. L. Wheeler, D. A. King, and S. D. Shackelford U. S. Meat Animal Research Center, Agricultural.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
... and you are gonna like it!
Advertisements

Live Animal Evaluation Beef Nick Nelson Blue Mt. Community College ANS 231 Originated by Kenneth Geuns Michigan State University Revised 2009.
GERMPLASM EVALUATION PROGRAM U.S. MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER
Coming soon to a genetics lab near you! NBCEC Beef Genetic Workshop Clay Center, NE March 27, 2004 Marker adjusted EPDs.
The Effect of Animal Disposition on Carcass Traits
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Meat!
West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.
Meeting Consumer Demands through Genetic Selection: The NCBA Carcass Merit Project Dan W. Moser on behalf of the CMP Team.
Slaughter Overview and Cuts of Beef
Principles of Marketing and Evaluating Beef Cattle
Breeds of Beef & Dairy Cattle Mrs. Gilbreath. Today you will be able to… Identify characteristics of Major Beef Cattle Breeds, Dual-Purpose and Dairy.
Meat Goat Carcass Merit Dr. Dwight Loveday University of Tennessee-Knoxville Department of Food Science & Technology.
Detection of QTL in beef cattle Eduardo Casas U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska.
Improving Meat Tenderness Dr. John Marchello and Dr. Ron Allen.
Live Cattle Evaluation. What are we trying to determine? u Quality grade u Yield grade u Dressing percentage.
The latest eating quality science managing intramuscular fat and tenderness to improve the consumer eating experience Dave Pethick Lis Pannier & the Sheep.
 Beef Cattle.  In the United States there are more than 80 recognized breeds of beef cattle.
Effects of  -Calpain DNA Tests on Tenderness R. Mark Thallman U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE.
Carcass EPD: Where are we, and where are we going? Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.
Effects of delayed implant protocols on performance, carcass characteristics and meat tenderness in Holstein steers J. L. Beckett, and J. Algeo Cal Poly.
Applied Beef Cattle Breeding and Selection Larry V. Cundiff ARS-USDA-U.S. Meat Animal Research Center 2008 Beef Cattle Production Management Series-Module.
BEEF QUALITY: WHAT IS IT? — HOW TO PRODUCE IT Harlan Ritchie Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
Applied Beef Cattle Breeding and Selection Composite Populations Larry V. Cundiff ARS-USDA-U.S. Meat Animal Research Center 2008 Beef Cattle Production.
Matching Beef Genetics with Production Environment T. G. Jenkins and C. L. Ferrell USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center NE.
Animal Selection and Evaluation Livestock Evaluation.
BEEF GENETICS NEXT What color are Shorthorns? n A. White n B. Red n C. Roan n D. All the above A B C D NEXT.
Beef Cattle and Industry. I CAN ….. I CAN ….. - Identify the main beef breeds - Explain how important the industry is and how it works. - Describe the.
Breed Differences and Taking Advantage of Complementarity Larry V. Cundiff U.S. Meat Animal Research Center ARS-USDA Clay Center, NE Brown Bagger IV Crossbreeding.
Training, Validation, and Target Populations Training, Validation, and Target Populations Mark Thallman, Kristina Weber, Larry Kuehn, Warren Snelling,
Beef Relationships using 50K Chip Information L.A. Kuehn, J.W. Keele, G.L. Bennett, T.G. McDaneld, T.P.L. Smith, W.M. Snelling, T.S. Sonstegard, and R.M.
Principles of Livestock Judging University of Florida H/FFA Livestock Judging Clinic Full presentation online at
The Beef Industry. The average size beef herd is around 100 head.
Heterosis – The Forgotten Tool? Dr. Tom Field Colorado State University Dr. Andy Herring Texas A&M University Cattlemen’s College 2005 NCBA Meeting, San.
Growth, Composition and Meat Quality ANSC 590 ANIMAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Breeding and Genetics 101.
PowerPoint in part adopted from: Georgia Agriculture Education Curriculum Breeds of Beef Cattle.
DNA Marker Validation Update Dick Quaas Cornell University Beef improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Billings MT, 7-9 July 2005.
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES 1 Discovering Genes for Beef Production Mike Goddard University of Melbourne and Department of Primary Indusries, Victoria.
Beef Evaluation and Pricing continued. Estimating Yield Grade Visually evaluate animal for differences in fat and muscle Shape.
Breed and Trait Selection Considerations Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.
Protein Fabrication 1 Beef and Veal Fabrication and ID Sessions 6 and 7.
Objective: Define cutability, degree of lean, marbling, and quality features used to market beef and swine.
The Brown Bagger Beef Cattle Adaptability Current Tools of Assessment John L. Evans Oklahoma State University 1.
As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target? Twig Marston Extension Beef Specialist K-State Research & Extension.
Characterizing Change in the Beef Industry Justin W. Waggoner, Ph.D. Beef Systems Specialist Kansas State University Garden City, KS.
Beef Cattle and Industry. Take notes on the important information from each of the following slides so you have it in your notes.
1 Scientific Farm Animal Production, 10 th ed Field and Taylor Copyright ©2012, 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All.
Use of DNA information in Genetic Programs.. Next Four Seminars John Pollak – DNA Tests and genetic Evaluations and sorting on genotypes. John Pollak.
Choose a category. You will be given the answer. You must give the correct question. Click to begin.
B66 Heritability, EPDs & Performance Data. Infovets Educational Resources – – Slide 2 Heritability  Heritability is the measurement.
The effect of Marbling on Palatability Buenos Aires September 2008.
Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Commercial DNA Tests NBCEC Validations.
ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004 L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff MARC-ARS-USDA Lincoln and Clay Center,
Selection of Breeding Program An S 426 Fall 2007.
Beef Cattle Production
Genetic Evaluation of Carcass Data Using Age, Weight, Fat, or Marbling Endpoints 2003 BIF Selection Decisions Committee May 29, 2003 Janice M. Rumph Montana.
USDA/MRP/AMS. Feeder Cattle Grading USDA/MRP/AMS.
EPD’s: What They Are and How to Use Them. Introduction EPDs = Expected Progeny Differences Progeny = Offspring, usually the offspring of the sire Differences.
Breeding Objectives for Terminal Sires Michael MacNeil USDA ARS Miles City, MT.
Whole genome selection and the 2000 bull project at USMARC Larry Kuehn Research Geneticist.
Principles of Livestock/Poultry Evaluation and Showmanship.
Beef and Poultry.  You need 5-7 oz. from the meat, poultry, fish, dry bean, egg and nut group daily.  Protein is the main nutrient found in meat. 
Introduction into Meat Science
Livestock Evaluation And Selection
ABIC 2014 – Red Deer, AB February 19-21
The Beef Industry Original Power Point Created by Randal Cales
Live Animal Evaluation Beef
Joe C. Paschal Livestock Specialist Texas AgriLife Extension
Update on Multi-Breed Genetic Evaluation
Have Phenotypic Trends for Carcass Traits Followed Genetic Trends?
Presentation transcript:

Understanding and Managing Variation in Meat Tenderness T. L. Wheeler, D. A. King, and S. D. Shackelford U. S. Meat Animal Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Clay Center, Nebraska, USA

Presentation Outline Factors affecting tenderness variation Genetic influences on tenderness Predicting tenderness for sorting Tenderization strategies

Why is tenderness so important?

Consumer Rankings of Sensory Traits

Tenderness vs Price $/pound

Biological basis for variation in meat tenderness Contractile state Enzymatic degradation of proteins Connective tissue Marbling

Contractile State Extent of muscle shortening during rigor mortis formation

Rigor mortis

Effect of Muscle and Treatment on Sarcomere Length

Effect of Muscle and Treatment on W-B Shear Force

Effect of muscle on sarcomere length in beef

Enzymatic breakdown of protein (proteolysis) Responsible for tenderization during “aging” of meat Caused by an enzyme that naturally occurs in muscle Regulated by level of that enzyme, it’s specific inhibitor, and calcium

The Calcium-dependent (Calpain) Proteolytic System µ-calpain m-calpain calpastatin

Effect of muscle on desmin degradation in beef

The Toughening and Tenderization Processes of Meat The Toughening Phase The Tenderization Phase

Warner-Bratzler shear force, kg Sarcomere length, µm

Time Postmortem, h Shear Force, kg 12 Changes in Meat Tenderness after Harvest

Connective Tissue Measured as the amount of collagen

Effect of muscle on connective tissue in beef

Marbling/Intramuscular Fat

Slight 00 Moderately Abundant 00 Slightly Abundant 00 Moderate 00 Modest 00 Small 00 Average Prime Average Choice Select Low Choice High Choice Low Prime 3.1% 12.1% 10.2% 4.5%6.0% 7.8%

Marbling score Warner-Bratzler shear force n = 1,083 R 2 = 0.02 W-B Shear Force vs Marbling

The tenderness of a specific muscle primarily depends on: The combination of extent of muscle shortening, collagen content, and the extent of postmortem proteolysis.

Effect of Muscle on Tenderness Rating

Muscle specific strategies can be developed to improve tenderness problems.

Management Factors Age at harvest < 30 months Castration by 7 months Growth enhancement technologies anabolic implants β-adrenergic agonists Time on high energy diet Health Stress before harvest

Anabolic Implants Majority of cattle in the U.S. receive anabolic implants –Classified by active ingredients and strength Many cattle receive multiple implants More potent “aggressive” implant protocols –Greater growth –Deleterious effects on carcass and meat quality

Management Factors Age at harvest < 30 months Castration by 7 months Growth enhancement technologies anabolic implants β-adrenergic agonists Time on high energy diet Health Stress before harvest

Genetics and Meat Tenderness Beef breed studies Genetic markers

Beef Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) Project

SIRE BREEDS USED TO PRODUCE F I CROSSES IN THE GERMPLASM EVALUATION PROGRAM AT MARC a Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII HerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHereford AngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngus JerseyRed PollBrahmanLonghornTuliWagyuRed AngusBeefmaster S. DevonBraunviehSahiwalSalersBoranNorweg. RedLimousinBrangus LimousinGelbviehPinzgauerGallowayBelg. Blue Sw. Red&Wh.CharolaisBonsmara SimmentalMaine Anj.TarentaiseNelloreBrahmanFriesianSimmentalRomosinuano CharolaisChianinaShorthornPiedmonteseGelbvieh Piedmontese Charolais Gelbvieh Pinzgauer a With Angus and Hereford Dams. Composite MARC III cows were also included in Cycles V, VI, VI, and VIII.

GPE Breed Summary Pinzgauer Piedmontese Jersey South Devon Red Poll Brangus Charolais Gelbvieh Sahiwal Nellore Brahman Boran Beefmaster Slightly less TenderMore TenderLess Tender

Genetic Standard Deviations HA Nellore Pinzgauer Genetic Variation in Shear Force Within and Among Sire Breeds of Purebred Progeny

Percentage Piedmontese and Myostatin Genotype Ribeye Top sirloin Top round Bottom round

Percentage Retail Product Yield

2 alleles1 allele0 alleles

Effect of Muscle and Myostatin on Tenderness Rating

Effect of Muscle and Myostatin on Collagen Content

Myostatin Conclusions Myostatin Conclusions Use of terminal homozygous Piedmontese sire provides: A 7% increase in saleable product Improved tenderness in all four muscles

BREED SUMMARY Small improvements in tenderness can be made by selection of breed But within breed variation is large Inactive myostatin or “double muscling” has tenderness and muscling advantages

Genetic Markers for Meat Tenderness

Heritability of meat tenderness is estimated to be about 0.30

Traditional genetic selection is a slow process Greater progress in less time may be possible with marker assisted selection

Two µ-calpain and calpastatin markers that affect meat tenderness have been commercialized

We have validated the tenderness markers in commercial populations

Effect of µ-calpain (CAPN4751) genotype on beef tenderness 9% 23%

Effects of CAPN1_316 in cattle treated with differing implant protocols

So far we have found a small number of markers that have small effects It is a time consuming process, but technology is continually improving Marker Conclusions

Some of the variation in tenderness can be controlled by manipulating genetics GENETICS SUMMARY

Predicting and Enhancing Tenderness

It is not likely we will be able to ensure 100% tender meat Thus, we need a technology to sort the carcasses for tenderness

Meat from “Tender” carcasses can be marketed at a premium Meat from “Tough” carcasses can be targeted for tenderizing processes

The USMARC Beef Tenderness System Use of visible and near-infrared reflectance to predict beef tenderness

Validation of Beef Tenderness Prediction

Beef carcass grading

Tenderizing Technologies

Electrical Stimulation

Tenderstretch

Tendercut®

Postmortem aging 14 days or more

Marination

Blade/needle tenderization

Carcass electrical stimulation Postmortem aging Tenderstretch Tendercut® Marination Blade tenderization Tenderizing Technologies

Providing Consumers Lean, Tender Beef Optimize genetics Optimize management Identify tender from tough Tenderizing interventions