Live Animal Measures of Tenderness

by Troy Smith, field editor

MANHATTAN, Kan. (June 15, 2016) — The beef quality-grading system is based on marbling and maturity, but how do consumers define beef quality? According to Mississippi State University Research Professor Rhonda Vann, most consumers believe tenderness is a primary contributor to a quality beef-eating experience.

Rhonda Vann said national beef quality audits have drawn attention to the need for improvement, adding that the beef industry has responded, focusing on preharvest influences, including genetics, grain feeding, judicious use of growth promotants, timing of certain production practices and reducing stress.

Vann was among the scientists delivering reports during the 2016 Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Annual Meeting and Symposium hosted June 14-17 in Manhattan, Kan. During the Advancements in End Product Improvement breakout session, she spoke about ways the beef industry has tried to address the tenderness issue.

Vann said national beef quality audits have drawn attention to the need for improvement, adding that the beef industry has responded, focusing on preharvest influences, including genetics, grain feeding, judicious use of growth promotants, timing of certain production practices and reducing stress.

Calling tenderness a moderately heritable trait, Vann said genetic selection has been based on progeny carcass data, and development of expected progeny difference (EPD) values for tenderness have been developed by some breed associations. DNA markers associated with tenderness have been identified and applied to selection.

Finishing cattle on grain is associated with increased tenderness, as opposed to grass-finished beef. Vann allowed, however, that extended days on feed may be detrimental to tenderness. She said some evidence suggests potential negative effects to marbling scores and tenderness may result from growth promotant regimens. Health status of animals also can have an impact.

“Preharvest stress, either acute or prolonged, can affect tenderness,” added Vann, listing stress factors including poor animal-handling practices, long transit, commingling of animals, animal temperament and climatic extremes.

“We’ve made improvements but we still have a long way to go to improve the consistency of tenderness. We need more beef breeds to develop tenderness EPDs and genomic information to back them up, plus new tools,” opined Vann, adding that a method of predicting tenderness utilizing ultrasound technology has been developed and is currently being validated, but few details about the process are available.

“Currently, how it works is proprietary information,” stated Vann. “More information may be available next year, hopefully.”

Editor’s Note:This summary was written under contract or by staff of Angus Media. Through an agreement with the Beef Improvement Federation, we are encouraging reprinting of the articles to those who will adhere to the reprint guidelines available on this site. Please review those guidelines or contact Shauna Rose Hermel, editor, at 816-383-5270. PowerPoints are posted with permission of the presenter and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express permission of the presenter.

Angus Media's coverage of the event is made possible through collaboration with BIF and sponsorship of LiveAuctions.tv. For questions about this site, or to notify us of broken links, click here. Look for additional coverage in the Angus Journal, the Angus Beef Bulletin, the Angus Journal Daily, the Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA and Angus TV.