Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:23:26.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2015

S. P. F. Bonny ,
D. W. Pethick ,
I. Legrand ,
J. Wierzbicki ,
P. Allen ,
L. J. Farmer ,
R. J. Polkinghorne ,
J.-F. Hocquette  and
G. E. Gardner
S. P. F. Bonny*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
I. Legrand
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Service Qualite’ des Viandes, MRAL, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France
J. Wierzbicki
Affiliation:
Polish Beef Association Ul. Kruczkowskiego 3, 00-380 Warszawa, Poland
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Teagasac Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland
L. J. Farmer
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
R. J. Polkinghorne
Affiliation:
431 Timor Road, Murrurundi, NSW 2338, Australia
J.-F. Hocquette
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
G. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
†E-mail: S.Bonny@murdoch.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Ossification score and animal age are both used as proxies for maturity-related collagen crosslinking and consequently decreases in beef tenderness. Ossification score is strongly influenced by the hormonal status of the animal and may therefore better reflect physiological maturity and consequently eating quality. As part of a broader cross-European study, local consumers scored 18 different muscle types cooked in three ways from 482 carcasses with ages ranging from 590 to 6135 days and ossification scores ranging from 110 to 590. The data were studied across three different maturity ranges; the complete range of maturities, a lesser range and a more mature range. The lesser maturity group consisted of carcasses having either an ossification score of 200 or less or an age of 987 days or less with the remainder in the greater maturity group. The three different maturity ranges were analysed separately with a linear mixed effects model. Across all the data, and for the greater maturity group, animal age had a greater magnitude of effect on eating quality than ossification score. This is likely due to a loss of sensitivity in mature carcasses where ossification approached and even reached the maximum value. In contrast, age had no relationship with eating quality for the lesser maturity group, leaving ossification score as the more appropriate measure. Therefore ossification score is more appropriate for most commercial beef carcasses, however it is inadequate for carcasses with greater maturity such as cull cows. Both measures may therefore be required in models to predict eating quality over populations with a wide range in maturity.

Keywords

beef qualityossification scoreagematurityconsumer testing
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 718 - 728
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AUS-MEAT 2005. Handbook of Australian Meat. AUS-MEAT Ltd, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Accessory Publication MSA sensory testing protocols. From: Watson R, Polkinghorne R and Thompson JM 2008. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.Google Scholar
Bailey, AJ 1985. The role of collagen in the development of muscle and its relationship to eating quality. Journal of Animal Science 60, 1580–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonny, SP, Gardner, GE, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Polkinghorne, RJ and Hocquette, J-F 2015. Biochemical measurements of beef are a good predictor of untrained consumer sensory scores across muscles. Animal 9, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, R, McCormick, R, Balasubramanian, V, Sanson, D, Wise, J, Hixon, D, Riley, M and Russell, W 1996. Growth, carcass, and tenderness characteristics of virgin, spayed, and single-calf heifers. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2178–2186.Google Scholar
Field, R, McCormick, R, Balasubramanian, V, Sanson, D, Wise, J, Hixon, D, Riley, M and Russell, W 1997. Tenderness variation among loin steaks from A and C maturity carcasses of heifers similar in chronological age. Journal of Animal Science 75, 693–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, RA, Nelms, GE and Schoonover, CO 1966. Effects of age, marbling and sex on palatability of beef. Journal of Animal Science 25, 360–366.Google Scholar
Lawrence, TE, Whatley, JD, Montgomery, TH and Perino, LJ 2001. A comparison of the USDA ossification-based maturity system to a system based on dentition. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1683–1690.Google Scholar
Legrand, I, Hocquette, J-F, Polkinghorne, RJ and Pethick, DW 2013. Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system. Animal 7, 524–529.Google Scholar
Lyford, C, Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Miller, M, Nishimura, T, Neath, K, Allen, P and Belasco, E 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.Google Scholar
MLA 2006. Module 6: Meat Standards Australia Grading. version 5.0, pp. 1–111. Meat &Livestock Australia, Sydney.Google Scholar
Morgan, JB, Savell, JW, Hale, DS, Miller, RK, Griffin, DB, Cross, HR and Shackelford, SD 1991. National beef tenderness survey. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3274–3283.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Watson, R, Thompson, JM and Pethick, DW 2008a. Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1459–1464.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Thompson, JM, Watson, R, Gee, A and Porter, M 2008b. Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1351–1359.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, RJ, Nishimura, T, Neath, KE and Watson, R 2011. Japanese consumer categorisation of beef into quality grades, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology. Animal Science Journal 82, 325–333.Google Scholar
Raines, CR, Dikeman, ME, Unruh, JA, Hunt, MC and Knock, RC 2008. Predicting cattle age from eye lens weight and nitrogen content, dentition, and United States Department of Agriculture maturity score. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3557–3567.Google Scholar
Scheffler, JM, Buskirk, DD, Rust, SR, Cowley, JD and Doumit, ME 2003. Effect of repeated administration of combination trenbolone acetate and estradiol implants on growth, carcass traits, and beef quality of long-fed Holstein steers. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2395–2400.Google Scholar
Schonfeldt, HC and Strydom, PE 2011. Effect of age and cut on tenderness of South African beef. Meat Science 87, 206–218.Google Scholar
Shackelford, SD, Koohmaraie, M and Wheeler, TL 1995. Effects of slaughter age on meat tenderness and USDA carcass maturity scores of beef females. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3304–3309.Google Scholar
Shorthose, WR and Harris, PV 1990. Effect of animal age on the tenderness of selected beef muscles. Journal of Food Science 55, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, JM, Polkinghorne, R, Hwang, IH, Gee, AM, Cho, SH, Park, BY and Lee, JM 2008. Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1380–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W, Van Wezemael, L, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Hocquette, J-F, Ueland, Ø and Grunert, KG 2010. European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: Insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 54, 289–296.Google Scholar
Waggoner, AW, Dikeman, ME, Brethour, JR and Kemp, KE 1990. Performance, carcass, cartilage calcium, sensory and collagen traits of longissimus muscles of open versus 30-month-old heifers that produced one calf. J Journal of Animal Science 68, 2380–2386.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Polkinghorne, R and Thompson, JM 2008a. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Gee, A, Polkinghorne, R. and Porter, M 2008b. Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Weston, AR, Rogers, RW and Althen, TG 2002. Review: the role of collagen in meat tenderness. Professional Animal Scientist 18, 107–111.Google Scholar