CRC 'Regional Combinations' project — effects of genetics and growth paths on beef production and meat quality: experimental design, methods and measurements.

2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 959 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. A. McKiernan ◽  
J. F. Wilkins ◽  
S. A. Barwick ◽  
G. D. Tudor ◽  
B. L. McIntyre ◽  
...  

As a component of the second term of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Cattle and Beef Quality, a project to further test and validate the effects of varying nutritional growth paths pre-finishing and slaughter on cattle of varying genetic potential for meat yield and eating quality was designed and implemented. This project, ‘Regional Combinations’, was a multi-site experiment, using Bos taurus cattle generated at 4 locations across southern Australia. The design of imposing different growth paths between weaning and finishing on cattle with specific genetic potential is common across sites. Treatment and interaction effects on beef production and meat quality were examined within and across sites. This paper describes the experimental designs, generation of experimental cattle at the various sites and the measurements, collection and storage of the data for multi-site analyses.


2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 843 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. M. Bindon

The Cooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality) was formulated in 1992 by CSIRO, the University of New England (UNE), NSW Agriculture and Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) to address the emerging beef quality issue facing the Australian beef industry at that time: the demand from domestic and export consumers for beef of consistent eating quality. An integrated program of research involving meat science, molecular and quantitative genetics and growth and nutrition was developed. To meet the expectations of the Commonwealth of Australia, additional projects dealing with animal health and welfare and environmental waste generated by feedlot cattle were included. The program targeted both grain- and grass-finished cattle from temperate and tropical Australian environments. Integration of research on this scale could not have been achieved by any of the participating institutions working alone. This paper describes the financial and physical resources needed to implement the program and the management expertise necessary for its completion. The experience of developing and running the Cooperative Research Centre confirms the complexity and cost of taking large numbers of pedigreed cattle through to carcass and meat quality evaluation. Because of the need to capture the commercial value of the carcass, it was necessary to work within the commercial abattoir system. During the life of the Cooperative Research Centre, abattoir closure and/or their willingness to tolerate the Research Centre’s experimental requirements saw the Cooperative Research Centre operations move to 6 different abattoirs in 2 states, each time losing some precision and considerable revenue. This type of constraint explains why bovine meat science investigations on this scale have not previously been attempted. The Cooperative Research Centre project demonstrates the importance of generous industry participation, particularly in cattle breeding initiatives. Such involvement, together with the leadership provided by an industry-driven Board guarantees early uptake of results by beef industry end-users. The Cooperative Research Centre results now provide the blueprint for genetic improvement of beef quality traits in Australian cattle herds. Heritabilities of beef tenderness, eating quality, marbling, fatness and retail beef yields are now recorded. Genetic correlations between these traits and growth traits are also available. Outstanding sires for beef quality have been identified. Linked genetic markers for some traits have been described and commercialised. Non-genetic effects on beef quality have been quantified. Australian vaccines against bovine respiratory disease have been developed and commercialised, leading to a reduction in antibiotic use and better cattle performance. Sustainable re-use of feedlot waste has been devised.



2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 953 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Perry ◽  
W. R. Shorthose ◽  
D. M. Ferguson ◽  
J. M. Thompson

This paper describes the methodology used for the collection of carcass yield and meat quality data from straightbred and crossbred cattle in the Cooperative Research Centre for Cattle and Beef Quality core program.



2009 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 439 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. M. Schutt ◽  
H. M. Burrow ◽  
J. M. Thompson ◽  
B. M. Bindon

