| Abstrakt: |
Benefits of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) include production efficiency, profit, and reduced environmental effects for beef cattle. Questions remain about effects of HGP on beef quality, particularly on measures of toughness such as Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), tenderness, and other taste-panel attributes of beef. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of HGP on beef quality using the results of randomized controlled trials identified from 3 searched databases. Thirty-one experiments with 181 treatment comparisons were used to evaluate the effects of HGP on WBSF and sensory measures of beef quality. Experiments varied in design, used many different hormonal treatments and combinations, which were single or repeated, in different breeds and sex groups of cattle, with or without electrical stimulation, and with different lengths of time on feed and beef aging. The effects of multiple treatment comparisons in experiments were evaluated using robust regression models and compared to Knapp-Hartung and permutation meta-analytical methods. Increased WBSF was associated with HGP treatment. Use of multiple HGP implants was associated with an increase in WBSF of 0.248 kg (95% CI = 0.203 to 0.292). Effects of a single implant only increased WBSF by 0.176 kg (95% CI = 0.109 to 0.242). Aging of beef did not alter the association of HGP with increased WBSF (P = 0.105); however, the point direction was toward a reduced effect with aging (standardized mean difference [SMD] = .0.005 per day aged). While aging lowered WBSF, it did not reduce the SMD between HGP treatment and reference groups. Comparisons using trenbolone acetate did not differ in WBSF from those using other implants (P > 0.15). The findings on sensory panel tenderness differ from those using WBSF as HGP treatment was not associated with reduced tenderness (P > 0.3) and multiple HGP treatments improved tenderness (SMD = 0.468) compared to a single implant. Further, juiciness, flavor, and connective tissue were not associated with HGP use, whereas there was a marked 5.5-point decrease in the Meat Standards Australia meat quality 4 score, albeit with limited experiments. In general, the true variance of experiments, tau2 (ô2) was low (<0.1), but heterogeneity, I2 was high (>50%) indicating that much of the variance was due to factors other than measurement error. More targeted studies on the role of HGP in influencing beef quality are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
