Effects of Tethering and Loose Housing on the Meat Quality of Hanwoo Bulls

Abstract

This study was carried out to investigate the effects of housing system on the carcass and meat qualities of Hanwoo (Korean cattle) bulls. Fourteen 6 months-old male calves were randomly divided into two groups. The first group was individually tethered using double neck-bar tethers. The second group was collectively loose-housed in the pen. They were raised for 15 months prior to slaughter. At 24 h post-slaughter chilling, the carcasses were weighed and evaluated by official grader for carcass traits. At 48 h postslaughter chilling, the M. longissimus at the 12-13 th thoracic vertebra from each carcass was collected and stored at 4±0.2°C for 7 days for meat quality analysis. There were no significant differences in dressing percentage and carcass yield index between groups. Meat from loose bulls had lower marbling score (p<0.05) and fat content (p<0.01) but higher PUFA concentration (p<0.001) than that from tethered bulls. There were no significant differences physical and sensory properties, aroma pattern, TBARS value, metmyoglobin concentration and CIE color values during refrigerated storage between groups. Compared to tethering, loose-housing bulls produced lower fat content and healthier meat without different physical properties, acceptability, and lipid and color stabilities.

Meat quality and fatty acid profile of M. longissimus dorsi of growing bulls under insulated, uninsulated and outdoor housing conditions

“…However, exercise affected redness, albeit in a muscle-dependent manner: the semimembranosus muscle became less red, the LD muscle tended to become less red and the extensor carpi radialis muscle tended to become more red as a result of exercise (Dunne et al 2005). Lee et al (2008) reported that the PUFA concentration and PUFA:SFA ratio of meat from loosehoused bulls were higher than those from tethered bulls, which is in accordance with our results where the PUFA proportion and PUFA:SFA ratio of the LD were higher in PAD than in IB bulls. This means that the meat of PAD bulls can be regarded as healthier meat that that of IB bulls.…”

“…Housing environment had no effect on the chemical composition (moisture, protein, fat), shear force or sensory analysis (tenderness, juiciness, flavour, firmness, chewiness, texture, acceptability) of meat (Dunne et al 2008). Lee et al (2008) studied the effect of housing system (loose housing and tethering) on the carcass and meat qualities of Hanwoo (Korean cattle) bulls and reported no effect of housing on sensory analysis, pH or shear force. However, the fat content of meat from loose housed bulls was significantly lower and the moisture content was higher than those of tethered bulls (Lee, et al 2008), which disagrees with the results of our study.…”

“…Lee et al (2008) studied the effect of housing system (loose housing and tethering) on the carcass and meat qualities of Hanwoo (Korean cattle) bulls and reported no effect of housing on sensory analysis, pH or shear force. However, the fat content of meat from loose housed bulls was significantly lower and the moisture content was higher than those of tethered bulls (Lee, et al 2008), which disagrees with the results of our study.…”

Comparative Evaluation of Haematological and Some Vital Parameters of Tethered and Non-Tethered Red Sokoto Goats

“…Attaining sufficiency requires sustained production line. Animal housing is an important factor in animal welfare and production, which tend to affect output and quality of animal products (Lee et al, 2008). The importance of small ruminants in terms of meat and meat products derived, hide and skin for industrial applications as well as manure for agricultural activities can…”

“…Tethering practiced in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of production. Tethering limits animals' movement and conserve energy so as to ensure maximum utilization of nutrient for the production, including fat deposition and body weight gain (Lee et al, 2008). Nevertheless, tethering is also carped for its reduction of animal welfares, particularly with regards to freedom from discomfort and freedom of animals to express their normal behavior (FAWC, 2007).…”