Effects of growth implants on consumer perceptions of meat tenderness in beef steers1

Impact of a constant current electrical stimulation (CCES) system and hormonal growth-promoting (HGP) implants on meat quality and palatability of finished steers

This study evaluated the effects of a constant current electrical stimulation (CCES) system and hormonal growth-promoting (HGP) implants on the quality and palatability of the longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) from yearling-finished steers. The experiment used a total of 46 Angus cross steers, which were either non-implanted (n = 20) or implanted with trenbolone acetate and estradiol benzoate (n = 26). The CCES was applied to one side of each carcass during the slaughter process, whereas the other side remained unstimulated. Regardless of the application of HGP implants, the CCES reduced pH at 3 and 72 h post-mortem and shear force at all ageing times (P < 0.05), improved colour at 72 h post-mortem and during the retail display (P < 0.05), increased initial and overall tenderness (P < 0.01), and decreased the amount of perceived connective tissue and the proportion of trained panelists detecting spongy texture (P < 0.05) compared to meat from unstimulated carcass sides. Although CCES increased meat purge losses and reduced moisture content (P < 0.05), this did not affect meat juiciness (P > 0.10). CCES interacted with HGP to prevent increase in drip loss (P > 0.10), increase frequency of panelists detecting bloody/serumy flavour and typical texture, and reduce the proportion of panelists detecting rubbery texture in meat (P < 0.05). Regardless of stimulation treatment, meat from implanted animals had a more pronounced pH decline at 72 h post-mortem (P < 0.05) and a higher proportion of panelists finding no off-flavours (P < 0.05) or bloody/serumy flavour (P < 0.01) than non-implanted cattle. The CCES system tested in this study improved LTL quality and palatability of heavier beef carcasses.

Drivers of Consumer Liking for Beef, Pork, and Lamb: A Review

Tenderness, juiciness, and flavor have been associated with consumer acceptance of beef, lamb, and pork. Drivers of consumer liking are interrelated across these species, but there are differences in consumer preferences. Animal age, animal diet, and subsequent marbling impact consumer liking across species. For beef, consumer research prior to the 1990s showed that tenderness was the main driver of liking. Consumer tenderness and juiciness liking are highly correlated. More recent research has shown that as overall tenderness improved and tenderness variation decreased, flavor has become a more important driver of beef consumer liking. Flavor is affected by consumer preparation methods, familiarity with different flavor presentations, and animal production systems. Animal diet impacts consumer perception of beef tenderness and flavor, especially when comparing forage-fed versus grain-fed beef. Flavor preferences vary across countries more so than preferences for beef based on consumer tenderness preferences and are most likely influenced by the consumption of locally produced beef and the flavor-derived type of beef traditionally consumed. Drivers of pork consumer liking have been shown to be affected by pH, color, water holding capacity, animal diet, and the presence of boar taint compounds. While tenderness and juiciness continue to be drivers of consumer liking for pork, flavor, as impacted by animal diet and the presence of boar taint compounds, continues to be a driver for consumer liking. For lamb, the flavor, as affected by diet, and animal age continue to be the main drivers of consumer liking. Lamb consumers vary across countries based on the level of consumption and preferences for flavor based on cultural effects and production practices.

The effects of zeranol and oestradiol implants on performance and nutrient digestibility of zero-grazed White Fulani cattle

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two growth-promoting implants (zeranol and oestradiol-17β) on performance and feed digestibility of finishing White Fulani cattle in the feedlot. This was with a view to determining an alternative means of enhancing cattle performance without grazing the animals. Methods A 60-day feedlot trial was conducted using 27 stocker White Fulani bulls that were allotted randomly to three treatment groups (i.e. non-implanted, oestradiol-implanted and zeranol-implanted) in a completely randomised experimental design. Cattle were offered a compounded feedlot ration consisting of 14% crude protein ad libitum. The bulls were weighed initially and fortnightly thereafter for the duration of the study. Coefficients of dry matter and nutrients digestibility were determined using lignin as an internal marker. Data were analysed using the general linear model procedure of ANOVA and mean values were compared using Fisher’s least significant difference (l.s.d.0.05). Key results The average final liveweight, total weight gain, average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) of implanted feedlot cattle were higher (P &lt; 0.05) than for non-implanted cattle; and higher in oestradiol-implanted cattle compared with zeranol-implanted ones. The ADG was 29.16 and 20.48% higher, and the ADFI was 35.06 and 18.18% higher for oestradiol-implanted and zeranol-implanted feedlot cattle, respectively than for non-implanted cattle. Irrespective of the treatment, feed conversion ratio of experimental bulls remained below the range (4.5–7.5) established for feedlot beef cattle; an indication of better efficiency of feed utilisation by White Fulani cattle. The apparent digestibility of dry matter (59.76–64.31%) of the feedlot ration was in the order: non-implanted = oestradiol-implanted &gt; zeranol-implanted while the apparent digestibility of crude protein (73.91–77.99%) was in the order: non-implanted &gt; oestradiol-implanted = zeranol-implanted. Conclusions and implications The results of this study show that the use of an oestradiol implant in finishing zero-grazed White Fulani cattle was beneficial for improving growth performance. Both implanted and non-implanted cattle showed good coefficients of nutrient digestibility, indicating that the mode of action of the growth implants in enhancing performance characteristics does not depend on indices of digestibility.