Market demand for a reliable supply of beef of consistently high eating quality led the Cooperative Research Centre for Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality) to initiate a crossbreeding progeny test program to quantify objective and sensory meat quality differences between straightbred and first-cross Brahman cattle. Brahman, Belmont Red, Santa Gertrudis, Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn, Charolais and Limousin sires were mated to Brahman females over 3 years to produce 1346 steers and heifers in subtropical northern Australia. Calves were assigned within sire by age and weight to one of three market endpoints (domestic, Korean or Japanese), one of two finishing environments (subtropical or temperate) and one of two finishing diets (pasture or feedlot). Average carcass weights were 227, 288 and 327 kg for domestic, Korean and Japanese markets respectively. Only steers were finished for the Japanese market. The effects of sire breed, finishing regime, market endpoint and sex on sensory meat quality of four attributes score (CMQ4), ossification score and Warner-Bratzler shear force (SF), instron compression (IC), ultimate pH and percent cooking loss (CL) on the M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LT) and M. semitendinosus (ST) were determined. Straightbred Brahmans had the highest SFLT (5.39 ± 0.07; P < 0.001), ICLT (1.89 ± 0.02; P < 0.05) and CL in both muscles (P < 0.05). Straightbred Brahmans were the only genotype that failed to meet minimum CMQ4 grading standards (38.3; P < 0.001). Progeny with up to 75% Brahman content successfully met minimum objective and sensory meat quality consumer thresholds for tenderness (IC <2.2 kg, SF <5.0 kg; CMQ4 >46.5). There was little difference between crossbred progeny for most meat quality traits. All feedlot-finished animals were slaughtered at domestic, Korean and Japanese market weights by 24 months of age, with minimal differences in objective measures of meat quality between markets. The IC measures for all sire breeds were below 2.2 kg, indicating connective tissue toughness was not an important market consideration in feedlot-finished animals slaughtered by 24 months of age. Pasture finishing adversely affected all meat quality traits (P < 0.001) except CLST, with Korean and Japanese market animals having unacceptably tough SF, IC and CMQ4 measures. This was attributed to their older age at slaughter (31 and 36 months respectively), resulting from their seasonally interrupted growth path. While domestic animals slaughtered at 25 months of age off pasture had unacceptably high SF and IC, CMQ4 was acceptable. Subtropical feedlot animals had slightly more desirable (n.s.) SF and IC relative to temperate feedlot animals, whereas temperate feedlot animals had higher CMQ4 (P < 0.001). Genotype × environment interactions were not important.



2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 941 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Burrow ◽  
B. M. Bindon

In its first 7-year term, the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality) identified the genetic and non-genetic factors that impacted on beef eating quality. Following this, the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality was established in 1999 to identify the consequences of improving beef eating quality and feed efficiency by genetic and non-genetic means on traits other than carcass and beef quality. The new CRC also had the responsibility to incorporate results from the first Beef CRC in national schemes such as BREEDPLAN (Australia’s beef genetic evaluation scheme) and Meat Standards Australia (Australia’s unique meat grading scheme that guarantees the eating quality of beef). This paper describes the integrated research programs and their results involving molecular and quantitative genetics, meat science, growth and nutrition and industry economics in the Beef CRC’s second phase (1999–2006) and the rationale for the individual genetics programs established. It summarises the planned scientific and beef industry outcomes from each of these programs and also describes the development and/or refinement by CRC scientists of novel technologies targeting increased genetic gains through enhanced measurement and recording in beef industry herds, thereby ensuring industry use of CRC results.



2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 687 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. M. Bindon

The biology of marbling is a considerable issue for the Australian beef industry. Measurement of the trait is still a concern: subjective assessment based on the degree of visual fat deposition and its distribution is the 'industry standard' and the basis for payment of marbling grades. Yet this measurement may be subject to operator error and is influenced by chiller temperature. Chemical extraction gives an unequivocal measure of all fat in the muscle (intramuscular fat percentage: IMF%) and has higher heritability and genetic variation than marble score; but does this mirror exactly what the trade regards as 'marbling'?Progeny test results from the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Cattle and Beef Quality breeding projects provide improved understanding of breed and genetic effects on IMF% and marble score. Estimated breeding values (EBVs) for IMF% have been released to the industry for 7 breeds. Heritability estimates confirm that genetic progress will be faster when selection is based on IMF% rather than marble score. Genetic correlations of IMF% with growth, retail beef yield (RBY%), P8 fat, residual feed intake (RFI) and tenderness are now available to underpin selection indices. A favourable allele for marbling (TG5) on chromosome 14 has been identified by CSIRO/MLA as a direct gene marker for the trait. This is now being marketed as GeneSTAR marbling. Other favourable chromosomal regions are under investigation by the CRC.Nutritional manipulation of marbling remains problematic. It is accepted that high-energy grain diets achieve higher marbling than pasture diets. Within grain-based feedlot diets higher marbling is achieved with maize than barley, while barley diets in turn are better than sorghum. Steam flaking produces higher marbling than dry rolled grain and this effect is more marked with sorghum than maize. Beyond these establishments there are many uncertainties: experiments have examined the effects of diets with high protein; low protein; protected lipid; protected protein; added oil with and without calcium; vitamin A deficiency. None of these manipulations gave consistent improvement in marble score or IMF%. Commercial feedlots supplying Japanese B3/B4 markets may have successful dietary manipulations to enhance marbling but because of its proprietary nature the information is not normally available for scientific scrutiny.Japan is the only market for Australian beef where marbling is an important component of the market specification. There can be no doubt that marbling meets a special consumer preference in that niche market. In other markets scientific evidence for a link between marbling and beef tenderness or eating quality has been difficult to define (marbling is a key component of the USA grading scheme for primal cuts but Australia is not a big supplier to that market). In the domestic Meat Standards Australia market there is a trend for marbling to become more important as a consumer issue in 5-star products where higher order sensory attributes of beef come into play. Early meat science investigations concluded that beef flavour elements were water-soluble. This would exclude marbling fat as having a notable influence on flavour.Marbling remains the major determinant of carcass value in Australia's most valuable beef market. Research should continue to assist Australian producers to meet the specifications of that market with increased precision and reduced costs.



Genes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayed Haidar Abbas Raza ◽  
Rajwali Khan ◽  
Sameh A. Abdelnour ◽  
Mohamed E. Abd El-Hack ◽  
Asmaa F. Khafaga ◽  
...  

This review considers the unique characteristics of Chinese cattle and intramuscular fat content (IMF) as factors influencing meat quality, including tenderness, flavor, and juiciness of meat. Due to its nutritional qualities, meat contributes to a healthy and balanced diet. The intramuscular fat content and eating quality of beef are influenced by many factors, which can generally be divided into on-farm and pre-slaughter factors (breed, sex of cattle, age at slaughter, housing system, diet, and pre-slaughter handling) and postmortem factors (post-slaughter processing, chilling temperature, and packaging). Meat quality traits can also be influenced by the individual genetic background of the animal. Worldwide, the function of genes and genetic polymorphisms that have potential effects on fattening of cattle and beef quality have been investigated. The use of DNA markers is recognized as a powerful and efficient approach to achieve genetic gain for desirable phenotypic characteristics, which is helpful for economic growth. The polymorphisms of the SIRT4, SIRT6, SIRT7, CRTC3, ABHD5, KLF6, H-FABP, and ELOVL6 genes for body and growth characteristics of cattle, and also for beef quality, are considered with the aim of highlighting the significance of beef intramuscular fat content, and that growth, body, and meat quality characteristics are polygenically regulated.



2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 861 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. M. Bindon ◽  
N. M. Jones

