Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 2;9(6):725.
doi: 10.3390/foods9060725.

The Effects of Production System and Sex on the Sensory Quality Characteristics of Dorper Lamb

Louwrens Christiaan Hoffman  1   2 , Bianca Claasen  1 , Daniël André Van der Merwe  1 , Schalk Willem Petrus Cloete  1   3 , Jasper Johannes Erasmus Cloete  1   4
Affiliations

The Effects of Production System and Sex on the Sensory Quality Characteristics of Dorper Lamb

Louwrens Christiaan Hoffman et al. Foods. .

Abstract

The effect of production systems on the sensory quality characteristics of Dorper lambs was investigated. Sixty lambs (ewes, rams, castrates) were allocated into two production groups (feedlot or free-range) at weaning with equal numbers of each sex represented in each group. The lambs were fed for five (slaughter group 1) or six (slaughter group 2) weeks. Feedlot lambs were fed a commercial pelleted diet while free-range lambs utilized natural shrub pastures. Samples of the Longissimus thoracis muscle were used for sensory evaluation. Feedlot lambs produced meat that was juicier and more tender than meat from free-range lambs. Initial juiciness was also higher in the meat from the feedlot lambs. No aroma or flavour differences were observed. The meat from the free-range ram lambs (slaughter group 1) was the least tender, whereas the lamb flavour was also compromised in the free-range ram lambs. Free-range meat may not necessarily be distinguished from feedlot meat as far as aroma and flavour are concerned.

Keywords: feedlot; free-range; lamb; sensory meat quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest regarding this study.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pietrasik Z., Shand P.J. Effect of blade tenderized and tumbling time on the processing characteristics and tenderness of injected cooked roast beef. Meat Sci. 2004;66:871–879. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2003.08.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miller M.F., Carr M.A., Ramsey C.B., Crockett K.L., Hoover L.C. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 2001;79:3062–3068. doi: 10.2527/2001.79123062x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Risvik E. Sensory properties and preferences. Meat Sci. 1994;36:67–77. doi: 10.1016/0309-1740(94)90034-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verberke W.A.J., Viaene J. Ethical challenges for livestock Production: Meeting consumer concern about meat safety and animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2000;12:141–151. doi: 10.1023/A:1009538613588. - DOI
    1. McEachern M.G., Willock J. Producers and consumers of organic meat: A focus on attitudes and motivations. Br. Food J. 2004;106:534–552. doi: 10.1108/00070700410545737. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources