AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Food Science of Animal Products Article
PDF (1.2 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

A comparative analysis of carcass and meat traits of yaks

Yu Ma1, Guoyuan Ma1, Xiangying Kong2, Hongmei Shi3, Li Zhang1( ), Qunli Yu1, Xue Yang1, Ya Zheng4
College of Food Science and Engineering, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Agricultural and Livestock Integrated Service Center, Haiyan 810299, China
Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Livestock Workstation, Hezuo 747000, China
Institute of Agricultural Product Storage and Processing, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

This study primarily compares the carcass and meat quality traits of yaks of different ages and genders. Measurements of carcass weight and characteristics were taken for male and female Gannan yaks aged 1–2, 2–4, 4–6, and 6 years and older. Additionally, the weight and meat quality of 9 major cuts were measured. The results indicated significant variations in various aspects of yak carcasses around the age of 4, and substantial differences between male and female yaks after the age of 4. Different body regions showed distinct meat quality. The tenderness of the tenderloin is the highest (P < 0.05), while the striploin is the lowest (P < 0.05), and the protein content of the hindquarter cuts is higher. Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to identify key factors significantly affecting total meat yield. Subsequently, predictive models for total meat yield were developed for yaks aged 1–4 years, 4+ years for males, and 4+ years for females based on these factors. Furthermore, the meat from the 9 major cuts was classified according to its intrinsic meat quality traits, which holds significant reference value for the assessment of yak carcass yield grades and the grading of quality in meat cuts, ultimately contributing to the realization of the full potential of the yak meat industry.

Keywords

yakcarcass characteristicsvisual image technologymeat productionmeat quality

References

[1]

G. B. Schaller, W. Liu, Distribution, status, and conservation of wild yak Bos grunniens, Biol. Conserv. 76 (1996) 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(96)85972-6.
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]

A. Fischer, T. Luginbühl, L. Delattre, et al., Rear shape in 3 dimensions summarized by principal component analysis is a good predictor of body condition score in Holstein dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 98 (2015) 4465–4476. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8969.
Crossref Google Scholar
[3]

C. Wakholi, J. Kim, S. Nabwire, et al., Deep learning feature extraction for image-based beef carcass yield estimation, Biosystems Engineering. 218 (2022) 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2022.04.008.
Crossref Google Scholar
[4]

X. Bai, W. Tian, F. Yin, et al., Age-specific effect on endogenous oxidative and antioxidative characteristics of longissimus thoracis muscle of yak during early postmortem period, Food Chem. 374 (2022) 131829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131829.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]

H. W. Seo, H. V. Ba, P. N. Seong, et al., Relationship between body size traits and carcass traits with primal cuts yields in Hanwoo steers, Anim. Biosci. 34 (2021) 127–133. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0809.
Crossref Google Scholar
[6]

L. Zhang, B. Sun, Q. Yu, et al., The breed and sex effect on the carcass size performance and meat quality of yak in different muscles, Korean J. Food Sci. An. 36 (2016) 223–229. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.2.223.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]

A. Cecchinato, M. de Marchi, M. Penasa, et al., Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy predictions as indicator traits in breeding programs for enhanced beef quality, J. Anim. Sci. 89 (2011) 2687–2695. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3740.
Crossref Google Scholar
[8]

T. Needham, J. G. Laubser, R. Kotrba, et al., Sensory characteristics of the Longissimus thoracis et lumborum and Biceps femoris muscles from male and female common eland (Taurotragus oryx), Meat Sci. 158 (2019) 107918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107918.
Crossref Google Scholar
[9]

K. O. Honikel, Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat, Meat Sci. 49 (1998) 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00034-5.
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]

N. Prieto, S. Andrés, F. J. Giráldez, et al., Ability of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to estimate physical parameters of adult steers (oxen) and young cattle meat samples, Meat Sci. 79 (2008) 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.035.
Crossref Google Scholar
[11]

M. C. Bourne, Texture profile analysis, Food Technology 32 (1978) 62–72.
Google Scholar
[12]

A. Heggli, O. Alvseike, F. Bjerke, et al., Carcase grading reflects the variation in beef yield: a multivariate method for exploring the relationship between beef yield and carcase traits, Animals 17 (2023) 100854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100854.
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]

C. Gajaweera, K. Y. Chung, S. H. Lee, et al., Assessment of carcass and meat quality of Longissimus thoracis and Semimembranosus muscles of Hanwoo with Korean beef grading standards, Meat Sci. 160 (2020) 107944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107944.
Crossref Google Scholar
[14]

P. Polidori, S. Pucciarelli, N. Cammertoni, et al., The effects of slaughter age on carcass and meat quality of Fabrianese lambs, Small Ruminant Res. 155 (2017) 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2017.08.012.
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]

J. Soulat, B. Picard, V. Monteils, Influence of cattle category and slaughter age on Charolais-breed carcase and meat traits, Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 22 (2023) 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2182720.
Crossref Google Scholar
[16]

A. Turan, H. Yalcintan, A. Orman, et al., Effects of gender and slaughter age on meat quality of Anatolian water buffaloes, Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 53 (2021) 415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02835-8.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]

S. S. C. Maulid, A. Susilo, D. P, Kuswati, The effect of slaughter age and sex class to carcass characteristic of red Brahman crossbred cattle, IOP Conf. Ser. :Earth Environ. Sci. 888 (2021) 012028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/888/1/012028.
Crossref Google Scholar
[18]

L. Xie, J. Qin, L. Rao, et al., Effects of carcass weight, sex and breed composition on meat cuts and carcass trait in finishing pigs, J. Integr. Agr. 22 (2023) 1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2022.08.122.
Crossref Google Scholar
[19]

