Meat Science 14 (1985) 191-220

Anabolic Agents and Meat Quality: A Review

R. L. S. Patterson & Linda J. Salter

AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol. Great Britain
(Received: 9 November, 1984)

SUMMARY
This review considers the results of more than sixty studies on the possible
effects of anabolic agents on the meat quality parameters of the three
main red meat species and poultry. The information is grouped into three
main sections: carcass composition, muscle qualio' and eating quality.
Each section isfurther divided by animal species, with consideration given
to differences due to sex or age.
Anabolic agents appear to have some effect on the carcass composition
of animals; depending upon the type used, the)' can cause an increase in the
ratio o f muscle to fat #1female and castrate animals, or a decrease in this
ratio in entire males. Such differences are usually reflected in related
changes in the chemical composition o f the meat. Few consistent effects,
however, have been reported in the eating quality oJ'the cooked meat in
terms of texture, flavour, juicbwss or cooking loss, indicating that the
basic eating quality attributes important to the consumer are largely
unaffected by hormone treatment.

INTRODUCTION

The volume of scientific literature describing the application of growthpromoting substances to animal production is large but can be subdivided into areas of particular scientific interest, such as the overt effects
on growth, changes in metabolism, blood serum and tissue levels, residue
191

Meat Science 030%1740/85 $03-30 ( Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England,
1985. Printed in Great Britain

192

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

problems, development of analytical techniques and carcass and eating

quality factors. This paper deals only with these last two aspects. Even
with this restriction of subject area, the review which follows is not fully
comprehensive, but presents the summarised results of more than sixty
studies on the effects of anabolic agents on the quality parameters of the
three main red meat species and poultry.
The term 'growth promoter' can refer to more than one type of
substance used in animal production, e.g, antimicrobial agents,
thyrostats, anthelmintics and anabolic agents. This review, however,
considers only anabolic agents, which are generally hormonal in action. It
is thought that they achieve their effect by causing a net increase in
nitrogen retention in the form of muscle protein. Net protein deposition is
controlled by both anabolic and catabolic processes: the effect ofanabolic
agents is complex and the exact mode of action remains obscure.
Anabolic agents can either be classified according to whether they are
oestrogenic, androgenic or progestagenic in action, or by whether they
are steroids which are endogenous to farm animals, or are exogenous
steroidal or non-steroidal c o m p o u n d s : these latter are sometimes referred
to as xenobiotics. The substances most commonly used to promote
growth have included oestradiol-17[~, oestradiol-17/3-benzoate,
oestradiol-17/l-pahnitate, progesterone, testosterone, testosterone propionate, methyltestosterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, hexoestrol,
diethylstilboestrol, dienoestrol diacetate and melengesterol acetate.
The legislation employed by different nations concerning the use of
anabolic agents varies widely, even between member states of the EEC,
and a detailed discussion of the policies followed by individual countries
would be inappropriate in the context of this review. However, a brief
consideration of the international situation, as it stands at present, may
be of relevance and interest to the reader.
The anabolic agents currently permitted by the EEC are those based
upon the naturally occurring hormones (oestradiol- 17/3, testosterone and
progesterone) and two xenobiotics, trenbolone acetate and zeranol,
following an EEC Directive in 1981 (81/602/EEC) which banned the use
of stilbenes and thyrostats as growth promoters. However, trenbolone
acetate and zeranol have not passed investigation by the Scientific
Working Party on Anabolic Agents in Animal Production (formed as a
result of the above Directive) as sufficient information from toxicological
studies has not been available. For this reason, the EEC Commission
plans to impose a ban on these two agents, dating from 1 July, 1985.

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

193

Additionally, some member countries have independently imposed

complete, or partial, bans on the use of anabolic agents in meat
production.
Anabolic agents are also used extensively in many countries outside the
EEC (Storie-Pugh, 1984). The US Food and Drug Administration has
cleared oestradiol-I 7//, testosterone, progesterone and zeranol for use in
beef production for the US market, and a large number of other
countries, including Canada and Australia, permit the use of the three
naturally occurring hormones, as well as trenbolone acetate and/or
zeranol.
Although the highly oestrogenic stilbenes are now banned from use for
the fattening of meat animals, a considerable proportion of research over
the past two or three decades has been conducted using such substances:
hence, much of the information about the effect on animal growth and
carcass composition available today is based upon the effects of these and
similar compounds. In the review which follows, the information has been
grouped into three main sections: (i) carcass composition. (ii) muscle
quality and (iii) eating quality. Each section is further divided by animal
species, with additional sub-divisions, where appropriate, to accommodate different responses due to sex or age differences in the treated
animals: for example, bulls, steers or veal calves. As far as possible,
treatment types, i.e. androgenic or oestrogenic, have been kept together
within these sub-heads, and the names of the applied agents emphasised
in bold type to facilitate reference. No attempt has been made to give fully
detailed results for each paper listed; the salient points have been
identified and should direct readers to the appropriate research if further
information is required.

CARCASS C O M POSITION
Cattle
Sgeel's

None of the work recording zeranol treatment of steers reported any

change in the gross composition (estimated or total): 04, lean, fat and
bone in either the 9th-I lth rib region or in the whole carcass (Ntunde et
al., 1977), loin eye area (Sharp & Dyer, 1971; Cohen & Cooper, 1983),
~/o kidney and pelvic fat (Borger et al., 1973a: Ntunde et al., 1977),

194

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Salter

various measures of fat cover (Sharp & Dyer, 1971 ; Borger et al., 1973a;
Ntunde et al., 1977; Cohen & Cooper, 1983), the lean:fat ratio and the
lean:bone ratio (Ntunde et al., 1977) were all unaltered. Roche (1980)
found that treatment with zeranoi or zeranol + trenbolone acetate caused
no change in ~ lean, fat or bone, while Scott (1978) reported that no
significant change in composition occurred on treatment with trenbolone
acetate, zeranol or trenbolone acetate + hexoestroi. However, in two
trials, Griffiths (1982) found that the use of trenbolone acetate + zeranol
significantly increased the proportion of lean meat in the carcass
(P < 0.05, 0.01, respectively), while the dissectable fat was decreased
(NS, P < 0.05), as was the proportion of bone and connective tissue
(P < 0.01, NS).
Work by Wood & Fisher (1983) using twin calves showed that steers
implanted twice with trenbolone acetate+ oestradiol-17fl yielded carcasses with proportions of lean and fat slightly closer to those found in
bulls, i.e. leaner and less fat than untreated steers.
Simone et al. (1958) reported no change in ~,,, lean, fat or bone
following the administration of diethylstUboestrol, either orally or by
implantation, while Ogilvie et al. (1960) found that the oral administration of 30 mg diethylstilboestrol per day significantly increased rib eye
area (P < 0.01) and also decreased the depth of fat covering the 12th rib,
although not significantly. There was no effect on ~,,,bone.
Treatment of steers with oestradiol-17fl has yielded conflicting results.
Mathison & Stobbs (1983) reported that, although the fat depth was not
significantly altered, rib eye area was increased (P < 0-05) by implantation with oestradiol-17fl. However, Utley et al. (1980) found that
various types of oestradiol-17fl implant caused no significant differences
in heart, kidney and pelvic fat, rib eye area or rib eye fat, although they
tended to decrease rib eye area and increase fat scores. Schanbacher et al.
(1983) used silastic implants of oestradiol- 17fl-dipropionate which reduced
(P < 0.05) longissimus area in both bulls and steers: adjusted backfat
thickness was also slightly reduced in steers.
Rumsey (1982) found no significant alteration in rib eye area, fat over
the rib eye or kidney, pelvic and heart fat following treatment with
progesterone + oestradiol-17fl-benzoate, although implanted steers tended
to have a greater rib eye area. The same preparation was found by Prior
et aL (1978) to significantly reduce (P < 0.05) ~ kidney and pelvic fat, but
there was no alteration to adjusted fat thickness o r l o n g i s s i m u s area.
Thus, it appears that hormone treatment of steers (with trenbolone

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

195

acetate + zeranol, diethylstilboestrol, oestradiol-17/~ or progesterone +

oestradioi-17/~-benzoate) sometimes increases the levels of lean meat and
decreases the amount of fat in the carcass or selected portions, although
this effect is not always statistically significant and was not observed
for zeranol alone. These conclusions are in general agreement with
those drawn by Galbraith & Topps (1981) in their review concerning the
effect of various hormone treatments (diethylstiiboestrol, hexoestrol,
progesterone + oestradiol-17/~-benzoate and testosterone) on the carcass
composition of steers.
Bulls
Opinion differs as to whether the administration of diethylstilboestrol to
bulls affects the quantity of dissectable fat deposited, Williams et al.
(1975a) found that diethylstilboestrol-implanted bulls had significantly
( P < 0 . 0 5 ) more backfat than controls but showed no significant
difference in M. longissimus dorsi area or in % kidney, pelvic and heart
fat. Their later paper (Williams et al., 1975b) indicated that diethylstilboestroi increased the quantity of separable fat, although not
significantly. Rib eye area was slightly decreased, and backfat thickness
increased, but neither change was significant. Garrigus et al. (1969) and
Martin & Stob (1978) reported no significant changes in carcass
composition ( % lean, fat and bone in 9th-10th-1 lth rib section) or in fat
cover or rib eye area on diethylstiiboestrol administration. Martin & Stob
(1978) found no significant difference in internal fat, while in two trials
Garrigus et al. (1969) obtained conflicting results for % kidney fat.
However, the latter reported that diethylstilboestrol tended to decrease
the overall leanness of bull carcasses in the order control-singly
implanted-doubly implanted.
Gregory & Ford (1983) treated bulls with zeranol and were unable to
detect any significant alteration in fat thickness, kidney, pelvic and heart
fat or M. longissimus dorsi area, although the latter was slightly reduced.
In their later study, Ford & Gregory (1983) compared bulls implanted
with zeranol in the ear or scrotum with those surgically castrated and
controls; no significant differences were found between the three groups
of entires for any of the above parameters, although castrates differed
significantly from the other three groups. Longissimus area was slightly
increased by zeranol treatment but was decreased by castration.
Greathouse et al. (1983) found no significant change in rib eye area
following implantation with zeranol on five separate occasions. However,

196

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

the adjusted fat thickness was significantly (P < 0-05) increased and the ~o
kidney, pelvic and heart fat showed a small, non-significant, change in the
same direction. Johnson et al. (1984) reported that bulls implanted with
zeranoi showed no significant change in fat thickness (12th rib), adjusted
fat thickness, estimated ~ kidney, pelvic and heart fat or longissimus
area. Carcasses from bulls implanted with progesterone + oestradiol-17/3benzoate had significantly (P < 0.05) greater fat thickness than those from
control bulls: when actual fat thickness was adjusted for variations in
fatness in other regions of the carcass, the oestradiol-17/~-treated bulls
also showed a significant (P < 0.05) increase in fatness. The other carcass
parameters were unaffected by these two treatments. These studies
indicated that oestrogenic substances tend to increase the amount of fat
deposited, although the effect was rarely significant. No significant
changes in the degree of muscling were observed.
Gielen et al. (1982) found that a combination of trenbolone
acetate + oestradiol-17fl increased (P < 0.05) the 9o connective tissue plus
fat when used at the beginning of a period of growth at pasture and
decreased "//o bone both during the growth and fattening periods (P <
0.05, 0.0 l, respectively), as determined by dissection of the 7th right rib.
However, conflicting results were obtained in a later study (Lambot et al.,
1983) which indicated that the same hormones caused a significant (P <
0.05) rise in ~,, bone, while the ~,,,connective tissue plus fat and the ~o
muscle were slightly decreased, and raised, respectively, although not
significantly so. Results obtained by Wood & Fisher (1983) showed that in
bull pairs, the ones treated with this combination of hormones contained
more fat (P < 0.05) than their untreated twin. Thus, it seems that one
effect of these hormones, like the purely oestrogenic treatments, is to
increase the proportion of fat deposited.
Interestingly, a study by Price et al. (1983) suggested that zeranol may
reduce the incidence of dark cutting in bull carcasses; although the results
did not reach statistical significance, only 10 '~ of the implanted bulls were
graded as dark cutting compared with 40'y,,, of the controls.
Johnson et al. (1984) also compared the above-mentioned traits for
Hereford x Angus, Hereford and Charolais-cross bulls in the same trial:
fewer differences were noted between implanted and control animals than
were observed between the different breeds. For Hereford bulls it was
noticed that, while control carcasses were all assigned to the sex-class
"bullock', all the implants produced more (P < 0-05) carcasses which were
classed a s ' s t e e r ' , perhaps indicative of some retardation of the
development of masculine characteristics.

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

197

Veal calves

Implantation of veal calves (young bulls) with trenbolone

acetate + oestradiol-17/3, on two separate occasions, significantly (P <
0-01) increased the %'total meat' and reduced the % fat in the 3rd rib cut:
a decrease (P < 0.05) was also noted in % bone (Verbeke el al., 1975).
A single implant gave similar changes, although only the % total
meat showed a significant alteration (P<0-05). The use of
testosterone + oestradiol-17/~, either on one or two occasions, gave some
small, non-significant, changes in the same directions. 'Meatiness' was
also judged
to
be significantly improved by
trenbolone
acetate + oestradiol-17/~, implanted on either one (P < 0.05) or two (P <
0.01) occasions, and by twice implanting with testosterone + oestradioi17/~ (P < 0"01) (Verbeke et al,, 1975). G r a n d a d a m et al. (1975), who also
used trenbolone acetate + oestradiol-17/~, found that any reduction in
carcass fat deposition was not significant: however, there was a significant
(P < 0-01) increase in meatiness, suggested to result from improvement of
the posterior muscles.
Heifers and cows

Testosterone propionate + oestradiol-17/~-benzoate and testosterone +

diethylstiiboestrol both gave a significant (P < 0.05) increase in rib eye
area in treated heifers compared with controls (in one of two experiments)
and with heifers treated with melengesterol acetate (in both experiments),
according to Marchello et al. (1970). There were no significant changes in
fat thickness, '}'okidney fat, intramuscular fat or dry matter. G o o d m a n et
al. (1982) also found that testosterone propionate+oestradiol-17/~benzoate increased M. longissimus dorsi area in heifers, although not
significantly, but caused no significant alteration in fat thickness. Jones
(1982) reported that the same preparation did not give any significant
change in average carcass fat or rib eye area for cull cows, and similar
results have been obtained for both heifers and cull cows treated with
zeranol (Price & Makarechian, 1982).
Pigs
Several workers have investigated the effects of the addition of
diethylstilboestrol + methyltestosterone to the diet of barrows (castrates)
and gilts. Bidner et al. (1972a,b) reported a decrease in backfat thickness
and /o tat trim, which was more pronounced in barrows than gilts and
occasionally reached statistical significance. Lucas el al. (1971) also
reported a significant reduction in backfat thickness for both barrows and

198

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

gilts in four out of five trials; in one of these, he noted that the reduction
was greater for barrows than gilts, and also for pigs on low protein (12 ~o),
rather than high protein (16 ~), rations. Plimpton & Teague (1972) noted
a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in backfat for barrows but not for gilts.
Barrows implanted with oestradiol-17fl + trenbolone acetate and those
given orally administered ethynyloestradiol + trenbolone acetate showed
significant ( P < 0-01) reductions in backfat compared with controls
(Grandadam et al., 1975; van Weerden & Grandadam, 1975).
The results of a number of trials conducted by Bidner et al. (1972a,b)
indicated that oral administration of diethylstilboestrol + methyltestosterone caused small, largely non-significant, increases in the area of the
M. longissimus dorsi for both barrows and gilts. Plimpton & Teague
(1972) noted a significant (P < 0-05) increase in longissimus muscle area
for similarly treated barrows but there was a small, non-significant,
decrease for gilts. Increases in ~o lean cuts in pigs treated with
diethylstilboestrol +methyltestosterone were noted by Bidner et al.
(1972a) which were more pronounced in barrows than gilts, while their
later paper (Bidner et al., 1972b) showed similar, but non-significant,
increases. Plimpton & Teague (1972) also reported a significant increase
(P < 0-05)in the ~ lean cuts of barrows but not ofgilts. Lucas et al. (1971)
found the same result in one of five experiments whilst, in another, ~o lean
cuts were increased in both sexes. The same authors found no consistent
increase in loin eye area, in contrast to the marked reduction in backfat,
and suggested that this was evidence for an antilipogenic, rather than an
anabolic, mode of action in this case. Such treatment also resulted in
heavier bones but their composition was similar to that of the controls
(Bidner et al., 1972a). Fowler (1975) reported that ethynyloestradiol also
gave large increases in the growth rate of lean tissue. Androgens had little
effect when used alone but did improve the response to oestrogens.
In several experiments with boars, Plimpton & Teague (1972) found
that implantation with diethyistilboestrol increased backfat thickness,
sometimes significantly. However, their 'leanness' was still better than
that of untreated littermate barrows. M. longissimtts dorsi area and
lean cuts were not significantly altered. Ockerman et al. (1981) found that
such treatment resulted in carcasses from heavyweight boars that did not
differ significantly in ham, shoulder or loin weight or in M. longissimus
dorsi area from normal boars or castrates; however, a small, nonsignificant, decrease in lean cuts between control and implanted boars was
noted.

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

199

Galbraith & Topps (1981) cited a number of cases where various

hormones (methyltestosterone, with and without diethylstilboestrol or
ethynyloestradiol, and trenbolone acetate +oestradiol-17~ have been
shown to increase leanness and protein content and to decrease fat
content in barrows and gilts. When administered alone, diethylstilboestrol
and ethynyloestradiol have sometimes stimulated the growth of lean
tissue, while in other studies no effects were observed. Implantation of
young boars with diethylstilhoestrol increased carcass fat and decreased
the yield of lean joints, but no effects were observed for animals weighing
over 70 kg.

Sheep
Zeranol appears to have no effect on the gross composition of the carcass;
fat thickness, kidney fat weight and M. longissimus dorsi area were not
significantly altered by implantation in ram, cryptorchid, wether or ewe
lambs (Wilson et al., 1972; Wiggins et al., 1976, 1979) and the weights of
selected joints were unchanged in wethers (Wiggins et al., 1979). Wether
lambs treated with hexoestrol have been shown to have more bone, more
'flesh' and less subcutaneous fat than controls (Galbraith & Topps, 1981).
In contrast, diethylstilboestrol implanted in wethers, either alone or with
zeranol, significantly (P < 0.05) increased fat cover but had no significant
effect on longissimus area or ~ kidney fat. However, diethylstilboestrol
was thought to be capable of increasing or decreasing fat deposition,
depending on the calorie: protein ratio of the ration (Wiggins et al., 1976).
Purchas (1973) discovered that the injection of wether and ewe lambs with
melengesteroi acetate resulted in no differences in the following measures
of meat composition: fat depth/carcass weight, omental fat/carcass
weight, pelvic and perinephric fat/carcass weight, collective weight of(M.
semitendinosus + M. semimembranosus + M. biceps fcmoris)/carcass
weight and weight of the same three muscles/femur weight. Sulieman et al.
(1983) reported that implantation of ewes with various amounts of
trenbolone acetate significantly increased (P < 0-01) the weight of lean
tissue and also raised the amount of intermuscular fat (P < 0-05), gut and
caul fat (P < 0-01), and kidney and channel fat (P < 0-01). Thus, hormone
treatment of sheep causes some small, but inconsistent, changes in carcass
composition.
Poultry
A number of studies have investigated the effects of anabolic agents on

200

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

poultry, usually chickens, using the oestrogenic compounds oestradiol17fl-dipropionate (Akiba et al.. 1982). oestradiol-17fl-monopalmitate
(York & Mitchell, 1969: Bassila et al., 1975" Moran & Etches, 1983),
dienoestroi diacetate (Bassila et aL, 1975: Akiba et al., 1983),
diethylstilboestrol (Bogdonoff et al., 1961" Donovan & Sherman, 1960)
and hexoestrol (Ryley et al., 1970), and also the androgen methyltestosterone (Bogdonoff et al., 1961).
Ryley et al. (1970) reported that treatment of cockerels with hexoestrol
induced significant changes in both the absolute and relative weights of
numerous body components and organs: for example, the legs of treated
birds were less heavy (P < 0.01) than those of controls. Both the absolute
quantity and the o/
/ o fat in the carcasses from treated cockerels were
significantly (P < 0.001) increased. Bogdonoff et al. (1961) reported that
diethylstilboestrol-treated cockerels had a hi~her o/fat
at 9 weeks, while
/o
Donovan & Sherman (1960), who investigated the effects of implanting
diethyistUboestrol in both male and female chickens, found that the ~o fat
was significantly (P < 0-05) increased at 15 weeks of age.
Various workers have noted a significant reduction in ''/ moisture
(Donovan & Sherman, 1960: York & Mitchell, 1969: Ryley et al., 1970),
o//,, protein (Donovan & Sherman, 1960: Ryley et al., 1970) and ~/,,ash
(Ryley et al., 1970) following oestrogen treatment: however, Ryley et al.
(1970) found that in their work there was no change in the total moisture,
protein or ash, and that the increased weight of fat accounted for all the
increased body and carcass weight. They postulated that this extra fat
deposition was the cause of the poorer food conversion by the treated
birds.
In a study of the effect of oestrogenic substances on hepatic lipid
deposition, implantation of oestradiol-17fl-dipropionate (Akiba et al.,
1982) in 3-week-old male broiler chicks gave rise to increased (P < 0.001)
liver weight, liver fat content and plasma lipids, and dienoestrol diaeetate
(Akiba et al., 1983) included as a feed additive caused similar increases
(P < 0"05).
The foregoing results agree with those reviewed by Galbraith & Topps
(1981), which indicated that oestrogen treatment of poultry led to
increased deposition of both subcutaneous and intramuscular fat which
was judged to improve carcass quality.
Bogdonoff et ell. (1961) reported that the treatment of cockerels with
the androgen methyltestosterone or with methyltestosterone +diethylstilboestrol sometimes caused an increase in / o/ a s h and a decrease in ~o

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

201

fat, but did not state whether these differences were statistically
significant.
Oestradiol-17~-monopalmitate has been implanted in turkey toms at
8 weeks of age and was found to increase the extent of fleshing, breast and
back 'finish" relative to controls (Moran & Etches, 1983). The
composition of selected raw tissues supports these findings: the fat
content of the back skin (shown to be correlated with finish grade) and the
fat deposition in the thigh were significantly ( P < 0-001, P<0-05)
increased at both 12 and 14 weeks. The moisture content of the breast
meat was higher (P < 0.05) at 12 weeks, which was purported to signify
improved fleshing, although a non-significant reduction was observed at
14 weeks. The proportions of commercial cuts were largely unaffected by
the treatment.
Analysis of the whole carcass showed that implanted birds had higher
levels of fat than control carcasses (significantly so ( P < 0.05) at
12 weeks), while 0Jo ash was reduced (significantly (P < 0-05) at 14 weeks).
However, opposing results were obtained at the two ages for both /o
moisture and ')~ protein (Moran & Etches, 1983). Some differences were
noted in the composition of the cooked birds: implanted birds contained
less bone (P < 0.05 at 12 weeks) and slightly more skin than controls.
Changes in '~o meat were small and differed in direction between 12- and
14-week-old birds.
In general, these results agree with the conclusions of Nesheim (1975) in
his review: oestrogen treatment of young cockerels gave increased
fattening, which was said to enhance flavour, skin tenderness and general
consumer appeal. Most lipid components of the blood were also
increased. Effects on turkeys were similar, giving better carcass finish.
Thus, oestrogen treatment of both male turkeys and chickens causes an
increase in the amount of fat deposited.

MUSCLE QUALITY
Cattle
Stcers

Various workers have investigated the effects of anabolic agents on the

chemical composition of the musculature. Borger et al. (1973b) noted a
significant (P < 0-05) reduction in '~ fat (determined by ether extraction)

202

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Salter

and an increase in ~o moisture in the longissimus muscle of zeranoitreated steers compared with controls, but not for the adductor or
intercostal muscles also studied, nor for the overall average. Sharp &
Dyer (1971) found a significant (P < 0-05) reduction in % fat and a nonsignificant increase in ~ water for similarly treated steers fed on a diet
Containing 18 ~ protein, while steers on 12 /o dietary protein showed
similar, but non-significant, trends. Nute & Dransfield (1984) reported no
significant differences in 9/0 moisture and ~ fat between treated and
control meat, although the 9/0 fat was slightly decreased. Sharp & Dyer
(1971) reported that meat from zeranoi-treated steers (on both 12 ~o and
18 ~ protein diets) showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater 9/0 protein
levels than controls. However, Borger et al. (1973b) noted no significant
differences in total nitrogen levels for meat from treated steers, while Nute
& Dransfield (1984) reported no significant differences in ~,~ protein.
Hill (1966) reported that double hexoestrol implantation caused
significantly (P < 0.05) higher moisture levels than those found in
controls while fat levels were non-significantly lower. Single hexoestrol
treatments gave results which were not significantly different to the
controls, but there was a trend towards decreasing fat and increasing
moisture in the order control-early-late-double-treated steers. Total
nitrogen levels were also studied but no significant changes were found.
Bryce-Jones et al. (1964) reported that hexoestroi resulted in a
significantly (P < 0.05) lower ~ fat level but had no significant effect on
moisture or ~ nitrogen. Lawrie (1960) noted that although the 'Uo
intramuscular fat in the M. longissimus dorsi was lowered in hexoestroltreated steers, there was no alteration in ~ dry matter, ~o ash or ~o
nitrogen. Furthermore, the distribution of nitrogen (between nonprotein, sarcoplasmic, myofibrillar and stroma) was almost identical in
the same muscle of control and implanted animals.
Simone et al. (1958) reported that diethylstilboestrol administration,
either orally or by implantation, had no significant effect on o/
/o fat or
moisture, while Wierbicki et al. (1956) noted a reduction in the O/,ofat and
a small rise in ~o moisture in meat following implantation with
diethylstilboestrol. The oral administration of 30 mg diethylstilboestrol
per day caused an increase in moisture and a decrease in fat compared
with controls, which were significant ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) 56days after the
treatment commenced but which decreased thereafter. Meat from treated
steers also showed a highly significant (P < 0"01) rise in ~o protein 56 days
after the treatment started, although, again, the effect later decreased
(Ogilvie et al., 1960).

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

203

Griffiths (1982) reported that a combination of trenbolone

acetate + zeranol caused the proportion of fat in the edible carcass to be
significantly reduced whilst the proportion of water was increased (P <
0.05 for experiment 1 and P < 0-01 for experiment 2); the crude protein
level was also increased (P < 0.05) in the first of these experiments.
Forrest (1975) reported that a combination of progesterone + oestradiol17/~-benzoate resulted in a reduction of ether extractable fat in the M.
long&simus dorsi muscle of steers. Rumsey (1982), however, found no
change in the ~o water while the ~o ether extractable fat in the carcass was
non-significantly increased. However, there was a significant (P < 0-05)
reduction in the proportion of nitrogen in the carcass.
It appears, therefore, that hormone treatment may cause a reduction in
~ fat and a small rise in the ~o moisture and protein of the meat. These
findings would be expected from the effects on overall carcass
composition: muscle from fatter animals has a higher ~o lipid. Such a
conclusion is in agreement with that reached by Galbraith & Topps
(1981), who, in their review, concluded that oestrogenic compounds
(diethylstilboestrol, hexoestrol and zeranol) tended to increase ~ protein
and ~o moisture, and decrease % fat. Of the work reviewed here only
Rumsey (1982) reported results which actually contradict this trend,
although, in a number of cases, no significant effects were observed. The
results of Sharp & Dyer (1971) indicated that the increases in % moisture
and protein were proportional, the ratio of the two being little changed.
So, in this case at least, the increased % protein and moisture could be
attributed simply to the decrease in % fat.
Three authors (Bryce-Jones et a/., 1964: Rumsey, 1982; Nute---&
Dransfield. 1984) have reported that treatment of steers with various
hormones caused no significant change in the levels of fat-free dry matter
in the muscle. Hill (1966) and Nute & Dransfield (1984) reported no
significant changes in collagen levels (found by determination of
hydroxyproline) for hormone-treated steers, in contrast to Wierbicki et
a/. (1956), who reported that hydroxyproline levels were higher in meat
from treated cattle. The same authors also found little difference in pH
(measured 3 and 13 days post mortem) in treated versus control steers,
whilst Nute & Dransfield (1984) reported no change in the pH of
homogenised muscle. The energy content of the carcass (Mcal/kg) was
not significantly altered by hormone treatment (Rumsey, 1982).
Borger et al. (1973a), Ntunde et al. (1977) and Cohen & Cooper (1983)
reported that zeranol treatment of steers had no significant effect on the
subjective marbling scores for the meat. Marchello eta/. (1970), however,

204

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

found that diethylstilboestrol-treated cattle had lower marbling scores

than did controls (where 'cattle" included both steers and heifers) while
Rumsey (1982) reported slightly, but not significantly, higher marbling
scores for steers treated with progesterone+oestradiol-17fl-benzoate.
Ntunde et al. (1977) also reported no significant alterations in lean
texture, colour or firmness due to zeranol treatment, whilst Nute &
Dransfield (1984) found that there were no significant changes in colour of
lean and fat, apparent fat:lean ratio, lightness, saturation or hue angle.
Lawrie (1960) reported that although meat from hexoestrol-treated
steers appeared somewhat redder due to the lower levels of intramuscular
fat, there was no evidence of the sticky, purplish condition characteristic
of dark cutting meat; neither was there any indication of an increase in
ultimate pH or in myoglobin concentration.
Bulls

Chemical analyses by various workers showed that no significant change

in ~o ether extractable fat or ~o moisture (Garrigus et al., 1969: Williams
et al., 1975a: Martin & Stob, 1978), ~o protein (Williams et al., 1975a:
Martin & Stob, 1978) or ash levels (Williams et al., 1975a) had occurred in
meat from diethylstilboestrol-treated bulls. Garrigus et al. (1969) found
that implantation at 154 days post-weaning significantly ( P < 0-01)
reduced the U,, protein in meat but that diethylstilboestrol treatments at
other ages gave no significant alteration. The wflues for ether extractable
material obtained by Williams et al. (1975a), although not significantly
altered by treatment, were slightly increased over controls. Wierbicki et
al. (1956) noted that diethyistilboestrol administration gave a small
increase in intramuscular fat while "//omoisture and ~.o nitrogen showed
little change. They also reported that hydroxyproline levels were higher in
meat from treated bulls, while the pH at 3 and 13 days post mortem was
virtually unchanged.
Gregory et al. (1983) discovered that zeranol treatment had no
significant effect on ~ water or protein in the M . I o n g i s s i m u s dorsi.
However, the % fat in the muscle from bulls treated with 36 mg zeranol on
two occasions was significantly (P < 0-05) increased compared with
controls, while the '~,]fat for bulls treated initially with 72 nag zeranol lay
between the other two classes. Greathouse et al. (1983) reported that
repeated zeranol implantation of bulls tended (P = 0"06) to give higher ';0
ether extractable material and lower "/moisture
in the 9th- 10th- 11th rib
/o
section, while ~,i protein was not significantly altered. Forrest (1975) also

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

205

reported a significant increase in ether extractable fat in the M.

longissimus dorsi of bulls treated with progesterone + oestradiol-17/lbenzoate.
Thus, bulls treated with oestrogenic compounds show a tendency
towards higher levels of ether extractable fat although, in many cases, no
significant effects were observed. This trend was also reported by
Galbraith & Topps (1981) in their review.
The marbling score for meat from diethylstilboestrol-treated bulls has
been shown not to differ significantly from that for untreated animals
(Garrigus et al., 1969: Williams et al., 1975a,b), although it was slightly
increased in some cases. Several studies suggested that bulls treated with
zeranol showed no change in the scores for marbling (Gregory & Ford,
1983; Gregory et al., 1983; Ford & Gregory, 1983; Greathouse et al.,
1983; Johnson et al., 1984), texture (Gregory & Ford, 1983: Ford &
Gregory, 1983), firmness (Greathouse et al., 1983) or colour (Gregory &
Ford, 1983: Ford & Gregory, 1983: Greathouse et al., 1983) of the lean
compared with controls. However, McKenzie (1983) considered that
bulls implanted with zeranol produced lighter coloured flesh while
Greathouse et al. (1983) reported that the texture of meat from implanted
bulls was significantly (P < 0"05) less fine than that of controls. Johnson
et al. (1984) also found that treatment of bulls with oestradiol-17fl
or progesterone+oestradiol-17/~-benzoate had no efl'ect on marbling
scores.

Veal cah'es
Grandadam et al. (1975) analysed the M. psoas major ot" veal calves for
total nitrogen and lipids and found that treatment with trenbolone
acetate + oestradiol-17B caused no significant changes. Verbeke et al.
(1975) found that, although a similar treatment had no significant effect
on ~/0 moisture, protein or ash content ol the defatted 3rd rib cut. it did
cause a reduction in 3~,;fat and an increase in 3',,collagen (P < 0-05, paired
values). None of these parameters was significantly affected by
testosterone + oestradiol-17fl.
Neither author found any significant alteration in meat coloration due
to this hormone treatment, although the former reported that thc meat
from half of the treated calves was judged as "white" (rather than pink or
red) compared with only 40 '},, from the controls. There was no significant
change in the water-holding capacity of the raw meat (Verbeke et al.,
1975).

206

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Salter

Heifers and cows

Two independent studies (Marchello et al., 1970; Price & Makarechian,

1982) reported that none of several treatments applied to heifers and cows
had any significant effect on the marbling score given to the meat.

