SJA_41_4_1596-1603

Introduction

Beef from Zebu cattle is recognized as a significant food resource, with factors such as genetics, age, gender, management techniques, and diet influencing the nutritional content of Zebu beef (Gagaoua et al., 2016; Barnes et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2012). Genetic diversity along with other factors play a key role leads to variation in nutritional composition of meat. Technical approach is required for assessment of different factors such as breeds, gender and age to conclude the nutritional values of meat from different cross and pure Zebu breeds.

Meat quality traits i.e., the tenderness, marbling, juiciness, water-holding capacity are key factors influencing consumer satisfaction while selecting beef and or its products. In case of fulfillment of the consumer satisfaction different meat quality characters has different grades which in turn defines the quality of the meat (Hopkins et al., 2014; Dransfield et al., 2003).

The structure of the muscle and its physiology are important attributes in determining the quality of the meat, which is strongly influenced by the breed (Waritthitham et al., 2010). Zebu cattle breeds have some advantages such as low maintenance requirements, harsh environment tolerance, disease resistant, while having some disadvantages such as their dressing percentage are low and daily weight gain is lower as compare to other crossbreds (Li et al., 2009). Consumers pay special attribute to variation in the quality of beef products. If consumers are not satisfied from the product, it may result in refusal of the product (Bonny et al., 2018) thus lead to the loss for the company and producers. Cattle breeds attaining early puberty will have higher intramuscular fat deposition as compare to late-maturing breeds (Irshad et al., 2013). Age of animal at slaughtering is an important factor which determines the final quality of the meat produced (Clinquart et al., 2022). Handling of the animal before slaughtering and succeeding pH changes of the muscles play a vital role in determining the final quality of meat. There are some factors that lead to unsatisfactory meat quality characteristics such as transport time, stress during transport and feed withdrawal (Warner et al., 2010), which have a negative impact on meat quality. As a result, the final pH will be higher, resulting in unfavourable meat quality (Troy et al., 2016; Troy and Kerry, 2010).

Important factors such as Growth rate, carcass yield, and feed efficiency are positively influenced in bulls (fertile adult bovine males) as compared to steers (castrated adult bovine males) (O’Riordan et al., 2011). Marbling has prime importance in beef production system in term of it effect on Quality (Moran et al., 2017). Gender has been an important trait which is associated with many aspects of meat quality parameters and has a significant effect on fat deposition and tenderness of the beef (Guerrero et al., 2013).

The goal of this study was to look at the effects of breed, age and gender on meat quality in locally slaughtered cattle, and the key breed selection in order to support beef industry development in Pakistan.

Materials and Methods

Experimental animal and samples collection

A total of 180 beef cattle comprising of Dajal, Dhanni and crossbred (Holstein Friesian X Sahiwal) cattle were selected for beef quality study. A total of 60 beef samples were collected per each breed. The experimental animals were divided in to the following three age groups as following (Group1 consist of 08-18 months age young stock, Group2, age ranged from 18.1 to 48 months, and Group 3 covered the age of above 49 months cattle) as highlighted in Figure 1. Before slaughtering, all the live cattle were assigned groups based on their breed, age and sex and tried to keep the similar body score conditions cattle for present study (Knock and Carroll, 2019), the age of cattle were properly recorded using dentition.

Measurement of muscle fiber diameter and sarcomere length

A beef sample of weight 5.0 g was dissected from the cross sectional surface of the longissimus dorsi muscle. Each sample was homogenized in a blender separately, containing 15 ml of 0.25 M sucrose solution and 15.0 ml of 1.0 M EDTA (ethylenedinitrilo tetra acetic acid) for 15 seconds interpreted with a 5 second interval to produce homogenized slurry. One drop of homogenized slurry was picked up and placed on a glass slide. The slide was covered with a cover slip and was examined under the microscope using a calibrated micrometer (Jeremiah and Martin, 1985). The similar procedure was adopted for measurement of sarcomere length. The sarcomere length of the sample was measured using a micrometer, which was fitted in the microscope. Length of 20 myofibrils was noted randomly, and its average was expressed in micrometer.

Moisture analysis of beef samples

The oven was pre-heated and all the petri dishes were dried by heating for one minute. Empty petri dishes were weighed. The minced beef sample of weighed 10.0g was uniformly spread in the petri dishes with the help of a spoon and placed in an oven at 65°Cfor a period of 24 to 48 hours for complete drying of beef samples. After complete drying in the oven the samples were kept in desiccators for some time to make it cool. The weights of petri dishes along with dried samples were determined and noted.

Marbling

According to USDA marbling is divided into nine classes. Each sample taken from Longissimus dorsi muscle were examined and graded for marbling according to USDA standard. The following scores were used on account of presence of fat droplets or molecules in the intra myofibril bundles; 0. Devoid 1. Partial devoid 2. Traces 3. Small 4. Slight 5. Modest 6. Moderate 7. Slight Abundant, 8. Moderate Abundant and 9. Abundant (USDA, 1997). United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Agriculture Marketing Service, USDA, Washington, DC. USA).

Water holding capacity

Meat samples (5.0g) was taken and minced for 5 minutes and when properly minced, sample was taken and placed in the center of two filter papers. A polythene sheet was wrapped around the filter papers and placed on a flat rigid surface. A weight of 2.80 kg was placed on the wrapped filter papers and applied for 5 minutes. Then the meat sample was weighedand difference noted (Whiting and Jenkins 1981).

Statistical analysis

The data obtained from the trial was put in Microsoft excel sheet and run for summery statistics. Data was exported to Genstat software for statistical analysis was used. A 3×3×2 factorial design was used where cattle breed were three and three age groups of animals for further analysis, as the breeds and age groups have three levels (post weaned young stock, young adults and mature) and for sex study animals were divided into two levels male and female. Correlation of the various quality parameters were analyzed through Pearson correlation coefficient methods. The means were also compared through LSD. The significance level was α (Greek symbol for Alpha) at 0.05 for the present study analysis.

Results and Discussion

Marbling

Breed, age groups and sex effects on marbling trait of beef samples were presented in the Table 1. Results showed that Zebu cattle breeds and their age groups have significant (P <0.05) influence on the marbling traits. Marbling score of Dhanni cattle breeds in all age groups were found higher than crossbred and Dajal cattle. The highest (6.80) marbling score for Dhannibeef samples followed by the Friesian and Sahiwal crossbreds (6.20). With increase in age of the animals, the marbling score also increased. Thus, highest marbling score was shown in mature cattle samples (age group 3), followed by group 2. However, gender of the animals has no significant effect on beef marbling characteristic.

Water holding capacity

Water holding capacity (WHC) of three cattle groups and three age groups were presented in the Table 1. The WHC ranges from 58.80 to 91.11% with an average of 77.20%. This result shows that there is direct relation between age of animals and its beef WHC, and also significant (P < 0.05) mean were observed for this association. WHC is also significantly influenced by breed (P < 0.05) in the beef samples. Highest 79.03% WHC was found in crossbred beef samples, followed by Dhanni cattle 78.31% while lowest value obtained for Dajal breed Table 1. Within a breed and age group the sex of animal did not show significant effect on WHC.

Effect of breed and age on beef moisture content

Moisture content of beef samples were highlighted in Table 1. Moisture content ranges between 64.0 to 81.0% with a mean value of 74.0%. The obtained results further revealed that advancement in age of animals has significantly (P < 0.05) inversely proportional to the moisture content in beef. The juvenile group of animals showed more moisture content (78%) than younger animals (75%) and followed by mature animals. Gender of animals showed significant (P < 0.05) effect on moisture content of beef samples. It is obvious from the data that the beef samples of male animals have higher moisture content as compare to beef samples from female animals. Average, female animals have (1.5%) lesser moisture content than male animals. There was no significant effect of breed on moisture content of the analyzed samples.

Muscle fiber diameter

The discoveries regarding muscle fiber diameter (MFD) in different cattle breeds were shown in the Table 1. Different age groups were significantly (P <0.001) effect at the MFD traits of beef. As animals, age is advanced; the muscle fiber diameter significantly increases and the mean values of different age groups are presented in Table 1. The average mean of MFD for the youngest group is (49.60µm) followed by group two (65.47µm) while highest (75.97µm) was observed for group three animals. The effect of gender on MFD was non-significant, where values of MFD in males are (63.40µm) and for female (63.96µm).

Sarcomere length

The effect of breed, age group of cattle and sex on the sarcomere length of muscle fiber are presented in the Table 1. Findings revealed that sarcomere Length (SC) of beef samples were significantly (P < 0.001) different among the present study zebu cattle breeds. The average values for SC were highest for Dhanni breed (1.99µm) followed by Dajal (1.96 µm) and the smallest length was noted for crossbred cattle (1.84 µm). The available findings further exposed the significant difference (P < 0.001), and inverse relationship between age of the animals and SL. Group 1 animals have highest average length (2.42 µm) followed by group 2 (2.10 µm) and group 3 (1.28 µm). These results also illustrated that sex has no significant (P > 0.05) effect on SL in beef samples of different breeds.

Table 1: Breed, cattle age and sex effects on mean marbling score, percent water holding capacity, muscle fiber diameter, percent moisture content and sarcomere length of selected cattle in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Breed	Age group 1		Age group 2		Age group 3		P-value
Breed	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	P-value
Marbling score
Crossbred	3.80±0.31	3.20±0.09	4.60±0.13	4.60±0.14	6.20±0.31	5.60±0.13	P1<0.01
Dajal	2.40±0.80	2.40±0.81	4.60±0.36	4.40±0.13	5.60±0.13	4.80±0.76	P2<0.01
Dhanni	4.00±0.22	4.00±0.45	6.60±0.35	6.60±0.22	6.80±0.54	5.80±0.31	P3= NS
Water holding capacity
Crossbred	71.47±2.0	68.55±2.85	79.46±6.24	80.40±5.36	86.79±1.3	87.55±5.2	P1<0.01
Dajal	62.37±6.72	62.93±10.09	77.15±3.32	76.91±1.50	84.04±3.76	82.12±2.07	P2<0.01
Dhanni	70.10±3.8	69.23±2.92	81.40±3.03	80.27±1.0	85.56±4.3	83.31±1.0	P3 = NS
Muscle fiber diameter
Crossbred	55.40±4.6	48.80±5.9	63.00±4.4	67.40±4.1	76.80±6.5	78.40±9.4	P1 = NS
Dajal	46.80±7.9	49.0±15.4	66.00±16.9	66.60±0.5	76.40±3.9	72.40±9.9	P2<0.01
Dhanni	47.80±17.9	49.80±12.8	65.60±0.80	64.20±18.6	77.80±4.5	74.00±4.9	P3 = NS
Moisture content
Crossbred	76.8±0.7	78.39±0.44	75.20±0.34	74.70±0.35	69.74±1.25	70.67±2.8	P1 = NS
Dajal	78.1±0.9	78.99±1.34	75.18±1.82	75.46±0.23	69.02±0.13	71.46±0.9	P2<0.01
Dhanni	78.9±1.1	78.54±1.98	73.97±1.09	75.11±0.99	68.08±3.40	70.02±1.9	P3<0.01
Sarcomere length
Crossbred	2.42±0.01	2.32±0.08	1.93±0.04	1.81±0.02	1.31±0.07	1.25±0.03	P1<0.01
Dajal	2.44±0.01	2.43±0.01	2.07±0.07	2.33±0.01	1.20±0.01	1.32±0.03	P2<0.01
Dhanni	2.45±0.01	2.43±0.03	2.24±0.01	2.20±0.06	1.24±0.04	1.37±0.03	P3=NS

P1 represent for breed, P2 for age of the animals, P3 value represent for gender, Non-significant (NS).

The current study found that breed and age had a significant (P >0.001) effect on beef marbling characteristic. Similarly, various other studies also demonstrated the association between marbling score with breed and age of cattle (Vieira et al., 2007; Brooks et al., 2000). Another scientist Lim et al. (2013) had also observed that marbling is key trait in Beef quality. He also observed that breed has a vital effect on beef marbling score. The marbling score varies amongst cattle breeds, and this fact has been validated Kim and Lee (2003). Certain cattle breed attain puberty at early age, so young mature animal of that breed will show more marbling score than those animal who needs longer age to attain puberty. As the muscular growth rate is higher in younger animals as compare to older mature cattle; this is due to lower marbling score occur in the muscles. The very similar results are found in current study also and shown in the (Table 1). Cattle breed and age-related changes in beef marbling were studied and concluded a significant difference in the intramuscular fat content among different breeds. The marbling scores of beef increased significantly with progressing growth in the investigated breeds (Albrecht et al., 2006).

