Physical, Chemical and Palatability Traits of Electrically Stimulated, Hot-boned, Vacuum-packaged Beef

The Effects of Hot vs. Cold Boning on Eating Quality of New Zealand Grass Fed Beef

Sides of the 40 selected carcasses were alternately assigned to both conventional chilling and cold boning (CB) or hot boning (HB). Fabrication of CB sides took place after overnight chilling (20 h postmortem) and subsequent carcass grading, while fabrication of HB sides occurred on the day of slaughter within 60 min of exsanguination. Five muscles were removed, including the longissimus lumborum (LL), longissimus thoracis (LT), psoas major (PM), gluteus medius (GM), and semimembranosus (SM) for consumer evaluation, compositional analysis, and sarcomere length determination. Cold boning muscles had longer (P < 0.05) sarcomere lengths compared to HB muscles, expect for the GM and SM. Chilling treatment and postmortem aging (7, 21, or 35 d postmortem) had an impact on eating quality, but these results varied by muscle. Cold shortening could be responsible for the differences in sarcomere length and ultimately differences in tenderness between HB and CB muscles. Based on consumer evaluations, HB is not recommended for LT or PM due to the reduction (P ≤ 0.02) of tenderness and overall liking scores for these subprimals; however, HB and early removal of muscles like the SM benefited (P < 0.01) from an eating quality standpoint for all palatability traits, and was neutral (P ≥ 0.21) for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall liking of the LL and GM. Postmortem aging did not affect (P ≥ 0.07) eating quality of the GM and PM, but improved (P < 0.01) tenderness of LT and SM, as well as the tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking of the LL.

The water-holding capacity of fresh meat

Several aspects of the water-holding capacity of fresh meat are discussed. After some compositional and structural characteristics of muscle are outlined, special attention is paid to post mortem muscle physiology and related mechanisms of fluid loss from meat. Finally, determinants of water-holding capacity (physiological factors, rearing conditions and processing factors) are described. From this review it can be concluded that the water-holding capacity and the subsequent drip loss are complex attributes of meat which are influenced by factors in the whole meat production chain. However, the effects of many factors, such as rearing conditions, administration of growth promoters, feed, and ageing of meat, are still not clear. To be able to optimize and control the water-holding capacity of meat, it is important to have information about the effects of each processing factor and the basic mechanisms involved. Once these mechanisms are known, the influence of biological and technological factors will be more predictable and more easy to control. Veterinarians can play an important role in this.