studies to compare different geneti

studies to compare different genetic groups. Elzo, Johnson, Wasdin,
and Driver (2012) also reported greater rib-eye-areas for B. taurus
crosses up to 50% of B. indicus influence.
Rib-eye-area is affected by bodyweight, and adjustment to an equivalent
of 100 kg of carcass weight is a better approach in comparing
groups (Leme et al., 2000). According to Luchiari Filho (2000), the ribeye-
area adjusted to 100 kg should be at least 29.0 cm2. In the current
study, only Three-Cross bulls had greater value than the benchmark.
“Guzonell” and “Guzholtein” bulls had lesser values, also reported by
other authors who evaluated B. indicus crossbred animals (Ezequiel,
Galati, Mendes, & Faturi, 2006; Lage et al., 2012).
Brazilian slaughterhouse industry requires 3 mm of subcutaneous
fat thickness as a standard for carcasses. According to Luchiari Filho
(2000), subcutaneous fat thickness is important to carcass shield against
cold shortening during chilling, and 2mmis theminimumvalue acceptable
formaintainingmeat quality. Our valueswere around these benchmarks.
Similarly, Climaco et al. (2006) and Yüksel et al. (2012) reported
values lesser than 3mmfor bulls finished in pastures. For bulls finished
in feedlot, Miotto et al. (2012) and Rezende et al. (2012) also reported
values lesser than 3 mmwhen evaluating B. taurus × B. indicus animals.
Shrink losswas affected by subcutaneous fat thickness. According to
Müller (1987), this trait is influenced by fat content in the carcass or
subcutaneous fat thickness,whichworks as an insulator, avoiding losses
by dehydration. Therefore, carcasses with greater fat content have less
losses during chilling process. Lesser losses represent better cold carcass
yield, which is important to the slaughterhouses. Our values were
greater than previous reports (Pacheco et al., 2013; Zorzi et al., 2013).
However, these authors reported values greater than 3mmfor subcutaneous
fat thickness.
Normal values for 24-h pH range from 5.4 to 5.6 (Abularach, Rocha,
& Felício, 1998), but Luchiari Filho (2000) considered 5.6 and 5.8 the desirable
range for fresh meat. Water-holding capacity is reduced by the
post-mortemdecline in pH because anaerobic fermentation of glycogen
and lactic acid formation (Duarte et al., 2011; Fernandes et al., 2009).
According to Fernandes et al. (2009), at pH 5.5, a greater spacing between
protein filaments due to increased repulsion is observed, because
of prevalence of negative charges, resulting in greater water retention
and less shear force. However, at muscle isoelectric point (pH 5.2 to
5.3), there is an equilibrium between positive and negative charges
with lesser spacing between fibers and therefore lesswater-holding capacity
(Fernandes et al., 2009). On the other hand, pH values above 5.8
is related with less muscle glycogen reserves, associated with dark colored
meat and less shelf life (Immonen, Ruusunen, & Puolanne, 2000).
The average pH value observed in this study lies within the desirable
pH range, which resulted in similar values for shear force and color
parameters.
Lack of genetic group effect on water-holding capacity is probably
because of similar muscle pH among groups. Greater water-holding