Effects of Electrical Stimulation on Carcass Quality and Meat Palatability Traits of Charolais Crossbred Bulls and Steers

Abstract

Forty-four Charolais crossbred bulls and steers from a similar background and fed commercially were slaughtered and the right side of each carcass was electrically stimulated. Electrical stimulation reduced lean maturity scores (bulls and steers) and, for steers, lowered lean firmness scores (softer lean) and improved "heat-ring" scores. Electrical stimulation significantly improved most tenderness measurements on steaks from young bulls, but was only effective in decreasing shear force values of steaks from steers. Electrical stimulation was more effective in improving the tenderness of steaks from bulls than those from steers. palatability of beef from bulls and steers from a similar genetic and management background. General MATERIALS & METHODSForty-four i/z-blood Charolais and 3/4-to 7/s-blood Charolais bulls and steers from the same herd were fed commercially (172 days) and slaughtered. Cattle were held by sex-breed group (n = 11) overnight with water and then transported to the plant on the morning of slaughter. Within 2 hr of arrival, the cattle were slaughtered.

Effect of bleeding method and low voltage electrical stimulation on meat quality of ostriches

“…Electrical stimulation (ES) is usually applied in the red meat industry to cattle and sheep; predominately to inhibit the possibility of cold shortening when the carcasses are cooled rapidly (Wu et al, 1985;Stiffler et al, 1986;Taylor & Tantikov, 1992) or to enhance the activity of the enzyme systems (low pH at a high temperature) -a procedure frequently used when meat will be frozen soon after rigor mortis (Simmons et al, 2008). Muscles are at risk of cold shortening in pre-rigor muscles if muscle temperature falls below 10 °C while the pH is still high (pH >6.0 -6.2) and an adequate amount of energy (ATP) is present (Pearson & Young, 1989).…”

Bilateral Temperature Asymmetry in the Loin of the Bovine Carcass

“…The first of these deductions is in accord with the results of two previous studies (Bowles Axe et al, 1983;Greathouse et al, 1983), and it is highly relevant that, in both of these earlier investigations, left and right sides were assigned randomly to stimulation and control groups. Conversely, in two of the studies with which our first conclusion disagrees (Wu et al, 1985;Stiffler et al, 1986), only the right sides were stimulated. In light of the lateral@ effect now reported, we believe the results of these two latter investigations can be reinterpreted: it was the use of right sides for stimulation, and not the application of stimulation itself, that was responsible for the temperature difference observed.…”

“…In sharp contrast, calculations from the data provided in two of the earlier studies show paired-side temperature differences per unit difference in pH of 2.9" for steers at 6 hr postmortem (Calkins et al, 1983), and 4.6" (steers) and 8.4" (bulls) at 2 hr postmortem (Wu et al, 1985). The results of Stiffler et al (1986) suggest even higher values, but it is not clear from their paper that the quoted pH and temperature data were obtained on the same muscle. The great disparity between these values and the maximum possible value of less than 1" is further evidence for the inadequacy of the temperature-measuring methods used in previous investigations.…”

“…In one area of ES research, however, use of this procedure has led to inconsistent and confusing results. Several studies have indicated that ES retards early postmortem cooling (Calkins et al, 1983;Wu et al, 1985;Stiffler et al, 1986), but others have shown that it has no significant effect (Bowles Axe et al, 1983;Greathouse et al, 1983). According to a third view (Dutson, 1980;Dutson et al, 1981), a stimulated side is initially warmer than an unstimulated control but loses heat more rapidly and becomes cooler than the control at about 2-5 hr postmortem.…”