Effects of hormonal growth promotants on beef quality: a meta-analysis

Benefits of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) include production efficiency, profit, and reduced environmental effects for beef cattle. Questions remain about effects of HGP on beef quality, particularly on measures of toughness such as Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), tenderness, and other taste-panel attributes of beef. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of HGP on beef quality using the results of randomized controlled trials identified from 3 searched databases. Thirty-one experiments with 181 treatment comparisons were used to evaluate the effects of HGP on WBSF and sensory measures of beef quality. Experiments varied in design, used many different hormonal treatments and combinations, which were single or repeated, in different breeds and sex groups of cattle, with or without electrical stimulation, and with different lengths of time on feed and beef aging. The effects of multiple treatment comparisons in experiments were evaluated using robust regression models and compared to Knapp-Hartung and permutation meta-analytical methods. Increased WBSF was associated with HGP treatment. Use of multiple HGP implants was associated with an increase in WBSF of 0.248 kg (95% CI = 0.203 to 0.292). Effects of a single implant only increased WBSF by 0.176 kg (95% CI = 0.109 to 0.242). Aging of beef did not alter the association of HGP with increased WBSF (P = 0.105); however, the point direction was toward a reduced effect with aging (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.005 per day aged). While aging lowered WBSF, it did not reduce the SMD between HGP treatment and reference groups. Comparisons using trenbolone acetate did not differ in WBSF from those using other implants (P > 0.15). The findings on sensory panel tenderness differ from those using WBSF as HGP treatment was not associated with reduced tenderness (P > 0.3) and multiple HGP treatments improved tenderness (SMD = 0.468) compared to a single implant. Further, juiciness, flavor, and connective tissue were not associated with HGP use, whereas there was a marked 5.5-point decrease in the Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score, albeit with limited experiments. In general, the true variance of experiments, tau2 (τ2) was low (<0.1), but heterogeneity, I2 was high (>50%) indicating that much of the variance was due to factors other than measurement error. More targeted studies on the role of HGP in influencing beef quality are needed.

Effects of hormonal growth promotants on beef quality: a meta-analysis

Benefits of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) include production efficiency, profit, and reduced environmental effects for beef cattle. Questions remain about effects of HGP on beef quality, particularly on measures of toughness such as Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), tenderness, and other taste-panel attributes of beef. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of HGP on beef quality using the results of randomized controlled trials identified from 3 searched databases. Thirty-one experiments with 181 treatment comparisons were used to evaluate the effects of HGP on WBSF and sensory measures of beef quality. Experiments varied in design, used many different hormonal treatments and combinations, which were single or repeated, in different breeds and sex groups of cattle, with or without electrical stimulation, and with different lengths of time on feed and beef aging. The effects of multiple treatment comparisons in experiments were evaluated using robust regression models and compared to Knapp-Hartung and permutation meta-analytical methods. Increased WBSF was associated with HGP treatment. Use of multiple HGP implants was associated with an increase in WBSF of 0.248 kg (95% CI = 0.203 to 0.292). Effects of a single implant only increased WBSF by 0.176 kg (95% CI = 0.109 to 0.242). Aging of beef did not alter the association of HGP with increased WBSF (P = 0.105); however, the point direction was toward a reduced effect with aging (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.005 per day aged). While aging lowered WBSF, it did not reduce the SMD between HGP treatment and reference groups. Comparisons using trenbolone acetate did not differ in WBSF from those using other implants (P > 0.15). The findings on sensory panel tenderness differ from those using WBSF as HGP treatment was not associated with reduced tenderness (P > 0.3) and multiple HGP treatments improved tenderness (SMD = 0.468) compared to a single implant. Further, juiciness, flavor, and connective tissue were not associated with HGP use, whereas there was a marked 5.5-point decrease in the Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score, albeit with limited experiments. In general, the true variance of experiments, tau2 (τ2) was low (<0.1), but heterogeneity, I2 was high (>50%) indicating that much of the variance was due to factors other than measurement error. More targeted studies on the role of HGP in influencing beef quality are needed.

Dietary inclusion effects of phytochemicals as growth promoters in animal production

Growth promoters have been widely used as a strategy to improve productivity, and great benefits have been observed throughout the meat production chain. However, the prohibition of growth promoters in several countries, as well as consumer rejection, has led industry and the academy to search for alternatives. For decades, the inclusion of phytochemicals in animal feed has been proposed as a replacement for traditional growth promoters. However, there are many concerns about the application of phytochemicals and their impact on the various links in the meat production chain (productive performance, carcass and meat quality). Therefore, the effects of these feed additives are reviewed in this article, along with their potential safety and consumer benefits, to understand the current state of their use. In summary, the replacement of traditional growth promoters in experiments with broilers yielded benefits in all aspects of the meat production chain, such as improvements in productive performance and carcass and meat quality. Although the effects in pigs have been similar to those observed in broilers, fewer studies have been carried out in pigs, and there is a need to define the types of phytochemicals to be used and the appropriate stages for adding such compounds. In regard to ruminant diets, few studies have been conducted, and their results have been inconclusive. Therefore, it is necessary to propose more in vivo studies to determine other strategies for phytochemical inclusion in the production phases and to select the appropriate types of compounds. It is also necessary to define the variables that will best elucidate the mechanism(s) of action that will enable the future replacement of synthetic growth promoters with phytochemical feed additives.

Beef flavor: a review from chemistry to consumer

This paper briefly reviews research that describes the sensation, generation and consumer acceptance of beef flavor. Humans sense the five basic tastes in their taste buds, and receptors in the nasal and sinus cavities sense aromas. Additionally, trigeminal senses such as metallic and astringent are sensed in the oral and nasal cavities and can have an effect on the flavor of beef. Flavors are generated from a complex interaction of tastes, tactile senses and aromas taken collectively throughout the tongue, nasal, sinus and oral cavities. Cooking beef generates compounds that contribute to these senses and result in beef flavor, and the factors that are involved in the cookery process determine the amount and type of these compounds and therefore the flavor generated. A low-heat, slow cooking method generates primarily lipid degradation products, while high-heat, fast cookery generates more Maillard reaction products. The science of consumer acceptance, cluster analyses and drawing relationships among all flavor determinants is a relatively new discipline in beef flavor. Consumers rate beef that has lipid degradation products generated from a low degree of doneness and Maillard flavor products from fast, hot cookery the highest in overall liking, and current research has shown that strong relationships exist between beef flavor and consumer acceptability, even more so than juiciness or tenderness.

Effects of the Programmed Nutrition Beef Program on meat quality characteristics

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of alternative finishing strategies on beef steak color and cooked meat characteristics. Beef steers (n = 64 pens; 8 steers/pen) were allocated to a randomized complete block design with a 2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement and initial body weight serving as the blocking factor. Factor 1 consisted of dietary treatment with cattle either being fed a conventional feedlot diet (CON) or a diet that included Programmed Nutrition Beef Program supplements. Cattle in the Programmed Nutrition (PN) treatments were fed in two-stages: 1) the basal diet with Programmed Nutrition Beef Receiver from d 1 to 20 and the basal diet with Programmed Nutrition Beef Finisher from d 21 to harvest. Factor 2 consisted of the inclusion (EGP+) or absence (EGP-) of an exogenous growth promoting program. Steers in the EGP+ treatments were implanted initially with Component E-S, reimplanted with Component TE-IS, and fed 400 mg · d(-1) · steer(-1) of ractopamine hydrochloride for the final 28 d before harvest. Steers were harvested on d 175 of feeding and 1 strip loin was removed from 2 carcasses selected at random from each pen for transport to Kansas State University. After 14 d of aging, loins were fabricated into 2.54-cm thick steaks for objective and trained sensory panel measurement of cooked meat characteristics and objective color measurements during 7 d retail display. There were no interactions (P > 0.10) between feeding strategy and exogenous growth promotants for all objective measures of color and cooked meat characteristics. Throughout the display period, PN steaks were darker (P = 0.02) than CON steaks, but surface percentages of oxymyoglobin and metmyoglobin and metmyoglobin reducing ability were unaffected by feeding strategy (P > 0.10). Loins and steaks from PN cattle possessed decreased moisture loss during aging and cooking (P < 0.01). Trained sensory panel evaluation of cooked meat revealed a dietary program × growth promotant interaction for myofibrillar tenderness, connective tissue amount, and overall tenderness (P = 0.01). Compared to the CON/EGP- and PN/EGP- treatments, steaks from the CON/EGP+ and PN/EGP+ treatments were evaluated by panelists as being less myofibrillar and overall tender (P < 0.05). The alternative feeding strategies presented in this study can favorably impact water-holding capacity without negatively compromising retail display discoloration.