Markets for Australian beef throughout the 20th century have been moulded by world wars, economic depressions, droughts, transport technology, cattle breeding, trade barriers, global competition, livestock disease eradication, human health risks, food safety, Australian Government policy, consumerism and beef quality. Major ‘shocks’ to beef marketing include the development of successful shipments of chilled carcases to Britain in the 1930s, the widespread trade disruption caused by World War II, expansion (early 1950s) and then a reduction in beef exports to Britain (1956), the introduction and then proliferation of Bos indicus derived cattle in northern Australia (1960s), licensing and upgrading of Australian abattoirs to export to USA and the consequential brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign leading to record export tonnages of Australian processing beef to USA (1960–70). In 1980, increased beef trade to Japan began, leading in the late 1980s to expansion of high-quality grain finished products into that market. By 1993, beef exports to Japan (280.5 kt) exceeded those to USA (274.4 kt), signalling the significant shift in beef exports to Asia. Commencing in about 1986, the USA recognised the value of beef exports to Asian markets pioneered by Australia. Australia’s share of the Japanese and South Korean markets has been under intense competition since that time. Another major influence on Australia’s beef market in the early 1990s was growth in live cattle exports to Asian markets in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Live exports accounted for 152000 heads in 1992 and 858000 heads in 1996. Improved management systems (e.g. fences) and consequent regulation of cattle supply even in the wet season, a by-product of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, were indirect drivers of the growth in live exports. Throughout the period 1940–2000, domestic consumption of beef and veal declined from 68 to 33.3 kg/head.year, reflecting competition from other foods, perceptions of health risks, price of beef, periodic food safety scares, vegetarianism, changes in lifestyle and eating habits and lack of consistency of eating quality of beef. Despite this decline, the domestic Australian beef market still consumes a significant component (37%) of total Australian beef production. In 1984–85, the reform of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation set in train a major directional change (‘New Direction’) of the beef sector in response to beef market trends. Under Dick Austen’s leadership, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation changed the industry’s culture from being ‘production-driven’ to being ‘consumer-driven’. Market research began in Australia, Japan and Korea to establish consumer preferences and attitudes to price, beef appearance and eating quality. Definite consumer requirements were identified under headings of consistency and reliability. The AusMeat carcass descriptors were introduced and a decade later traits like tenderness, meat colour, fat colour, meat texture, taste, smell, and muscle size were addressed. These historical ‘shocks’ that shaped the Australian beef markets have all been accompanied by modification to production systems, breeding programs, herd structure, processing procedures, advertising and promotion, meat retailing and end-use. The increasing importance of the food service sector and the ‘Asian merge’ influence on beef cuts usage in restaurant meals and take-away products are the most recognisable changes in the Australian food landscape. The Cooperative Research Centre¿s research portfolio was built around the changing forces influencing beef markets in the early 1990s. Australia needed to better understand the genetic and non-genetic factors affecting beef quality. One example was the poor success rate of cattle being grain-fed for the Japanese premium markets. Another was the relative contribution of pre- and post-slaughter factors to ultimate eating quality of beef. The Meat Standards Australia scheme was launched in 1997 to address this problem in more detail. The Cooperative Research Centre contributed significantly to this initiative. In the year 2001, Australia, with only 2.5% of world cattle numbers retains the position of world number one beef trader. We trade to 110 countries worldwide. The Australian beef sector is worth A$6 billion annually. The diversity of Australian environments, cattle genotypes and production systems provides us with the ability to meet diverse specifications for beef products. A new set of market forces is now emerging. Strict accreditation rules apply to Australian producers seeking access to the lucrative European Union market. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie are a continuing food safety concern in Europe. This and the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain early in 2001 have potentially significant indirect effects on markets for Australian beef. And the sleeping giant, foot and mouth disease-free status of Latin American countries Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina continues to emerge as a major threat to Australian beef markets in Canada and Taiwan. As in the past, science and technology will play a significant role in Australia¿s response to these market forces.



2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. M. Bindon ◽  
H. M. Burrow ◽  
B. P. Kinghorn

At the commencement of the Cooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality) participating scientists were encouraged to anticipate the methods and channels that might be used to deliver the Cooperative Research Centre’s research outcomes to beef industry end-users. This important step was seen as the completion of the process, which began with the beef industry issue, leading then to formulation of the Cooperative Research Centre concept, initiation of the research program, completion of research and finally commercialisation or delivery of products and processes to industry. This paper deals with techniques, institutions and commercial arrangements employed to achieve delivery and adoption of diverse outcomes of the Cooperative Research Centre.



2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Dick Austen

Markets for Australian beef throughout the 20th century have been moulded by world wars, economic depressions, droughts, transport technology, cattle breeding, trade barriers, global competition, livestock disease eradication, human health risks, food safety, Australian Government policy, consumerism and beef quality. Major ‘shocks’ to beef marketing include the development of successful shipments of chilled carcases to Britain in the 1930s, the widespread trade disruption caused by World War II, expansion (early 1950s) and then a reduction in beef exports to Britain (1956), the introduction and then proliferation of Bos indicus derived cattle in northern Australia (1960s), licensing and upgrading of Australian abattoirs to export to USA and the consequential brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign leading to record export tonnages of Australian processing beef to USA (1960–70). In 1980, increased beef trade to Japan began, leading in the late 1980s to expansion of high-quality grain finished products into that market. By 1993, beef exports to Japan (280.5 kt) exceeded those to USA (274.4 kt), signalling the significant shift in beef exports to Asia. Commencing in about 1986, the USA recognised the value of beef exports to Asian markets pioneered by Australia. Australia’s share of the Japanese and South Korean markets has been under intense competition since that time. Another major influence on Australia’s beef market in the early 1990s was growth in live cattle exports to Asian markets in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Live exports accounted for 152000 heads in 1992 and 858000 heads in 1996. Improved management systems (e.g. fences) and consequent regulation of cattle supply even in the wet season, a by-product of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, were indirect drivers of the growth in live exports. Throughout the period 1940–2000, domestic consumption of beef and veal declined from 68 to 33.3 kg/head.year, reflecting competition from other foods, perceptions of health risks, price of beef, periodic food safety scares, vegetarianism, changes in lifestyle and eating habits and lack of consistency of eating quality of beef. Despite this decline, the domestic Australian beef market still consumes a significant component (37%) of total Australian beef production. In 1984–85, the reform of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation set in train a major directional change (‘New Direction’) of the beef sector in response to beef market trends. Under Dick Austen’s leadership, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation changed the industry’s culture from being ‘production-driven’ to being ‘consumer-driven’. Market research began in Australia, Japan and Korea to establish consumer preferences and attitudes to price, beef appearance and eating quality. Definite consumer requirements were identified under headings of consistency and reliability. The AusMeat carcass descriptors were introduced and a decade later traits like tenderness, meat colour, fat colour, meat texture, taste, smell, and muscle size were addressed. These historical ‘shocks’ that shaped the Australian beef markets have all been accompanied by modification to production systems, breeding programs, herd structure, processing procedures, advertising and promotion, meat retailing and end-use. The increasing importance of the food service sector and the ‘Asian merge’ influence on beef cuts usage in restaurant meals and take-away products are the most recognisable changes in the Australian food landscape. The Cooperative Research Centre¿s research portfolio was built around the changing forces influencing beef markets in the early 1990s. Australia needed to better understand the genetic and non-genetic factors affecting beef quality. One example was the poor success rate of cattle being grain-fed for the Japanese premium markets. Another was the relative contribution of pre- and post-slaughter factors to ultimate eating quality of beef. The Meat Standards Australia scheme was launched in 1997 to address this problem in more detail. The Cooperative Research Centre contributed significantly to this initiative. In the year 2001, Australia, with only 2.5% of world cattle numbers retains the position of world number one beef trader. We trade to 110 countries worldwide. The Australian beef sector is worth A$6 billion annually. The diversity of Australian environments, cattle genotypes and production systems provides us with the ability to meet diverse specifications for beef products. A new set of market forces is now emerging. Strict accreditation rules apply to Australian producers seeking access to the lucrative European Union market. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie are a continuing food safety concern in Europe. This and the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain early in 2001 have potentially significant indirect effects on markets for Australian beef. And the sleeping giant, foot and mouth disease-free status of Latin American countries Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina continues to emerge as a major threat to Australian beef markets in Canada and Taiwan. As in the past, science and technology will play a significant role in Australia¿s response to these market forces.



2001 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 943 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Upton ◽  
H. M. Burrow ◽  
A. Dundon ◽  
D. L. Robinson ◽  
E. B. Farrell

The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality) developed an integrated research program to address the major production and processing factors affecting beef quality. Underpinning the integrated program were 2 large-scale progeny testing programs that were used to develop genetic, nutritional, management and beef processing technologies to overcome deficiencies in beef quality. This paper describes the experimental design, generation of experimental cattle and the collection and storage of data derived from these straightbreeding and crossbreeding progeny testing programs.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document