D. Matthews, T. Pabiou, R. D. Evans, et al., Predicting carcass cut yields in cattle from digital images using artificial intelligence, Meat Sci. 184 (2022) 108671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108671.
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]

J. Segura, J. L. Aalhus, N. Prieto, et al., Prediction of primal and retail cut weights, tissue composition and yields of youthful cattle carcasses using computer vision systems; whole carcass camera and/or ribeye camera, Meat Sci. 199 (2023) 109120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109120.
Crossref Google Scholar
[21]

P. Negretti, G. Bianconi, G. Cannata, et al., Visual Image Analysis for a new classification method of bovine carcasses according to EU legislation criteria, Meat Sci. 183 (2022) 108654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108654.
Crossref Google Scholar
[22]

M. Naserkheil, D. Lee, K. Chung, et al., Estimation of genetic correlations of primal cut yields with carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle, Animals 11 (2021) 3102. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113102.
Crossref Google Scholar
[23]

S. N. McCarthy, M. Henchion, A. White, et al., Evaluation of beef eating quality by Irish consumers, Meat Sci. 132 (2017) 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.05.005.
Crossref Google Scholar
[24]

J. Żurek, M. Rudy, R. Stanisławczyk, et al., The effect of kosher determinants of beef on its color, texture profile and sensory evaluation, Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 20 (2023) 1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021378.
Crossref Google Scholar
[25]

J. H. Kim, D. H. Kim, D. Ji, et al., Effect of aging process and time on physicochemical and sensory evaluation of raw beef top round and shank muscles using an electronic tongue, Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 37 (2017) 823–832. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2017.37.6.823.
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]

L. W. Coleman, N. M. Schreurs, P. R. Kenyon, et al., Growth, carcass and meat quality characteristics of Charolais-sired steers and heifers born to Angus-cross-dairy and Angus breeding cows, Meat Sci. 201 (2023) 109178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109178.
Crossref Google Scholar
[27]

A. Listrat, M. Gagaoua, J. Normand, et al., Are there consistent relationships between major connective tissue components, intramuscular fat content and muscle fibre types in cattle muscle?, Animals. 14 (2020) 1204–1212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119003422.
Crossref Google Scholar
[28]

R. P. Daniels, J. C. Wicks, M. D. Zumbaugh, et al., Reduced scald time does not influence ultimate pork quality, Meat Sci. 194 (2022) 108958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108958.
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]

A. Hailemariam, W. Esatu, S. Abegaz, et al., Effect of genotype and sex on breast meat quality characteristics of different chickens, J. Agri. Food Res. 10 (2022) 100423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100423.
Crossref Google Scholar
[30]

A. J. Mueller, C. J. Maynard, A. R. Jackson, et al., Assessment of meat quality attributes of four commercial broiler strains processed at various market weights, Poultry Sci. 102 (2023) 102571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102571.
Crossref Google Scholar
[31]

S. Liu, Y. Zhang, G. Zhou, et al., Protein degradation, color and textural properties of low sodium dry cured beef, Int. J. Food Prop. 22 (2019) 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2019.1591444.
Crossref Google Scholar
[32]

H. Zhuang, E. M. Savage, Comparisons of sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets categorized by raw meat color lightness values1, Poultry Sci. 89 (2010) 1049–1055. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00422.
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]

M. A. Akbar, K. Javed, A. Faraz, et al., Principal component analysis of morphometric traits explain the morphological structure of Thalli sheep, Pak. J. Zool. 54 (2022) 207–212. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20200220060257.
Crossref Google Scholar
[34]
A. K. Mishra, A. Jain, S. Singh, et al., Study of body conformation of carpet wool type Chitarangi sheep of India using principal component analysis, Ind. J. Anim. Sci. (2021). https://doi.org/10.18805/IJAR.B-4285.
Crossref
[35]
V. E. Ormachea, C. B. Calsin, S. E. Aguilar, et al., Principal component analysis of morphological characteristics in Creole sheep (Ovis aries), AAVS 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2023/11.6.903.909.
Crossref
[36]
A. William Canaza-Cayo, R. Reis Mota, F. Amarilho-Silveira, et al., Principal Component Analysis for Body Weight Prediction of Corriedale Ewes from Southern Peru, JAHP 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2021/9.4.417.424.
Crossref
[37]

D. K. Yadav, R. Arora, A. Jain, Predicting body weights of Kolhapuri sheep using principal component scores, Indian Journal of Small Ruminants. 27 (2021) 168–172. https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-9718.2021.00030.1.
Crossref Google Scholar
[38]

B. S. Mavule, V. Muchenje, C. C. Bezuidenhout, et al., Morphological structure of Zulu sheep based on principal component analysis of body measurements, Small Ruminant Res. 111 (2013) 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.09.008.
Crossref Google Scholar
Food Science of Animal Products
Volume 1 Issue 3,
September 2023
Article number: 9240035
DOI: 10.26599/FSAP.2023.9240035
Cite this article:
Ma Y, Ma G, Kong X, et al. A comparative analysis of carcass and meat traits of yaks. Food Science of Animal Products, 2023, 1(3): 9240035. https://doi.org/10.26599/FSAP.2023.9240035

774

Views

69

Downloads

0

Crossref

Altmetrics
Received: 31 July 2023
Revised: 09 August 2023
Accepted: 28 October 2023
Published: 18 December 2023
© Beijing Academy of Food Sciences 2023.

Food Science of Animal Products published by Tsinghua University Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Return