MEAT SCIENCE AND MUSCLE BIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM--anabolic implants and meat quality

Anabolic implants are routinely used in the finishing phase of beef production to improve animal performance and feed efficiency. Implanting during the feedlot phase on average increases ADG 18%, feed intake 6%, feed efficiency 8%, carcass weight 5%, and ribeye area 4% compared with nonimplanted controls. Implants reduce the cost of beef production, which is important given current high feed costs and beef prices. In a 1996 review of 37 implant trials, the use of a combination (i.e., estrogenic and trenbolone acetate) implant increased returns by US$77/head compared with nonimplanted steers. If calculated using today's prices, a combination implant would increase returns by $163/head. However, concerns about potential negative effects of implants on marbling scores, quality grades, and tenderness exist. Changes in Warner-Bratzler shear force values of steaks from implanted steers are small (<0.5 kg) and appear related to an increase in initial tenderness, possibly due to hypertrophy of muscle fiber, instead of alterations in postmortem proteolysis. The increase in ribeye size observed with implanting may also reduce marbling scores through a dilution effect. The impact of anabolic implants on gene expression has shown that implanting downregulates expression of certain lipogenic genes (e.g., stearoyl-CoA desaturase, fatty acid synthetase, fatty acid elongase-6) in steers with low quality grades (Select-) but not in implanted steers with high quality grades (Choice-). Examination of the adipocyte's transcriptome has shown that 36 genes were differentially expressed due to implant treatment. More research is needed to further determine how anabolic implants alter lipogenic gene expression to address changes in marbling deposition with implant usage. Given our current high feed costs and cattle prices, anabolic implants are one of the most cost-effective technologies that can be used in beef production systems.

MEAT SCIENCE AND MUSCLE BIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM--implant and beta agonist impacts on beef palatability

The use of anabolic implants has a long-standing place in the cattle feeding industry, due to their positive impact on growth performance and subsequent profitability. However, implants can have adverse effects on carcass quality, shear force, and eating quality depending on the dose and frequency, or what some refer to as the aggressiveness of the implant regimen administered. Within the past decade, a new class of growth promotants, known as β-adrenergic agonists (βAA), has emerged in the beef feeding industry in the United States. Currently, 2 have gained U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for use in beef finishing diets to improve performance and carcass yields. Much like anabolic implants, these repartitioning agents can have negative effects on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), but the differences do not necessarily translate directly to consumer responses for palatability and acceptance in some instances, especially when tenderness is managed through proper postmortem aging. As researchers continued to investigate the mechanisms responsible for the impact of βAA, inevitably this led to consideration of the interaction between βAA and anabolic implants. Early work combining zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) with anabolic implants improved performance, carcass yield, and meat yield with additive negative effects on WBSF. Similar results were produced when pairing ZH with anabolic steroids equipped with various release patterns. As with any tool, the key to success is proper management. Certain cattle populations may be better suited to receive growth promotants such as implants and βAA, and postmortem management of subprimal cuts becomes vital when producers take more aggressive approaches to improve performance and yield. The objective of this review is to overview research findings related to the impact of growth promotant technologies on beef palatability, focusing specifically on the role of implants and βAA on carcass quality, beef tenderness, and consumer responses for meat palatability.

Modification of beef quality through steer age at slaughter, breed cross and growth promotants

Girard, I., Aalhus, J. L., Basarab, J. A., Larsen, I. L. and Bruce, H. L. 2012. Modification of beef quality through steer age at slaughter, breed cross and growth promotants. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 175–188. A 23 factorial experiment tested the interactions of slaughter age (12–13 or 18–20 mo), growth implants use (Component E-S, TE-S), ractopamine hydrochloride (RAC) feed supplementation use and breed cross [Hereford–Aberdeen Angus (HAA) or Charolais–Red Angus (CRA)] on pH, temperature, objective colour measurements, relative myoglobin states, sarcomere lengths, shear force, and water losses of m. semitendinosus (ST) and m. gluteus medius (GM) from 112 crossbred steers. In the ST, age affected objective colour measurements by increasing chroma and decreasing lightness (L*) and hue angle (P<0.05). Metmyoglobin (MMB) content of the ST also increased with steer age (P<0.05). In the GM, yearling-fed steers had greater MMB content than calf-fed steers, while hue angle varied the opposite way (P<0.05). Other variations in meat colour and myoglobin contents were more complex in the GM than the ST as they involved three-way interactions between the different treatments. Shear force and purge loss of the ST increased with implantation (P<0.05) with no change in sarcomere length (P>0.05). Shear force standard deviation was similar for breed crosses when yearling-fed but greatest for CRA breed cross when calf-fed (P<0.05). In both muscles, purge loss was increased by RAC supplementation (P<0.05). RAC supplementation did not affect sarcomere length and shear force in both muscles (P>0.10). In the GM, shear force increased with age and with CRA genetics (P<0.05). Results indicated that producers seeking to reduce beef toughness should consider using British crossbreds, exclude the use of hormonal implants and slaughter process steers at 12 to13 mo of age.

Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry

This review focuses on the science that underpins the use of hormonal growth promotants by Australian beef producers. Their effect on increased liveweight gain is reliable and they are used in the grass-fed industry to produce heavier carcasses suitable for the liveweight and age specifications on high value markets. With implants containing only oestradiol, the growth rate response varies between 0.05 and 0.1 kg/day, dependent on the digestible energy intake and the duration of the implant’s functional life for which the animal is in positive energy balance. Combination implants containing both oestradiol and trenbolone acetate promote greater responses in liveweight gain, which can be as high as 0.2 kg/day on good quality pasture. Although there is also accelerated liveweight gain on energy-dense feedlot diets, the main commercial benefit is reduced feed costs associated with improvements in feed conversion efficiency. An example given demonstrates that finishing an implanted steer from 400 to 650 kg reduces feed consumed by ~4%. Androgenic hormones (testosterone and trenbolone acetate) directly reduce fat content of the carcass. Oestradiol treatment increases mature body size so at any intermediate bodyweight the animal is less mature and likely to have less fat in the carcass. Hormonal treatment has a negative influence on the tenderness and eating quality of beef, the effect being more pronounced with combination implants than with oestradiol alone. Aging for up to 28 days of those muscles that age extensively helps to overcome the detrimental hormonal growth promotant effect.

Growth implants reduced tenderness of steaks from steers and heifers with different genetic potentials for growth and marbling

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of growth implants on the carcass characteristics and tenderness of steers and heifers with different genetic potentials for growth, lean meat yield production, and marbling. Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 evaluated Angus steers sired by bulls with high EPD for retail product yield or marbling. Implant treatment was imposed randomly within sire groups. Loins (Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications 180) were collected from each carcass and cut into three 2.54-cm steaks aged for 7, 14 and 21 d to evaluate tenderness. The second experiment evaluated steers and heifers of British and Continental breed descent. Steers and heifers were slaughtered after 120 d on feed. Loin sections were collected, and one 2.54-cm steak aged 7 d was used for tenderness analysis. When implants were used in Angus steers, HCW and LM area increased, whereas internal fat and marbling decreased (P < 0.01). In Angus steers, sire type did not affect shear force values of steaks; however, implant use significantly increased shear force values (P < 0.01). Carcasses from cattle of Continental breed descent were significantly heavier than carcasses of British breed descent with larger LM area, slightly less fat, and a reduced yield grade (P < 0.01). Also, steer carcasses were heavier than heifer carcasses with larger LM (P < 0.05), but no effect of sex on fat depth, internal fat, yield grade or marbling was observed. No significant interactions were seen between growth implant and breed or between growth implant and sex for shear force values. Shear force values were significantly less for steaks from steers and heifers of British decent compared with steers and heifers of Continental descent (P < 0.01). Steaks from implanted steers and heifers had significantly (P < 0.01) greater shear force values than steaks from steers and heifers not implanted. Use of growth implants in growing cattle resulted in significantly heavier carcass weights, larger LM area, and reduced internal fat. However, implant use also reduced the amount of marbling along with contributing to reduced tenderness. Complicating the tenderness issue is the increased shear force values reported for heifers as well as steers of Continental breed descent. Use of implants may contribute to tenderness variability because of different animal responses to implants.