Pigs
Various workers investigated the chemical composition of pork following
hormone treatment. Bidner et al. (1972a) reported that hams from
diethylstilboestrol + methyltestosterone-treated barrows and gilts collectively contained significantly (P < 0.01) more moisture and protein, and
less fat, than those from controls. However, the increase in ~ protein and
moisture was proportional and could be explained purely by the decrease
in fat. Both Bidner et al. (1972b) and Plimpton & Teague (1972) indicated
that there was no significant difference in 'Uomoisture and fat but Bidner
et al. (1972b) found a significant (P < 0-05) decrease in ~ protein in the
Iongissimus muscle for both barrows and gilts in one of two experiments;
the other showed a non-significant increase in ~o protein and they
concluded that there was no significant effect on the gross composition of
the muscle. The same authors also studied the proportions of red, white
and intermediate types of muscle fibres in treated and untreated pigs, and
investigated the fractionation of the muscle proteins into sarcoplasmic,
myofibrillar, non-protein and stroma nitrogen: no significant differences
were observed.
Plimpton & Teague (1972) noted that diethylstilboestrol implantation
in boars caused a non-significant increase in water content and no
significant change in ether extractable material, ~o protein or pH, at 24 h
post mortem, of the muscle of the 1 lth-13th rib section of the loin. The
amounts of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in the subcutaneous fat
of the 10th-13th rib section were also unaffected by such treatment.
Nitrogen and energy balance experiments were performed on castrate
male pigs (van Weerden & Grandadam, 1975). Implantation with
oestradiol-17fl + trenbolone acetate consistently gave significant increases
in nitrogen retention, which peaked at about 9-14 days after implantation
and decreased to control levels after 5-6 weeks. However, energy
retention was unaltered (at 13-17 days after treatment), indicating that
the increase in protein deposition was accompanied by a decrease in fat
deposition.
Bidner el al. (1972b) and Lucas et al. (1971) reported that treatment of

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

207

barrows and gilts with diethylstilboestrol + methyltestosterone did not

cause a significant change in the degree of marbling in the M . longissimus
dorsi and loin eye, respectively. Bidner et al. (1972b) also found no
significant differences in the scores for colour, firmness, wateriness and
~total quality' between treated and control meat. Plimpton & Teague
(1972) reported that diethylstilboestrol treatment of boars caused no
significant alteration in marbling, colour or firmness of the 1 lth-13th rib
chops. Similar results were obtained by Ockerman et al. (1981).
Sheep
The effects of hormone treatment on meat composition were reasonably
consistent. Sharp & Dyer (1971) implanted wether lambs with zeranoi and
reported a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in % ether extract and an
increase in % protein in the meat compared with controls, as determined
by specific gravity measurements. The 0/o water also increased (but not
significantly), and they proposed that the increase in protein content
occurred at the expense of fat. They reported that there was a significant
increase (P < 0.05) in nitrogen retention, but that energy retention fell due
to the decrease in fat deposition. The latter effect, however, was not
significant due to the high variation in carcass tat content. Muir et al.
(1983) reported that the oral administration of diethylstilboestrol to
wether lambs significantly increased the quantity of protein (P < 0"01)
and moisture (P < 0-05) in the carcass but only caused a small, nonsignificant, decrease in the carcass fat. Galbraith et al. (1980) used
combinations of trenbolone acetate+oestradiol-17B and trenboione
acetate + zeranol in wether lambs; all treatments increased the total water
and crude protein content of the carcass. The former combination, when
implanted in lambs weighing about 28 kg, gave the most significant (P <
0.01) alterations, while the use of both treatments in heavier lambs (40 kg)
resulted in smaller changes, which failed to reach significance for
trenbolone acetate + zeranol. However, the fat/protein ratio was reduced
significantly (P < 0-05) by all treatments. These results are in agreement
with those cited by Galbraith & Topps (1981) in their review in which
diethylstilboestrol, hexoestrol, zeranol and trenbolone acetate + oestradiol17/3 were reported to increase the levels of protein and water, and to reduce
fat in wether lambs.
Treatment with zeranol had no effect on the marbling, texture, firmness
or colour scores for meat from rams, wethers and ewes, according to

208

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

Wilson et al. (1972) and Wiggins et al. (1976): marbling scores were also
unaltered for cryptorchid lambs (Wilson et al.. 1972). Diethylstilboestrol
treatment, however, gave meat with increased marbling and firmness
scores and, whilst these effects were not significant, the combination of
diethylstilboestrol + zeranol gave a highly significant rise (P < 0.01) in the
score for firmness (Wiggins et al., 1976). In separate work, Purchas (1973)
noted that the pH of the M. longissimus dorsi was unaltered by treatment

with melengesteroi acetate.

Poultry
York & Mitchell (1969) compared cockerels treated with oestradiol-17flmonopalmitate with both untreated birds and capons, and studied the
composition of the individual muscles and organs, rather than that of the
whole carcass. They found that there was significantly (P < 0.05) greater
'~ fat in the M. pectoralis major and liver of treated birds than in the
controls, while fat in the composite thigh muscles was also increased,
although not significantly. For all three tissues the ~,~ moisture was
significantly ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) less in hormone-treated cockerels than in
controls. A comparison of cockerels treated with oestradioi-17flmonopalmitate and those surgically caponized showed no significant
differences in ';J~, fat for any of these tissues, while IV,; moisture was
significantly less for the hormone-treated birds in the breast muscle but
not in the thigh muscles or liver.

EATING QUALITY
While there are many reports on the effects of anabolic agents on carcass
quality, rather fewer data are awtilable concerning any effects on eating
quality.

Cattle
Of all the eating quality attributes, tenderness (or toughness) is probably
the one of greatest importance to the consumer. Toughness in meat
cannot only be assessed organoleptically but can also be determined
objectively by readily available instrumentation. Accordingly, most
studies on the use of anabolic agents in beef production, which included a

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

209

study of the eating quality characteristics, have reported data on

tenderness obtained by one or other of these methods, These reports have
been grouped together under a separate heading for convenience.
Tenderness
Borger et al. (1973a), N t u n d e et al. (1977) and Nute & Dransfield (1984)

found that treatment of steers with zeranol had no significant effect on

taste panel scores for tenderness. Ntunde et al. (1977) also determined
tenderness instrumentally using the Warner-Bratzler shear test, while
Nute & Dransfield (1984) used Volodkevich jaws on an Instron materials
testing machine; neither found a difference due to zeranol treatment.
The effect of hexoestroi implantation on steers has been investigated by
Preston et al. (1961), Bryce-Jones et al. (1964) and Hill (1966). No
significant differences were found in the Warner-Bratzler shear values
(Hill, 1966) nor in taste panel toughness scores (Preston et al., 1961). In
one of two experiments, Bryce-Jones et al. (1964) found that the
tenderness of the roasted meat was significantly (P < 0-01) higher for
treated steers, whilst, in the other, the effect was not significant. However,
the tenderness of the stewed meat was found to be non-significantly lower.
The posterior top round roast from diethylstilboestrol-treated steers
was judged significantly less tender (P < 0.05) by taste panelists while the
other cuts showed the same trend but did not differ significantly from
controls (Simone et al., 1958). Wierbicki et al. (1956) also found that
diethylstilboestrol treatment gave slightly tougher meat for bulls and
steers, and Forrest & Sather (1965) reported that treatment of steers with
diethylstilboestrol or progesterone + oestradiol-17/J-benzoate produced
significantly (P < 0.05) less tender meat than controls. In contrast, later
work showed no significant difference in taste panel scores for tenderness
attributable to treatment with progesterone + oestradiol-17,B-benzoate in
bulls or steers (Forrest, 1975). Williams et al. (1975a) reported that
diethylstilboestrol implantation in bulls had no effect on tenderness.
However, a later paper reported lower scores for palatability traits,
including tenderness, but the reductions were not significant (Williams et
al., 1975b). Galbraith & Topps (1981) concluded that diethylstilboestroi
may slightly reduce tenderness in both bulls and steers. Zeranoi treatment
of bulls caused no significant effect on tenderness, either when determined
as the Warner-Bratzler shear force or when judged by a sensory panel,
although there was some tendency towards increased shear force and
decreased tenderness score with treatment (Gregory et al., 1983).

