Effect of hormonal growth promotants on palatability and carcass traits of various muscles from steer and heifer carcasses from a Bos indicus–Bos taurus composite cross

The effect of several different hormonal growth promotant (HGP) implant strategies on the palatability and carcass traits of different muscles in beef carcasses was investigated using samples from heifer and steer carcasses from a Bos indicus composite breed. In experiment 1, there were seven different implant strategies evaluated in heifers that were given different combinations of up to three implants (implanted at weaning, during backgrounding and at feedlot entry). A total of 112 heifers were slaughtered and 11 muscles or portions were collected from both sides [Mm. adductor femoris, gracilus, semimembranosus, longissimus dorsi lumborum, triceps brachii caput longum, semispinalis capitis, serratus ventralis cervicis, spinalis dorsi, biceps femoris (syn. gluteobiceps), tensor fasciae latae, gluteus medius (both the ‘D’ and the ‘eye’ portions) rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, vastus lateralis and vastus medialis]. These muscles were used to prepare a total of 1030 sensory samples which were aged for either 7 or 21 days and frozen. Thawed samples were cooked using different cooking methods (grill, roast and stir frying) before being evaluated by a consumer taste panel that scored samples for tenderness, juiciness, like flavour and overall liking. Experiment 2 used the steer portion from the same calving, which were treated to a similar array of HGP strategies, except that they were given up to four implants between weaning and slaughter at ~3 years of age. In experiment 2, there was a total of 12 different HGP implant strategies tested. At boning, three muscles (Mm. psoas major, longisimuss dorsi thoracis and lumborum portions) were collected from each of 79 carcasses with a total of 237 steak samples that consumers tested as grilled steaks. For both experiments, the mean of the HGP implant strategies resulted in increased ossification scores (P   0.05), and aging rates differed among the muscles (P   0.05).