Meat and Muscle BiologyTM Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare meat quality and sensory characteristics of steaks from longissimus dorsi of steers with different temperaments. Calves (n = 49; 314kg) were processed and scored for temperament according to Beef Improvement Federation Guidelines and divided into three groups: Docile (D), Restless (R) and NervousFlighty (NF). Steers were housed with access to pasture then transferred to a research feedlot until harvest and processed with carcass data recorded. Striploins were wet-aged for 14 d before, frozen and were then cut into 2.54 cm steaks, and individually vacuum packed. Instrumental color was measured on thawed and tray overwrapped steaks on d 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 of simulated retail display. The CIE L*, a*, and b* color values were collected and oxymyoglobin, hue angle and saturation index values were calculated. A 7-member trained sensory panel evaluated steak samples for myofibrillar tenderness, connective tissue amount, overall tenderness, juiciness, and beef flavor intensity. The NF group had reduced (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight compared to the other groups. The D and R groups were lighter (L*; P < 0.05), and R group yellower (b*; P < 0.05) and greater (P < 0.05) in hue angle than the other groups. No difference (P > 0.05) between groups for redness (a*), saturation index, and oxymyoglobin ratio were observed. Display time affected color with d 0 being redder (a*; P < 0.05), yellower (b*; P < 0.05), greater (P < 0.05) saturation index, and greater (P < 0.05) oxymyoglobin ratio than d 7. Steaks from D and R groups were more tender (P < 0.05) in myofibrillar tenderness, had less (P < 0.05) perceived connective tissue, were overall more tender (P < 0.05), and more (P < 0.05) juicy than steaks from the NF group. There was no difference (P > 0.05) in off-flavor between the temperament groups. Temperament had minimal effect on carcass characteristics except hot carcass weight. Sensory panelists detected differences between temperament groups.

[1]  M. Meyers,et al.  The use of blood lactate concentration as an indicator of temperament and its impact on growth rate and tenderness of steaks from Simmental × Angus steers. , 2015, Meat science.

[2]  E. Pajor,et al.  The effects of different flooring types on the behavior, health, and welfare of finishing beef steers. , 2015, Journal of animal science.

[3]  D. S. Buchanan,et al.  Working chute behavior of feedlot cattle can be an indication of cattle temperament and beef carcass composition and quality. , 2011, Meat science.

[4]  D. L. Robinson,et al.  Cattle temperament: persistence of assessments and associations with productivity, efficiency, carcass and meat quality traits. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[5]  S. König,et al.  Temperament traits of beef calves measured under field conditions and their relationships to performance. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[6]  F. M. Rouquette,et al.  Relationship of temperament, growth, carcass characteristics and tenderness in beef steers. , 2009, Meat science.

[7]  D. S. Hale,et al.  Influence of animal temperament and stress responsiveness on the carcass quality and beef tenderness of feedlot cattle. , 2006, Meat science.

[8]  M. V. Keyserlingk,et al.  Consistency of flight speed and its correlation to productivity and to personality in Bos taurus beef cattle , 2006 .

[9]  J. Petherick,et al.  Performance of lot-fed Bos indicus steers exposed to aspects of a feedlot environment before lot-feeding , 2003 .

[10]  M. Galyean,et al.  Shade effects on performance, carcass traits, physiology, and behavior of heat-stressed feedlot heifers. , 2002, Journal of animal science.

[11]  V. J. Doogan,et al.  Productivity, carcass and meat quality of lot-fed Bos indicus cross steers grouped according to temperament , 2002 .

[12]  J. O. Reagan,et al.  Consumer impressions of Tender Select beef. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[13]  M. Galyean,et al.  Shade and water misting effects on behavior, physiology, performance, and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[14]  D. Cornforth,et al.  Consumer preferences for beef color and packaging did not affect eating satisfaction. , 2001, Meat science.

[15]  T. Grandin,et al.  The relationship between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements and sounds and temperament. , 2000, Journal of animal science.

[16]  J. D. Tatum,et al.  Bos indicus-cross feedlot cattle with excitable temperaments have tougher meat and a higher incidence of borderline dark cutters. , 1997, Meat science.

[17]  J. D. Tatum,et al.  Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

[18]  S. Shackelford,et al.  Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. , 1995, Journal of animal science.

[19]  B. E. Greene,et al.  RETARDATION OF OXIDATIVE COLOR CHANGES IN RAW GROUND BEEF , 1971 .

[20]  R. Dillon,et al.  Relationships between temperament and growth in a feedlot and commercial carcass traits of Bos indicus crossbreds , 1997 .

[21]  G. Fordyce,et al.  Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in northern Queensland. 2. Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality , 1988 .

[22]  M. Goddard,et al.  Temperament and bruising of Bos indicus cross cattle , 1985 .