The impact of two different hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) on the eating quality of feedlot-finished steer carcasses

Abstract

The Meat Standards Australia beef-grading model applies a variable adjustment for different cuts of hormonal growth promotant (HGP)-treated carcasses, but does not differentiate between different HGP types. Using 300 non-implanted Bos indicus–Bos taurus composite steers, an experiment was conducted to compare the effects of an oestradiol only (OES) and a combination trenbolone acetate and oestradiol (TBA+OES) implant with non-implanted animals (CON) fed a concentrate ration for 73 days before slaughter, on eating quality of the mm. longissimus lumborum (LL) and gluteus medius (GM) muscles. Sensory and objective LL and GM samples were aged for either 5 or 35 days before freezing at −20°C. Carcass weights from each group were significantly (P < 0.05) different. Corrected for carcass weight, HGP treatment had a significant effect on hump height, ossification score, marble score, P8 fat depth and eye-muscle area. The TBA+OES treatment resulted in significantly (P < 0.05) tougher meat than the OES and CON treatments as assessed by shear force, although this difference was reduced with aging. Sensory scores (tenderness, juiciness, like flavour, overall liking and a composite MQ4 score) confirmed a negative HGP treatment effect, whereby TBA+OES was significantly lower than the CON and OES treatments after 5 days of aging, and these differences were reduced through aging. TBA+OES had a greater impact on sensory scores in the LL when compared to the GM. Both HGP treatments increased calpastatin activity, and the TBA+OES treatment was significantly (P < 0.05) different from the CON and OES treatments. It was concluded that OES and TBA+OES implants have different impacts on meat eating-quality measurements, which could have important implications for the Australian and international beef industry.