Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T06:44:13.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass characteristics and meat quality of Nellore bulls submittedto different nutritional strategies during cow–calf and stocker phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2018

N. Andreo ,
A. M. Bridi ,
L. M. Peres ,
É. R. dos Santos ,
A. G. Barro ,
J. R. S. Gonçalves ,
H. C. Bonfá  and
A. V. Pires
N. Andreo*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
A. M. Bridi
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
L. M. Peres
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
É. R. dos Santos
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
A. G. Barro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
J. R. S. Gonçalves
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid (PR 445), Km 380, CEP 86057-350Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
H. C. Bonfá
Affiliation:
Colegiado Acadêmico de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Rodovia BR-407, lote 543, CEP 56300-000 Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil
A. V. Pires
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Avenida Pádua Dias, CEP 13418-900 Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
*
†E-mail: nayarandreo@hotmail.com
Get access

Abstract

There have been few studies realized that evaluate the effects of adopting different nutritional systems in more than one phase of cattle production on carcass and meat characteristics. This study was realized to evaluate carcass and meat characteristics from bulls submitted to different nutritional systems during two production phases. The experiment was conducted at Figueira’s farm during two production phases: I (cow–calf) – 80 calves (99.6±2.72 days of age and 109.7±2.99 kg of BW) with their mothers were randomly assigned into two supplemental diets: cow–calf mineral supplement (n=40) or cow–calf creep-feeding (n=40); II (stocker) – the same 80 calves (201.2±2.11 days of age and 190.2±3.37 kg of BW) were redistributed into two production systems: stocker pasture (n=40) or stocker feedlot (SF; n=40). After, all 80 animals were kept on a pasture system (III) for 290 days, and then finished in a feedlot system (IV) for more 33 days. Then, they were slaughtered at an average 764.2±3.06 days of age and at 499.2±3.33 kg of final BW. After slaughter, the average daily gain was calculated, and the carcass and meat characteristics were measured. The statistical model design used was completely randomized in a 2×2 factorial arrangement (two treatment groups on cow–calf phase and two treatment groups on stocker phase). The single effects between the groups in each phase and the interactions between both phases (cow–calf v. stocker) were analyzed. The results were compared by Fisher’s test, using the R statistical software. A cow–calf by stocker phases interaction occurred for carcass conformation and fiber diameter. For single effects, the greatest influences observed were in the stocker phase. The feedlot group was slaughtered 17 days earlier, with greater final BW (3.8%), hot carcass weight (5.7%), average daily gain (6.9%), dressing percentage (1.8%), carcass length (1.8%), carcass width (1.5%), longissimus muscle area (4.8%) and muscle depth (2.3%) than pasture group. The SF group also had influence on fat color; showing higher L* and lower b* values. These results reveal that bulls reared in feedlot at the stocker phase have higher muscle development and that the stocker phase has the greatest potential to influence carcass characteristics and meat quality.

Keywords

backgroundingconformation degreelongissimus thoracissucklingweaning
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 7 , July 2019 , pp. 1544 - 1551
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

American Meat Science Association 2015. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat, 2nd edition. AMSA, Champaign, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bonnet, M, Cassar-Malek, I, Chilliard, Y and Picard, B 2010. Ontogenesis of muscle and adipose tissues and their interactions in ruminants and other species. Animal 4, 1093–1109.Google Scholar
Brito, G, Julián, RS, Manna, A, Campo, M, Montossi, F, Banchero, G, Chalkling, D and Lima, JMS 2014. Growth , carcass traits and palatability: can the influence of the feeding regimes explain the variability found on those attributes in different Uruguayan genotypes? Meat Science 98, 533–538.Google Scholar
Brown, AH, Camfield, PK, Baublits, RT, Pohlman, FW, Johnson, ZB, Brown, CJ, Tabler, GT and Sandelin, BA 2006. