Flavor Profiles and Traits of Crossbred Dairy Cattle

by

Reginald Laramie Priest, B.S.

A Thesis

In

Animal Science

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCES

Approved

Mark F. Miller, PhD Chair of Committee

Jerrad F. Legako, PhD

Ryan Rathmann, PhD

Mark Sheridan, PhD Dean of Graduate School

May, 2019

Copyright 2019, Reginald Laramie Priest

Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As I sit contemplating who all to thank and include in my acknowledgements, I can honestly say it puts a huge smile on my face because it truthfully took countless influences in my life to help me accomplish one of my greatest feats in completing this master’s project. I can assure you I could not have accomplished this without every single one of my friends, professors, mentors, and of course my family and God. I will be honest – as an undergraduate student at Texas Tech University, I never imagined I would be getting my master’s in meat science, but I can also honestly say it has not only been memorable and enjoyable, but it was helped me in multiple facets of my life. Even though it was a tough and rough road, it only made me enjoy it more and make the journey worthwhile.

First off, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Miller. You were the one who trusted me and gave me the opportunity to come back to Texas Tech University to further my education along with being such a great role model in your walk of faith. Seeing how you handle yourself and walk in your faith every single day has made such a huge impact on my life because I know that one can never be too busy to make time for what is most important in life. I also want to thank you for trusting in me to come back and finish a project. It really means more to me than you can imagine.

Secondly, I want to thank Dr. Jared Legako. Dr. Legako, without you I can assure you there would have been no way I would have gotten this done in a timely fashion. I am beyond blessed to have been able to have you as my mentor during this process and be allowed to work on a project under you. I can say I have learned so much from you whether it be using the gas chromatography or conducting trained panels. I know I

ii Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 possibly drove you crazy and made you nervous while I was using the GC, because let’s be honest, I would have been if I was in your shoes. It is hard to describe in words though how truly thankful I am of you for sticking with me and trusting me to conduct this project.

I would also like to thank Dr. Ryan Rathmann for agreeing to serve on my committee. I remember talking to you at Denver and telling you I wanted to come back and get my master’s, and even though you were in shocked that I wanted to come back, you knew that when I would come back I would be passionate about it and do it to the best of my ability. I want to thank you for being someone that I could come and talk to at any time along with being someone I could look up to.

A huge thank you goes out to my fellow graduate students for these past two years. Kelly Vierck, Keelyn Hanlon, Kimberly Wellman, Phil Urso, Nick Hardcastle,

Tosha Opheim, and Hope Voegele. First off, I want to thank each of you for helping me complete my trained panels. Without y’all grinding it out with me, I can assure you I would not have been able to finish. I want to also thank Kelly Vierck for helping me understand how to use the GC machine and analyzing the data as well as Traci Cramer for mentoring me while I started trained panels. I would also like to thank Austin Adams,

Gabe Jennings, Loni Lucherk, and Dani Evers for helping me whenever I needed it throughout my project. Also, thanks to the undergraduates that came and helped me during trained panels. Your help is much appreciated.

Another group I want to thank are all my friends throughout this journey. Each of you stayed on top of me and kept everything in perspective. I enjoyed each and every one of you being able to talk to you throughout this process.

iii Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family. To my sister and brother, Steelie and Dakota - I love you guys more than you know and look forward to seeing what God has in store for our future.

Mom, I just want to thank you for being there for more throughout these past two years and always being my biggest fan. No matter the occasion, you made sure to come and cheer me on every single time. You are the kindest most loving person I know and I will always love you.

Dad, thank you for always my number one role model throughout my entire life, and showing how to be a Godly man. Thank you for always answering my multiple phone calls a day and keeping my dreams alive at home by taking care of the cow herd while I was away. None of this would be possible without you. I am beyond thankful for you and Mom for your continued support and prayers.

Last but not least, Payton I love you with all I have. I would not have come back if it was not for you, and seeing you every day was a constant reminder of why I made the decision to continue my education. Thank you for always supporting me and allowing me to follow my dreams. I cannot wait to continue life with you and see what

God has in store for us.

Once again, thank you to every single person in my life who has helped me achieve another one of my goals. It has been such a fun time and cannot wait to see what is next! God bless each and every one of you!

iv Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………….………………………...... ii

ABSTRACT…………………………...………………………….……………….…....vii

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………...……...... …..vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION……………………………………...……………..…1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW………………...……………………....……4

Background of Dairy Beef ……………………………………………..………....4

Challenges of Dairy Beef ………………………...…………………………….....8

Background of Cross Breeding ………………………………………………….11

Breeds for Cross Breeding……………………………………………………….13

Angus…………………………………………………………………….14 Charolais…………………………………………………………………15 Simmental………………………………………………………………..17

Challenges of Cross Breeding……………………………………………………19

Benefits of Cross Breeding ……………………………………………………...19

Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………..21

CHAPTER III. MEAT QUALITY OF CROSSBRED DAIRY CATTLE…….……27

Introduction………………………………………………………………………27

Materials and Methods………………………………...... 28

Carcass evaluation and Product Selection…………..……...... 28 Warner Bratzler Shear Force…………………………………………….29 Volatile Compound Analysis……………………………………….……30 Trained Sensory Panels……………………………..…………………....31 Statistical Analysis……………………………………..………………...33

Results and Discussion……………………………………….………………….34

Carcass Analysis…………………………………………………………34 Shear Force Analysis……………………………………...……………..36

v Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Consumer Analysis………………………………………………………37 Volatile Analysis…………………………………………………………39 Maillard Products…………………………………………….…………..39 Lipid Products………………………………...………………………….42

Correlations………………………………………..……………………………..47

Maillard Products…………………………………………...……………47 Lipid Products……………………………………………………………48

Principal Component Analysis…………………………………………………..50

Conclusion.………………………………………………………………………50

REFERNCES…………………...……………………………………………..………..52

vi Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to evaluate the meat quality of five beef breed crosses with dairy cattle: Angus × Holstein, Angus × Dairy Cross, Charolais × Jersey,

Charolais × Dairy Cross, SimAngus × Holstein. The SimAngus cross is an F1 cross between Simmental and Angus. Meat quality was evaluated through carcass measurements, Warner-Bratlzer Shear Force, trained consumer panels, and volatile flavor compound analysis. Carcass data was provided: Angus and SimAngus crosses had the heaviest hot carcass weights (P < 0.05) compared to Charolais crosses. Likewise, Angus and SimAngus crosses had greater marbling score (P = 0.05) and percentage of USDA

Choice cattle (P < 0.05), compared with Charolais crosses. Charolais cross cattle had larger ribeyes (P < 0.05), and also had more percentage of USDA Select cattle (P < 0.05) compared to the Angus and SimAngus crosses. Panelists discovered that Angus and

SimAngus crosses were ranked higher in beef flavor ID (P < 0.05) and fat like (P = 0.04) than Charolais cross cattle. Charolais cross cattle were ranked higher in bitterness (P =

0.03) and oxidized (P = 0.01). There was no difference within Warner-Bratzler shear force values among all five breed crosses (P = 0.79). Within the Maillard products, ketones showed Angus x Holstein cattle having higher concentrations (P < 0.05). Within the lipid products, Angus cross cattle tended to have higher concentrations of ketones (P

< 0.05) and carboxylic acids (P < 0.05). The results have shown that Angus and

SimAngus cattle have the greatest impacts on carcass results when crossed with dairy cattle. It showed that if producers are trying to create a branded beef program Angus cattle tended to have higher flavor scores since tenderness and juiciness were the same among the breed crosses.

vii Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Distribution of strip loins throughout the study……………………….…………57

3.2 Principal Component (PC) analysis for volatile compounds and flavor characteristics of dairy breed crosses……………………...………...………..…58

3.1 Flavor Attributes and anchors for trained panels………………………...……....59

3.2 Carcass values of beef carcasses in varying dairy beef breed crosses…....….…..60

3.3 Descriptive flavor attributes1 and Warner-Bratlzer shear forces values of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breed crosses …………....…..…...…....……..61

3.4 Least square means of volatile Maillard Products of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breeds……………………..…………...………………...... 62

3.5 Least square means of volatile Lipid Products of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breeds …………….…………………..……..……………………….63

3.6 Pearson correlation coefficients between Maillard Products and Trained Sensory Attributes …………………...………………………….……………….64

3.7 Pearson correlation coefficients between Lipid Products and Trained Sensory Attributes ………………………………………………….…………………….65

viii Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Beef is, without a doubt, one of the most favorable protein options for consumers to eat, and to continue to supply the world with enough beef, we must find ways to utilize all types of cattle, not just beef breeds. The beef industry has approximately 31.7 million beef cows in the United States and an estimated 9.4 million head of dairy cows

(CattleFax). The dairy industry contributes towards 22 percent of calves raised and harvested for beef (CattleFax). Dairy producers have recently began crossing dairy cows with beef breeds to create cattle which will be more efficient in the growth stages and when put on feed in the feed yards. The dairy industry began crossing them with beef bulls since some beef packing plants would not accept purebred dairy cattle. Therefore, crossbreeding dairy cows and beef breed bulls such as Angus, SimAngus, Charolais, etc. can improve the carcass traits for these dairy cattle by a substantial margin. With the crossing of these breeds, there is potential to increase ribeye area, carcass weight, subcutaneous fat, and intramuscular fat. The differences in intramuscular fat can typically affect consumers’ palatability.

A majority of the dairy breeds in the United States are either Holstein or Jersey, and these two cow bases are usually crossed with Charolais, Angus, SimAngus, or

Limousin bulls to help with the carcass traits and feed efficiency of the offspring.

Charolais bulls can increase dressing percentage, carcass red meat yields, Angus can increase quality like marbling and tenderness, SimAngus can increase marbling and dressing percentage, and Limousin can help with dressing percentage. Each of these

1 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 breeds can improve ribeye area as well, which is extremely important for the packing plants to make profit on these carcasses.

It has been thought for years that beef palatability is based primarily on beef tenderness (Miller et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1995; Savell et al., 1987), but recently it has been discovered that flavor is actually a primary palatability factor, especially when tenderness is in an acceptable range (Behrends et al, 2005a, 2005b; Goodson et al., 2002).

This could prove to be beneficial when determining if certain breeds of cattle have differences in flavor profiles and preferences among consumers. This also could be interesting to analyze if different breed combinations have any effects on overall tenderness or juiciness. If there are not differences in tenderness, then flavor could play a huge role in consumers’ perception of certain breed crosses. Companies can then capitalize on this to create branded beef programs based on flavors and consumer perceptions.

We will be analyzing 73 volatile compounds while using the GC-MS (Cerny &

Grosch, 1992; Farmer & Patterson, 1991; Gasser & Grosh, 1988; Mottram, 1991).

Different breeds of cattle have vastly varying degrees of marbling, and research has shown that consumers prefer the flavor of beef with increased amount of intramuscular fat (Corbin et al., 2015; O’Quinn et al., 2012; Smith, Savell, Cross, & Carpenter, 1983). It has also been shown that intramuscular fat has hardly ever produced an increase in flavor compounds (Mottram & Edwards, 1983; Mottram, Edwards & Macfie, 1982). Studies have shown that fat can actually act as solvents for flavor compounds, and this causes flavor-releasing delays.

2 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

To date, there have not been studies which have focused on the palatability and volatile profiles of different breeds of cattle and the crossbreeding of beef and dairy cattle. There have been studies which have evaluated different breeds of cattle raised on natural pastures (Muchenje et al., 2008), and the difference of fatty acids in beef and dairy cull cows (Stelzenni & Johnson, 2008), and a study done on fatty acid profiles in conventional versus organic dairy steers (Bjorklund et al., 2014). There have not been any studies conducted on dairy beef crosses.

The objective of this study is to determine the differences in volatiles and fatty acid profiles in the following breed combinations: Angus × Holstein, Angus × Dairy

Cross, Charolais × Jersey, Charolais × Dairy Cross, and SimAngus × Holstein.

3 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Background of Dairy Beef

As stated, beef is a favorite food among consumers across the United States and world populations. As of the year 2016 (Beef USA), the United States had approximately

913,246 total cow/calf operations. Of this number, there were 727,906 that were primarily for beef operations and 64,098 dairy operations in the United States (Beef

USA). These numbers make it apparent dairy operations can have an impact within the beef industry. Dairy operators can have a large influence on the beef industry if they choose to crossbreed their cows with beef bulls. Out of the 41.1 million total cows in the

United States, 9.4 million of these are dairy cows. The dairy cattle population accounts for 22 percent of the total cow population in the United States which is an increase of 1 percent from 2017 (Beef USA).

Of these 9.4 million dairy cows, the average dairy herd size is approximately 234 cows per dairy operation in 2017, which is an increase from 155 cows per operation in the year 2007 (Progressive Dairy). The average dairy herd size is about four times as large as the U.S. beef herd per operation which is around 58.3 cows (Beef USA).

The dairy industry seems as though its population will keep growing with the U.S. dairy heifer replacements up to 4.7813 million in 2018 as compared to only 4.754 million dairy heifer replacements kept back in 2017 (Cattlefax). The two major dairy breeds that are in the United States are the Holstein breed and the Jersey breed (Dechow, 2015). The total percentage of the Holstein population in 2007 and 2008 was approximately 91 percent of dairy cattle whereas the total population percentage in 2014 was down to 85

4 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 percent (Dechow, 2015). The Jersey population accounted for 6 percent of dairy cattle in the years 2007 and 2008, and this percentage increased by the year 2014 to 8.3 percent of the total population (Dechow, 2015). This population in particular saw a decrease of 1.4 percent to 1 percent between the years of 2007 and 2014 (Dechow, 2015).

The Holstein breed is not only the largest in terms of population size in the dairy industry, but they are also the largest breed in terms of physical size as well. The Holstein breed can be traced back the origins from the Netherlands (Holstein USA). There are more than 22 million Holsteins registered in the Holstein Association herd book (Holstein

USA). They may weigh up to 1500 pounds, stand close to 58 inches tall at their shoulder

(Holstein USA), and are distinct because of their white and black color pattern.

A single Holstein cow can produce, “25,676 pounds of milk, 963 pounds of butterfat and 799 pounds of protein per year,” (Holstein USA). It has even been shown that top genetic Holstein cows that are milked three times a day can produce over 72,000 pounds of milk in 365 days (Holstein USA). It is apparent why the Holstein breed is predominant in terms of population size in the United States due to its “unexcelled production, greater income over feed costs, and they can adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions, and this only means more profit for the producer,” (Holstein

USA).

The Jersey breed is the second largest in terms of population size in the dairy industry which can be attributed to the quality of their milk. Originally bred in the

Channel Island of Jersey, the Jersey breed is a smaller framed breed than the Holstein breed. They are brown in color with black at their points, nose, hooves, and tail. The reason the Jersey breed is so popular in the United States is because of the quality of their

5 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 milk. When compared to an average glass of milk, a jersey glass of milk contains: 15-20 percent more protein, 15-18 percent more calcium, and 10-12 percent more phosphorus

(US Jersey).

To produce the same protein, milkfat and other solids as an average dairy cow,

Jersey cattle will need significantly less water and land. (US Jersey). Jersey cattle were developed to be lower input cattle than Holsteins. Jersey cows can produce close to 17 times their body weight in milk each lactation. (US Jersey). Jersey cows tip the scales at around 75 percent of a Holstein’s body weight, and require 80 percent less feed than a

Holstein cow (US Jersey).

A final reason the Jersey breed is so popular is because of their fertility, ease of calving and longevity. Studies have shown that Jersey heifer tended to reach puberty at an earlier age than Holstein cattle did. (US Jersey). The Jersey breed has the lowest average age at their first calving when compared back to all dairy breeds, and this means that they can get into production earlier and have a quicker return on the operator’s investment (US Jersey). Jerseys are also known for their calving ease. It has been shown that less than 1 percent of Jersey heifers experience problems having their first calf whereas approximately 8 percent of the Holstein breed experience calving problems in their first year of calving (US Jersey).

Jersey cattle are also very popoular due to their longevity. This report showed that jersey cows that continued in production once they were put into production was 72.3 percent whereas all other breeds and crossbreeds were approximately 66.9 percent. This significant of a difference can impact a producer’s bottom line (US Jersey).

6 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

The final background of dairy which needs mentioning are calf crops. Most bull calves from each cow will either be slaughtered for veal production or they will be fed out in feed yards to contribute to the beef supply. Comparatively, most of the heifers in each calf crop will be kept as replacements to help with the herd size or to replace older cows which have been sent to slaughter. The only heifers which are not kept as replacements are the heifers that are crossed with beef bulls due to their inabilities to produce enough milk to make it profitable for the dairy producer.

It was very apparent in the 2015 National Beef Audit that in the year 2015, the amount of dairy type carcasses had increased dramatically up to 20.4 percent of the entire cattle population harvested that year. This number is slightly skewed due to the droughts over the years. Because of these droughts, there were fewer operators who found it less reasonable to keep back as many replacements due to the increased prices of feed and roughage.

Potentially, a more accurate representation of the amount of dairy type carcasses that are harvested are represented in the previous National Beef Audits. In 2003, dairy type carcasses represented 5.7 percent of cattle harvested. In 2005, dairy type carcasses represented 7.9 percent of cattle harvested, and in 2011 dairy type carcasses represented

5.5 percent of cattle harvested (BQA). These percentages are extremely important to beef supply, and can prove to be profitable or detrimental to the packers and owners of the cattle.

Even though these numbers can seem like a small percentage, it still represents a significant portion when compared back to the rest of the divisions of the cattle population which were harvested. In the 2011 National Beef audit, dairy type carcasses

7 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 ranked fourth highest at 5.5 percent (BQA). The leader in hide color was black at 61.1 percent, second was red at 12.8 percent, third was yellow at 8.7 percent, fourth was dairy type carcasses at 5.5 percent, fifth was gray at approximately 5 percent, sixth was brown at 5 percent, and white was seventh at 1.4 percent (BQA).

The percentage of U.S. Dairy which is in cold storage has increased significantly in terms of total pounds from the five-year average (Cattlefax). For a few reference points, in January of 2017, there were 1505.331 million pounds of dairy beef in storage whereas the five-year average was at 1329.0838 million pounds. In July of 2017 there were 1731.285 million pounds of dairy beef whereas the five-year average was at

1533.6826 million pounds. In November of 2017, there was 1506.545 million pounds of dairy beef compared to the five-year average of 1334.768 million pounds of dairy beef in dry storage (Cattlefax). It has become apparent that the number of dairy cattle that are on feed is on a steady incline.

Challenges of Dairy Beef

With the continuation of the amount of dairy beef that is on feed and harvested each year, there are negative aspects to this that can prove to be unprofitable for some.

The primary challenges that dairy cattle face when put on feed is feed efficiency. Another challenge for dairy cattle is when considering carcass traits. Dairy cattle were seen to have a lower dressing percent, fat thickness, longissimus dorsi area, and marbling score

(Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). When Holstein cattle are compared back to Angus cattle, the Holstein breed only had a 58 percent dressing percentage where the Angus cattle had a 62.3 percent dressing percentage. When they are compared by the longissimus dorsi muscle, the Holstein cattle had 71.6 cm2 area, and the Angus cattle had

8 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 a 76.1 cm2 of muscle area score (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). Additionally, when comparing the two breeds based on maturity score, the Angus breed was a 14.5, and the

Holstein was a 14.8 (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). Finally, in this study it was evident that there was a distinct difference as well when it came to marbling score. The Angus breed was substantially more desirable having a 16.1 where the Holstein breed was at

11.2 marbling score (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). Muscling, as stated earlier, was vastly different. It also shows when round scores were made, the Angus breed had a 7 where the Holstein only had round score of 4 (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982).

This study also showed that there were flavor and palatability differences between the Angus and Holstein breeds. There was no substantial statistical difference in the flavor rating with Angus having a rating of 6.6 and the Holstein having a rating of 6.7.

There was a statistical difference P < .05 in juiciness and tenderness rating though between the two breeds score (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). Angus had a juiciness rating of 6.1 where Holstein had a rating of 5.5. In tenderness rating, Angus had a rating of 7.1 and Holstein had a rating of 6.4 score (Adams, Smith, Carpenter 1982). The overall palatability rating between the two breeds was different, with Angus having an overall rating of 6.6 and Holstein had an overall rating of 6.1 score (Adams, Smith, Carpenter

1982).

In 2016, in-plant carcasses were examined between three types of breeds. In the study, they noticed that 82.9 percent were native cattle, 15.9 percent were dairy-type, and

1.2 percent were bos indicus (Boykin et al., 2016). In the 2011 Beef audit, there was a 6 percent increase in dairy type carcasses and 5.4 percent decrease in native type cattle

(Boykin et al., 2016). Dairy type carcasses have shown consistently higher numbers in all

9 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 the NBQA audits from 2000 to 2011 (McKenna et al., 2002; Garcia et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2012; Boykin et al., 2016).

In 2012, an extreme drought resulted in a major decrease in beef cattle herds. As a consequence, there were record high beef prices which created competitive markets for

Holstein steers (Felix, 2016). The increase of calf-fed dairy beef programs offered by packers could also have caused an increase in dairy type cattle (Bunting, 2015). It was also shown that when comparing native carcasses to Holstein cattle, native carcasses had a significant statistical advantage in “USDA YG (3.1), Adjusted Fat Thickness (1.5 cm),

Hot Carcass Weight (390.3 kg), and LM area (90.9 cm2)” (Boykin et al., 2016). It also showed that “dairy type carcasses had the greatest quality grade (Choice17), marbling score (Small86), least LM area (80.6 cm2; P< 0.05)” (Boykin et al., 2016). These studies have also been consistent with the previous audits showing that dairy type cattle are lower in hot carcass weight, LM area, and dressing percentage which can be very critical areas to be profitable for the packers or feedlots.

Another major challenge for feeding dairy type carcasses is that there were three major buyers for these type of cattle: American Foods, JBS Packer and Tyson Foods.

Tyson then decided it was not going to continue harvesting dairy type cattle in their packing plants. Tyson made a statement when they decided this in 2017 which stated,

“Tyson would continue to harvest Holstein cattle from long-term supply agreements.

Meanwhile, customer demand continues to drive the direction of our procurement needs”

(Dechow, 2015). When this happened, the prices for dairy steers brought 30 dollars back of native cattle because the other two packing plants were having trouble absorbing the excess cattle which created a surplus of dairy type cattle not being bought (Dechow,

10 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

2015). Now since the native cowherd population has risen again, it has been harder to sell purebred dairy steers to packing plants since they can buy native cattle that perform and are more profitable.

There are many challenges for dairy type cattle around the country. The reoccurring issues are that dairy type cattle do not perform as well when it comes to feed conversion, average daily gain, and cost of gain. Also, their dressing percentage and ribeye area size is substantially smaller than those of native cattle. Additionally, with

Tyson no longer buying dairy type cattle an excess amount of dairy cattle has been created in the industry with the amount of native cattle on the rise. This has caused dairy cattle producers to begin trying to find new ways to market or breed their cattle.

Background of Crossbreeding

To potentially fix or prevent some of the negative aspects of feeding and harvesting dairy cattle, crossbreeding can prove to be extremely beneficial.

Crossbreeding is the taking of two purebred cattle and crossing them to increase heterosis. The basic reasoning for crossbreeding is to, “be able to optimize simultaneously the use of both non-additive and additive effects of genes,” (Gregory &

Cundiff, 1980). Crossbreeding cattle has been a common practice across the United

States within the beef industry to capitalize on each breed’s strength. It is well- documented throughout the years that crossbreeding can optimize production efficiency

(Gregory & Cundiff, 1980). British breeds are highly distributed throughout the entire

United States along with European breeds of cattle (Mazzucco, 2015). As mentioned, crossbreeding is frequently practiced throughout the beef industry to produce calves that are more efficient at fattening, finishing, and carcass traits (Gregory & Cundiff, 1980).

11 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Crossbreeding has been more of a common practice within the dairy industry for milk production, but not as regularly done for beef production. In 1975 in the country of

Finland, a program was developed to help producers market their calves (Liinamo, 2000).

The best class of cows will be used for artificial insemination with very proven dairy bulls for milk production, whereas the poor class of cows would be artificial inseminated with beef bulls (Liinamo, 2000). The average class within this system would get artificially inseminated with unproven dairy bulls to help those bulls gain some progeny to help them be genetically evaluated (Liinamo, 2000). A positive impact of this system is that the purebred progeny that is left can remain within their herds to ensure higher quality genetics for milk production, and the cross-bred progeny can be used to help with their economics for beef production (Liinamo, 2000). Within this system in Finland, the following breeds were used: the highest for beef breeds was the Limousin breed (35.2%), followed by the Angus breed (17.2%), then the Charolais breed (15.1%), Herefords

(11.2%), Simmental (9.3%), and then other breeds (12%) (Liinamo, 2000). A majority of the farmers interviewed said that liked utilizing beef bulls with the dairy cow herds

(Liinamo, 2000).

The following is their positive views on using beef bulls within their calving herds: the purebred progeny of the poorest cows will not remain in dairy production, crossbred calves are more profitable and valuable when sold at weaning, crossbred calves have a better ability to gain weight more efficiently and will have better carcass higher yielding carcasses (Liinamo, 2000).

Their concerns were as follows: if they have a small cow herd size, then all the cows must be used for dairy production and must be bred back pure-bred to replace older

12 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 females within the herd. The level of the herd in terms of milk production is so great that they do not want to use beef bull to inseminate cows, and the last is their fear of calving difficulties (Liinamo, 2000).

Crossbreeding beef cows has been a common practice throughout the United

States, but crossbreeding dairy cows with beef bulls has been less common. With low milk prices and low slaughter cow prices dairy producers must find alternative ways to become profitable within their industry and cross breeding may be the best alternative.

Breeds for Cross Breeding

As discussed within the Liinamo paper previously mentioned there are multiple beef breeds that can be utilized to cross breed dairy cows with. Each type of breed as it’s benefits. British cattle tend to be more useful for increasing marbling and fat thickness.

According to Cole et al. 1964, he shows that British cattle had a higher dressing percentage than dairy cattle, their carcass grade was significantly better, marbling was better, and fat thickness was better. American cattle are mainly used for heat tolerance within the United States and South America, but they do have some strengths when compared back to dairy breeds. In Cole et al. 1964 study, it showed that Brahman cattle had a higher dressing percentage, a slightly higher carcass grade, and more fat thickness than the dairy breeds. Also, the final breed type that c an be used is European Cattle. European cattle are best known for their added growth, weight gain, and within breeds added marbling.

Within the English breeds there is Angus, Horned Hereford, Polled Hereford, Red

Angus, and Shorthorn breeds. Within the Brahman breeds there is Brangus, Santa

Gertrudis, Simbrah, Grey Brahman, Beefmaster, and Braford. Then the European breeds

13 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 consist of Simmental, Limousin, Charolias, Chianina, and Maine Anjou. The breeds that will be focused on within this paper is the Angus, Charolais, and Simmental.

Angus

The Angus breed is one of the most renown breeds around the world. The history of the angus breed is that a man by the name of George Grant brought Angus bulls from

Scotland to Kansas in 1873 (AAA). After this Angus beef cattle in “America were built up by purchasing stock directly from Scotland” (AAA). “Twelve hundred cattle alone were imported, mostly to the Midwest between the years of 1878 and 1883” (AAA).

From then ranchers in the United States began breeding and growing the Angus population in the United States at a rapid pace. The Angus cattle are best known for being black hided, slick haired, polled cattle that marble extremely well perform well on the rail. The Angus breed is also well thought of because of their marketing programs for their beef, which is the CAB program. To be able to qualify for the Certified Angus Beef program cattle must follow the following guidelines: the pen must be 51% black hided, modest or higher marbling, medium or fine marbling texture, A maturity, 10 to 16 square inch ribeye area, 1050-pound hot carcass weight or less, less than 1 inch of fat thickness, moderately thick or thicker muscling, practically free of capillary rupture, no dark cutters, no neck hump exceeding 2 inches (Beef Magazine). When deciding what breed is best for cross breeding dairy cows to being able to utilize the Angus breed would prove beneficial because a majority of the calves will be 51% black hided or better which would allow them to qualify them for the Certified Angus Beef program.

When comparing carcass traits, the Angus breed does have some strengths. When analyzing the live traits, the Angus cattle were on feed the least amount of days when

14 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 compared to Simmental & Charolais (Chambaz, 2001). All three breeds were statistically the same when looking at average daily gain (Chambaz, 2001). When compared the

Simmental and Charolias the Angus breed had a heavier hot carcass weight when compared to Simmental (P> 0.05), and a lighter hot carcass weight when compared to the

Charolais breed (Chambaz, 2001). Dressing percentage had no statistical difference between the three breeds (Chambaz, 2001).

When analyzing the meat quality differences between Angus, Simmental, cook loss was the most in the Angus breed (Chambaz, 2001). When looking at Warner Bratzler

Shear force there was not any statistical difference between the three breeds. Also, when the three breeds were used in a sensory panel the Angus breed was ranked the highest

(Chambaz, 2001). There was also no statistical difference between the three breeds in flavour intensity. There was statistical difference though when looking at juiciness with

Angus and Simmental being the least juicy (Chambaz, 2001).

Charolais

The Charolais breed has been around in the United States since 1934 when they were actually first imported from Mexico (Charolais Association). The Charolais breed however was first bred and discovered in France. The breed began to flourish because cattlemen admired them for their muscle and size (Charolais Association). American breeders wanted the Charolais breed to grow so rapidly that they implemented a breed up program in the early years of the breed (Charolais Association). The breed up program is a five-year breed up which allows them to produce a 31/32 Charolais animal (Charolais

Association). The Charolais breed is actually naturally a horned animal, but since there was a breed up program, they utilized breeds that were polled that then caused them to

15 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 become polled (Charolais Association). The Charolais breed is a stable breed within the

United States because producers are paid by the pound, and the breeds greatest strength is red meat yield and cutability (Nelson, 2018). With the industry wanting cattle to be bigger and kill weights drastically on the rise big operations are starting to integrate more

Charolais bulls into their rotations. With the J.R. Simplot company they are beginning their own registered Charolais herd to use bulls on their Angus/Hereford cross cow herd

(Nelson, 2018). They chose Charolais sires because of their muscle capacity, feed effieincy, libido, longevity, and health (Charolais, 2017). It is widely known though that

Charolais cattle do not marble as well as Angus and Hereford cattle, but there yield grade and adding muscling could be a huge bonus for dairy operators.

When looking at live traits and some carcass traits Charolais cattle certainly have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Charolais cattle did take the longest to be slaughtered of the three breeds being discussed, but they did have the highest dressing percentage and the heaviest hot carcass weight (Chambaz, 2001). They also had the highest conformation score, but the Charolais breed did have a lower fat score (Chambaz,

2001).

When looking at the meat quality traits the Charolais breed had the least amount of cook loss when compared back to Angus and Simmental (Chambaz, 2001). There also was no statistical difference in Warner-Bratlzer shear force between the three breeds as well (Chambaz, 2001). The sensory evaluation also showed some statistical differences that are positive and negative for the Charolais breed as well. When looking at the sensory evaluations the Charolais breed was in between the Angus and Simmental in the ratings of tenderness being more tender than Simmental and less tender than Angus

16 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

(Chambaz, 2001). It was the juiciest when compared between Simmental and Angus, and the Charolais breed was also the most preferred by the panelists (P < 0.06) (Chambaz,

2001).

Simmental

The Simmental cattle arrived in the United States in 1887 in Illinois, and then they died away until they were reintroduced in the late 1960s (Simmental). The

Simmental association was actually the first breed association to publish a sire summary, and they were one of the few European breeds to focus on milk production as well as meat production (Simmental). This is one of the few breeds that there are no color restrictions this breed has always focused on performance more than artificial attributes

(Simmental). The Simmental breed in Europe was initially selected for milk, meat and draft (Simmental). The American Simmental Association was the first association to publish a beef sire summary and since that has happened they have also “initiated a cow recognition program, developed a Simbrah breed which is a Simmental crossed with a brahman to make them heat tolerant, developed the first multi-breed EPD, been a leader in incorporating performance data into the show ring, and more recently established the industry standard for proving carcass merit” (Simmental). The Simmental breed is best known for it being the best dual purpose European breed for being maternal and still promoting growth. As started earlier there is no color restrictions, but a majority of them are red, red and white, black, or black and white in color. The breed was originally red and white in color because they were originally Fleckvieh cattle, and when they started wanting to create Sim-Angus cattle they then became polled and predominantly black

(Simmental). There are several benefits using Simmental cattle or Sim-Angus bulls in

17 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 crossbreeding because if they are crossed with dairy cattle they could come out predominantly black and could roll into the CAB program, and still capture the added growth most European cattle are known for.

When studies were conducted between three breeds the Simmental cattle were statistically the same as the Charolais breed for days on feed, and all three breeds were statistically the same for average daily gain (Chambaz, 2001). The Simmental cattle were however the second heaviest in hot carcass behind Charolais and heavier than Angus

(Chambaz, 2001). They were also statistically the same as the Angus breed for dressing percentage having a lower percentage than Charolais (Chambaz, 2001).

The Simmental breed when analyzed for meat quality the Simmental breed had the second most cook loss behind Angus and having less cook loss the Charolais

(Chambaz, 2001). Once again, all three breeds were statistically the same as Angus and

Charolais (Chambaz, 2001). When the sensory evaluations were analyzed the Simmetnal cattle in between Angus and Charolais in tenderness and juiciness rankings among consumers (Chambaz, 2001).

There are several benefits between each breed to be able to utilize for crossbreeding with dairy type cows. The first way to determine which breed to use is determine the marketing plan for the calf crop to help select which breed would be most suitable for their operation. There have been multiple studies as well that “show there are no real differences in meat flavour between breeds” (Koch et al. 1976, 1979, 1982;

Wheeler et al., 1996; Wheeler, Cundiff, Shackleford, & Koohmaraie, 2001). As stated previously, there are various strengths for each breed, and there have not been very many tests conducted utilizing Angus, Simmental or Charolais crossed with dairy cattle.

18 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Challenges of Crossbreeding Dairy Cattle

Obviously in any industry, there are going to be challenges that can arise, and the same can hold true with cross breeding dairy cows with beef bulls. The first problem that could potentially arise is the fear that dairy cows would have potential calving problems utilizing beef bulls into their artificial insemination program (Liinamo, 2000). This is a valid concern due to the fact that dairy cattle are significantly lighter muscle cattle, and the potential for calving difficulties is possible. The usage of European cattle breeds does tend to have a higher birthweight then that of British cattle. The second challenge that dairy cattle operators can potentially have is the quality level of their herd is so great in terms of milk production that they do not want to sacrifice breeding high quality cows to beef bulls (Liianamo, 2000). The final concern is that if operators have small dairy cow herds that must continuing breeding back to Holstein or Jersey bulls to replace older cows within the herd (Liianamo, 2000). These are three of the greatest concerns that have arose with crossbreeding dairy cows with beef bulls. There could always potentially be more difficulties that can arise the longer this crossbreeding continues, but since it is not a common practice yet within the United States these are the only concerns that we are aware of as of now.

Benefits of Cross Breeding

There can be several benefits crossing dairy cows with beef bulls. Some of the positives can be: more potential profit in being able to market their calf crop more efficiently, carcass incentives for feedlot, packer, or if retained by the dairy operations, being able to market the dairy x beef calf crop after harvesting. The first area of benefit is being able to market their calves’ due to them being heavier weight at weaning. In a

19 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 study conducted by Tahiri et al. (2017), shows that dairy beef cross calves had a higher average daily gain than purebred Holstein calves by 7.41% respectively. Also, the crossbred calves outperformed the dairy calves from birth to weaning with the purebred coming in at 102.48 and the crossbred calves weighing in at 115.10 (Tahiri et al. 2017).

The crossbred calves also outperformed the purebred calves all the way from weaning to day 450 as well (Tahiri et al. 2017). The second benefit crossing dairy cows with beef bulls is the potential carcass incentives and added weight the calves could have. Several studies have shown that just comparing beef cattle to dairy cattle after harvest Garret

(1971), found that Holstein cattle compared to beef cattle had lower dressing percentages

(Rust and Abney). Martin and Wilson (1974) also discovered that Hereford cattle found they have a larger ribeye area and more back fat; whereas, Holsteins were actually higher cutability (Rust and Abney). The study from Nour et al. (1983), had discovered that

Angus cattle also tended to have a larger ribeye than Holstein cattle. Knapp (1989) showed that English cattle had a larger ribeye area than Holstein cattle, and European cattle have a significantly larger ribeye area than Holstein cattle, and the test also showed that Holstein cattle significantly more KPH, lower yield grades and lower dressing percentage than British cattle (Rust and Abney). The final big benefit is the potential for the dairy beef steers is being able to market the dairy cross steers to new markets due to cattle identification system. In Finland, the dairy steers can be tracked all the way to the slaughterhouse (Liinamo, 2000). This could play a big benefit for American dairy operators because some countries will only take cattle with cattle identification and being able to identify the origins of the cattle. Since this would be easier to do in dairy cattle

20 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 industry than it would in the beef sector of the cattle industry. There are several benefits that could prove to be extremely beneficial for the American dairy producers.

21 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Literature Cited

AAA (2001). The certified Angus Beef Brand. American Angus Associ- ation homepage. Available: http://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/ cabprogram/html/fastfacts.html. Accessed 27 May 2001.

Adams, N.J., Smith, G.C., Carpenter, Z.L. 1982. Performance, carcass, palatability, characteristics of Longhorn and other types of cattle. Meat Science.7:67-79.

Beef USA. 2018. Industry Statistics. http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx

Behrends, J.M., Goodson, K.J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackleford, S.D., Wheeler, T.L., Morgan, W.W., Reagan, J.O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J.W., & Savell, J.W. 2005a. Beef customer satisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evaluations of calcium chloride-injected top sirloin steaks when given instructions for preparation. Journal of Animal Science. 83:2869-2875.

Behrends, J.M., Goodson, K.J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackleford, S.D., Wheeler, T.L., Morgan, W.W., Reagan, J.O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J.W., & Savell, J.W. 2005b. Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks. Journal of Animal Science. 83:662- 670.

Bjorklund, E.A., Heins, B.J., DiCostanzo, A., Chester-Jones, H. 2014. Fatty acid profiles, meat quality, and sensory attributes of organic versus conventional dairy beef steers. Journal of Diary Science. 97:1828-1834.

Boykin, C.A., Eastwood, L.C., Harris, M. K., Hale, D. S., Kerth, C. R., Griffin, D. B., Arnold, A. N., Hasty, J. D., Belk, K. E., Woerner, D. R., Delmore, R. J., Martin, J. N., VanOverbeke, D. L., Mafi, G. G., Pfeiffer, M. M., Lawrence, T. E., McEvers, T. J., Schmidt, T. B., Maddock, R. J., Johnson, D. D., Carr, C. C., Scheffler, J. M., Pringle, T. D., Stelzleni, A. M., Gottlieb, J., Savell, J. W. National Beef Quality Audit–2016: In-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers, Journal of Animal Science. 95:2993– 3002, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2017.1543

Bunting, S. 2015. Heavier carcasses are the trend; Is it sustainable? Progressive Cattleman, Jerome, ID. http://www.progressive- cattle.com/topics/management/6901-heavier-carcasses-are-the- trend-is-it- sustainable. Accessed 10 April 2017.

CattleFax. 2018. Cattle Fax Dairy Prices. https://www.cattlefax.com/#!/data/cattle/other- prices/six-state-fed-steer/

22 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Cerny, C., & Grosch, W. 1992. Evaluation of potent odorants in roasted beef aroma- extract dilution, analysis. Zeitschriftfur Lebensmittel Untersuchung und Forschun. 194:322-325.

Chambaz, A., Scheeder, M.R.L., Kreuzer, M., Dufey, P.A. 2001. Meat quality of Angus, Simmental, Charolais, Limousin steers compared at the same intramuscular fat content. Meat Science. 63:491-500.

Charolais Association. Charolais Association History Page. Available: http://charolaisusa.com/members/history.html. Accessed February 4, 2019.

Cole, J.W., Ramsey, C.B., Hobbs, C.S. 1964. Effects of type and breed of British, Zebu, and Dairy cattle on production, carcass composition, and palatability. Journal of Dairy Science. 1138-1144.

Corbin, C.H., O&Amp;Apos, Quinn, T.G., Garmyn, A.J., Legako, J.F., Hunt, M.R., Dinh, T.T.N., Rathmann, R.J., Brooks, J.C., and Miller, M.F. 2015: Sensory Evaluation of Tender Beef Strip Loin Steaks of Varying Marbling Levels and Quality Treatments. Meat Science. 100:24-31.

Dechow, Chad. 2015. U.S. breed composition has been slowly shifting. Hoard’s Dairyman, July 2015:469.

Farmer, L.J., & Patterson R.L.S. (1991). Compounds contributing to meat flavour. Food Chemistry. 40:201-205.

Felix, T. 2016. Feeding Holstein steer calves for the beef market. PennState Extension, University Park, PA. http://extension.psu.edu/animals/beef/news/2016/feeding- holstein-steer-calves-for- the-beef-market. Accessed 12 April 2017. Garcia, L. G., K. L. Nicholson, T. W. Hoffman, T. E. Lawrence, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, D. L. VanOverbeke, J. B. Morgan, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. A. Scanga, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2008. National Beef Quality Audit– 2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to qual- ity, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86:3533–3543. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0782

Garrett, W.N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. J. Anim. Sci. 32:451- 456.

Gasser, U., & Grosch, W. 1988. Identification of volatile flavour compounds with high aroma values from cooked beef. Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel Untersuchung and Forschung. 186:489-494.

Goodson, K.J., Morgan, W.W., Reagan, J.O., Gwartney, B.L., Courington, S.M., Wise, J.W., & Savell, J.W. 2002. Beef customer satisfaction. Factors affecting consumer evaluations of clod steaks. Journal of Animal Science. 80:401-408.

23 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Gregory, K.E., & Cundiff, L.V. 1980. Crossbreeding in beef cattle: Evaluation of systems Journal of Animal Science. 51:1224–1242.

Holstein Associaiton. Holstein Breed Characteristics. Available: http://www.holsteinusa.com/holstein_breed/breedhistory.html

Knapp, R.H., C.A. Terry, J.W. Savell, H.R. Cross, W.L. Mies, and J.W. Edwards. 1989. Characterization of cattle types to meet specific beef targets. J. Anim. Sci. 67:2294-2308.

Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Allen, D. M., May, M., Crouse, J. D., & Campion, D. R. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. Journal of Animal Science. 43:48–62.

Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., & Crouse, J. D. 1982. Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle III). III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. Journal of Animal Science. 54:35–45.

Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Jerry Lipsey, R., Allen, D. M., & Crouse, J. D. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle—Cycle II: III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. Journal of Animal Science. 49:448–460.

Liinamo, Anna-Elisa. 2000. Breeding for carcass traits in dairy cattle. University of Helsinki Department of Animal Science. 53:1-29.

Mazzucco, J. Papaleo, Goszcynski, D.E., Ripoli, M.V., Melucci, L.M., Pardo, A.M., Colatto, E., Rogberg-Muñoz, A., Mezzadra, C.A., Depetris, G.J., Giovambattista, G., Villarreal, E.L. 2015. Growth, carcass and meat quality traits inn beef from Angus, Hereford and cross-breed grazing steers, and their association with SNP’s in genes related to fat deposition. Meat Science. 114:121-129.

Martin, R.J. and L.L. Wilson. 1974. Comparison of tissue enzyme levels and carcass characteristics in Hereford and Holstein steers. J. Anim. Sci. 39:865-870.

McKenna, D. R., D. L. Roeber, P. K. Bates, T. B. Schmidt, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, J. C. Brooks, J. B. Morgan, T. H. Montgomery, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2002. National Beef Quality Audit–2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1212–1222. doi:10.2527/2002.8051212x

Miller, M.F., Hoover, L.C., Cook, K.D., Guerra, A.L., Huffman, K.L., Tinney, K.S., Ramsey, C.B., Brittin, H.C., & Huffmann L.M. 1995. Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant. Journal of Food Science. 60:963-965.

24 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Miller, M.F., Carr, M.A., Ramsey, C.B., Crockett, K.L., & Hoover, L.C. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science. 70:3062-3068.

Moore, M. C., G. D. Gray, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, C. R. Raines, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, J. D. Tatum, J. L. Igo, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, T. E. Lawrence, R. J. Delmore Jr., L. M. Christensen, S. D. Shackelford, D. A. King, T. L. Wheeler, L. R. Meadows, and M. E. O’Connor. 2012. National Beef Quality Audit–2011: In-plant survey of targeted carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, value, and marketing of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 90:5143–5151. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5550

Mottram, D.S., Edwards, R.A., & Macfie, J.H.H. 1982. A comparison of the flavour volatiles from cooked beef and pork meat systems. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture. 33:934-944.

Mottram, D.S., Edwards, R.A. 1983. The role of triglycerides and phospholipids in the aroma of cooked beef. Journal of Animal Science of Food and Agriculture. 34:517-522.

Mottram, D.S., 1991. Mean In H. Maarse (Ed.), Volatile compounds in food and beverages (pp107-177). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Muchenje, V., Hugo, A., Dzama, K., Chimonyo, M., Strydom, P.E., Raats, J.G. 2008. Cholesterol Levels and fatty acid profiles of beef from three cattle breeds raised on natural pasture. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 22:354-358.

National Beef Quality Audit. 2016. National Beef Quality Audit. https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/2016nbqa_es.pdf

Nelson, Paige. 2018. Vertical integration at Simplot starts with Charolais. Charolais Edge. 1-3.

Nelson, Paige. 2018. The Value of Charolais on the Rail. Charolais Edge. 1-3.

