Tenderness Ranks #1

[MikeC]

Centennial, Colo., Feb. 6, 2008 – The components of "taste" that determine just how satisfying it is to eat beef are flavor, juiciness and tenderness. But tenderness has been identified as the first and most important of the three among U.S. beef consumers, according to a new beef checkoff-funded report.

Colorado State University meat scientists Gary Smith, Ph.D., J. Daryl Tatum, Ph.D., Keith Belk, Ph.D., and John Scanga, Ph.D., recently completed an executive summary titled Post-Harvest Practices for Enhancing Beef Tenderness as a companion piece to the 2007 Pre-Harvest Cattle Management Practices checkoff-funded report.

"Beef tenderness has been determined to be a very important component of consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the research collected by industry experts will only improve our product's quality and ultimately impact the demand for beef," says Glen Dolezal, chair of the Joint Industry Product Enhancement Committee. "From animal to plate, it's vital to our future success to continually examine and improve the quality and tenderness of our product."

Authors said their economic analyses indicates that a 10 percent increase in tenderness of beef produced in the U.S. would add $150 million to $170 million annually to the income of the U.S. beef industry.

 

[jscunn]

A question about the packing industry.. How long does a normal carcass hang before it is cut up??

 

[MikeC]

A question about the packing industry.. How long does a normal carcass hang before it is cut up??

2 days. But the packers say they can equally age beef now in the Cryovac packages. :roll:

Plus, they don't lose pounds from evaporation. :lol:

 

[Jovid]

Hmmmmmm.....Guess that will improve the demand for Red Polls.

 

[CKC1586]

Interesting MARC study:


Dr. Koohmaraie of the USDA comments on Piedmontese-myostatin affects on tenderness:

Quoted from this research report:

"Heritabilities and Phenotypic and Genetic Correlations for Bovine Postrigor Calpastatin Activity, Intramuscular Fat Content, Warner- Bratzler Shear Force, Retail Product Yield, and Growth Rate"
by S. D. Shackelfordts, M. Koohmaraie, L. V. Cundiff, K. E. Gregory*, G. A. Rohrer", and J. W. Savell *Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, Clay Center, NE

"Piedmontese crosses had the lowest WBS (Warner Bratzler Shear Force*) despite having the second-lowest amount of IMF. Additionally, Piedmontese crosses had the fourth most calpastatin activity. Thus, these data suggest that the extreme tenderness of muscle-hypertrophied [Piedmontese] cannot be explained by variation in CA [Calpastatin] or marbling [IMF].
Further studies to elucidate the mechanism responsible for the extreme tenderness of muscle-hypertrophied [Piedmontese] cattle must be conducted."


*The lower the WBS, the more tender the meat.

In this study, Piedmontese ranked as most tender, followed by Pinzgauer, then Hereford, out of 11 breeds compared in the USDA-MARC GermPlasm Evaluations. Further – Piedmontese crosses had the highest retail product percent, and the second lowest IMF in this comparison.

Read the full report HERE (opens as a large PDF file - download will be slow on dial-up connections).

A note on Calpastatin and Calpain:

Calpain, a calcium-dependent protease, has been recognized as a key player in postmortem tenderization of skeletal muscle (Koohmaraie, 1996). Calpastatin is a widely distributed endogenous inhibitor protein that specifically acts on calpain. The calpain system, and its inhibitor, calpastatin, is believed to be the primary proteolytic enzyme system involved in postmortem tenderization of aged beef (Koohmaraie et al., 1991). Koohmaraie (1996) indicated that the degradation of structural muscle proteins by calpain is responsible for meat tenderization during postmortem storage of meat. Calpastatin activity at 24 h postmortem is inversely proportional to postmortem tenderization and accounts for a greater proportion of the variation in beef tenderness than any other single variable (Koohmaraie, 1994).

 

[novatech]

Very good site on tenderness.
http://www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm

This one relates to Brahman but can also be applied to any other breed.
http://arsserv0.tamu.edu/research/publi ... 115=191308

I talked to one of the authors of this article. He said that the tenderness genes account for 20% of tenderness. The genetics for temperament and how they are handled accounts the for the majority .

 

[MoGal]

MARC had conducted studies, the last ones I saw that said tenderness was: Piedmontese, Pinzgauer, Tarentaise, and Red Poll. I never saw the one where hereford was in it..........

CKC, I can't click on the "HERE" and it provide a link.......... can you give the link. Thank you.

 

[Jovid]

Very good site on tenderness.
http://www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm

This one relates to Brahman but can also be applied to any other breed.
http://arsserv0.tamu.edu/research/publi ... 115=191308

I talked to one of the authors of this article. He said that the tenderness genes account for 20% of tenderness. The genetics for temperament and how they are handled accounts the for the majority .

I read the article and didn't see where it says that. :? :?

 

[OK Jeanne]

You may recall having seen this Bovigen chart before. Susan Willmon gave it to me when she was the
office manager for Bovigen in Colorado--before they moved their office to N.Orleans.

This chart was done before the second calpain factor was released - therefore at the time
a "4 star" rating for tenderness (2 for calpastatin and 2 for calpain) was the perfect score. Only breeds
that had over 100 animals were included in the statistics. Bovigen refuses to issue any more
breed comparison charts. I think instead they lump all "english" breeds in one category
and everything else in another -- or maybe one category may be "continental" and the
other is for the brama influence. The owner of Bovigen is a big angus breeder as I understand.
I was told that the relative percentages of the second calpain factor(that is not included
in the chart) is basically the same as the one shown below.

We have never had a beef customer(actual or potential) ask if our beef was marbled; however
many many people will ask "is it tender?". I also believe that is the primary criteria for the
consumer. I suspect that more tenderness gene factors will be discovered and will be proven
by use of the shear force test.

 

[novatech]

Very good site on tenderness.
http://www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm

This one relates to Brahman but can also be applied to any other breed.
http://arsserv0.tamu.edu/research/publi ... 115=191308

I talked to one of the authors of this article. He said that the tenderness genes account for 20% of tenderness. The genetics for temperament and how they are handled accounts the for the majority .

I read the article and didn't see where it says that. :? :?

The article does not say that. As I said;

I talked to one of the authors of this article.

I would also like to say that I neither agree or disagree with either article. I am open to all scientific research on improvement of beef. I use Genestar Technology on my cattle but do not believe that it is the answer to everything. One can have all the stars in the world but that will not guarantee anything. All it will give you is the potential. Just like EPS's.
The articles point out the fact that there are a lot more factors involved in producing quality beef than what is being marketed.
Genestar is aware of this fact, that is why they are using or researching a temperament gene marker in Australia.

 

[Jovid]

Very good site on tenderness.
http://www.naturalhub.com/buy_food_meat_tenderness.htm

This one relates to Brahman but can also be applied to any other breed.
http://arsserv0.tamu.edu/research/publi ... 115=191308

I talked to one of the authors of this article. He said that the tenderness genes account for 20% of tenderness. The genetics for temperament and how they are handled accounts the for the majority .

I read the article and didn't see where it says that. :? :?

The article does not say that. As I said;

I talked to one of the authors of this article.

Then why didn't he say that in his article?