Water holding capacity, the ability of muscle to retain moisture, has a major impact on the juiciness of meat. The water holding capacity of meat is an important factor affecting the economic value of meat, as it influences drip losses during transport, storage, thawing and cooking (Lawrie et al., 1998). The results of the present study showed that cattle breed and age have a significant effect on the WHC characteristic of beef, which is consistent with the findings of Revilla et al., 2006; who investigated the effect of different breeds on WHC and concluded the obvious effect (Revilla et al., 2006). Author data analysis showed that WHC was not significantly affected (P > 0.05) by sex of the cattle. This dissimilarity might be due to species differences between the two similar natures of studies e.g., (cattle breeds were used in present study while in case of Nuraini et al. (2013) buffalo was used as experimental animal. Cheng and Sun (2008) were of the opinion that WHC is an important meat quality trait which is exaggerated by genetic makeup of the animals. Different breeds of cattle have different genetic patterns, as a result of these differences in beef samples from different breeds showed variation WHC. The same study is parallel with the present findings.

The surface area of muscle fiber and SL differ and it depends upon age of animals and the type of muscle (Ahnström et al., 2012). Thus, these findings supported present results that age of the animals effect the SL of muscles. The breed had a significant effect in respect of sarcomere length which can be observed by the differences in SL of the investigated breeds. These differences are actually caused by the shortening of sarcomeres during cold storage.

Moisture in beef is slightly more related to the age of the animal. The present results show that the moisture concentration in beef is significantly inversely related to the age of the animals. As the % fat content of beef increases with animal age (age progression), and leads to the decrease in moisture content due to access accumulation of triglyceride content in adipose tissue (Stika et al., 2007), Park et al. (2002) and Savell et al. (1987) concluded that fat content is inversely proportion to moisture in the bovine carcass. Another study demonstrated that as cattle grow older, the moisture content of meat decreases; hence meat quality drops (Lawrie, 1998). In a study of cattle of different age groups, it was found that the older group had higher protein content, muscle fibre diameter and density.

It is clearly obvious that there is a close and interdependent relationship between muscle size, its number, and fiber type (Ryu et al., 2004). Some other studies explained that prime consideration to the fact that beef quality traits have positive relationship with muscle fiber characteristics (Ozawa et al., 2000). Gender influence on MFD was investigated, and it was revealed that animal gender had no effect on fiber composition or diameter (Vestergaard et al., 2000). Based on his findings he revealed that as age of the animal increases its beef water content markedly decreases. The subject study findings are parallel with Jeremiah and Gibson (2003) who claimed that no differences were found among the breeds.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study highlights the significant influence of breed, age and sex on meat quality traits in native and crossbred cattle. Dhanni cattle had higher marbling scores compared to Dajal and crossbred cattle, although crossbred cattle had the highest water retention. Age had a significant effect on water retention and sarcomere length, but not on muscle fibre diameter. These results suggest that Dhanni cattle should be given higher priority in future breeding and beef production strategies to meet the growing consumer demand for premium beef in Pakistan. These findings will be of great value to policy makers and stakeholders in the improvement of beef production and quality standards.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful the Department of Livestock Management and Directorate of Livestock and Dairy Development, Peshawar for its logistic facility during this research study.

Novelty Statement

This research work provides insight into how beef quality traits are influenced by breed and gender and age of animals.

Author’s Contribution

Abdur Rahman and Zahid Ullah: Performing the field and laboratory testing activities, and writing up the manuscript.

Ibrar Muhammad Khan and Siraj Uddin: Helped in data collection.

Muhammad Yasir Khan and Ikram Ullah: Assisted in data analysis and diagnostic laboratory testing.

Data availability

The datasets generated during the current study are available in the current draft.

Ethical approval

The experimental animals were kept under conducive environment and every possible effort were made to minimized stress upon the animals following ethical guidelines of Animal ethical committee, Department of Livestock Management, Breeding and Genetics, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan

Data availability

The datasets generated during the current study areavailable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

No Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies wer used in the writing process.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Ahnström M.L., M.C. Hunt and K. Lundström, 2012. Effects of pelvic suspension of beef carcasses on quality and physical traits of five muscles from four gender-age groups. Meat Sci. 90: 528–535 .