210

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Salter

Greathouse et al. (1983) investigated the effect of repeated treatment of

bulls with zeranol on the Warner-Bratzler shear force, the taste panel
scores for myofibrillar tenderness and overall tenderness of M.
longissimus dorsi steaks. Although any changes were not always
statistically significant, tenderness scores were consistently improved and
taste panel evaluation of the a m o u n t of connective tissue in the meat
showed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction. Meat from bulls treated with
zeranol, oestradiol-1713 or progesterone + oestradiol-17/~-benzoate was
assessed for muscle fibre tenderness, connective tissue amount, overall
tenderness and shear force; no significant effects were observed (Johnson
et al., 1984).
Veal calves, implanted on two occasions with testosterone + oestradiol1713, showed significantly (P < 0-05) increased Warner-Bratzler shear
values for the M. longissimus dorsi; other treatments, including those
using trenbolone acetate + oestradiol-1713, gave non-significant effects in
the same direction (Verbeke et al., 1975).
Thus, there may be some tendency for oestrogen treatment of bulls and
steers to yield slightly tougher meat. However, the results are by no means
consistent; many studies showed no significant effect whilst others
indicated that tenderness was actually improved.
It is worth commenting, perhaps, that studies on the organoleptic
properties of meat involve the use of standard cooking techniques and
trained taste panelists; such methods will be more discriminating than is
the average consumer when judging meat as part of a meal (Dransfield,
1984).
Juichwss, flavour, colour and overall acceptability
Several authors (Borger et al., 1973a; Ntunde et al., 1977; Nute &
Dransfield, 1984) have reported that zeranol implantation has no
significant effect on the flavour or juiciness of the meat from treated steers
and that the overall acceptability is unchanged (Borger et al., 1973a;
Ntunde et al., 1977). Borger et al. (1973a) noted a correlation between the
taste panel scores for acceptability for the M. longissirnus dorsi and either
the final grade of the carcass or the % fat level, whilst Nute & Dransfield
(1984) recorded the lightness, hue angle and saturation, as well as
subjective scores for the colour and colour intensity of the cooked meat,
and found no significant differences.
Preston et al. (1961) reported that treatment of steers with hexoestrol
had no significant effect on the juiciness, flavour, palatability or the

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

211

occurrence of rancidity in the meat. On the other hand, Bryce-Jones et al.

(1964) reported that the flavour o f roasted meat from treated steers was
significantly (P < 0.05) better than controls in one experiment, whilst, in
another, the increase was not significant. There was no significant effect
on juiciness. For the stewed meat, however, the flavour of both the meat
and the liquor was significantly poorer (P < 0-05 and 0-01, respectively)
than for the control meat.
Simone et al. (1958) and Williams et al. (1975a,b) both recorded nonsignificant differences in flavour and juiciness for roast meat from
diethyistilboestrol-treated steers and bulls, although the treated meat was
scored slightly less in some cases. The method of diethylstilboestrol
administration (orally or by implantation) did not affect the juiciness,
flavour or tenderness (Simone et al., 1958). Some correlation was noted
between juiciness and moisture content (P < 0.05) but more between
juiciness and the ether extract o f the rib eye muscle (P < 0.01) (Simone et
aL, 1958). Forrest & Sather (1965) implanted steers with diethylstilboestrol or progesterone + oestradiol-17~-benzoate and found that
treatment tended to reduce the scores for juiciness and flavour of the lean
and fat--significantly so (P < 0.05) for some weight groups. The overall
desirability score for the treated meat was significantly (P < 0-05) lower
than for control meat in all cases. However, a later study involving the
administration of progesterone + oestradiol-17]~-benzoate to steers and
bulls did not alter the scores for juiciness, flavour of lean or fat, or the
overall score for the meat, although there was a sex x treatment
interaction which indicated that juiciness was reduced for steers, but
increased for bulls, as was the fat content of the M. longissimus dorsi
(Forrest, ! 975).
Scott (1978), in his review, reported that meat from steers treated with
trenboione acetate, zeranol or trenbolone acetate + hexoestrol showed no
consistent or important differences in eating quality.
The treatment of bulls with 36 mg zeranol at approximately 1 year of
age, and again 70 days later, had no significant effect on sensory panel
scores for flavour intensity, juiciness, a m o u n t of connective tissue or ease
of fragmentation (Gregory et al., 1983). Treatment with 2 x 36mg
zeranol at 1 year only gave similar results except for flavour, which scored
significantly less (P < 0-05) than for control or twice-implanted bulls. In
contrast, five successive zeranol implantations in bulls significantly (P <
0.05) increased the taste panel scores for flavour while those for juiciness
were not significantly altered (Greathouse et al., 1983). No differences in

212

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Salter

juiciness, off-flavour or overall palatability could be detected by taste

panels following implantation of bulls with zeranol, oestradioi-17fl or
progesterone + oestradiol-17fl-benzoate (Johnson et al., 1984).
Cooking losses

Conflicting results have been reported for cooking losses: Nute &
Dransfield (1984) reported that zeranol treatment had no effect on
cooking losses for meat from steers, while Borger et al. (1973a) recorded
significantly (P < 005) greater cooking losses for treated meat which he
suggested was due to the greater % moisture present. He also noted more
shrinkage of the treated meat during cooking. Bryce-Jones et al. (1964)
reported an increase in % drip loss during cooking which was just
significant at the P < 0 - 0 5 level in one of two experiments using
hexoestrol; there was no significant difference in the mean evaporation
loss during cooking. However, Forrest & Sather (1965) and Forrest
(1975) reported that the % drip from the meat during cooking was
reduced for steers treated with progesterone + oestradiol-17fl-benzoate or
diethylstilboestrol, but found no significant alterations in overall loss
during cooking or in cooking time.
Zeranoi treatment of bulls was found not to alter the cooking losses
from the meat (Greathouse et al., 1983; Johnson et al., 1984) while
Forrest (1975) reported an increase in 'o drip during cooking for bulls
treated with progesterone + oestradiol-17fl-benzoate. However, no alter/,, cooking loss was observed due to implantation with oestradiolation in ''/
17fl or progesterone + oestradiol-17fl-benzoate (Johnson et al., 1984).
Neither Grandadam et al. (1975) nor Verbeke et al. (1975) detected any
alteration in the //ocooking loss from pieces or slices of meat from veal
calves attributable to treatment with trenbolone acetate + oestradiol-17fl,
or (in the latter case) with testosterone + oestradiol-17fl. However, there
were some significant (P < 0.05) increases in cooking losses from minced
meat.

Pigs
Lucas el al. (1971) reported that, in four out of five of their experiments,
the use of diethylstilboestrol + methyitestosterone in the feed of barrows
and gilts significantly increased the incidence of boar odour and flavour of
the meat (P < 0.01 or 0.05 in different experiments). They postulated that
the boar odour and flavour were caused by the methyltestosterone and

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

213

that, although diethylstilboestrol has been shown to suppress boar odour

(Plimpton & Teague, 1972; Ockerman et al., 1981)~ the amount
administered in this case was inadequate to achieve this. However, in the
remaining experiment of this series, Lucas et al. (1971) found no response
to hormone supplementation when using barrows of an 'extremely lean,
meaty type': no significant changes in the incidence of undesirable odours
or flavours were noted. Plimpton & Teague (1972) also reported an
increase (P < 0.05) in boar odour of the meat from barrows and gilts
following similar treatment. However, in contrast to most of the results of
these authors, Bidner et al. (1972a) reported that taste panel overall
acceptability scores for loin roasts did not reflect any differences
attributable to hormone treatment.
The administration of diethylstilboestrol to boars, either by implantation or by addition to feed, has been shown to suppress significantly (P <
0-05) boar odour in the meat. Increasing doses of implanted
diethylstilboestrol (48-144mg) gave a linear decrease in boar odour
(Plimpton & Teague, 1972) and Ockerman et al. (1981) found that
implantation of 96 mg diethyistilboestrol resulted in heavyweight boars
with sensory characteristics intermediate between those of untreated
boars and barrows. Although mean androsterone levels were reduced
|Yom 1.38 to 0.82/tg/g by implantation, the change was not statistically
significant because of high inter-animal variation. Scores for tenderness
were not altered.
Sheep
Although wether lambs implanted with hexoestrol showed a highly
significant increase in liveweight gain, there were no significant differences
between the treated and control sheep with respect to taste panel scores
for juiciness, toughness, ftavour or palatability of the leg joints (Preston et
al., 1961). Some taints were recorded but these were not associated with
any one treatment. Purchas (1973) measured tenderness using a WarnerBratzler shear device on the cooked meat and found no significant
changes attributable to treatment with melengesterol acetate.
Poultry
Oestrogen treatment of chickens appears to have little or no effect on the
organoleptic qualities of the meat. Bassila et al. (1975) found no

