Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:09:30.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth performance, carcass trait, meat quality and oxidative stability of beef cattle offered alternative silages in a finishing ration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2017

L. He ,
J. Yang ,
W. Chen ,
Z. Zhou ,
H. Wu  and
Q. Meng
L. He
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China Guangdong Key Laboratory for Innovative Development and Utilization of Forest Plant Germplasm, College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China Guangdong Province Research Center of Woody Forage Engineering Technology, Guangzhou 510642, China
J. Yang
Affiliation:
National Animal Husbandry Station, Beijing 100125, China
W. Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
Z. Zhou
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
H. Wu*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
Q. Meng*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
*
†E-mail: wh-allan@163.com
†E-mail: wh-allan@163.com
Get access

Abstract

As lack of forage resource, alternative roughage sources have been developed for ruminant production and their inclusion would exert a great effect on the dietary nutrition, consequently affecting animal performance. Four silages (corn silage (CS), corn stalk silage (SS), inoculated CS and inoculated SS) were separately offered to 60 Bohai Black cattle (15 cattle/group) during a 24-week finishing period, in which the growth performance, carcass trait, beef quality and oxidative stability of steers were determined. Neither silage material nor silage inoculant exerted a significant effect on the growth performance, carcass trait and oxidative stability of beef cattle (P>0.05). As to beef quality, cattle offered CS had higher (P<0.05) contents of intramuscular fat than those offered SS along with a lower moisture content (P<0.05). The contents (mg/g muscle) of C10 : 0, C12 : 0, C14 : 1, C16 : 0, C16 : 1, C18 : 1n9c, C18 : 2n6c, C18 : 3n3, C20 : 1n9, C20 : 2, C20 : 3n6, saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids and n-6 fatty acids were higher (P<0.05) in the beef muscle of animals offered CS than those offered SS, whereas inoculated treatment made no difference (P>0.05) on the proximate components and fatty acids profile of beef muscle. There was neither an interaction (P>0.05) between inoculated treatment and silage material. There were no differences (P>0.05) in cholesterol content and meat quality traits in animals fed alternative silages. The collective findings suggest that it is not economical to substitute high-quality forage for relative low-quality forage in a high-concentrate finishing ration of beef cattle and silage inoculant inclusion would not exert a direct effect on animal performance.