Albrecht E., F. Teuscher, K.Ender and J.Wegner, 2006. Growth- and breed-related changes of marbling characteristics in cattle. J. Anim.Sci., 84: 1067–1075

Barnes K, T. Collins, S. Dion, , 2012. Importance of cattle biodiversity and its influence on the nutrient composition of beef. Anim. Front., 2(4): 54–60. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0062

Bonny S.P.F., J.F. Hocquette, D.W. Pethick, I Legrand, J. Wierzbicki, P. Allen,L. J. Farmer, R. J. Polkinghorne and G.E. Gardner. 2018. Review: The variability of the eating quality of beef can be reduced by predicting consumer satisfaction. Animal, 12(11): 2434–2442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118000605

Brooks J.C., J. B. Belew, D.B. Griffin, B.L. Gwartney, D.S. Hale, W.R. Henning, D.D. Johnson, J.B. Morgan, F.C. Parrish Jr, J.O. Reagan and J.W. Savell. 2000. National beef tenderness survey-1998. J. Anim. Sci., 78(7): 1852–1860 https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.7871852x

Cheng, Q. and D.W. Sun. 2008. Factors affecting the water holding capacity of red meat products: A review of recent research advances. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutri., 48(2): 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390601177647

Clinquart, A., M.P. Ellies-Oury, J.F. Hocquette, L. Guillier, V. Santé-Lhoutellier and S. Prache. 2022. Review: On-farm and processing factors affecting bovine carcass and meat quality. Animal, 16(1): 100426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100426

Dransfield, E., J.F. Martin, D. Bauchart, S. Abouelkaram, J. Lepetit, J. Culioli, and B. Picard. 2003. Meat quality and composition of three muscles from french cull cows and young bulls. J. Anim. Sci., 76(3): 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800058616

Drummond L.S. and D.W. Sun. 2006. Feasibility of water immersion cooking of beef joints: Effect on product quality and yield. J. Food Engin., 77: 289–294.

Elsabe, D.T., 2011. Effects of production systems on the muscle energy status post mortem and meat quality of beef cattle M.Sc. (Agric) Production Physiology Thesis Department of Animal and Wildlife Sciences,University of Pretoria, Pretoria

John, C.F., E. D. Aberle, H. B. Harold, D.J. Max, and M.A. Robert. 1975. Principles of meat science. Publisher W.H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco USA, pagination 417.

Gagaoua, M.,E. M.C. Terlouw, D. Micol, J-F. Hocquette, A. P.Moloney, K. Nuernberg, D. Bauchart, A. Boudjellal, N.D. Scollan, R.I. Richardson and B. Picard. 2016. Sensory quality of meat from eight different types of cattle in relation with their biochemical characteristics J. Integr. Agric., 15(7): 1550–1563.

Greenwood, P.L., 2021. Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal, 15(1): 100295.

Guerrero A., M.V. Valero, M.M. Campo and C. Sañudo, 2013. Acta scientiarum some factors that affect ruminant meat quality : from the farm to the fork. Review, 35(4): 335–347

Hopkins, D.L. and S.I. Mortimer. 2014. Effect of genotype, gender and age on sheep meat quality and a case study illustrating integration of knowledge. Meat Sci., 98: 544–555.

Irshad, A., G. Kandeepan, S. Kumar A. Ashish Kumar, M.R. Vishnuraj and V. Shukla. 2013 Factors influencing carcass composition of livestock: a review. J. Anim. Prod. Adv., 3(5): 177-186

Jeremiah, L.E. and L. L. Gibson, 2003. The effect of dietary poultry litter supplementation on beef chemical, cooking, and palatability properties and consumer acceptance. Food Res. Int., 36: 943–948.

Kim, C.J. and E.S. Lee. 2003. Effects of quality grade on the chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) beef. Meat Sci., 63(3): 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(02)00099-2.

Knock, M. and G.A. Carroll, 2019. The potential of post-mortem carcass assessments in reflecting the welfare of beef and dairy cattle. Animals, 9(11): 956.

Lawrie, R.A. and D. Ledward. 2022. Lawrie’s Meat Science: Nineth Edition, editor; Fidel Toldra Woodhead publisher USA.

Lin-qiang, L., T. Wan-qiang and Z. Linsen 2011. Effects of age on quality of beef from Qinchuan Cattle Carcass. Agric. Sci. China. 10: 1765-1771, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60176-4.

Lim, K.H., W. Hu, L.J. Maynard and E. Godard, 2013. U.S. Consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for country-of-origin-labeled beef steak and food safety enhancements. Canad. J. Agric. Econ., 61(1): 93–118.

Martin, A.H., A.C. Murray, L.E. Jeremiah and P.J. Dutson. 1983. Electrical stimulation and carcass aging effects on beef carcasses in relation to postmortem glycolytic rates. J. Anim. Sci., 57(6): 1456–1462.

Moran, L., M.G. O’Sullivan, J.P. Kerry, B. Picard, M. McGee, E.G. O’Riordan and A.P. Moloney, 2017. Effect of a grazing period prior to finishing on a high concentrate diet on meat quality from bulls and steers. Meat Sci., 125(1): 76–83

Mullen, A.M., U. Casserly and D.J. Troy. 1998. Predicting meat quality at the early postmortem period. International Conference Proceedings on Hygiene, quality and safety in the cold chain and air-conditioning, held onNantes France on 19/09/1998.

Nuraini, H.M., A. Winarto. and C. Sumantri. 2013.Histomorphology and physical characteristics of buffalo meat at different sex and age. Media Peternakan. 36(1): 6-13. https://doi.org/10.5398/medpet.2013.36.1.6

O’Riordan, E., P. Crosson and M. McGee. 2011. Finishing male cattle from the beef sucklerherd Irish Grassl. Assoc. J., 45(1): 131–146.

Ozawa, S., T. Mitsuhashi, M. Mitsumoto, S. Matsumoto, N. Itoh, K. Itagaki, Y. Kohno and T. Dohgo. 2000. The characteristics of muscle fiber types of longissimus thoracis muscle and their influences on the quantity and quality of meat from Japanese Black steers. Meat Sci., 54(1): 65–70.

Park, B.Y., I.C. Cho, S.H. Cho, J.H. Kim, J.N. An, I.H. Hwang, S.J. Lee, J.M. Lee and S.G. Yoon. 2002. Critical control points linked to PSE incidence in Korea packing plant. In Proceedings of the 48th International. Congress of Meat Science and Technology, pp. 274-275.

Revilla, I. and A.M. Vivar-Quintana. 2006. Effect of breed and ageing time on meat quality and sensory attributes of veal calves of the “Ternera de Aliste” quality label. Meat Sci., 73(2): 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.11.009

Ryu, Y.C., M.S. Rhee and B.C. Kim. 2004. Estimation of correlation coefficients between histological parameters and carcass traits of pig Longissimus dorsi muscle. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci., 17(3): 428–433.

Savell, J.W., R.E. Branson and Cross, H.R., 1987. National consumer retail beef study: Palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling. J. Food Sci., 52(3): 517–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06664.x

Stika, J.F., Y.L. Xiong, S.P. Suman, S.P. Blanchard and W.G. Moody. 2007. Frozen storage stability of antioxidant-treated raw restructured beef steaks made from mature cows. Meat Sci., 77(4): 562–569 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.05.005

Troy, D.J., K.S.Ojha, J.P. Kerry and B.K. Tiwari. 2016. Sustainable and consumer-friendly emerging technologies for application within the meat industry: An overview. Proceeding of Meat for Global Sustainability: 62nd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (62nd ICoMST), held on August 14-19, 2016, Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 2-9.

Troy, D.J. and J.P. Kerry. 2010. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Sci., 86(1): 214–226.

USDA, 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Agriculture Marketing Service, USDA, Washington, DC. USA

Vestergaard, M.N. and P. Henckel. 2000. Influence of feeding intensity, grazing and finishing feeding on muscle fibre characteristics and meat colour of semitendinosus, longissimus dorsi and supraspinatus muscles of young bulls. Meat Sci., 54(2): 177–185.

Vieira, C., A. Cerdeño, E. Serrano, P. Lavín and A.R. Mantecón. 2007. Breed and ageing extent on carcass and meat quality of beef from adult steers (oxen). Livest. Sci., 107(1): 62–69.

Waritthitham, A., C. Lambertz, H.J. Langholz, M. Wicke and M. Gauly, 2010. Assessment of beef production from Brahman x Thai native and Charolais x Thai native crossbred bulls slaughtered at different weights. II: Meat quality Meat Sci., 85(1): 196–200.

Warner, R.D., P.L. Greenwood, D.W. Pethick and D.M. Ferguson. 2010. Genetic and environmental effects on meat quality. Meat Sci., 86(1): 171-183

Whiting, R.C. and R.K. Jenkins. 1981. Comparison of rabbit, beef, and chicken meats for fnctional properties and Frankfurter processing. J. Food Sci., 46(6): 1693–1696.

Xie, X., Q. Meng, Z. Cui and L. Ren. 2012. Effect of cattle breed on meat quality, muscle fiber characteristics, lipid oxidation and fatty acids in China. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci., 25(6): 824–831.