Nour, A.Y.M., M.L. Thonney, J.R. Stouffer and W.R.C. White Jr., 1983. Changes in carcass weight and characteristics with increasing weight of large and small cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 57:1154-1165.

O’Quinn, T.G., Brooks, J.C., Polkinghorne, R.J., Garmyn, A.J., Johnson, B.J., Starkey, J.D., Rathmann, R.J., & Miller, M.F. 2012. Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. Journal of Animal Science. 90:626-634.

Progressive Dairyman. 2017. 2017 U.S. dairy trade and processing. Progressive Dairyman. 1-3.

25 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Rust, Steven R., Abney, Casse S. Comparison of dairy versus beef steers. Michigan State University.

Savell, J.W., Branson, R.E., Cross, H.R., Stiffler, D.M., Wise, J.W., Griffin, D.B., & Smith, G.C. 1987. National consumer retail beef study: Palatability evaluations of beef loins steaks that differed in marbling. Journal of Food Science. 52:517-519.

Smith, G.C., Savell, J.W., Cross, H.R., & Carpentar, Z.L.1983. The relationship of USDA quality grade to beef flavor, Food Technology. 37:233-238.

Stelzeni, A.M., Johnson, D.D. 2008. Effects of day on concentrate feed on sensory off- flavor score, off-flavor descriptor, and fatty acid profiles for selected muscles from cull beef cows. Meat Science. 79:382-393.

Tahiri, Fiqiri, Hajno, Luan, Leka, Fatmira. 2017. Growth performance of calves born from Holstein Friesian cows sired by Holstein, Charolais, Belgium Blue, Simmental, and A. Angus bulls. Albanian Journal of Agricultural Science. 451- 457.

Wheeler, T. L., Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M., & Crouse, J. D. 1996. Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle IV): carcass traits and longissimus palatability. Journal of Animal Science. 74:1023–1035.

Wheeler, T. L., Cundiff, L. V., Shackelford, S. D., & Koohmaraie, M. (2001). Characterization of biological types of cattle (cycle V): carcass traits and longissimus palatability. Journal of Animal Science. 79:1209–1222.

26 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

CHAPTER III

MEAT QUALITY OF CROSSBRED DAIRY CATTLE

Introduction

Crossbreeding dairy cattle with beef bulls could prove to be a huge potential influx of cash flow for dairy producers across the country. Out of the 41.1 million total cows there are in the United States, 9.4 million of these are dairy cows which accounts for 22 percent of the total cow population in the United States which is an increase of 1 percent from 2017 (Beef USA). With the size of the dairy cow population, there is substantial potential to find new sources of income which have yet to be established or researched. The benefit of dairy producers using beef bulls can be implemented rather easily. Since a majority of dairies artificially inseminate their cow herds, it would be simple to purchase semen on the beef breeds elite bulls instead of dairy bull semen. It has been well-documented that beef breed carcass weights and ribeye area sizes are much larger in beef breeds than dairy breeds. In a study conducted by Pfuhl et al. in 2007, it was concluded that Charolais cattle showed greater hot carcass weights and higher dressing percentages than when compared to Holstein cattle. This data was also consistent with studies conducted by (Forrest, 1977; Arthur et al., 1995; Pfuhl et al.,

2007). Pfuhl et al, 2007 study also showed that Charolais cattle had a higher percentage of red meat that of Holstein cattle. Pfuhl et al., 2007 study concluded that there were actually no tenderness differences between Charolais and Holstein cattle.

It has also been shown in studies that quality grades can affect consumers’ overall liking and tenderness (Legako, 2015; Browning, Huffman, Egbert, & Jungst, 1991;

Christensen, Johnson, West, Marshall, & Hargrove, 1991; McKeith et al., 1985). It has

27 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 also been well-documented that different quality grades will have an effect on consumers’ ratings of juiciness (Lorenzen et al., 1999; Lorenzen et al., 2003; Savell,

Cross, & Smith, 1986;

Smith et al., 1984).

Characterization of dairy beef palatability attributes is warranted so more informed decisions can be made within the beef industry as to their appropriate value.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences in carcass quality, tenderness, consumer sensory responses, and volatile compound differences between the following breeds: Angus x Holstein, Angus x Dairy Cross, Charolais x Jersey, Charolais x Dairy

Cross, and SimAngus x Holstein cross.

Materials and Methods

Carcass evaluation and Product Selection

Cross-bred dairy steers [Angus × Holstein, Angus × Cross, Charolais × Jersey,

Charolais × Cross, SimAngus × Holstein, SimAngus × Cross] were feed the same ration throughout the duration of the feeding process. Cattle were also on the same implant strategies and vaccination protocols. The dairy cross on the dam side is a

Holstein Jersey cross that are not F1 crosses but rather vary in percentage of Holstein and

Jersey within each cow. Angus × Holstein were represented with 140 animals with ten different sires, Angus × Dairy Cross had 20 animals and four different sires were used,

Charolais × Jersey cattle had 71 animals and seven different sires, Charolais × Dairy

Cross had 38 animals and eight different sires were represented, and SimAngus ×

Holstein had 17 total animals and seven different sires were utilized. All the cattle were harvested at a commercial abattoir in the intermountain West. An × Hol/Jer cattle were

28 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 harvest between December 2015 and March 2016, An × Hol were harvested between

December 2015 and November 2016, Char × Jer were harvested between June 2016 and

September 2016, Char × Hol/Jer were harvested between April of 2016 and September of

2016, and SimAngus × Hol/Jer were harvested between February 2016 and September

2016. Once the cattle were harvested carcass data was collected utilizing cameras that are used within the plants. Hot carcass weights, REA, and marbling category data was collected at the plant. Also, strip loins were recovered and weighed. The strip loins were then frozen and cut into strip steaks. Strip steaks were then vacuum sealed and shipped to

Texas Tech University where they were stored at -200C. Strip steaks were then used for

WBSF, trained consumer panels, and volatile analysis. Figure 1.1 shows the breakdown of how many strip steaks were used for each process.

Warner Bratlzer Shear Force

Shear force was performed on each steak using the WBSF analyzer (G-R Elec.

Mfg., Manhatten, KS). Steaks were thawed for 18 to 24 hours at 2-40C before cooking, the steaks were weighed, and the temperatures were recorded taken at the geometric center of the steak with a digital thermapen (Super-Fast Thermapen, ThermoWorks,

American Fork, Utah). All sample steaks were cooked on a model S-143K Clamshell grill. Each steak was cooked for approximately 5 min and 45 secs or until they reached

71oC. After cooking each steak, they were allowed to cool for two to three min, and then subsequently weighed and the data was recorded. After they were weighed the steaks were chilled for 24 hr at 2-40C before performing WBSF analysis. Seven 1.3 cm cores were removed from each steak (unless the steak was too small to gather seven cores) parallel to the muscle fiber. The values of all seven cores were averaged to determine the

29 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 overall shear force value for each steak to be used in the statistical analysis (AMSA,

2015).

Volatile Compound Analysis

Strip steaks (n = 127) were cooked along the same guidelines as written above.

Steaks were cooked to a medium degree of doneness (710C) on the clamshell grill (Silex

Grills Australia PTY. Ltd., Marrickville, Australia). Temperatures were recorded pre-and post cooking. The sample preparation and volatile analysis was prepared as described by

Hunt et al. (2016) and Chail (2015). Immediately after removed from the grill, each sample then had six 1.3 cm cores removed. The six cores were ground up using a coffee bean grinder to mimic a person that has chewed their steak. Once the samples were ground they were weighed into clear 15-mL glass vials (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA), containing 5.0 g (+/- 0.05). The samples were weighed using an analytical balance

(Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA). Once the samples were weighed and in the clear 15 mL vials an internal standard solution of 1,2-dichlorobenzene was added to each sample. Once this was completed the samples were then placed on the gas chromotography in the second bay. After this, an 85-mm-thick carboxen polydimethylsiloxane solid phase microextraction (SPME) fiber (Sigma Aldrich, St.

Louis, MO) was then inserted into the head space above the steak sample for 10 min, after this it was then capped with a septum. To determine and separate the volatile beef flavor compounds an Agilent 6890 series gas chromatograph equipped with a 5975-mass selection detector was used (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). The volatiles were captured on the SPME fiber at the Texas Tech University Department of Animal and

30 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Food Sciences, Meat Science, & Muscle Biology Lab. The SPME fiber was changed three times throughout the collection, and the same type of fiber was used every time.

Before the sample could be injected, the VF-5ms capillary column (30 m x

.25mm x 1.00 mm; Agilent J&W GC Columns, Netherlands). Following this, the SPME fiber was loaded onto the GC-MS andthe oven program was initiated. The oven method contains multiple steps; an initial holding period of 3 mins at 00C, followed by heating at a rate of 100C/min until it reaches a threshold of 1250C, and followed by a more rapid heating at a rate of 200C/min until the final temperature of the oven reaches 2800C. This run time lasted approximately 36.75 mins. Helium gas served as the carrier gas at a continuous flow rate for the duration of the sample run. The helium gas is in a splitless mode.

Once this phase was completed, the ions that were in the compounds were detected by MS. These ions were in an electron impact mode at 70 eV at a range of 33-

500 m/z, with assessment performed by the ion monitoring system that is in the Agilent

MSD Chemstation software (SIM/SCAN; Agilent MSD Chemstation D. 03.00.611 software, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). To keep the data and samples identical authentic external standards that were used using the same identical GC-MS operating conditions. This was used to validate the compounds inside the samples, and this also included three ions such as fragmentation patterns. To quantify these samples an internal standard was used.

Trained Sensory Panels

The trained panels were conducted at Texas Tech University Animal & Food

Sciences Building and were performed according to AMSA sensory guidelines (AMSA,

31 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

2015). A total of 8 trained panelists evaluated 8 steaks per 48 panel sessions that lasted from 30 to 45 mins. Panelists were trained during 7 separate sessions where they ate beef of different marbling scores and degrees of doneness to determine flavor, tenderness, and juiciness. Anchors were prepared for every panel for the panelists to utilize as anchors.

Figure 1.2 shows the anchor points that were used for the panels. Beef flavor Id anchors used was Swanson’s beef broth that was diluted with water at a 50:50 ratio and then the beef broth was heated up to 740C and served warm, 80/20 ground beef was also used and cook to 710C, and brisket was cooked to 710C. For bloody/serumy a choice strip steak was cooked to 600C. Brown/roasted utilized a choice strip steak was cooked to 800C and

80/20 ground beef was cooked to 710C. For fat-like 70/30 and 90/10 ground beef were both cooked to 710C. Liver-like used flat iron steak that was cooked to 710C and calf liver cooked to 710C. Oxidized used cooking oil that was heated up to near boiling, and leftover 80/20 ground beef that was covered in the refrigerator and heated up the day of panels. Umami utilized Swanson’s 99% fat free beef broth that was diluted with water to a ratio of 50:50 that was heated up to 740C. Overall juiciness used choice strip cooked to

850C, choice strip cooked to 710C, and choice strip cooked to 600C. Overall tenderness used eye of round steak cooked to 850C, choice strip cooked to 710C, and tenderloin cooked to 650C. For sour two separate concentrations were used, 0.015% citric acid and

0.050% citric acid. Bitterness anchors used two concentrations of 0.1% caffeine and 0.2% caffeine. Salty anchors had two concentrations that had 0.15% NaCl and 0.25% NaCl. All samples were served before every panel and the meat was cut into 1.5 cm3 cubes, and the liquids were served.

32 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

The steaks were thawed for 24 h. When the steaks were cooked on a Cuisine Art grill; they were cooked to an internal temperature of 710C. Then two samples that were

3 cut into 1.5 cm and then served to all the panelists. To eliminate any biases the panelists were set up in a dark room that had red lights situated in it. The panelists then determined the overall juiciness, tenderness, umami, salty, bitter, sour, oxidized, liver-like, fat-like, brown/roasted, bloody, and beef flavor. They recorded their evaluations on a 100-mm scale with anchored lines.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed as a one-way ANOVA using SAS (Version 9.3; SAS Inst. Inc.,

Cary, NC). Carcass analysis were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with harvest data as a random effect and beef dairy cross as the main fixed effect.

Treatment least squares means were then separated using the PDIFF option of SAS with a significance level of alpha ≤ 0.05. Shear force analysis was analyzed using PROC

GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with cook temperature as a random effect and beef dairy cross as the main effect. Treatment least squares means were then separated using the

PDIFF option of SAS with a significance level of alpha ≤ 0.05. Consumer data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with cook temperature, whether bag was punctured during the sealing process or not, and panel date as a random effect, and beef dairy cross as the main fixed effect. Treatment least squares means were then separated using the PDIFF option of SAS with a significance level of alpha ≤ 0.05.

Volatile compound analysis was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with cook temperature set as a random effect and dairy beef cross was used as the main

33 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 effect. Treatment least squares means were then separated using the PDIFF option of

SAS with a significance level of alpha ≤ 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Carcass Analysis

Table 3.1 shows the effects of carcass characteristics when using different breeds of beef bulls crossed with Holstein cows, Holstein cross cows or Jersey cows. Hot carcass weight and breed cross showed a reaction (P < 0.01). An × Hol, An × Hol/Jer, and

SimAn × Hol showed to have heavier HCW than the Char × Hol/Jer and Char × Jer (P <

0.05). Breed cross showed to have an effect on REA cm2 (P < 0.01). Char × Hol/Jer had the largest ribeye by at least 3.6 cm2 when compared against the other breed crosses (P <

0.05). Char × Jer showed to have at least 2.5 cm2 larger ribeye than the Angus and

SimAngus crosses (P < 0.05). Breed cross also showed to impact marbling scores (P =

0.02). Both angus cross cattle had higher marbling scores than the Charolais crosses by at least 67.2 points (P < 0.05). Breed cross did not have an effect on strip loin weights (P =

0.47). Breed cross also had no effect on percentage of Prime cattle (P = 0.99) and

Standard cattle (P = 0.89). The breed cross did have an interaction with percentage of

Choice cattle (P < 0.01) and percentage of Select Cattle (P < 0.01). An × Hol/Jer showed to have the highest percentage of cattle that graded Choice (P < 0.05), followed by An ×

Hol having the second highest percentage (P < 0.05), SimAn × Hol was ranked third in number of cattle that graded Choice (P < 0.05), and both Charolais cattle had the least amount of Choice cattle with 40.1% behind the An × Hol/Jer cattle (P < 0.05).

Percentage of Select cattle was antagonistic with percentage of Choice cattle. Char ×

Hol/Jer had the highest percent of Select cattle (P < 0.05) with 50%, Char × Jer and

34 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

SimAn × Hol had the second most Select cattle (P < 0.05), and both Angus crosses had the least amount of cattle that graded Select (P < 0.05).

In contrast to our study Laborde, Mandell, Tosh, Wilton, & Buchanan-Smith

(2001) it showed that Simmental cattle had 38% heavier hot carcass weights and 26% greater longissimus muscle area than Red Angus. This comparison is looking at more of

Continental and English breeds, and our study showed that Angus and Simmental hot carcass weights were the same, and that the ribeye area size was the same between

Simmental and Angus. Also in contrast Crouse et al. (1985a) found that Simmental vs.

Angus steers had heavier hot carcass weights and larger longissimus muscle area when backfat thickness was similar. The same results were reported by Cross et al. (1984) and

Gregory et al. (1994) with Angus and Simmental cattle having different backfat thickness where Simmental cattle still had heavier hot carcass weights and larger longissimus muscle area. Also in contrast to our study Chambaz et al. (2002), found that Charolais cattle had significantly heavier hot carcass weights than Simmental and specifically

Angus cattle.

Also, when looking at the differences in marbling scores and percentage of Prime,

Choice, Select, and Standard cattle there is quite a bit of literature that agrees and some that contradicts our findings. In Chambaz et al. (2002), found that intramuscular fat was almost identical for all the breeds that they were analyzing; Angus, Simmental, Charolais,

Limousin. It is also well known that fat between muscles and in the subcutaneous site occurs earlier in intramuscular fat does (Smith, 1988); therefore, it makes sense that carcasses of Continental cattle had to become extremely fat before that had high amounts of intramuscular fat (Chambaz et al., 2001). Which these statements agree with our

35 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 findings due to Angus x Holstein and Angus x Dairy Cross have higher marbling scores and a higher percentage of choice cattle, but in another study that was conducted by

Robelin (1978) showed that was no difference in intramuscular fat between Holstein and

Charolais cattle. Laborde et al. (2001) also found that intramuscular fat and marbling scores did not differ between breeds along with Crouse et al (1985a) found that marbling score did not differ between Angus and Simmental. There are studies however that agree with our finding where marbling score and intramuscular fat deposition was higher for

Angus cattle than Simmental cattle (Cross et al. 1984; Gregory et al., 1994).

It is interesting to see how the Char × Hol/Jer and Char × Jer cattle have lighter hot carcass weights. This could due to the fact of the Jersey cattle generally being lighter weight cattle and Holsteins and the Charolais bulls could not make up the difference when the cross was created. This does not explain why the Char × Hol/Jer cattle are lighter however because the An × Hol/Jer cattle had heavier hot carcass weights. It’s also interesting to see that the Charolais cattle have lighter hot carcass weights but larger loineye areas. It was no surprise though seeing that the Angus cross cattle had the higher percentage of choice cattle when compared back to Charolais and Simmental cattle.

Shear Force Analysis

Table 3.2 shows the effect of beef x dairy crosses has on Warner Bratzler Shear

Force. After analyzing all the data there was no difference in WBSF (P = 0.79) between the five composites analyzed.

Chambaz et al. (2003) also reported that there was no difference in Warner

Bratzler Shear Force between Angus, Simmental, Charolais, and Limousin cattle.

Laborde et al. (2001) also showed that there was very little difference as well in Warner

36 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Bratzler Shear Force between Simmental and Red Angus cattle. Several other studies have shown also that there is not much difference in Warner-Bratlzer between different breeds whether it be at a similar backfat (Myers et al. 1999) or at similar ages (Cross et al. 1984).

Consumer Analysis

Table 3.2 shows the effects of beef x dairy crosses evaluations of tenderness, juiciness, beef flavor ID, brown roasted, bloody/serumy, fat-like, liver, oxidized, umami, salty, bitter, and sour. There was no interaction of the five breed crosses within the following consumer categories: brown roasted (P = 0.42), bloody/serumy (P = 0.63), liver (P = 0.62), umami (P = 0.33), salty (P = 0.47), sour (P = 0.21), overall juiciness (P

= 0.26), and overall tenderness (P = 0.16). Dairy beef cross had an effect on beef flavor

ID (P = 0.04) An × Hol and SimAn x Hol showed to have the highest ratings of beef flavor ID by a minimum of 2.5 points over the Charolais crosses (P < 0.05). It is no surprise that breed cross had an effect on fat-like (P = 0.04) since they have a symbiotic effect with beef flavor ID. An × Hol/Jer had the highest rating with a 17.9 (P < 0.05),

SimAn × Hol had the second highest rating with a 17.4 (P < 0.05), and An × Hol coming in third with a 15.3 (P < 0.05). The Charolais crosses had the lowest fat-like scores (P <

0.05). Breed crosses also had an effect on oxidized ratings. Both Charolais crosses had the highest oxidized rankings being as much as 4.7 points higher than An × Hol (P <

0.05). The final flavor trait that dairy beef crosses had an effect on was bitterness. Once again both Charolias crosses had the highest ratings of bitterness (P < 0.05) with Char ×

Jer having a rating of 8.8 and Char × Hol/Jer having a rating of 8.3. An × Hol/Jer had the lowest rating of bitterness (P < 0.05) with a ranking of 6.3.

37 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

There was a highly trained descriptive flavor panel in this study to identify all the flavor attributes that were used in this study. This study showed that Warner-Bratzler

Shear Force values for all five breed crosses were rated as tender according to Miller

(2001). He found that 99% of consumers found that they were satisfied with USDA

Select beef tenderness when the steaks were cooked to a medium degree of doneness

Miller et al. (2001). This is consistent with this study because the trained panelists that the overall tenderness of the steaks were the same and acceptable. This study was in consistent with other studies that were conducted such as Corbin et al. (2015) showed that increased beef palatability and flavor scores increased with marbling scores and intramuscular fat (Emerson et al., 2013; Lorenzen et al., 1999,2003; Smith et al. 1984). In this study Angus crosses tended to have higher marbling scores and therefore had higher fat like attribute scores which correlated to having a higher beef flavor ID attribute score.

This was also similar to Corbin et al. (2015) findings that fat-like had more association with overall liking scores and beef flavor than it did with overall tenderness and overall juiciness. There have been similar research projects that have had similar findings that beef flavor has a tremendous impact on overall acceptability of beef and beef flavoring

(Killinger et al., 2004b; Neely et al., 1998, O’Quinn et al., 2012; Corbin et al., 2015). In

Corbin et al. (2015) study showed that Holstein cattle had similar flavor and palatability ratings as beef cattle did that had similar quality grades. According other studies this is similar that compared beef steers to dairy steers that showed there is no conclusive data that shows Holstein beef has any palatability advantage (Corbin et al., 2015; Adams,

Smith, Carpenter, 1982; Jeremiah and Gibson, 1999; Ramsey, Cole, Meyer, & Temple,

1963). This shows that overall liking and scores should be consistent if marbling scores

38 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 and quality grades are the same, but with the increasing percentage of Choice or Select cattle within each respected breed cross should impact flavor scores more so than the breed of cattle.

When looking at the other attributes such as livery, bloody/serumy, salty, umami, salty and sour did not show any trends when related back to marbling. This doesn’t agree with what Emerson et al. (2013) discovered because that study showed that bloody/serumy, and livery were inversely related with degree of marbling.

Volatile Analysis

Maillard Products

Table 3.3 show the effects of beef x dairy crosses evaluations of Maillard

Products of beef strip loins. Strecker aldehydes, ketones, pyrazines, and sulfur containing compounds are all results of non-volatile flavor precursors going through different pathways in the Maillard pathways with free amino acids or carbonyl compounds

(Macleod, 1994; Legako et al., 2015). Within the Strecker aldehydes there was no effect on breed crosses and Benzaldehyde (P = 0.21), Isobutyraldehyde (P = 0.19),

Phenylacetaldehyde (P = 0.14), and 2-Methy Butanal (P = 0.16). When evaluating

Acetaldehyde breed cross did have an effect on it (P < 0.01). An × Hol/Jer 177.63 and

SimAn x Hol 133.3 had the highest concentrations of Acetaldehyde (P < 0.05). Char ×

Hol/Jer had the lowest concentration of Acetaldehyde 25.1 (P < 0.05). The dairy beef cross had an effect on concentrations of Methional (P < 0.01). Both Charolais crosses had the highest amount of Methional concentrations (P < 0.05) with Char × Jer at 2.03 and

Char × Hol/Jer at 1.89 respectively. An × Hol (1.33), An × Hol/Jer (1.28), and SimAn ×

Hol (1.34) had the lowest concentrations of Methional (P < 0.05). The final Strecker

39 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 aldehyde that was effected by the breed crosses was 3-Methyl Butanal (P < 0.01). An ×

Hol had a concentration of 1.06 and it was significantly the highest (P < 0.05). Strecker degradation of amino acids can create certain aldehydes (Legako et al., 2016). The degradation of the following amino acids: alanine, isoleucine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, and valine, can the go on to create acetaldehyde, 2-methylbutanal, 3- methylbutanal, methional, and phenylacetaldehyde (Cerny, 2007). Phenylacetaldehyde can become an aroma active compound formed from the amino acid phenylalanine through the strecker degradation pathway (Hoffman & Schieberle, 2000). Another important Strecker aldehyde that can be formed is phenylglycine resulting in benzaldehyde (McLeod & Ames, 1987; Mottram & Edwards, 1983). Phenylglycine however is not an amino acid that occurs within the muscle therefore another mechanism of formation must be the cause of this (Legako et al. 2015). When looking at the data it does not seem to show a trend towards a certain breed having more Strecker aldehydes.

Both Ketones had an interaction with the dairy beef crosses with 2,3 Butanedione

(P = 0.01) and 3-Hydroxy-2-Butanone (P < 0.01). An × Hol had the highest concentration of 2,3 Butanedione of 63.97 (P < 0.05), and An × Hol/Jer, Char × Jersey, and Char × Hol/Jer having the lowest concentrations (P < 0.05). An × Hol had higher concentrations of 3-Hydroxy-2-Butanone than the other four dairy beef crosses (P <

0.05). The odor of both ketones analyzed within this project, 2,3-butanedione and 3- hydroxy-2-butanone, are described as being buttery (Machiels, Istasse, & van Ruth, 2004;

Raes et al., 2003, Legako et al., 2016). When looking at the ketones represented in table a trend shows that An × Hol seem to have the most ketone concentrations which can lead to more of a buttery flavor potentially if analyzed.

40 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Within the pyrazines we found that there was some interaction in 4-Methyl-

Pyrimidine with the breed crosses, but there were no effects in Methyl Pyrazine (P =

0.07), Trimethyl Pyrazine (P = 0.33), 2-Acetylpyrrole (P = 0.60), 2,5-Dimethyl Pyrazine

(P = 0.26), and 2-Ethyl-3,5/6-Dimethylpyrazine (P = 0.16). An × Hol had a concentration of 4.86 of 4-Methyl-Pyrimidine which was the highest concentration (P < 0.05). An x

Hol/Jer (0.89) and SimAn x Hol (1.10) had the lowest concentrations of 4-Methyl-

Pyrimidine (P < 0.05). Pyrazines that contain nitrogen are normally some of the last products that the Maillard reaction will produce (Back, 2007). They will typically have lower levels when compared to lipid degradation volatile compounds, but these compounds have low odor thresholds that can be contributed to the roasted flavors

(Buttery & Ling, 1997). An × Hol tended to give more pyrazines which are known to give off more of a roasted and nutty flavor characteristic (Mottram, 1991).

Within the Sulfur Containing Compounds there was no interaction between breed crosses and Dimethyl sulfide (P = 0.41) and Dimethyl disulfide (P = 0.28). The dairy beef crosses had an effect on Methanethiol (P < 0.01) with An × Hol/Jer having the highest concentration at 4.32 (P < 0.05). Char × Jer had the lowest concentration of

Methanethiol at 2.18 (P < 0.05). There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between An × Hol,

Char × Hol/Jer, and SimAn × Hol/Jer. Both Charolais crosses had an effect on Carbon disulfide (P < 0.01). Char × Jer had a concentration of 2.64 and Char × Hol/Jer had a concentration of 2.20 which were the two highest concentrations (P < 0.05). An × Hol,

An × Hol/Jer, and SimAn × Hol had the lowest concentrations of Carbon disulfide (P <

0.05). The sulfur containing compounds are created by sulfur-containing amino acids, such as cysteine and cysteine, in the Maillard reaction which then can produce meaty

41 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 aromas (Dashdorj, Amna, & Hwang, 2015). Dimethyl disulfide results from the change of methional that was originally methionine (Martinez-Cuesta, Palaez, & Requen, 2013).

Most sulfur containing compounds will give off a meaty flavor characteristic (Gasser &

Grosch, 1990).

These results have revealed that volatile compounds can be extremely variable among difference of cross breeds of beef and dairy cattle. The data is unclear whether it is breed cross since not all the compounds were greater in one primary breed. It was not reported in this report, but the differences in precursor composition between the varying quality grades could have also potentially influenced volatile compound quantity. It needs to be documented though that the method that is used for volatile measurement (SPME) is not intended for extraction of volatile in its entirety, but actually used for rapid, reproducible, and low-cost analysis. The volatiles actually represent the pathways of development of flavors that can be used as markers for flavor development.

Lipid Products

Table 3.4 shows the effects of beef x dairy crosses evaluations of Lipid Products of beef strip loins. B-aldehydes is the largest class of compounds associated with beef aroma (Larrick et al. 1987; Mottram & Edwards, 1983). The first group of lipid products that were analyzed was B-Aldehydes. Butanal (P = 0.15), Dodecanal (P =0.35), Nonanal

(P = 0.44), and Octanal (P = 0.94) showed no effect with the dairy beef crosses. Decanal did however show an interaction (P <0.01) with the breed crosses with An × Hol having a concentration of 394.01 and SimAn × Hol having a concentration of 346.03 were the two breeds having the highest concentrations (P < 0.05). The other three breeds were the lowest in concentrations of Decanal (P < 0.05). Hexanal (P < 0.01), Helptanal (P < 0.01),

42 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 and Pentanal (P < 0.01) were similarly affected by the breed crosses. In all the compounds, An × Hol/Jer and Sim × Hol have the highest concentrations (P < 0.05). The medium carbon chains, like hexanal, are produced from the oxidizing of 18:1 cis-9 and

18:2 n-6 (Elmore, Mottram, Enser, & Wood, 1999). Looking at the B-aldehyde group there does not seem to be a correlation to breed cross in determining which breed has more aldehydes.

The following compounds did not show difference between the breed crosses: 2-

Heptanone (P = 0.07) and 2,3-Pentanedione (P = 0.65). Butyrolactone showed an interaction with the breed crosses (P = 0.02). It showed that An × Hol had the highest concentration (P < 0.01) with Char × Jer and SimAn × Hol having the lowest concentrations (P < 0.05). 2-Butanone showed that there was an interaction with the dairy beef crosses (P < 0.01). the An × Hol breed cross showed to have the highest concentration of 15.31 (P < 0.05). 2-Pentanone also was affected by breed crosses (P =

0.02). An × Hol had a concentration of 0.12 which was the highest (P < 0.05) and SimAn

× Hol had a concentration of 0.02 which was the lowest concentration (P < 0.05). 2-

Propanone was the final Ketone that was affected by the dairy beef crosses (P = 0.01). An

× Hol had the highest concentration at 28.63 (P < 0.05). Both Charolais breed crosses had the lowest concentrations of 2-Propanone (P < 0.05). Char × Jer had a concentration of

14.57 and Char × Hol/Jer with a concentration of 16.21. An × Hol had a trend to have the highest concentrations of Ketones. Ketones are generally negatively related towards beef flavor. Except for 3-hydroxy butanone is actually what they use to create buttery flavors in popcorn. Ketones are formed after dehydration because they will go through the

43 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 condensation step. There seemed to be a trend of An × Hol cross cattle typically having much higher concentrations of all Ketones than the other breed crosses.

Carboxylic acids are created through the development of oxidation of lipids

(Mottram, 1998). It has been found through Larrick et al. (1987) that some carboxylic acids can be detected from cooked beef. Larrick et al. (1987) then figured out that heptanoic, octanoic, and nonanoic could be associated with some grassy flavors in ground beef. Acetic Acid can also be created by the degradation of lipids and certain amino acids (Viallon et al., 1996). Acetic (P = 0.02), Heptanoic (P < 0.01), Nonanoic (P <

0.01), and Octanoic (P < 0.01) acids were all affected by breed crosses. An × Ho showed to have the highest concentration of Acetic acid (P < 0.05), and An × Hol/Jer and SimAn

× Hol have the lowest concentrations (P < 0.05). An × Hol/Jer had a concentration of

40.00 and SimAn × Hol had a concentration of 37.81 of Heptanoic acid both of these breed crosses had the highest concentration by some margin (P < 0.05). The spread between these two breed crosses and three breeds with lower concentrations is 30.79. An

× Hol/Jer and SimAn × Hol had the highest concentrations of Nonanoic acid (P < 0.05).

Char × Jer had the lowest concentration of Nonanoic acid with a concentration of 0.31(P

< 0.05). An × Hol had a concentration of 0.29, Char × Jer had a concentration of 0.28, and Char × Hol/Jer had a concentration of 0.31 were all the highest in concentration in

Octanoic acid (P < 0.05). An × Hol/Jer and SimAn × Hol had a concentration of 0.14 of

Octanoic acid and they were the lowest breeds in concentration of Octanoic acid (P <

0.05). There does not seem to be a trend when analyzing the data within the carboxylic acids when determining if certain breeds have higher or lower levels of carboxylic acids.

44 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Nonanoic acid, methyl ester showed no interaction with breed crosses (P = 0.81).

Hexanoic acid, methyl ester showed a reaction due to breed crosses (P < 0.01). The highest concentration of Hexanoic acid, methyl ester was the An × Hol cross with a concentration of 4.46 (P < 0.05), and the lowest concentration of Hexanoic acid, methyl ester was the An × Hol/Jer cross with a concentration of 0.33 (P < 0.05). Octanoic acid, methyl ester also showed to have a raction with certain breed crosses (P = 0.02). An ×

Hol/Jer and SimAn × Hol were the leaders in concentration of Octanoic acid, methyl ester (P < 0.05). An × Hol and Char × Jer had at least 3.10 less concentration than the two leaders in Octanoic acid, methyl ester (P < 0.05). Methyl esters are when there is a triglyceride and the glycerol backbone is broken off and that backbone then binds to methyl groups. They are generally carboxylic acids that are with negatively associated with beef flavor. They are generally associated with fishy and livery flavors. There was a generally trend that An × Hol cross had a slightly higher concentration than the rest of the other breed crosses. This did not show up however within the trained panels.

Within the alcohols on lipid products 1-Hexanol (P = 0.36), 1-Penten-3-ol (P = 0.08), and

1-Octen-3-ol (P = 0.37) showed that they did not have any interaction with different dairy beef breed crosses in the study. An × Hol/Jer was consistently the highest (P < 0.05) in 1-

Octanol (P < 0.01), 1-Pentanal (P < 0.01), and Ethanol (P < 0.01) and all these alcohols seemed to be affected by the different breed crosses. Char × Jer were also consistently the lowest (P < 0.05) within the same alcohols: 1-Octanol, 1-Pentanal, and Ethanol. There was a slight trend in the data with An × Hol/Jer having slightly higher concentrations of alcohols, and Char × Jer trending to have the lowest concentrations of alcohols.

45 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

In the Alkenes section 1-Octene (P = 0.13) showed no difference between the 5 breed crosses. P-Xylene showed an interaction between the 5 breed crosses that were represented (P < 0.01). Char × Jer showed to have extremely high concentrations of P-

Xylene with a concentration of 1927.30 (P < 0.05). Char × Hol/Jer had the second highest concentration at 941.53 (P <0.05), and An × Hol, An × Hol/Jer, SimAn × Hol were the lowest in concentration of P-Xylene (P < 0.05). The only trend that can be seen is that Char × Jer has extremely high levels of P-xylene. Lipid derived and they can be either negatively or positively associated with beef flavors. There were only two alkenes measured in this study and one show a difference trending towards Char × Jer cattle, but future research and more studies will also help in deciding which breeds tend to have higher and lower concentrations.

All the Alkanes showed differences when comparing between the five breed crosses. Pentane is the first Alkane that showed an interaction with the dairy beef crosses

(P = 0.01). An × Hol (5.44), An × Hol/Jer (4.92), and SimAn × Hol (5.61) all had the highest concentrations of Pentane (P < 0.05). Char × Jer had the lowest concentration at

2.97 of Pentane (P < 0.05). 4-methyl-heptane showed to have an interaction with the dairy beef crosses (P = 0.02). An × Hol once again had the highest concentration of another Alkane this time being 4-methyl-heptane (P < 0.05). Char × Jer had the lowest concentration of 4-methyl-heptane with a concentration of 1.37 (P < 0.05). Tetradecane also had an interaction with the dairy beef breed crosses (P < 0.01). An × Hol/Jer had the highest concentration at 254.94 of Tetradecane (P < 0.05), the second highest concentration was the SimAn × Hol breed cross at 173.99 (P < 0.05). The Char × Jer had the lowest concentration of Tetradecane with a concentration of 73.76 (P < 0.05). Octane

46 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 was the final Alkane that showed an interaction with the five breed crosses (P = 0.02). An

× Hol/Jer had the highest concentration of Octane (P < 0.05). An × Hol (4.96), Char × Jer

(4.11), and Char × Hol/Jer (3.57) had the lowest concentration of Octane (P < 0.05).

Long-chain fatty acids will oxidize to create alkanes (Mottram, 1991; Legako et al.,

2015). In this study, it appears that An × Hol/Jer trends to have the highest concentration of Alkanes and Char × Jer tend to have a trend of having the least concentration of

Alkanes.

Correlations

Maillard Products

Pearson correlation coefficients for consumer flavor traits and volatile compounds are presented in table 3.5. Fat-like was negatively correlated (P < 0.05) with methional (r

= -0.25) and with 2-acetylpyrrole (r = -0.188). Oxidized was negatively correlated as well

(P < 0.05) with 3-hydroxy-2-butanone (r = -0.193) and methanethiol (r = -0.197). Umami was negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with methional (r = -0.281). Bitter was also negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with acetaldehyde (r = -0.234). Sour was the attribute negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with acetaldehyde (r = -0.192).

Beef flavor ID was positively correlated (P < 0.05) with 2,3-butanedione (r =

0.203) and methaniol (r = 0.190). Brown roasted was positively correlated (P < 0.01) with 2,3-butanedione (r = 0.351) and 3-hydroxy-2- butanone (r = 0.299). Fat-like was positively correlated with (P < 0.01) acetaldehyde (r = 0.443) and methaniol (r = 0.236).

Oxidized had a positive correlation with methional (r = 0.200). Umami also had a positive correlation (P < 0.01) with acetaldehyde (r = 0.276) and methaniol (r = 0.214).

47 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Overall juiciness had a positive correlation (P < 0.01) with acetaldehyde (r = 0.253).

Overall tenderness had a positive correlation (P < 0.01) with acetaldehyde (r = 0.265).

Lipid Products

Pearson correlation coefficients for consumer flavor traits and volatile compounds are presented in table 3.6. Beef flavor ID was negatively correlated (P < 0.05) with 2- heptanone (r = -0.190) and p-xylene (r = -0.187). Brown/roasted was negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with decanal (r = -0.243), heptanal (r = -0.191), heptanoic acid (r = -

0.271), and octane (r = -0.234). Bloody/serumy was negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with

1-octene (r = -0.277). Fat-like was negatively correlated (P < 0.01) with carbon disulfide

(r = -0.458), nonanoic aicd, methyl ester (r = -0.306), and p-xylene (r = -0.335). Liver was negatively correlated (P < 0.05) with dimethyl sulfide (r = -0.220) and octanoic acid

(r = -0.191). Oxidized had a negative correlation (P < 0.05) with 2-propanone (r = -

0.233), octanoic acid (r = -0.221), acetic acid (r = -0.192), 1-octanol (r = -0.186), 1- pentanol (r = -0.225), ethanol (r = -0.239), pentane (r = -0.237), and 4-methyl-heptane (r

= -0.225). Umami had a negative correlation (P < 0.05) with octanol (r = -0.212), 2- heptanone (r = -0.261), and carbon disulfide (r = -0.281). Bitter had a negative correlation with hexanal (r = -0.272), heptanal (r = -0.243), octanoic aicd (r = -0.245), nanoic acid (r

= -0.243), heptanoic acid (r = -0.338), 1-octanol (r = -0228), 1-pentanol (r = -0.285), ethanol (r = -0.258), and 4-methyl-heptane (r = -0.193). Sour had a negative correlation

(P < 0.01) with hexanal (r = -0.237), heptanal (r = -0.243), pentanol (r = -0.275), heptanoic acid (r = -0.361), 1-octanol (r = -0.234), 1-pentanol (r = -0.245), and pentane (r

= -0.230). Overall juiciness had a negative correlation (P < 0.01) with carbon disulfide (r

= -0.340), nonanoic acid, methyl ester (r = -0.236) and p-xylene (r = -0.251). Overall

48 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 tenderness had a negative correlation (P < 0.05) with carbon disulfide (r = -0.275), and 1- octen-3-ol (r = -0.220).

Beef flavor had a positive correlation (P < 0.05) with pentanal (r = 0.240), heptanoic acid (r = 0.291), 1-pentanol (r = 0.275), pentane (r = 0.233), and 4-methyl- heptane (r = 0.195). Brown roasted had a positive correlation (P < 0.05) with dimethyl- disulfide (r = 0.186), nonanoic acid, methyl ester (r = 0.217), and 1-octene (r = 0.300).

Bloody/serumy had a positive correlation (P < 0.01) with heptanoic acid (r = 0.208). Fat- like had a positive correlation (P < 0.01) with pentanal (r = 0.275), octanoic acid (r =

0.375), nonanoic acid (r = 0.409), and heptanoic aicd (r = 0.466). Oxidized had a positive correlation (P < 0.05) with p-xylene (r = 0.234). Umami had a positive correlation (P <

0.05) with 2-propanone (r = 0.196), octanoic acid (r = 0.221), heptanoic acid (r = 0.264), ethanol (r = 0.227), and p-xylene (r = 0.292). Salty had a positive correlation (P < 0.05) with heptanoic acid (r = 0.219). Sour had a positive correlation (P < 0.05) with carbon disulfide (r = 0.313) and p-xylene (r = 0.256). Overall juiciness had a positive correlation

(P < 0.05) with decanal (r = 0.183), octanoic acid (r = 0.274), nonanoic acid (r = 0.272), heptanoic acid (r = 0.263), and 1-pentanol (r = 0.197). Overall tenderness is positively correlated (P < 0.05) with octanoic acid (r = 0.192), nonanoic acid (r = 0.187), and heptanoic acid (r = 0.239).

These results and analysis shows some volatile compounds were related with trained consumer panelists and volatile compounds. Since there is such a vast number of volatile compounds within cooked beef it is probably not affecting flavor on their own.

However, using compound quantities could potentially be utilized for predicting beef attributes and flavor.

49 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to better understand the relationship of volatile compounds and flavor attributes in relation to the five dairy beef crosses. When PCA was conducted for all breed crosses PC1 explained 59.46% and PC2 explained 31.04% of the variation associated with flavor attributes and volatiles.

Volatile compounds seemed to segregate of similar classes whether it be Maillard or lipid products. Maillard products were found to be positively related with PC2 and

PC1, while lipid products tended to be negatively associated with PC2. Lipid products also seemed to be fairly split whether they were positively or negatively related with PC1

(Figure 1.1). Overall tenderness, Overall juiciness, fat-like, bloody/serumy, salty, sour, bitter, liver, oxidized all seemed to have a relationship with the lipid products. An × Hol had the most relationship with the lipid products as well. This makes sense due to An ×

Hol tending to have higher marbling scores. Overall this data shows that the only breed to have relationships with volatiles is the An × Hol cross. It also shows that a majority of the flavor attributes have a relationship with lipid products.

Conclusion

The results show that certain breeds had more of an impact than others when evaluating hot carcass weight, rib area, and marbling score. Certain breed crosses also affected percentage of choice and select cattle. Based the carcass data alone Angus cross cattle seem to have the upper hand in terms of hot carcass weight, marbling score, and percentage of choice and select cattle. An × Hol and SimAn × Hol seemed to have the higher beef flavor ID scores and higher fat-like scores may lend to favoring the An × Hol cross. Tenderness was also the same throughout all the breeds. Based off the data off the

50 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019 carcass results, Warner Bratzler shear force, and trained panels alone seems to be trending in the direction of the utilization of Angus bulls to be the most beneficial. When looking at the volatiles side of the project there was not a definite leader in concentration

Maillard products or of Lipid products that definitively trended towards one breed cross over another one. Angus crosses did however have the highest evaluations of sensory and some volatile compounds. With continued research and even more data could prove to be extremely beneficial to determine which breed crosses would be the most suitable for beef flavor and volatile work. Producers must weigh the pros and cons and decide what breed cross best fits their business model and strategy of how they market their calves to truly determine which breed is the most suitable. Dairy producers and future research should potentially focus on what breeds best compliment their cowherd for improvements in growth efficiency characteristics and red meat yields than palatability factors.

51 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

References

Adams, N. J., Smith, G. C., & Carpenter, Z. L. 1982. Performance, carcass and palatability characteristics of Longhorn and other types of cattle. Meat Science. 7:67–79.

AMSA. 2015. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL.

Arthur, P. F.; Hearnshaw, H.; Johnston, D.; Stephenson, P. D. 1995. Evaluation of Angus, Charolais and Hereford as Terminal Sire breeds on Hereford and First- cross Cows II, Carcass characteristics and retail Yield of Progeny. Australia Journal of Agriculture Research. 46:1245-1258

Back, H.H. 2007. Process flavors. In L.M.L. Nollet (Ed.), Handbook of meat, poultry, & sea- food quality. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. p. 311–326

Beef USA. 2018. Industry Statistics. http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx

Browning, M.A., Huffman, D.A., Egbert, W.R., & Jungst, S.B. 1991. Physical and composi- tional characteristics of beef carcasses selected for leanness. Journal of Food Science. 55:9–14.

Buttery, R.G., & Ling, L.C. 1997. 2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-3,6- dimethylpyrazine odor thresholds in water solution. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie. 30:109–110.

Cerny, C. 2007. Sensory evaluation of beef flavor. In L.M.L. Nollet (Ed.), Handbook of meat, poultry, & seafood quality. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 311– 326.

Chail, A. 2015. Effects of Beef Finishing Diets and Muscle Type on Meat Quality, Fatty Acids and Volatile Compounds. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4479

Chambaz, A., Dufey, P.-A., Kreuzer, M., & Gresham, J. 2002. Sources of variation influencing the use of real-time ultrasound to predict intramuscular fat in live beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 82:133–139.

Chambaz, A., Morel, I., Scheeder, M. R. L., Kreuzer, M., & Dufey, P.-A. 2001. Characteristics of steers of six beef breeds fattened from eight months of age and slaughtered at a target level of intra- muscular fat. Growth performance and carcass quality. Archives of Animal Breeding. 44:395–411.

52 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Chambaz, A., Scheeder, M.R.L., Kreuzer, M., and Dufey,P.-A. 2003. Meat Quality of Angus, Simmental, Charolais and Limousin Steers Compared at the Same Intramuscular Fat Content. Meat Science. 63.4:491-500. Web.

Christensen, K.L., Johnson, D.D., West, R.L., Marshall, T.T., & Hargrove, D.D. 1991. The effect of breed of sire and age at feeding on muscle tenderness in the beef chuck. Journal of Animal Science. 69:3673–3678.

Corbin, C.H., O&Amp;Apos, Quinn, T.G., Garmyn, A.J., Legako, J.F., Hunt, M.R., Dinh, T.T.N., Rathmann, R.J., Brooks, J.C., and Miller, M.F. 2015: Sensory Evaluation of Tender Beef Strip Loin Steaks of Varying Marbling Levels and Quality Treatments. Meat Science. 100:24-31. Cross, H. R., J. D. Crouse, and M. D. MacNeil. 1984. Influence of breed, sex, age and electrical stimulation on carcass and palat- ability traits of three bovine muscles. Journal of Animal Science. 58:1358–1365.

Crouse, J. D., C. L. Ferrell, and L. V. Cundiff. 1985a. Effects of sex condition, genotype and diet on bovine growth and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science. 60:1219–1227.

Dashdorj, D., Amna, T., & Hwang, I. 2015. Influence of specific taste-active components on meat flavor as affected by intrinsic and extrinsic factors: An overview. European Food Research and Technology. 1-15.

Elmore, J.S., Mottram, D.S., Enser, M., & Wood, J.D. 1999. Effect of the polyunsaturated fatty acid composition of beef muscle on the profile of aroma volatiles. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 47:1619–1625.

Emerson, M. R., Woerner, D. R., Belk, K. E., & Tatum, J.D. 2013. Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus muscle sensory attributes. Journal of Animal Science, 91:1024–1034.

Forrest, R. J. A. 1977. Comparison of birth growth and Carcass characteristics between Holstein-Frisian Steers and Charolais x Holstein (F1) Crossbreds. Cananda Journal of Animal Science. 57:713-718

Gasser, U., & Grosch, W. 1990. Primary odorants of chicken broth. A comparative study with meat broths from cow and ox. Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel Untersuchung und Forschung. 190:3–8.

Gregory, K. E., L. V. Cundiff, R. M. Koch, M. E. Dikeman, and M. Koohmaraie. 1994. Breed effects and retained heterosis for growth, carcass, and meat traits in advanced generations of composite populations of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 72:833–850.

53 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Hoffman, T., & Schieberle, P. 2000. Formation of aroma-active Strecker-aldehydes by a direct oxidative degradation of Amadori compounds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 48:4301–4305.

Hunt, M.R., Legako, J.F., Dinh, T.T., Garmyn, A.J., O'Quinn, T.G., Corbin, C.H., Rathmann, R.J., Brooks, J.C., and Miller, M.F. 2016. Assessment of Volatile Compounds, Neutral and Polar Lipid Fatty Acids of Four Beef Muscles from USDA Choice and Select Graded Carcasses and Their Relationships with Consumer Palatability Scores and Intramuscular Fat Content. Meat Science. 116: 91-101.

Jeremiah, L. E., & Gibson, L. L. 1999. The influence of genotype on beef palatability and cooking properties. An evaluation of Wagyu F1 crosses and other genotypes under North American feedlot conditions. Journal of Muscle Foods. 10:177–194.

Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D.M., & Eskridge, K. M. 2004b. Con- sumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differing in marbling level. Journal of Animal Science. 82:3294–3301

Laborde, F. L., Mandell, I. B., Tosh, J. J., Wilton, J. W., & Buchanan- Smith, J. G. 2001. Breed effects on growth performance, carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and palatability attributes in finishing steers. Journal of Animal Science. 79:355–365.

Larrick, D.K., Hedrick, H.B., Bailey, M.E., Williams, J.E., Hancock, D.L., Garner, G.B., & Morrow, R.E. 1987. Flavor constituents of beef as influenced by forage- and grain-feeding. Journal of Food Science. 52:245–251.

Legako, J.F., Brooks, J.C., O’Quinn, T.G., Hagan, T.D.J., Polkinghorne, R., Farmer, L.J., Miller, M.F. 2015. Consumer palatability scores and volatile beef flavor compounds of five USDA quality grades and four muscles. Meat Science. 100:291-300.

Legako J.F., Dinh, T.T.N., Miller, M.F., Adhikari, K., and Brooks, J.C. 2016. Consumer Palatability Scores, Sensory Descriptive Attributes, and Volatile Compounds of Grilled Beef Steaks from Three USDA Quality Grades. Meat Science. 112:77-85.

Legako, J. F., Dinh, T. T. N., Miller, M. F., & Brooks, J. C. 2015. Effects of USDA beef quality grade and cooking on fatty acid composition of neutral and polar lipid fractions. Meat Science. 100:246–255.

Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Taylor, J. F., Neely, T. R., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Buyck, M. J., Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. 2003. Beef customer satisfaction: Trained sensory panel ratings and Warner-Bratzler shear force values. Journal of Animal Science. 81:143–149.

54 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Lorenzen, C. L., Neely, T. R., Miller, R. K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Taylor, J. F., Buyck, M. J., Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: Cooking method and de- gree of doneness effects on the top loin steak. Journal of Animal Science. 77:637–644.

Machiels, D., Istasse, L., & van Ruth, S.M. 2004. Gas chromatography–olfactometry analysis of beef meat originating from differently fed Belgian Blue, Limousin and Aberdeen Angus bulls. Food Chemistry. 86:377–383.

MacLeod, G. 1994. The flavour of beef. In F. Shahidi (Ed.), Flavor of meat and meat products. Glasgow: Chapman & Hall. p 4–37.

Martinez-Cuesta, M.D.C., Pelaez, C., & Requena, T. 2013. Methionine metabolism: Major pathways and enzymes involved and strategies for control and diversification of vol- atile sulfur compounds in cheese. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 53:366–385.

McKeith, F.K., De Vol, D.L., Miles, R.S., Bechtel, P.J., & Carr, T.R. 1985. Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles. Journal of Food Science. 50:869–872.

Miller, M. F., Carr, M.A., Ramsey, C. B., Crockett, K. L., & Hoover, L. C. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science. 79:3062–3068.

Mottram, D.S. 1991. Meat. In H. Maarse (Ed.), Volatile compounds in food and beverages. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. p 107–177.

Mottram, D.S. 1998. Flavour formation in meat and meat products: A review. Food Chemistry. 62:415–424.

Mottram, D.S., & Edwards, R.A. 1983. The role of triglycerides and phospholipids in the aroma of cooked beef. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 34:517– 522.

Myers, S. E., D. B. Faulkner, T. G. Nash, L. L. Berger, D. F. Parrett, and F. K. McKeith. 1999. Performance and carcass traits of early-weaned steers receiving either a pasture growing period or a finishing diet at weaning. Journal of Animal Science. 77:311–322.

Neely, T. R., Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Taylor, J. F., Buyck, M. J., Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. 1998. Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA qual- ity grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. Journal of Animal Science. 76:1027–1033.

55 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Pfuhl, R., Bellman, O., Kühn, C., Teuscher, F., Ender, K., Wegner, J. 2007. Beef versus dairy: a comparison of feed conversion, carcass composition, and meat quality. Arch. Tierz., Dummerstorf. 50:59-70.

O'Quinn, T. G., Brooks, J. C., Polkinghorne, R. J., Garmyn, A. J., Johnson, B. J., Starkey, J.D., Rathmann, R. J., & Miller, M. F. 2012. Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. Journal of Animal Science. 90:626–634.

Raes, K., Balcaen, A., Dirinck, P., De Winne, A., Claeys, E., Demeyer, D., & De Smet, S. 2003. Meat quality, fatty acid composition and flavour analysis in Belgian retail beef. Meat Science. 65:1237–1246.

Ramsey, C. B., Cole, J. W., Meyer, B. H., & Temple, R. S. 1963. Effects of type and breed of British, Zebu and dairy cattle on production, palatability and composition. II. Palat- ability differences and cooking losses as determined by laboratory and family panels. Journal of Animal Science. 22:1001–1008.

Robelin, J. 1978. Repartition des d^pöts adipeux chez les bovins Selon l'^tat d'engraissement, le sexe et la race. Bull. Techn. CRZV Theix INRA. 34:31 -34

Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R., & Smith, G. C. 1986. Percentage ether extractable fat and mois- ture content of beef longissimus muscle as related to USDA marbling score. Journal of Food Science. 51:838–839.

Smith, G. C. 1988. Possible impacts of changes on USDA grade Standards and labeling. In: Designing Foods, Animal Product Options in the Marketplace. National Research Council (Editor), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. p 332-344

Smith, G. C., Carpenter, Z. L., Cross, H. R., Murphey, C. E., Abraham, H. C., Savell, J. W., Davis, G. W., Berry, B. W., & Parrish, F. C., Jr. 1984. Relationship of USDA marbling groups to palatability of cooked beef. Journal of Food Quality. 7:289– 308.

Viallon, C., Berdague, J. L., Montel, M. C., Talon, R., Martin, J. F., Kondjoyan, N., & Denoyer, C. 1996. The effect of stage of ripening and packaging on volatile content and flavor of dry sausage. Food Research International. 29:667–674.

56 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Figure 3.1 Distribution of strip steaks throughout the stud

57 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

1.5

SimAn x Hol 2,3-Pentanedione 2-Butanone 2-Propanone 1 Dimethyl-Disulfide 4-methyl-heptane 3-Hydroxy-2-butanone Toluene 2,3-Butanedione3-methylbutanal

FlavorID 2-Pentanone1-Penten-3-ol Pentane 2,5-dimethyl-Pyrazine Butanal Dimethyl sulfone Umami 2-methyl-Butanal 4-methyl-pyrimidine Methanethiol Butanoic acid, methyl ester Methyl-Pyrazine An x Hol Acetic acid Isobutyraldehyde Phenylacetaldehyde 1-Pentanol 0.5 1-Octene Overall Juiciness Overall Tenderness Trimethylpyrazine Fat_Like Acetaldehyde Hexanoic acid, methyl lesterBrown/Rpasted Bloody/Serumy Octanoic acid Dimethyl sulfide Pentanal Nonanoic acid WBSF 2-Acetylpyrrole Octane 1-Hexanol Sour 2-heptanone EthanolAn x Hol/Jer Hexanal 0 Heptanoic acid, methyl ester Heptanoic Acid Nonanoic acid, methyl ester 1-Octanol Heptanal 0 0.5 Bitter 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Char x Hol/Jer Tetradecane 2-ethyl-3,5/6-dimethylpyrazine Salty Nonanal Octanoic acid, methyl ester Char x Jer Liver

Decanal

Methional Octanal 1-Octen-3-ol

-0.5 Carbon disulfide

p-Xylene

Dodecanal

2-Pentyl furan Oxidized

-1 Figure 3.2 Principal Component (PC) analysis for volatile compounds and flavor characteristics of five dairy breed crosses

Flavor attributes are written in blue text. Maillard products are written in green text. Lipid products are written in red text. Fvie breed crosses are highlighted in yellow

58 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.1 Flavor Attributes and anchors for trained panels

Attributes Anchor Location on Scale (0 -100)

Beef Flavor ID Brisket 710C 75

80/20 Ground Beef 50

Beef Broth 30

Bloody/Serumy Choice Strip 600C 40

Brown/Roasted Choice Strip 800C 65

80/20 Ground Beef 40

Fat-like 70/30 Ground Beef 60

80/20 Ground Beef 30

Liver like Calf Liver 90

Flat Iron 710C 20

Oxidized Microwaved Ground Beef 60

Microwaved Cooking Oil 25

Sour 0.050% Citric Acid 25

0.015% Citric Acid 5

Bitter 0.02% Caffeine 45

0.01% Caffeine 15

Salty 0.25% NaCl 70

0.15% NaCl 10

Umami Beef Broth 30

Overall Juiciness Choice Strip 600C 75

Choice Strip 710C 50

Choice Strip 850C 30-20

Overall Tenderness Tenderloin 650C 90

Choice Strip 710C 55

Eye of round 850C 30

59 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.2 Carcass values of beef carcasses in varying dairy beef breed crosses

Angus x Charolais Angus x Charolais SimAngus Dairy x Dairy Attributes Holstein x Jersey x Holstein SEM5 P-Value Cross4 Cross (N=140) (N=38) (N=17) (N=20) (N=71) Hot Carcass 413.6a 416.4a 367.6b 367.3b 400.9a 10.01 < 0.01 Weight, kg Ribeye Area, cm2 82.4b 84.2b 90.3a 86.7ab 81.8b 2.3 < 0.01 Marbling Score3 485.4a 538.9a 408.2b 418.2b 483.3ab 32.02 0.02 Strip Loin Weight, 7.5 7.5 6.9 6.9 7.6 0.33 0.47 kg 3 Prime % 4.3 5 0 0 5.8 5.7 0.99 Choice % 75.7ab 95a 47.4c 54.9c 58.8bc 8.1 < 0.01 Select % 17.1b 0.0b 50.0a 39.4ab 35.3ab 8.2 < 0.01 Standard % 2.8 0 2.6 5.6 0 2.7 0.89 abcd Least squares mean in the same row lacking a common superscript differ (P< 0.05). 1 Dairy cross cows are a cross between Holstein and Jersey that are not F1 crosses 2 SE (largest) of the least square means. 3 400 = Low Choice & 500 = Average Choice

60 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.3 Descriptive flavor attributes1 and Warner-Bratzler shear force values of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breed crosses

Angus x Dairy Charolais x Dairy SimAngus x Attributes Angus x Holstein Cross2 Cross2 Charolais x Jersey Holstein SEM3 P-Value

Beef Flavor ID 45.7a 44.8ab 43.4b 43.8b 47.3a 2.1 0.04 Brown Roasted 39.1 36.3 38.4 39.2 36.7 1.6 0.42

Bloody/Serumy 16.2 16.2 16.3 15.5 18.1 2.1 0.63

Fat-Like 15.3bc 17.9a 13.9c 14.6c 17.4ab 1.3 0.04 Liver 6.5 6.1 7.0 7.1 6.8 0.8 0.62 Oxidized 17.8b 19.7ab 22.7a 22.2a 18.9ab 3.8 0.01 Umami 29.0 29.5 27.8 27.9 29.5 1.5 0.33 Salty 6.6 7.3 6.4 6.4 6.6 0.5 0.47 Bitter 7.9ab 6.3c 8.8a 8.3a 6.6bc 0.9 0.03 Sour 9.3 7.3 8.8 9.1 6.9 1.2 0.21 Overall Juiciness 48.0 49.2 47.0 45.6 48.8 2.4 0.26

Overall Tenderness 51.6 52.3 48.1 50.1 52.3 2.5 0.16

Shear Force Value1 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.60 2.60 0.18 0.79

abcd Least squares mean in the same row lacking a common superscript differ (P< 0.05). 2 Dairy cross cows are a cross between Holstein and Jersey 3 SEM (largest) of the least square means.