214

R. L. S. Patterson, Linda J. Saltt'r

significant change due to treatment with oestradiol-17/~-monopaimitate or

dienoestrol diacetate in the taste panel scores for the flavour, odour or
texture of breast or thigh meat, or in the texture values obtained using a
Kramer shear press. York & Mitchell (1969) compared the scores for
tenderness, flavour, juiciness and overall preference for meat from
cockerels treated with oestradiol-17B-monopalmitate, control cockerels
and capons. Although no significant differences were found between any
of the three groups, the hormone-treated birds and the capons tended to
receive higher scores than controls for all these factors.
No significant change in ~ cooking loss was observed following the
injection of chickens with oestradiol-17/~-monopaimitate (York &
Mitchell, 1969; Bassila et al., 1975), or the oral administration of
dienoestrol diacetate (Bassila et al., 1975); ~ thawing loss and cooking
time were also found to be unaltered (York & Mitchell, 1969).
Implantation of turkeys with oestradiol-17l~-monopaimitate (Moran &
Etches, 1983) caused no significant change in ~ cooking loss.
DISCUSSION
The number of growth-promoting substances permitted at present by law
for general use in fattening farm animals is less than a decade ago; those
currently allowed by the EEC are based upon the naturally occurring
hormones and two xenobiotics (trenbolone acetate and zeranol),
although the EEC intends to impose a ban on these latter two in the near
future. Thyrostatics and the purely synthetic stilbene-based agents
(hexoestrol, diethylstilboestrol) are banned for this purpose in the EEC
countries.
Steers respond to both androgenic and oestrogenic substances, as they
are deficient in endogenous hormones. The level of lean in a carcass is
usually increased while the fat content decreases after application of
either a single or combination hormone treatment, although the changes
may not always be statistically significant. Changes in the chemical
composition of the musculature are reflected in decreased fat percentage
accompanied by increased ~ protein and, in most cases, ~ water. In
some cases, the ratio of water to protein is almost unchanged, indicating
that the increases may be attributed simply to the decrease in fat
percentage. Since normal muscle usually contains about 75 ~ water, any
treatment which reduces the proportions of fat in a sample joint will
appear to have increased the water content. No consistent changes for

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

215

collagen content have been noted. Zeranol treatment of steers has no

significant effect on the subjective marbling scores nor on the apparent
lean-fat ratio. No significant changes were noted in the colour of the fat
or lean, nor in the lightness, saturation or hue angle. Losses during
cooking, however, differed between experiments. Conflicting results have
also been noted for marbling fat scores and cooking drip loss following
treatment with other oestrogenic preparations. The eating quality
attributes (tenderness, juiciness, flavour, colour and overall acceptability)
of meat from zeranol-treated steers are not significantly altered.
Hexoestrol treatment seemed to improve tenderness but gave conflicting
results for flavour, depending on the cooking method. However, several
workers noted small, occasionally significant, reductions in tenderness
following treatment with diethylstilboestrol or progesterone + oestradiol17/~-benzoate; flavour was unaltered but the latter preparation gave
slightly less juicy meat than controls.
Bulls treated with oestrogenic compounds tend to deposit more fat and
also show some tendency towards higher levels of ether extractable fat
and lower levels of protein (and sometimes water) in meat joints, although
these latter effects are not statistically significant in many cases. There is
some evidence for changes in collagen levels and bone growth but the
direction of the latter is variable. Oestrogen treatment of bulls has not
been found to cause significant changes in marbling scores for the lean
although non-significant increases have been noted in some cases.
Zeranol, in particular, does not change marbling, texture, firmness or
colour of lean, or alter cooking losses. The palatability traits are largely
unaffected by any of the treatments. While tenderness may-be-slightly
reduced by diethylstilboestrol, bulls treated with zeranol showed some
tendency to give more tender meat with less connective tissue. One report
observed some evidence of increased juiciness in oestrogen-treated bulls,
possibly due to increased fat deposition. A significant increase in flavour
was recorded for meat from bulls after five successive implantations of
zeranol, but there was no concomitant change in juiciness scores.
Heifers and con,s tend to respond to preparations containing androgen
and show increased muscle development, usually without change in fat
deposition. Marbling scores, drip losses and other muscle quality
attributes remain unaffected by most treatments.
Treatment of veal calves with the combined preparation, trenbolone
acetate + oestradiol-17/~, shows a slight tendency to increase the proportion of lean meat and to reduce ~o fat in the 3rd rib. Muscle analysis

216

R. L. S. Patterson. Lin&t J. Salter

showed no alteration in /o protein, moisture or ash but % fat was reduced

and o/,ocollagen increased. Treatment with testosterone + oestradiol-17/3
has little effect on these parameters. Tenderness may be slightly decreased
by both hormone treatments. However, meat coloration, water-holding
capacity and cooking losses from pieces of meat were unaltered, although
cooking losses from minced meat were slightly increased.
Oral treatment of gilt and castrate (barrow) pigs with combined
androgen + oestrogen preparations (e.g. diethylstilboestrol + methyltestosterone) nearly always results in some reduction in backfat thickness
(often reaching statistical significance) accompanied by small, sometimes
significant, increases in muscle area and ~o lean cuts; the magnitude of
these effects is generally greater in castrates. Some workers have reported
proportional increases in protein and moisture which can be related to an
accompanying reduction in fat, whilst others have concluded that this
treatment has no significant effect on the gross composition of the muscle.
Scores for degree of marbling and for other raw meat quality attributes
are unaffected. In boars, diethylstilboestrol implantation tends to
increase backfat thickness, without change in fatty acid composition, and
without si~,nificant~alteration in longissimus muscle area, "/,,
o protein, ether
extractable fat, water content or pH at 24h post mortem. Whilst this
treatment of boars has been shown to suppress significantly the
development of boar odour in the meat. an increased incidence of boar
odour in gilts and barrows has been noted in several experiments in which
diethylstilboestrol was applied in combination with methyltestosterone:
this curious finding was explained by assuming that insufficient oestrogen
was present to suppress formation of the taint substance (5~androstenone) promoted by the administered androgen. Other researchers, however, have found no differences in taste panel scores for
meat from similarly treated animals.
Zeranol implantation of sheep had no significant effect upon the gross
carcass composition of rams, wethers or ewes. However, percentage
protein in the meat increased whilst ~o ether extractable matter
decreased: there was no effect on scores for raw meat quality. Oral
administration of diethylstilboestrol increased protein (and moisture) in
wether lambs, with only a small, non-significant, decrease in carcass tat,
whilst implantation of the same oestrogen, either alone or with zeranol,
significantly increased fat cover but had no significant effect on muscle
area or "/kidney
fat: whether fat deposition is increased or decreased as a
/ O
result of diethylstilboestrol treatment may depend upon the

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

217

calorie:protein ratio of the diet. Small, non-significant, increases in scores

for marbling and firmness were noted. Hexoestrol implantation gave
significant increases in liveweight gain. without detriment to taste panel
scores for flavour.juiciness, toughness or palatability. Ewes responded to
trenbolone acetate implantation by increasing significantly deposition of
lean tissue and carcass fat. A combination of trenbolone acetate with
either oestradiol-17/~ or zeranol resulted in increased total protein in
wether lambs, the greatest effect being obtained with early implantation:
the fat:protein ratio was reduced significantly by both treatments.
Treatment ofpottltry (cockerels) with oestrogenic compounds resulted
in increased deposition of fat and often significant changes in both the
absolute and relative weights of body components and organs. However,
no significant difference in )~ofat was observed between oestrogen-treated
cockerels and capons. Reduced values for percentage protein, moisture
and ash have also been recorded by some workers, but were probably
caused by the increased fat levels. Turkey toms similarly implanted
showed increased fat content and improved fleshing. Percentage thawing
loss and '!Jocooking loss appeared to be unaffected by treatment, as were
the organoleptic qualities: taste panel scores for flavour, odour and
texture of breast and leg meat were not significantly altered, although
meat from capons and hormone-treated cockerels tended to receive
higher scores.

CONCLUSION
Overall, it appears that the major effects arising from the use of anabolic
agents in meat production are manifest primarily in the well-known
improvements in growth performance--not discussed in this review, but
well documented elsewhere (Scott, 1978: Galbraith & Topps, 198 l)--with
lesser effects being apparent in the carcass composition. For example,
hormone treatment of castrate male and female animals tends to increase
the proportion of lean meat and to decrease that of fat, while entire males
show increased fat deposition. These changes may then be reflected in the
chemical composition of the muscle: for example, the higher percentages
of protein and moisture found in meat from treated steers. However, few
workers noted any consistently significant effects on the eating quality of
the cooked material as the changes often varied in direction between
experiments. Thus, it appears that the use of anabolic agents exerts only