Keywords

animal performancesilage inoculantmeat qualityroughage sourceoxidative stability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 657 - 666
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Adesogan, AT 2009. Challenges of tropical silage production. In Proceedings of 15th International Silage Conference, Madison, WI, USA (ed. GA Broderick, AT Adesogan, LW Bocher, KK Bolsen, FE Contreras-Govea, JH Harrison and RE Muck), pp. 139–154. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th ed. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Barton, L, Bures, D and Kudrna, V 2010. Meat quality and fatty acid profile of the musculus longissimus lumborum in Czech Fleckvieh, Charolais and Charolais × Czech Fleckvieh bulls fed different types of silages. Czech Journal of Animal Science 55, 479–487.Google Scholar
Bartoň, L, Marounek, M, Kudrna, V, Bureš, D and Zahradkova, R 2007. Growth performance and fatty acid profiles of intramuscular and subcutaneous fat from Limousin and Charolais heifers fed extruded linseed. Meat Science 76, 517–523.Google Scholar
Bayatkouhsar, J, Tahmasebi, AM and Naserian, AA 2011. The effects of microbial inoculation of corn silage on performance of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Science 142, 170–174.Google Scholar
Beever, DE and Thorp, C 1996. Advances in the understanding of factors influencing the nutritive value of legumes. In Legumes in sustainable farming systems (ed. DE Younie), pp. 194–207. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Benton, JR, Watson, AK, Erickson, GE, Klopfenstein, TJ, Pol, KJV, Meyer, NF and Greenquist, MA 2015. Effects of roughage source and inclusion in beef finishing diets containing corn wet distillers’ grains plus solubles. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4358–4367.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA and Kang, JH 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 64–75.Google Scholar
Chinese Communist Party Central Committee 2015. The Central Document No.1 of China. Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Contreras-Govea, FE, Muck, RE, Mertens, DR and Weimer, PJ 2011. Microbial inoculant effects on silage and in vitro ruminal fermentation, and microbial biomass estimation for alfalfa, bmr corn, and corn silages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 163, 2–10.Google Scholar
Dawson, L 2012. The effect of inclusion of lupins/triticale whole crop silage in the diet of winter finishing beef cattle on their performance and meat quality at two levels of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 75–84.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, RJ, Delaby, L, Moloney, A, Boland, T and Lewis, E 2009. Nutritive value of forage legumes used for grazing and silage. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 48, 167–187.Google Scholar
Erwin, ES, Marco, GJ and Emery, EM 1961. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science 44, 1768–1771.Google Scholar
Faulkner, DB, Hummel, DF, Buskirk, DD, Berger, LL, Parrett, DF and Cmarik, GF 1994. Performance and nutrient metabolism by nursing calves supplemented with limited or unlimited corn or soyhulls. Journal of Animal Science 72, 470–477.Google Scholar
French, PC, Stanton, C, Lawless, F, O’Riordan, G, Monahan, FJ, Caffrey, PJ and Moloney, AP 2000. Fatty acid composition, including conjugated linoleic acid, of intramuscular fat from steers offered grazed grass, grass silage or concentrate based diets. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2849–2855.Google Scholar
Garcés Yépez, P, Kunkle, WE, Bates, DB, Moore, JE, Thatcher, WW and Sollenberger, LE 1997. Effects of supplemental energy source and amount on forage intake and performance by steers and intake and diet digestibility by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1918–1925.Google Scholar
GB/T 2008. Meat and meat products – determination of cholesterol. National Standardization Management Committee, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Hu, FB, Manson, JE and Willett, WC 2001. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a critical review. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 20, 5–19.Google Scholar
Jain, SK 1984. The accumulation of malonyldialdehyde, a product of fatty acid peroxidation, can disturb aminophospholipid organization in the membrane bilayer of human erythrocytes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 259, 3391–3394.Google Scholar
Juniper, DT, Browne, EM, Fisher, AV, Bryant, MJ, Nute, GR and Beever, DE 2005. Intake, growth and meat quality of steers given diets based on varying proportions of maize silage and grass silage. Animal Science 81, 159–170.Google Scholar
Keady, T, 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
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ and Moss, BW 2007. Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole-crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrates. Animal 1, 613–623.Google Scholar
Khuntia, A and Chaudhary, LC 2002. Performance of male crossbred calves as influenced by substitution of grain by wheat bran and the addition of lactic acid bacteria to diet. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences 15, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, RM and Patterson, DC 2006. The effect of quality of grass and maize silage on the intake and performance of beef cattle. Livestock Science 100, 179–188.Google Scholar
Kochhar, SP and Henry, CJK 2009. Oxidative stability and shelf-life evaluation of selected culinary oils. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 60, 289–296.Google Scholar
Lee, M, Evans, P R, Nute, G R, Richardson, R I and Scollan, N D 2009. A comparison between red clover silage and grass silage feeding on fatty acid composition, meat stability and sensory quality of the M. Longissimus muscle of dairy cull cows. Meat Science 81, 738–744.Google Scholar
Limin, K, Stokes, MR and Lin, CJ 2003. Silage additives. In Silage science and technology, Agronomy Publication No. 42 (ed. DR Buxton, RE Muck and JH Harrison), pp. 305–360. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Millen, DD, Pacheco, RDL, Arrigoni, MDB, Galyean, ML and Vasconcelos, JT 2009. A snapshot of management practices and nutritional recommendations used by feedlot nutritionists in Brazil. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3427–3439.Google Scholar
Miller, GJ, Masor, ML and Riley, ML 1981. Intramuscular lipids and triglyceride structures in range and feedlot steers. Journal of Food Science 46, 1333–1335.Google Scholar
Moloney, AP, Mooney, MT, Kerry, JP, Stanton, C and O’Kiely, P 2013. Colour of fat, and colour, fatty acid composition and sensory characteristics of muscle from heifers offered alternative forages to grass silage in a finishing ration. Meat Science 95, 608–615.Google Scholar
National Bureau of Statistics of China 2016. National data. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://data.stats.gov.cn.Google Scholar
Nkosi, BD, Meeske, R, Palic, D, Langa, T, Leeuw, KJ and Groenewald, IB 2009. Effects of ensiling whole crop maize with bacterial inoculants on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and growth performance of lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 154, 193–203.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
NY/T (Nongyebu hangyebiaozhun/Tuijian) 815 2004. Feeding standard of beef cattle. Department of Agriculture, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
O’Fallon, JV, Busboom, JR, Nelson, ML and Gaskins, CT 2007. A direct method for fatty acid methyl ester synthesis: application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1511–1521.Google Scholar
O’Kiely, P and Moloney, AP 2002. Nutritive value of whole crop wheat and grass silage for beef cattle when offered alone or in mixtures. Proceedings of Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association 76, 99–100.Google Scholar
O’Mara, FP, Fitzgerald, JJ, Murphy, JJ and Rath, M 1998. The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 79–87.Google Scholar
Pesonen, M, Joki-Tokola, E and Huuskonen, A 2014. The effect of silage plant species, concentrate proportion and sugar beet pulp supplementation on the performance of growing and finishing crossbred bulls. Animal Production Science 54, 1703–1714.Google Scholar
Rondahl, T, Bertilsson, J and Martinsson, K 2007. Mixing whole-crop pea–oat silage and grass–clover silage: positive effects on intake and milk production of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 62, 459–469.Google Scholar
Rule, DC, MacNeil, MD and Short, RE 1997. Influence of sire growth potential, time on feed, and growing-finishing strategy on cholesterol and fatty acids of the ground carcass and longissimus muscle of beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1525–1533.Google Scholar
Russell, JR, Sexten, WJ and Kerley, MS 2016. Effect of corn inclusion on soybean hull-based diet digestibility and growth performance in continuous culture fermenters and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2919–2926.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Shelton, ID and Thomas, VJ 1989. Particle breakdown and rumen digestion of fresh ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) fed to cows during a restricted feeding period. British Journal of Nutrition 61, 409–423.Google Scholar
Walsh, K, O’Kiely, P, Moloney, AP and Boland, TM 2008. Intake, performance and carcass characteristics of beef cattle offered diets based on whole-crop wheat or forage maize relative to grass silage or ad libitum concentrates. Livestock Science 116, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, ZG, Muck, RE and Weimer, PJ 2003. The survival of silage inoculant lactic acid bacteria in rumen fluid. Journal of Applied Microbiology 94, 1066–1071.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM, Bolsen, KK and Lin, CJ 2003. History of silage. In Silage science and technology (ed. DR Buxton, RE Muck and JH Harrison), pp. 1–30. Agronomy Publication, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
World Health Organization 2003. Joint WHO/FAO expert report on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: executive summary. Food & Nutrition Bulletin 3, 285–286.Google Scholar