61 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.4 Least square means of volatile Maillard Products of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breeds

Breeds Angus x Charolais x Volatile Compound Holstein Angus x Dairy Cross2 Jersey Charolais x Dairy Cross SimAngus x Holstein SEM1 P-Value

Strecker aldehydes Acetaldehdye 85.02b 177.63a 54.51bc 25.10c 133.3a 19.77 < 0.01

Benzaldehyde 19.26 19.61 23.02 23.33 20.04 2.16 0.21

Isobutyraldehyde 11.32 16.27 6.68 6.19 7.96 3.88 0.19

Methional 1.33b 1.28b 2.03a 1.89a 1.34b 0.21 < 0.01

Phenylacetaldehyde 4.06 2.78 3.57 3.4 2.97 0.51 0.14

2-Methyl butanal 0.63 0.19 0.49 0.32 0.34 0.19 0.16

3-Methyl butanal 1.06a 0.32b 0.47b 0.33b 0.44b 0.37 < 0.01

Ketones

2,3-Butanedione 63.97a 27.26b 31.87b 32.71b 48.1ab 12.42 0.01

3-Hydroxy-2-butanone 54.52a 26.39b 30.36b 31.58b 24.59b 8.31 < 0.01

Pyrazines

Methyl pyrazine 1.56 0.82 1.18 1.06 0.74 0.33 0.07

Trimethyl pyrazine 1.41 0.92 1.21 1.33 1.05 0.23 0.33

2-Acetylpyrrole 31.42 22.69 33.67 28.12 27.94 6.21 0.60

2,5-Dimethyl pyrazine 2.46 1.48 1.97 1.53 1.51 0.52 0.26

2-ethyl-3,5/6-dimethylpyrazine 4.68 5.78 7.38 4.05 5.96 1.44 0.16

4-methyl-pyrimidine 4.86a 0.89c 3.31ab 2.73bc 1.1 0.94 0.04

Sulfur Containing Compounds

Methanethiol 3.64ab 4.32a 2.18b 2.47ab 3.81ab 0.72 < 0.01

abcd Least squares mean in the same row lacking a common superscript differ (P< 0.05). 1 Pooled standard error of means 2 Dairy cross cows are a cross between Holstein and Jersey

62 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.5 Least square means of volatile Lipid Products of beef strip steaks in varying dairy beef breeds

Breeds Charolais x P- Volatile Compounds Angus x Holstein Angus x Dairy Cross2 Jersey Charolais x Dairy Cross SimAngus x Holstein SEM1 Value

B-Aldehdyes

Butanal 1.47 1.27 1.38 0.95 2.17 0.35 0.15

Decanal 141.72b 394.01a 182.19b 188.14b 346.03a 44.06 < 0.01

Dodecanal 5.42 9.25 14.25 8.45 10.31 5.50 0.35

Hexanal 32.49b 107.34a 25.96b 32.3b 88.63a 13.58 < 0.01

Heptanal 6.99b 14.83a 7.17b 9.10b 15.93a 2.04 < 0.01

Nonanal 1.65 0.93 1.42 1.27 1.21 0.38 0.44

Octanal 12.10 12.47 13.94 12.38 13.39 2.64 0.94

Pentanal 0.56b 1.03a 0.36c 0.50bc 0.89a 0.11 < 0.01

Ketones

Butyrolactone 1009.19a 729.29ab 661.84b 789.85ab 568.72b 143,00 0.02

2-Butanone 15.31a 9.53b 9.58b 9.17b 10.58b 1.84 < 0.01

2-Pentanone 0.12a 0.04ab 0.04ab 0.05ab 0.02b 0.05 0.02

2-Propanone 28.63a 23.52ab 14.57b 16.21b 22.24ab 4.79 0.01

2-Heptanone 2.36 1.35 2.42 2.37 1.55 0.39 0.07 2,3-Pentanedione 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.65

Sulfides

Dimethyl sulfide 0.66 0.88 0.56 0.58 0.47 0.17 0.41

Dimethyl disulfide 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.28

Carbon disulfide 1.02b 0.31b 2.64a 2.20a 0.31b 0.37 < 0.01

Furans

2-Pentyl furan 1.30 2.13 2.17 1.52 2.27 0.67 0.49

Carboxylic acids Acetic acid 4.34a 2.95b 3.63ab 3.72ab 2.75b 0.48 0.02

Heptanoic acid 4.71b 41.01a 4.39b 7.02b 37.81a 1.18 < 0.01

Nonanoic acid 0.47b 0.85a 0.31c 0.33cb 0.73a 0.07 < 0.01 Octanoic acid 0.29a 0.14b 0.28a 0.31a 0.14b 0.03 < 0.01 Esters Hexanoic acid, methyl ester 4.46a 0.33c 2.46bc 3.53ab 0.82bc 1.16 < 0.01

Nonanoic acid, methyl ester 0.43 0.41 0.46 0.56 0.39 0.12 0.81

Octanoic acid, methyl ester 7.75b 12.62a 7.84b 10.94ab 12.13a 1.70 0.02

Alcohols

1-Hexanol 2.07 1.79 1.48 2.47 2.35 0.49 0.36

1-Penten-3-ol 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.08

1-Octanol 6.73bc 11.74a 5.59c 8.65ab 9.45ab 1.29 < 0.01 1-Pentanol 3.80ab 5.19a 1.92c 2.94bc 4.23ab 0.66 < 0.01

Ethanol 7.76bc 37.7a 4.96c 7.69bc 20.44b 4.48 < 0.01

1-Octen-3-ol 7.73 5.14 9.24 11.54 3.89 3.18 0.37

Alkenes

1-Octene 0.79 0.44 0.44 0.67 0.01 0.71 0.13

P-Xylene 174.46c 82.64c 1927.3a 941.53b 33.34c 310.58 < 0.01

Alkanes Pentane 5.44a 4.92a 2.97b 3.91ab 5.61a 0.82 0.01

4-methyl-heptane 2.58a 2.29ab 1.37b 1.83ab 1.84ab 0.42 0.02

Tetradecane 120.79c 254.94a 73.76d 96.72cd 173.99b 19.36 < 0.01 Octane 4.96b 8.27a 4.11b 3.57b 5.97ab 1.16 0.02

Hydrocarbon Toluene 15.1 14.57 10.69 11.15 15.42 1.92 0.06 abcd Least squares mean in the same row lacking a common superscript differ (P< 0.05). 1 Pooled standard error of means 2 Dairy cross cows are a cross between Holstein and Jersey

63 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.6 Pearson correlation coefficients between Maillard Products and Trained Sensory Attributes Flavor Beef Flavor Brown Bloody Fat-like Liver Oxidize Umami Salty Bitter Sour Overall Juicy Overall Attributes ID Roasted Serumy Tender

Volatile Products

Strecker Aldehydes

Acetaldehyde 0.168 -0.038 0.156 0.443*** -0.039 -0.228 0.276** 0.040 -0.234** -0.192* 0.253** 0.265**

Benzaldehyde -0.064 0.005 -0.159 -0.157 -0.050 0.092 -0.181 -0.064 -0.044 -0.012 -0.067 -0.053

Isobutyraldehyde 0.103 0.037 -0.020 -0.030 0.022 -0.110 0.197* 0.085 -0.107 -0.127 0.072 0.044

Methional -0.111 0.086 -0.064 -0.250** -0.080 0.200* -0.281** -0.113 0.097 0.170 -0.095 0.018

Phenylacetaldehyde 0.041 0.021 0.003 -0.061 -0.111 0.063 -0.090 -0.028 0.077 0.179 0.070 0.098

2-methyl-Butanal -0.027 0.070 -0.017 -0.110 -0.033 -0.072 0.007 -0.125 0.019 0.091 -0.061 0.034

3-methylbutanal 0.039 0.197* -0.077 -0.112 -0.021 -0.126 0.040 -0.077 0.079 0.088 -0.037 0.027

Ketones

2,3-Butanedione 0.203* 0.351*** -0.203 -0.048 -0.081 -0.179 0.041 0.054 0.020 -0.079 -0.033 -0.124

3-Hydroxy-2-butanone 0.123 0.299** -0.158 -0.060 -0.031 -0.193* 0.086 -0.090 -0.009 -0.003 0.043 0.026

Pyrazines

Methyl-Pyrazine -0.033 0.056 0.069 -0.087 -0.051 0.106 -0.097 -0.027 0.138 0.164 0.041 0.101

Trimethylpyrazine -0.001 0.035 -0.081 0.018 -0.111 -0.075 -0.022 -0.106 0.012 -0.025 -0.002 0.123

2-Acetylpyrrole -0.011 0.077 -0.092 -0.188* -0.042 0.139 -0.122 0.055 0.059 0.154 -0.052 0.002

2,5-dimethyl-Pyrazine -0.006 -0.034 0.094 0.004 -0.087 0.111 -0.067 0.015 0.059 0.117 0.105 0.129

2-ethyl-3,5/6-dimethylpyrazine -0.028 -0.160 0.193* -0.071 0.003 0.048 0.021 0.097 0.047 0.088 0.006 -0.047

4-methyl-pyrimidine -0.069 0.053 -0.030 -0.111 -0.010 0.158 -0.087 -0.003 0.128 0.161 0.025 0.025

Sulfur Containing Compounds

Methanethiol 0.190* -0.040 0.093 0.236** -0.063 -0.197* 0.214* -0.036 -0.139 -0.096 0.071 0.068

*Significant correlation (P < 0.05). **Significant correlation (P < 0.01). *** Significant correlation (P < 0.001)

64 Texas Tech University, Reginald L. Priest, May 2019

Table 3.7 Pearson correlation coefficients between Lipid Products and Trained Sensory Attributes

Beef Flavor Flavor Brown Bloody Overall Overall Attributes ID Roasted Serumy Fat-like Liver Oxidized Umami Salty Bitter Sour Juicy Tender

Volatile Compounds

B-Aldehydes -0.066 -0.144 0.062 0.040 0.137 -0.003 0.043 0.046 0.058 0.092 -0.085 -0.091 Butanal 0.047 -0.243** 0.130 0.236** -0.100 -0.072 0.050 -0.002 -0.180 -0.140 0.183* 0.093 Decanal -0.038 0.029 -0.142 -0.049 -0.085 -0.068 -0.117 -0.013 -0.083 0.043 0.048 0.108 Dodecanal 0.141 -0.119 0.056 0.278** -0.063 -0.044 0.124 0.087 -0.272** -0.237** 0.134 0.114 Hexanal 0.061 -0.191* 0.041 0.159 -0.047 0.008 -0.032 0.005 -0.243** -0.267** -0.048 0.025 Heptanal 0.111 -0.098 -0.030 0.073 -0.126 -0.026 -0.116 0.108 -0.153 -0.147 0.021 0.064 Nonanal -0.015 -0.008 -0.044 -0.033 0.006 0.197 -0.212* 0.040 0.099 0.001 -0.121 -0.057 Octanal 0.240** -0.068 -0.009 0.275** -0.132 -0.155 0.208 0.117 -0.294 -0.275** 0.145 0.102 Pentanal

Ketones 0.023 0.081 0.057 -0.022 -0.093 -0.055 -0.099 0.074 -0.025 0.048 0.045 -0.027 Butyrolactone 0.124 0.152 -0.086 0.036 -0.138 -0.159 0.036 -0.078 -0.027 -0.013 0.030 0.052 2-Butanone 0.170 0.300 -0.230 -0.151 -0.116 -0.109 0.107 0.086 0.028 -0.003 -0.085 -0.036 2-Pentanone 2,3- 0.158 0.180 -0.142 -0.048 -0.123 -0.031 0.132 0.160 -0.007 -0.038 -0.119 0.004 Pentanedione 2-Propanone 0.154 0.105 -0.047 0.097 -0.110 -0.223* 0.196* -0.128 -0.150 -0.134 0.127 0.163 -0.190* -0.148 -0.020 -0.146 -0.006 0.147 - -0.034 0.009 0.098 -0.033 -0.087 2-heptanone 0.261**

Sulfides Dimethyl 0.079 0.028 -0.097 -0.054 -0.220* -0.184 0.062 -0.039 -0.114 0.017 -0.067 -0.044 sulfide Dimethyl- 0.165 0.186* -0.126 -0.073 -0.161 -0.092 0.125 0.097 -0.036 -0.023 -0.123 0.019 Disulfide Carbon -0.154 0.157 -0.132 -0.458*** 0.042 0.193 - -0.111 0.286* 0.313*** - -0.275** disulfide 0.281** 0.340***

Furans 2-Pentyl furan -0.050 0.002 -0.112 -0.068 0.069 0.146 -0.175 0.019 0.025 -0.045 -0.149 -0.110

Carboxylic acids 0.224* -0.056 0.074 0.375*** -0.191* -0.221* 0.221* 0.173 -0.245** -0.248** 0.274* 0.192* Octanoic acid Nonanoic acid 0.156 -0.145 0.094 0.409*** -0.136 -0.164 0.164 0.117 -0.243** -0.214* 0.272* 0.187* 0.104 0.203* -0.138 -0.087 -0.203 -0.192* 0.041 -0.061 0.009 0.053 -0.051 0.015 Acetic acid 0.291** -0.271** 0.208** 0.466** -0.042 -0.146 0.264** 0.219** - - 0.263** 0.239** Heptanoic Acid 0.338*** 0.361***

Esters Hexanoic acid, methyl -0.056 0.113 -0.055 -0.117 -0.073 -0.045 0.117 0.021 0.018 -0.001 -0.007 0.015 lester Octanoic acid, methyl 0.113 0.128 -0.079 -0.183 -0.132 -0.110 0.084 0.099 -0.071 -0.093 -0.083 -0.006 ester Nonanoic acid, methyl 0.038 0.217** -0.145 -0.306*** -0.085 -0.016 0.059 0.055 0.058 0.034 -0.236** -0.109 ester

Alchohols 0.150 -0.158 0.043 0.213* -0.177 -0.186* 0.002 0.109 -0.228** -0.234** 0.178 0.133 1-Octanol -0.087 0.005 -0.033 -0.164 0.163 0.072 -0.042 -0.065 0.052 0.140 -0.106 -0.220* 1-Octen-3-ol 0.275** 0.007 -0.034 0.216* -0.085 -0.225** 0.204* 0.078 -0.285** -0.245** 0.197* 0.066 1-Pentanol -0.007 -0.115 0.065 -0.091 0.058 0.005 -0.080 0.066 -0.057 0.019 -0.023 -0.089 1-Hexanol Ethanol 0.165 -0.102 0.069 0.266 -0.218 -0.239** 0.227* 0.023 -0.258** -0.175 0.090 0.137 0.011 0.134 -0.007 -0.080 -0.088 -0.031 0.064 -0.052 0.112 0.104 -0.090 0.087 1-Penten-3-ol Alkenes -0.187* 0.047 0.105 -0.335*** 0.106 0.234* -0.140 -0.064 0.192* 0.256** -0.251** -0.097 p-Xylene 0.044 0.300** - -0.211 -0.125 -0.093 -0.068 -0.072 0.071 0.063 -0.107 -0.145 1-Octene 0.277**

Alkanes 0.233* 0.156 -0.097 0.200* -0.038 -0.237* 0.292** 0.039 -0.156 -0.230** 0.176 0.116 Pentane 4-methyl- 0.195* 0.111 -0.068 0.065 -0.048 -0.225** 0.084 -0.002 -0.193** -0.129 0.155 0.014 heptane -0.008 -0.113 0.055 0.246** -0.059 0.011 0.087 0.073 -0.126 -0.206 0.145 0.146 Tetradecane -0.097 -0.234** 0.154 0.203* -0.039 0.034 -0.103 0.035 -0.057 0.023 0.092 0.000 Octane Hydrocarbon 0.156 0.085 -0.015 0.176 -0.091 -0.225 0.108 0.105 -0.172 -0.119 0.170 0.084 Toluene *Significant correlation (P < 0.05). **Significant correlation (P < 0.01). *** Significant correlation (P < 0.001).

65