218

R. L. S. Patwrson. Linda J. Salter

minor effects on the basic eating quality parameters of beef, pork, lamb
and poultry meats, as appreciated by the consumer.
REFERENCES
Akiba, Y., Jensen, L. S. & Lilburn, M. S. (1982). J. Nutr., 112, 189.
Akiba, Y., Takahashi, K., Kimura. M., Hirama, S.-[. & Matsumoto, T. (1983).
Br. Poult. Sci., 24, 71.
Bassila, M. K., Adams, R. L., Pratt, D. E. & Stadelman, W. J. (1975). Poult.
Sci., 54, 696.
Bidner, T.D., Merkel, R. A,, Miller, E.R., Ullrey, D.E. & Hoefer, J.A.
(1972a). J. Anita. Sci., 34, 397.
Bidner, T. D., Merkel, R. A. & Miller, E. R. (1972b). J. Anita. Sci., 35, 525.
Bogdonoff, P. D., Henson, J. N. & Thrasher. G, W. (1961). Poult. Sci., 40, 1637.
Borger, M. L., Wilson, L. L., Sink, J, D., Ziegler, J. H. & Davis, S. L. (1973a). J.
Anita. Sci., 36, 706.
Borger, M. L., Sink, J. D., Wilson, L. L., Ziegler, J. H. & Davis, S. L. (1973b). J.
Anita. Sci., 36, 712.
Bryce-Jones, K,, Harries, J. M. & Houston, T. W. (1964). J. Sci. Fd. Agric., 15,
62.
Cohen, R. D. H. & Cooper, J, A. (1983). Can. J, Anita. Sci., 63, 361.
Donovan, G. A. & Sherman, W. C. (1960). Poult. Sci., 39, 757.
Dransfield, E. (1984). Proc. 8th Assoc. Vet. Clin. Pharmacol. and Therapeutics,
56.
Ford. J. J. & Gregory, K. E. (1983). J. Anita. Sci., 57, 286.
Forrest, R. J. (1975). Can. J. Anita. Sci., 55, 287.
Forrest, R. J. & Sather, L. A. (1965). Can. J. Anita. Sci., 45, 173.
Fowler, V. R. (1975). Proc. ConJ~ "Anabolic Agents in Animal Production" (Lu,
F. C. & Rendel, J. (Eds)), Georg Thieme, Stuttgart, 109.
Galbraith, H. & Topps, J, H. (1981). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. Ser. B, 51,521.
Galbraith, H., Topps, J. H,, Coelho, J. F. S. & Yasin, A. R. M. (1980). Proc. 3rd
Eur. Assn Anita. Prod. Syrup. Prot, Metab. Nutr, (Oslage, H. J. & Rohr, K.
(Eds)), 509.
Garrigus, R. R., Martin, T. G., Stob, M. & Perks, D. R. (1969). J. Anita. Sci., 29,
75.
Gielen, M., Bienfait, J. M., Lambot, O., Van Eenaeme, C. & Istasse, L. (1982).
Annls. reed. vet., 126, 133.
Goodman, J. P., Slyter, A. L. & Embry, L. B. (1982). J. Anita. Sci., 54, 491.
Grandadam, J. A., Scheid, J. P., Jobard, A., Dreux, H. & Boisson, J. M. (1975).
J. Anita. Sci., 41,969.
Greathouse, J. R., Hunt, M. C., Dikeman. M. E., Corah, L. R., Kastner, C. L.
& Kropf, D. H. (1983). J. Anita. Sci., 57. 355.
Gregory, K. E. & Ford, J. J. (1983). J. Anita. Sci., 56, 771.
Gregory, K. E., Siedeman, S. C. & Ford, J. J. (1983). J. Anita. Sci., 56, 781.
Grilfiths, T. W. (1982). Anita. Prod., 34, 309.

Anabolic agents and meat quality: a review

219

Hill, F. (1966). J. agric. Fd. Chem., 14, 179.

Johnson, D.D., Savell, J.W., Smith, G.C., Gill, D.R., Williams, D.E.,
Walters, L. E. & Martin, J. J. (1984). J. Anim. Sci., 58, 920.
Jones, S. D. M. (1982). Can. J. Anim. Sci., 62, 295.
Lambot, O., Van Eenaeme, C., Gielen, M. & Bienfait, J. M. (1983). Rew~e
Agric., Brux., 36, 5.
Lawrie, R. A. (1960). Brit. J. Nutr., 14, 255.
Lucas, E. W., Wallace, H. D., Palmer, A,-Z. & Combs, G. E. (1971). J. Anim.
Sci., 33, 780.
Marchello. J. A., Ray, D. E, & Hale, W. H. (1970). J. Anim. Sci., 31, 690,
Martin, T. G. & Stob, M. (1978). J. Dairy Sci., 61, 132.
Mathison, G. W. & Stobbs, L. A. (1983). Can. J. Anim. Sci., 63, 75.
McKenzie, J. R. (1983). N.Z. vet. J., 31, 104.
Moran, Jr., E. T. & Etches, R. J. (1983). Poult. Sci., 62, 1010.
Muir, L. A., Wien, S., Duquette, P. F., Rickes, E. L. & Cordes, E. H. (1983). J.
Anita. Sci., 56, 1315.
Nesheim, M. C. (1975). Proc. ConJ~ 'A nabolic Agents in Animal Production" (Lu,
F. C. & Rendel, J. (Eds)), Georg Thieme, Stuttgart, 110.
Ntunde, B. N., Usborne, W. R. & Ashton, G. C. (1977). Can. J. Anita. Sci., 57,
449.
Nute, G. R. & Dransfield, E. (1984). J. Fd. Technol,, 19, 2l.
Ockerman, H. W., Plimpton, Jr., R. F. & Patterson, R. L. S. (1981). J. Food
Sci., 46, 1144.
Ogilvie, M. L., Faltin, E. C., Hauser, E. R., Bray, R, W. & Hoekstra, W. G.
(1960). J. Anita. Sei., 19, 991.
Plimpton. Jr,, R. F. & Teague, H. S. (1972). J. Anita. Sei., 35, 1166.
Preston, T.R., Greenhalgh, I., Boyne, A.A., Crichton, J.A., Rolfe, E.J..
Brown, A. & Dodsworth, T. L. (1961). Anim. Prod.. 3, 233.
Price, M. A. & Makarechian, M. (1982). Can. J. Anim. Sci., 62, 739.
Price, M. A., Makarechian, M., Tennessen, T. & Mathison, G. W. (1983). Can.
J. Anita. Sci., 63, 803.
Prior, R. L., Crouse, J. D., Harrison, V. I, & Baile, C. A. (1978). J. Anim. Sei.,
47, 1225,
Purchas, R. W. (1973). Aust. J. agric. Res., 24, 927.
Roche, J. F. (1980). Proc. Conj] "The Use, Residues and Toxicology of Growth
Promoters'. An Foras Taluntais, Dublin, 1,
Rumsey, T. S. (1982). J. Anita. Sei., 54, 1030.
Ryley, J. W., Moir, K. W., Pepper, P. M. & Burton, H. W. (1970). Br. Poult.
Sei., 11, 83.
Schanbacher, B, D., Prior, R. L. & Smith, S. B. (1983). Anim. Prod., 37, 73.
Scott, B. (1978). A D A S Quarterly Review ( M A F F ) . HMSO, London, 31, 185.
Sharp, G. D. & Dyer, !. A. (1971). J. Anita. Sei., 33, 865.
Simone, M., Clegg, M. T. & Carroll, F. (1958). J. Anita. Sci., 17, 834.
Storie-Pugh, P. (1984). Vet. Practice, 16(19), 4.
Sulieman, A. H., Galbraith, H. & Topps, J. H. (1983). Proc. Nutr. Soc.,
56A.

220

R. L. S. Patterson. Linda J. Salter

Utley, P. R , Murphy, C. N., Merchant, C. E. & McCormick, W. C. (1980). J.

Anim. Sci.. 50, 221.
van Weerden, E. J. & Grandadam. J. A. (1975). Proc. ConJ] ~Anabolic Agents in
Animal Production" (Lu, F. C. & Rendel, J. (Eds)), Georg Thieme, Stuttgart,
115.
Verbeke, R., Debackere. M., Hicquet, R., kauwers, H., Pottie, G., Stevens, J.,
Van Moer, D., Van Hoof, J. & Vermeersch, G. (1975). Proc. ConJ~
"Anabolic Agents in Animal Production" (ku, F.C. & Rendel, J. (Eds)),
Georg Thieme, Stuttgart, 123.
Wierbicki, E., Kunkle, k. E., Cahill. V. R. & Deatherage, F. E. (1956). Food
Technol., 10, 80.
Wiggins, J. P., Wilson, I,,, k., Rothenbacher, H. & Davis, S. L. (1976). J. Anim.
Sci., 43, 518.
Wiggins, J. P., Rothenbacher, H., Wilson, L. L., Martin, R. J., Wangsness, P. J.
& Ziegler, J. H. (1979). J. Anita. Sci., 49, 291.
Williams, D. B., Vetter, R. L., Burroughs, W. & Topel, D. G, (1975a). J. Anita,
Sci., 41, 1525.
Williams, D. B., Vetter. R. L., Burroughs, W. & Topel, D. G. (1975b). J. Anita,
Sci., 41, 1532.
Wilson, L. L., Varela-Alcvarez, H.. Rugh, M.C. & Borger, M. L. (1972). J,
Anita. Sci., 34, 336.
Wood, J. D. & Fisher, A. V. (1983). Proc. 34th Annual Meeting of the European
Association for Animal Production (EAAP), Commission opt Cattle
Pro~htction, Madrid, 500.
York, L. R. & Mitchell, J. D. (1969). Poult. Sci., 48, 1532.