national beef tenderness surveyanimal.ifas.ufl.edu/beef_extension/bcsc/2019/ppt/... · 2019. 5....
TRANSCRIPT
Customer Satisfaction and National Tenderness Survey
Jason M Scheffler
Department of Animal Sciences
Palatability
bull Perceived eating satisfaction influenced by
Flavor 434 of variation in overall palatability
Juiciness 74
Tenderness 494
bull Meta analysis of 11 studies covering 1500 beef samples and 1800 customers
OrsquoQuinn et al 2018 Translational Animal Science 2(1)26ndash36
Flavor
bull Highly complex
Degradation of lipids by heat
bull Grass fed
Non-enzymatic browning or Maillard reaction
bull Amino acid + Reducing sugar + Dry heat
Interaction of lipids and Maillard products
Flavor
bull Highly variable acceptability by customer
bull Unacceptable flavor more likely to cause steak to be rated unacceptable than tenderness or juiciness (OrsquoQuinn 2018)
bull Flavor chemistry is a growing field
Juiciness
bull Marbling
bull Endpoint Degree of Doneness
bull Perception that marbling provides ldquoinsurancerdquo
Egbert et al 1991 OQuinn et al 2012 Lucherk et al 2016
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Palatability
bull Perceived eating satisfaction influenced by
Flavor 434 of variation in overall palatability
Juiciness 74
Tenderness 494
bull Meta analysis of 11 studies covering 1500 beef samples and 1800 customers
OrsquoQuinn et al 2018 Translational Animal Science 2(1)26ndash36
Flavor
bull Highly complex
Degradation of lipids by heat
bull Grass fed
Non-enzymatic browning or Maillard reaction
bull Amino acid + Reducing sugar + Dry heat
Interaction of lipids and Maillard products
Flavor
bull Highly variable acceptability by customer
bull Unacceptable flavor more likely to cause steak to be rated unacceptable than tenderness or juiciness (OrsquoQuinn 2018)
bull Flavor chemistry is a growing field
Juiciness
bull Marbling
bull Endpoint Degree of Doneness
bull Perception that marbling provides ldquoinsurancerdquo
Egbert et al 1991 OQuinn et al 2012 Lucherk et al 2016
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Flavor
bull Highly complex
Degradation of lipids by heat
bull Grass fed
Non-enzymatic browning or Maillard reaction
bull Amino acid + Reducing sugar + Dry heat
Interaction of lipids and Maillard products
Flavor
bull Highly variable acceptability by customer
bull Unacceptable flavor more likely to cause steak to be rated unacceptable than tenderness or juiciness (OrsquoQuinn 2018)
bull Flavor chemistry is a growing field
Juiciness
bull Marbling
bull Endpoint Degree of Doneness
bull Perception that marbling provides ldquoinsurancerdquo
Egbert et al 1991 OQuinn et al 2012 Lucherk et al 2016
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Flavor
bull Highly variable acceptability by customer
bull Unacceptable flavor more likely to cause steak to be rated unacceptable than tenderness or juiciness (OrsquoQuinn 2018)
bull Flavor chemistry is a growing field
Juiciness
bull Marbling
bull Endpoint Degree of Doneness
bull Perception that marbling provides ldquoinsurancerdquo
Egbert et al 1991 OQuinn et al 2012 Lucherk et al 2016
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Juiciness
bull Marbling
bull Endpoint Degree of Doneness
bull Perception that marbling provides ldquoinsurancerdquo
Egbert et al 1991 OQuinn et al 2012 Lucherk et al 2016
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Impact of marbling on juiciness
0
20
40
60
80
100
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Ob
ject
ive
Juic
ines
s
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degF
Lucherk et al 2016
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
How important is marbling
15
29
62
8288
99 98
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traces Slight Small Moderate Modest Slightlyabundant
Moderatelyabundant
F
avo
rab
le e
atin
g ex
pe
rie
nce
Sensory Experience (panel rating above 75)
Emerson et al 2011
Prime
Choice
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Importance of beef tenderness
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
ks a
ccep
tab
le in
ten
der
nes
s
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home Consumers
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stea
k ac
cep
tab
le o
vera
ll
Tenderness rating
Restaurant consumers
Home consumers
Extremely tough
Extremely tough
Extremely tender
Extremely tender
Huffman et al 1996 Journal of Animal Science 7491-97 Tenderness had linear relationship with WBSF
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Value of tenderness
PEAR = post extraction algal residueMD Johnson et al 2016J Anim Sci 943072-3083
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Value of tenderness
bull Consumers willing to pay $123lb more for steaks after blind taste test (Lusk et al 2001)
bull For every 1 lb increase in WBSF willingness to pay decreased $024lb (Feuz et al 2004)
Auction system
bull Increasing panelists increased bid by $029lb
Tenderness was associated with improved juiciness
flavor and overall acceptability
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001 vol 83 issue 3 539-550Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 29 No 3 (December 2004) pp 501-516
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Certified tender
bull WBSF lt97 lbs (44 kg)
bull Program started in 2014
bull Cargill sold at Harris Teeter in NC
bull Success
httpswwwamsusdagovsitesdefaultfilesmediaLPSP_Laboratory_Proficiency_Testing_for_Shear_Force5B15Dpdf
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Palatability in the UF multibreed herd
