The impact of oestradiol only hormone growth promotants (HGPs) on the eating quality of pasture finished steer carcasses

The impact of different Hormonal Growth Promotants (HGP) on desmin degradation and collagen content of various muscles from pasture and feedlot finished steer carcasses

The impacts of several hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), desmin degradation ratio (DDR) and collagen content (COLL) were assessed. Treatments within feedlot and pasture finished steer carcasses (n = 60, n = 40, respectively) were control (CON-100-F and CON-400-P), oestradiol HGPs (OES-100-F and OES-400-P) and trenbolone acetate/oestradiol HGPs (TBA+OES-100-F only). The longissimus lumborum (LL), gluteus medius (GM), infraspinatus (IS), semitendinosus (ST,) and the LL and biceps femoris (BF) were collected from feedlot and pasture finished steers, respectively. All muscles were aged between 3 and 35 days. The LL from TBA+OES-100-F carcasses had increased WBSF and decreased DDR, which varied in magnitude with ageing (P < 0.05). The GM from OES-100-F steers also had lower DDR (P < 0.05). The feedlot HGP treatments had no impact on the WBSF of the IS, ST or GM and no impact on COLL in the LL. The OES-400-P had no impact on WBSF, DDRor COLL for both muscles (P > 0.05).

Does a single adjustment in the meat standards Australia beef grading model cater for different hormonal growth promotant formulations?

This paper investigated whether a single Hormonal Growth Promotant (HGP) adjustment in the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading model adequately predicted consumer eating quality of beef from cattle treated with different HGP formulations. This paper used consumer sensory data from two experiments. In experiment one, a total of 300 steers were allocated to three treatments; control (CON-100-F), 100 day oestradiol only HGP (OES-100-F), or a combination of trenbolone acetate and oestradiol HGP (TBA+OES-100-F) and finished in a feedlot for 73 days. In experiment two, a total of 200 steers were allocated either control or 400 day oestradiol only HGP treatments and finished on pasture for 389 days. Steers were slaughtered by finishing regime and carcass traits recorded. The anterior and posterior portions of the m. longissimus lumborum (LL-A and LL-P, respectively) and m. gluteus medius (GM) were collected and aged for five or 35 days. Grilled meat samples were scored for tenderness, juiciness, liking of flavour and overall acceptability using untrained consumers. Sensory scores were weighted by 0.3. 0.1, 0.3 and 0.3, respectively and summed to calculate a meat quality (MQ4) score. Residual MQ4 scores were calculated (observed MQ4 minus the predicted MQ4 score). The MSA model accounts for varied impacts of different HGPs on eating quality through a single HGP adjustment, and indirect impacts on carcass traits. For the majority of the HGP treatment samples, the residual MQ4 scores were not different to zero (5/18), or were positive i.e. the MSA model under-predicted these samples (11/18). Under-prediction was predominately for 35 day aged (7/9) and GM HGP treatment samples (6/6) and was considered low, with the majority less than ±5 MQ4 units. Under-prediction could be considered as advantageous through providing an additional safeguard to protect the interests of the consumers, rather than if the model had over-predicted and resulted in a more negative eating quality experience than expected. Some over-prediction was observed in the CON-100-F and TBA+OES-100-F treatment samples, which may be due to factors such as genetic variation and/or production environment. Minimal bias was observed when residual MQ4 was regressed against predicted MQ4 for the range of feeding regimes, muscles, ageing periods and treatment groups. This study showed that a single HGP adjustment in the MSA beef grading model, combined with the indirect effects of the different HGP formulations on carcass traits, provided a reasonable prediction of meat eating quality for different HGP formulations.

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.