Meta-analysis of the published effects of HGP use on beef palatability in steers as measured by objective and sensory testing

Evidence is presented that suggests strongly that hormone growth promotant (HGP) implantation has a negative effect on beef palatability. This is based on a meta-analysis of results reported in refereed papers that have appeared in the meat-science literature. To be included in this analysis, a paper must have reported results for control samples (no HGP) and treatment samples (HGP) for either objective testing (Warner-Bratzler shear-force) or consumer preference (tenderness score). The paper must also have reported estimates and standard errors. Further, we consider only the case of steers, and the M. longissimus dorsi (striploin). While most of these studies yielded non-significant differences, most gave an estimate indicating that the HGP treatment had a negative effect on beef palatability. When these results are combined using a meta-analysis, they provide significant evidence that the use of HGP implants negatively influences palatability.

The effect of anabolic implants on intramuscular lipid deposition in finished beef cattle

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of anabolic implants on performance, changes in ultrasound measurements, carcass quality, cellularity of i.m. and s.c. adipose depots, and mRNA expression of acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACC), stearoyl CoA desaturase (SCD), and lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in i.m. adipose tissue of finished beef cattle. Angus heifers (experiment 1: n = 10; 411 kg of BW) and steers (experiment 2: n = 18; 279 kg of BW) were randomly allotted as control (C) or implanted with Synovex-Plus (SP) at d 0 and midway through the finishing period. The cattle were fed a high-concentrate diet and were weighed at approximately 28-d intervals. Heifers and steers were finished for 108 and 133 d, respectively. At slaughter, a section of the LM (sixth to ninth rib) was removed, and i.m. adipose tissue was dissected for mRNA analysis. Subcutaneous and i.m. adipose tissues also were collected for determination of cellularity. At 48 h postmortem, carcass data were collected, and a steak (12th rib) was removed for analysis of lipid and fatty acid composition. Body weight did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments until after reimplanting of the heifers (d 55) or steers (d 73). Average daily gain was 36 and 16% faster (P < or = 0.01) for implanted heifers and steers, respectively, compared with their control counterparts. Implanting resulted in larger (P < or = 0.10) HCW and LM area for heifers and steers. However, implanting did not affect (P > 0.10) dressing percent, fat thickness, percentage of KPH, yield grade, or marbling score. Intramuscular lipid content and concentrations of major fatty acids did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments. Percentage of SC adipocytes was greater at larger diameters ( > 150 microm), whereas the majority of i.m. adipocytes were at small to middle diameters (50 to 150 microm). The number of i.m. adipocytes per gram of tissue was greater (P < 0.05) for SP than C and also were greater (P < 0.05) than the number of s.c. adipocytes in SP heifers. In experiment 2, adipocytes per gram of tissue tended to be greater (P = 0.07) for SP than C and were greater (P < 0.01) for i.m. than s.c. In experiment 1, average cell diameter and volume did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments and tissues, but in experiment 2 both cellularity traits were greater (P < 0.01) for s.c. than for i.m.. Implanting did not alter mRNA expression of ACC, SCD, or LPL in i.m. adipose tissue. This study shows that anabolic implants do not appear to have direct effects on i.m. lipid deposition.

Effects of dietary factors and other metabolic modifiers on quality and nutritional value of meat

A number of technologies that increase feed efficiency and lean tissue deposition while decreasing fat deposition have been developed in an effort to improve profitability of animal production. In general, the mode of action of these metabolic modifiers is to increase muscle deposition while often simultaneously reducing fat deposition. However, there have been some concerns that the focus on increasing production efficiency and lean meat yield has been to the detriment of meat quality. The aim of this review is to collate data on the effects of these metabolic modifiers on meat quality, and then discuss these overall effects. When data from the literature are collated and subject to meta-analyses it appears that conservative use of each of these technologies will result in a 5-10% (0.3-0.5kg) increase in shear force with a similar reduction in perception of tenderness. However, it should be borne in mind that the magnitude of these increases are similar to those observed with similar increases in carcass leanness obtained through other means (e.g. nutritional, genetic selection) and may be an inherent consequence of the production of leaner meat. To counter this, there are some other metabolic factors and dietary additives that offer some potential to improve meat quality (for example immuncastration) and it is possible that these can be used on their own or in conjunction with somatotropin, approved β-agonists, anabolic implants and CLA to maintain or improve meat quality.