Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T21:27:05.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of eating quality of bull and steer beef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. Dransfield ,
G. R. Nute  and
M. A. Francombe
E. Dransfield
Affiliation:
AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
G. R. Nute
Affiliation:
AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
M. A. Francombe
Affiliation:
AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Get access

Abstract

Eating qualities of beef from entire and castrate male animals were compared using taste panel, objective texture and chemical measurements and a consumer panel. The eating quality of roast m. longissimus dorsi, casseroled m. supraspinatus, minced m. gastrocnemius and grilled m. psoas major from bull beef, slaughtered at 400 days was different (by triangular tests) from that of twin steer beef. The differences (attributed to flavour, texture and juiciness) were not substantiated using descriptive scaling tests when the only significant difference was that roast m. longissimus dorsi from bulls was slightly drier than that from steers. Tenderness, juiciness and flavour of roast m. longissimus dorsi from 71 bulls and 84 steers raised semi-intensively to 390 to 510 kg and slaughtered commercially were assessed using descriptive category scales and the instrumental toughness values. There was no significant difference in organoleptic qualities and the distributions of tenderness and juiciness within these populations were similar. Bull beef contained more connective tissue and had less intramuscular fat. Fatness was poorly related to tenderness (r = 0·3) and unrelated to juiciness or flavour. A consumer panel of 606 assessors showed that bull beef was not as pale as steer beef and found no difference in fatness of the cuts, flavour or juiciness. Fore-rib roasts of bull beef were marginally less tender than steer fore rib.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 37 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arthaud, V. H., Mandigo, R. W., Koch, R. M. and Kotula, A. W. 1977. Carcass composition, quality and palatability attributes of bulls and steers fed different energy levels and killed at four ages. J. Anim. Sci. 44: 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, P., Lesser, D., Robertson, I., Parry, Doreen, Lowman, B., Scott, N. and Prhscott, J. 1978. A consumer test of bull vs steer beef. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 29: 885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boccard, R. L., Naudé, R. T., Cronje, D. E., Smit, M. C., Venter, H. J. and Rossouw, E. J. 1979. The influence of age, sex and breed of cattle on their muscle characteristics. Meat Sci. 3: 261–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryce jones, K. 1969. Objective measurement of the texture of meat from bulls and steers and the influence of heat treatments. In Meal Production from Entire Male Animals (ed. Rhodes, D. N.), pp. 199–209. Churchill, London.Google Scholar
Cardello, A. V., Maller, O., Kapsalis, J. G., Segars, R. A., Sawyer, F. M., Murphy, C. and Moskowitz, H. R. 1982. Perception of texture by trained and consumer panelists. J. Food Sci. 47: 1186–1197.Google Scholar
Dransfield, E. 1977. Intramuscular composition and texture of beef muscles. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 28: 833–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dransfield, E. and Jones, R. C. D. 1981. Relationship between tenderness of three beef muscles. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 32: 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dransfield, E. and MacFie, H. J. H. 1980. Precision in the measurement of meat texture. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 31: 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dransfield, E., Rhodes, D. N., Nute, G. R., Roberts, T. A., Boccard, R., Touraille, C., Buchter, L., Hood, D. E., Joseph, R. L., Schon, I., Casteels, M., Cosentino, E. and Tinbergen, B. J. 1982. Eating quality of European beef assessed at five research institutes. Meat Sci. 6: 163–184.Google Scholar
Field, R. A. 1971. Effect of castration on meat quality and quantity. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 849–858.Google Scholar
Field, R. A., Nelms, G. E. and Schoonover, C. O. 1966. Effect of age, marbling and sex on palatability of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, A. L. and Park, R. J. 1980. Odours and flavours in meat. In Developments in Meat Science—1 (ed. Lawrie, R. A.), pp. 219–248. Applied Sci. Publ., London.Google Scholar
Goutefongea, R. and Valin, C. 1978. Etude de la qualite des viandes de bovin. II. Comparison des caracteristiques organoleptiques des viandes de taurillon et d'animal adulte. Annls Technol. Agric. 27: (3), 609–627.Google Scholar
Hawrysh, Z. L., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1979a. The influence of cooking temperature on the eating quality of beef from bulls and steers fed three levels of dietary roughage. Can. Insl. Fd Sci. Technol. J. 12: 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawrysh, Z. L., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1979b. The effect of conventional and microwave cooking on eating quality of beef from bulls of three different types. Can. Inst. Fd Sci. Technol. J. 12: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsley, R. E., Vetter, R. L., Kline, E. A. and Burroughs, W. 1971. Effects of age and sex on quality, tenderness and collagen content of bovine longissimus muscle. J. Anim. Sci. 33: 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, C. E., Jacobs, J. A., Howks, A. D., Gregory, T. L., Sauter, E. A. and Miller, J. C. 1975. Carcass composition and quality of bulls vs steers. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 293–294 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Joseph, R. L. and Connolly, J. 1974. Tenderness of bull and steer beef. Ir. J. agric. Res. 13: 307–322.Google Scholar
Kopp, J. 1977. Facteurs de variation de la contraction thermique de la viande lies au collagene. Proc. 23rd Europ. Meat Res. Work, Moscow, Paper H10.Google Scholar
Liboriussen, T., Andersen, B. B., Buchter, L., Kousgaard, K. and Møller, A. J. 1977. Crossbreeding experiments with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. IV. Physical, chemical and palatability characteristics of longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles from crossbred young bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 31–43.Google Scholar
Martin, A. H., Fredeen, H. T. and Weiss, G. M. 1971. Tenderness of beef longissimus dorsi muscle from steers, heifers and bulls as influenced by source, post-mortem ageing and carcass characteristics. J. Food Sci. 36: 619–623.Google Scholar
Meat Promotion Executive. 1982. British Beef Gets a Roasting! Meat and Livestock Commission, London.Google Scholar
Mello, F. C. Jr, Field, R. A., Riley, M. L. and Nelms, G. E. 1974. Maturity and quality traits of bulls vs. steers. J. Anim. Sci. 38: 1327 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Prost, E., Pelczynska, E. and Kotui, A. A. W. 1975a. Quality characteristics of bovine meat. II. Beef tenderness in relation to individual muscles, age and sex of animals and carcass quality grade. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prost, E., Pelczynska, E. and Kotui, A. A. W. 1975b. Quality characteristics of bovine meat. I. Content of connective tissue in relation to individual muscles, age and sex of animals and carcass quality grade. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffensperger, E., Wood, K. R. 1956. Development of a scale for grading toughness-tenderness in beef. Fd Technol.. Champaign 10: 627–630.Google Scholar
Reagan, J. O., Carpenter, Z. L., Smith, G. C. and King, G. T. 1971. Comparison of palatibility traits of beef produced by young bulls and steers. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 641–646.Google Scholar
Rhodes, D. N. 1969. The quality of meat from male and non-male animals. In Meat Production from Entire Male Animals (ed. Rhodes, D. N.), pp. 189–198. Churchill. London.Google Scholar