Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:19:05.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of group size and maize silage dietary levels on behaviour, health, carcass and meat quality of Mediterranean buffaloes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2015

F. Masucci ,
G. De Rosa ,
C. M. A. Barone ,
F. Napolitano ,
F. Grasso ,
P. Uzun  and
A. Di Francia
F. Masucci*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
G. De Rosa
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
C. M. A. Barone
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
F. Napolitano
Affiliation:
Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
F. Grasso
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
P. Uzun
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
A. Di Francia
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy
*
†E-mail: masucci@unina.it
Get access

Abstract

The effects of different dietary levels of maize silage (10% v. 36% DM) and group size (7 v. 14 animals) were assessed on growth performance and in vivo digestibility of 28 male fattening buffaloes. In addition, the effects of diet on meat quality and group size on behaviour and immune response were separately evaluated. Animals were weighed and assigned to three groups. The high silage – low size group (HL) was fed a total mixed ration (TMR) containing 36% DM of maize silage and consisted of seven animals (age 12.7±2.6 months; BW 382.2±67.7 kg at the start of the study). The low silage – low size group (LL) was fed a TMR containing 10% DM of maize silage and consisted of seven animals (age 13.0±2.7 months; BW 389.4±72.3 kg). The high silage – high size group (HH) was fed the 36% maize silage DM diet and consisted of 14 animals (age 13.9±3.25 months; BW 416.5±73.9 kg). Total space allowance (3.2 indoor+3.2 outdoor m2/animal) was kept constant in the three groups, as well as the ratio of animals to drinkers (seven animals per water bowl) and the manger space (70 cm per animal). Growth performance, carcass characteristics and digestibility were influenced neither by dietary treatment nor by group size, even if the group fed 36% maize silage diet showed a higher fibre digestibility. No effect of diet was found on meat quality. Group size did not affect the behavioural activities with the exception of drinking (1.04±0.35% v. 2.60±0.35%; P<0.01 for groups HL and HH, respectively) and vigilance (2.58±0.46% v. 1.20±0.46%; P<0.05 for groups HL and HH, respectively). Immune responses were not affected by group size.

Keywords

maize silagefattening buffaloesmeat qualityanimal welfare
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 2016 , pp. 531 - 538
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdelfattah, EM, Karousa, MM, Schutz, MM, Lay, DC, Marchant-Forde, JN and Eicher, SD 2015. Acute phase cytokines, TAC1, and Toll-like receptor4 mRNA expression and health associated with group size in veal calves. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 164, 118–126.Google Scholar
Abdelfattah, EM, Schutz, MM, Lay, DC, Marchant-Forde, JN and Eicher, SD 2013. Effect of group size on behavior, health, production, and welfare of veal calves. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5455–5465.Google Scholar
Allegrini, S, Mazzi, M, Roncoroni, C, Alfieri, L, Campagna, MC and Borghese, A 2010. Morphometric and haematological parameters in Italian Mediterranean Buffaloes finished with different diets. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6, 512–515.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1995. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2002. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Boakye, K and Mittal, GS 1996. Changes in colour of beef M. longissimus dorsi muscle during ageing. Meat Science 42, 347–354.Google Scholar
Bøe, KE and Færevik, G 2003. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghese, A 2005. Buffalo meat and meat industry. In Buffalo Production and Research (ed. A Borghese), pp. 197–217. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Borghese, A, Terzano, MG, Mazzi, M, Razzano, M, Sabia, E and Pacelli, C 2010. Fattening of buffalo young bulls with different diets. Revista Veterinaria 21, 511–516.Google Scholar
Broom, DM, Mendl, MT and Zanella, AJ 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61, 369–385.Google Scholar
Cifuni, GF, Contò, M, Amici, A and Failla, S 2014. Physical and nutritional properties of buffalo meat finished on hay or maize silage-based diets. Animal Science Journal 85, 405–412.Google Scholar
De Huidobro, FR, Miguel, E, Blázquez, B and Onega, E 2005. A comparison between two methods (Warner–Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Science 69, 527–536.Google Scholar
De Rosa, G, Grasso, F, Braghieri, A, Bilancione, A, Di Francia, A and Napolitano, F 2009. Behavior and milk production of buffalo cows as affected by housing system. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 907–912.Google Scholar
Di Luccia, A, Satriani, A, Barone, CMA, Colatruglio, P, Gigli, S, Occidente, M, Trivellone, E, Zullo, A and Matassino, D 2003. Effect of dietary energy content on the intramuscular fat depots and triglyceride composition of river buffalo meat. Meat Science 65, 1379–1389.Google Scholar
Estevez, I, Andersen, IL and Nævdal, E 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 185–204.Google Scholar
Færevik, G, Andersen, IL, Jensen, MB and Bøe, KE 2007. Increased group size reduces conflicts and strengthens the preference for familiar group mates after regrouping of weaned dairy calves (Bos taurus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasso, F, Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Quarantelli, T, Serpe, L and Bordi, A 1999. Effect of pen size on behavioral, endocrine, and immune responses of water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2039–2046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, JM, Oiseth, SK, Purslow, PP and Warner, RD 2014. A structural approach to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and tenderness. Meat science 98, 520–532.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Gordon, AW and Moss, BW 2013. Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages differing in inclusion level and maturity on the performance, meat quality and concentrate-sparing effect of beef cattle. Animal 7, 768–777.Google Scholar
Maltin, C, Balcerzak, D, Tilley, R and Delday, M 2003. Determinants of meat quality: tenderness. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 337–347.Google Scholar
Mendl, M and Held, S 2001. Living in groups: an evolutionary perspective. In Social behaviour in farm animals (ed. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou), pp. 7–36. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Pascual-Alonso, M, Guerrero, A, Alberti, P, Alierta, S, Sans, P, Gajan, JP, Villarroel, M, Dalmau, A, Velarde, A, Campo, MM, Galindo, F, Santolaria, MP, Sañudo, C and María, GA 2013. Influence of social dominance on production, welfare and the quality of meat from beef bulls. Meat Science 94, 432–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muir, PD, Deaker, JM and Bown, MD 1998. Effects of forage and grain-base feeding systems on beef quality: a review. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture Research 41, 623–635.Google Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Grasso, F, Pacelli, C and Bordi, A 2004. Influence of space allowance on the welfare of weaned buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves. Livestock Production Science 86, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, PD, Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Orr, RJ and Harvey, A 1993. The effects of group size on grazing time in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priolo, A, Micol, D and Agabriel, J 2001. Effects of grass feeding systems on ruminant meat colour and flavour. A review. Animal Research 50, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, HR 1973. On the advantages of flocking. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhee, MS, Wheeler, TL, Shackelford, SD and Koohmaraie, M 2004. Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science 82, 534–550.Google Scholar
Spanghero, M, Gracco, L, Valusso, R and Piasentier, E 2004. In vivo performance, slaughtering traits and meat quality of bovine (Italian Simmental) and buffalo (Italian Mediterranean) bulls. Livestock Production Science 91, 129–141.Google Scholar
Taylor, RG, Geesink, GH, Thompson, VF, Koohmaraie, M and Goll, DE 1995. Is Z-disk degradation responsible for postmortem tenderization? Journal of Animal Science 73, 1351–1367.Google Scholar
Tripaldi, C, De Rosa, G, Grasso, F, Terzano, GM and Napolitano, F 2004. Housing system and welfare of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) cows. Animal Science 78, 477–484.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Ewen, M, Rooke, JA and Edwards, SA 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66, 47–55.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J and Young, BA 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar