Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Adrenaline

A discussion on the Europe forum got me to thinking...
Conventional wisdom has it that any game animal that has been run/wounded/harangued will have a dose of adrenilane in them, and the meat quality will suffer...
My experience has been about 50/50, and as usual, I question " conventional wisdom"
Does anyone know of any definitive studies concerning this, or what has your experience borne out??

Ingwe

Mule Deer, have mizwhitetail chime in on this if you can, she knows more about meat and meat handling than the rest of us put together, methinks...

I've seen two studies that confirmed it. One was done at A&M concerning venison. The other was concerning beef and was done by the meat sciences dept.

My experience makes me believe it's a two factors, adrenaline and excessive body heat.

Ive had excessive body heat ( i.e. not cooled quickly) result in tough-to-chew meat on an elk or two...

Ingwe

Interesting Tom !

My thoughts are, nothing definitive mind you, as long as your "wild harvested" game is dressed correctly, hung long enough in perfect conditions, butchered correctly, packaged & stored correctly, that you will not notice the shortening of muscle fibre associated with Adrenal influx !

Or perhaps, better said this way. The above processes are all designed to lessen the noticeable effects of adrenaline



Paul.

I really don't know about adrenaline spoiling or tainting meat. But I have no doubt what so ever that excessive body heat does.
I've lived, hunted and eaten venison in Kalifornia literally all of my life. It was a family joke that you cooked it fast and ate it quickly while still hot or it would be so tough, you wouldn't be able to chew it if you allowed it to cool off.
Many years later, I learned to not only fully dress out my kills but to skin them on the spot. This practice produced tender venison which I thought was not possible with our deer killed in warm temperatures.
Odviously, if the animal is not recovered and processed right away, the meat will be nothing like what it could be. Especially in 80 plus degree temperatures. E

The family used to always make drives so the deer always were run some distance. The big ugly ones were more often than not stinky and tough. They younger tender ones ate good. The biggest body buck I ever shot was run the better part of a mile and I could hear him coming through the woods for a quarter mile before he hit the field 250 yards out. Sounded like a damn jeep coming. He ate real good.

My preference is to have them walk out nice and quiet and drop them where they stand, but I have had old does that were tough as boot leather even then.

IME if it is properly cooled and cared for (ie, aging and removal of connective tissue, brined etc.), I have not been able to tell the difference between does and bucks or deer killed while running vs. standing still.

I have eaten the odd one that had a different taste but I think that may be attributed to diet (bow kills in soybean fields) Just a wild azz guess though..

My experience is with whitetails only though.

This mirrors my experience as well, though I'm sure you have more of it numbers-wise on your side.

George

Game animals that are killed during times they are stressed and run hard will have a build up of lactic acid within the muscles. The meat will not turn out as good as game animals that are cleanly killed when relaxed. This alone is a factor above and beyond post kill meat handling when it comes to making the most of your tablefare. This will also apply to any animal to include domestics killed and butchered for consumption.

Best:)

I'll take your word on it. Personally I haven't noticed any difference in the animals that I've shot running (the majority of those I've taken in NH due to "drive" hunting with my family) vs. those that weren't (mostly in Ohio).

The times I have noticed a problem is when they weren't dressed quickly/properly and hung. YMMV, etc.

George

ingwe;
Thanks for starting the thread. As an avowed eater of ungulates, I'm always interested in what affects the taste.

The two worst "runners" I ever was responsible for were definitely off what we expected local deer to taste like. I wouldn't say tougher exactly, but stronger flavored for sure.

That said, last fall I helped a friend find a mule buck that he'd lost the trail of the previous evening. We searched from daybreak and it must have been 10:00am by the time we found it. When I gutted it, the insides were cold, so it had been dead awhile.

We helped him cut it up at our place and it smelled fine and he said it tasted normal too, so there's one for the other side.

My father in law told of a time when they were slaughtering a fatted steer on the farm in Manitoba in the '30's. Apparently the first shot went badly wrong and it jumped the fence and headed for parts unknown.

They then wrangled the riding horse, grabbed the .303 Savage from where it lived behind the porch door and gave chase. As he told it, after a few more fences were crossed it was finally subdued with volley fire.

He said it was memorable in how bad it tasted, so perhaps it isn't adrenaline per se that taints the meat, but something else pumping through it after it is wounded?

Anyway, this all makes for interesting research, so thanks all who've responded.

Have a good weekend ingwe.

Regards,
Dwayne

The wording I used was not scientific in the process of the conversion of glycogen into lactic acid, but don't take my word for it, it is a phisiological fact. This is straight from the Food and Agriculture handbook on the handling, transport, and slaughter of livestock:

"The energy required for muscle activity in the live animal is obtained from sugars (glycogen) in the muscle. In the healthy and well-rested animal, the glycogen content of the muscle is high. After the animal has been slaughtered, the glycogen in the muscle is converted into lactic acid, and the muscle and carcass becomes firm (rigor mortis). This lactic acid is necessary to produce meat, which is tasteful and tender, of good keeping quality and good colour. If the animal is stressed before and during slaughter, the glycogen is used up, and the lactic acid level that develops in the meat after slaughter is reduced. This will have serious adverse effects on meat quality."

It makes a pretty big difference between having excellent meat or not. At times, driven animals are the norm and therefore you'll end up with factors going against you in the quality of meat. Just like bloodshot meat, you'll need to take steps to overcome these factors to make the best of what you've got. Regardless, you'll always have a leg up if you start out with a healthy and well rested animal that was not stressed and run hard prior to killing.

Best:)

I think there are more factors involved. I just don't know what all they might be. The first moose I shot was a 3 year old- never knew I was there (I saw him as he stood up out of his day bed, stalked and killed him while he was feeding), double lunged him, he ran about 60 yards and fell over. Sept 11- (official rut starts about the 25th) - he was promptly dressed (by lantern light), and otherwise well cared for. His meat tasted OK chewing and swallowing, but had a faint urine taste to it on exhaling immediately after. Same with a 3 year old bull shot years later by my wife on Sept 17- again, he never knew we were there, we waited until he finished drinking and turned away from the water before double-lunging him - went about 50 feet at a walk before tipping over. I've shot others, older, younger, same age in the similar time frame that were fine. I've a theory that some 3 year olds just coming into their sexual maturity let it get way out of hand- like a 14 year old boy might ...

A friend shot 2 similar (56-58 inch) bull moose during rut off the haul-road north of Fairbanks in consecutive years, within 2 days of each other, date-wise.I received meat from both. The first one had not been fighting, the second (taken 2 days earlier in the year than the previous one) was all beat up with puncture marks, infected wounds, etc. Keep in mind with moose, anyway, a herd bull lasts from hours to maybe 2 or 3 days, generally, before being defeated and run off by a fresher perhaps more aggressive (not necessarily bigger - tho that certainly helps) bull. Not even the dogs would eat the meat off that second bull, while the first was prime.

Partner shot a bull on September 11 that was in full rut, (swollen neck, pink tongue, nothing in his stomach- came aggressivly in to call). but he hadn't been fighting- and was better than the fork-horn I'd killed unaware 3 weeks earlier. Both had similar (excellent) field and home care, under similar temps, tho killed at different times of the day- the big bull early, the smaller one late. Don't think the temps were different enough to make much difference in meat quality.

I think the lactic acid thing is a big factor - so to is drinking cow urine during the rut. Kill a bull that's been in a wallow, and contaminate the meat during skinning (easy to do) and you'll have foul meat.

Why that first bull I killed was strong, i have no idea - tho later ones could have been up to something before i spotted them....

I don't doubt that lactic acid is present in the muscle tissue of an animal that has exerted itself; that is a physiological fact.

I believe the comparison between a domestic cow that is bred and fed to put on weight as quickly as possible vs. an animal who makes his living in the wild is questionable.

With domestic cattle, all stress (exercise) is to be avoided. Most animals in the wild are under physical stress on a daily basis.

Animals that are in poor physical condition and overweight will quickly build up high levels of lactic acid in their muscle tissue when stressed. This certrainly applies to domestic cattle.

The muscles of a wild animal that is lean and used to physical stress deal with lactic acid build up much more efficiently. That is a fact as well.

In essence, a much smaller animal (deer) that is in good physical condition will not generate as much and will deal more efficiently with lactic acid build up than a much larger animal (cow) that is unfit and overweight.

Because of this, I don't believe that the build up of lactic acid in wild animals has nearly the effect on meat quality that it does on domestic cattle.

JM

It is all chemistry.

I do not know enough of that.

I know, that we need to differentiate between "driving deer" and "chasing deer".

Driving means motivating the animal to move - it knows where the thread (dog) is at all times and acts accourdingly (as shown in the video).

Chasing means headless fight of scared animals, chased till they can run no more.

Driven deer proberly cleaned, quickly cooled and aged in the cooler are good eating.

Chased deer will be affected - even so proper handling will help even their meat along.

Interesting posts guys..I got to thinking about this because it is a widely held belief. Here in Montana Antelope are the most cussed and discussed.Out of the last three bucks Ive killed, the first two were literally kil;led in their beds, one-shotters, skinned and cooled within the hour...and I felt- hardly edible. The last one was shot somewhat poorly,( one lung) resulting in a 200 yard run-n-gun and two more shots. Not skinned immediately etc. The best antelope meat I have ever had...

Ingwe

Nothing tastes bad that is less than 60 lbs.....

Admit it JM. You are just jealous cause I get in more trigger time filling the freezer with dinks....

Ingwe

I'm taking the title this year.

He ate corn out of my hand yesterday....

You are doomed.

BASTID!


But helpful hint...keep feeding the corn...they taste even better when theyve been "grained".... both bites!

Ingwe