bull WBSF and tenderness inversely related
bull Variation uarr as Brahman
Elzo et al 2012 Meat Science 90(1)87-92
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Where tenderness means dollars
bull 91 USDA certified beef programs discriminate against carcasses with humps gt2rdquo
bull Steaks from carcasses with hump height measurements of 760 cm (3rdquo) or greater had lower panel tenderness ratings and higher WBS values (P lt 05) than steaks from carcasses with hump heights less than 635 cm (25rdquo)
Sherbeck et al 1996 J Anim Sci 1996 74304ndash309
Exceptions
bull G5 Swift Chefrsquos Exclusive EU (JBS)
bull G-33 Where Food Comes From Certified Beef Program
bull G 38 FM Meat Products Beef
bull G 131 Switzerland Export Certified Beef
bull G NR Nolan Ryans Tender Aged Beef
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Five surveys published 1991 2000 2007 2013 2015 2017
bull Cross-sectional assessment of retail and food service
bull Benchmark tenderness to track progress
bull The 2017 study was conducted in 2015
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail and food service steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)
Foodservice
RetailMeat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Warner-Bratzler shear force values of retail steaks
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top blade
Rib eye boneless
Rib eye bone-in
Top loin
Top loin-bone-in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top Sirloin
Top round
Bottom round
WBSF (lbs)1998 2017
26
26
23
27
Meat and Muscle Biology 1138-148
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Percentage of steaks meeting tenderness thresholds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2011
Perc
enta
ge d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Top Blade
2015 2011 2005
Ribeye boneless
2015 2011 2005
Top Loin
2015 2011 2005
Top Round
2015 2011 2005
Bottom Round
Very tender Tender Intermediate Toughlt705 lbs 70586 lbs 86101lbs gt101 lbs
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
National Beef Tenderness Survey
bull Slow but steady progress
bull Need to reduce variation
Sorting seems to have pushed less tender product to food service
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
What influences tenderness
bull Intramuscular fat
bull Connective tissue
bull Myofibrillar degradation
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Tenderness is a byproduct trait
bull Most of the known contributing factors to meat tenderness also have functions in the living animal
Selection for improved tenderness is often antagonistic to growth and efficiency
bull Despite importance tenderness is a difficult trait to market
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Olson Johnson and West 2000 httpufdcimagesuflibufleduAA0000041200001folsonselmeattenpdf
When selecting for tenderness
Divergent selection with bulls tested to be tough and tender
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Implants reduce tenderness
Rsup2 = 09797
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3
WB
SF (
lbs)
Number of implants
Scheffler et al 2003
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Marbling and Tenderness
Adapted from Lucherk et al 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Prime Top Choice Low Choice Select Standard
Slic
e sh
ear
forc
e (l
bs)
Interaction of marbling and degree of doneness
140degF 160degF 170degFBalance against
feed costs
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Protein accumulation
bull Fractional rates are highest in young animals
bull Difference diminishes as animals approach maturity
bull Increasing breakdown to improve tenderness may inadvertently slow down growth
bull Challenge
ndash How to find the balance between antemortemand postmortem breakdown
FAR
FSR
FBR
Live weight or age
Frac
tio
nal
rat
es
t
Protein synthesis
Ab
solu
te r
ate
gd
Bergen amp Merkel 1991
Adapted by T Scheffler
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Changes in Collagen with growth
bull Abundance
bull Amount of crosslinking
bull Both increase with age
bull Both higher in locomotion muscles
Fang et al J Anim Sci 77120
Neonatal pig 1 month old pig
3 month old pig 6 month old pig
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Factors Influencing Tenderness in Steaks From Brahman Cattle
Riley et al 2005 Meat Science 70 347ndash356
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Calpain
bull Calcium-activated protease ( and m)
bull Inhibited by calpastatin
bull Important for muscle growth protein turnover
Troponin degradation by calpain Wright et al 2018
Goll et al 1992
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Other enzymes possibly involved in protein degradation
bull Caspases
bull Cathepsins
bull Lysosomal proteases (cathepsins)
bull Ubiquitin proteasome
Do their targets degrade post mortem
Are they active post mortem
Are they located near targets
Inhibitors present activators required
Antemortem 7 d postmortem
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Summary
bull Consumer satisfaction is a function of flavor juiciness and tendernessBeef isnrsquot going to out price other proteins it needs to be more
satisfying
bull Need to improve meat quality andor better sort productAs sorting gets better how will that impact the valuation of your
cattle
bull Tenderness needs to improve but not at the detriment of other economically important traits
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu
Thank you
UFloridaBrahman
jmscheffufledu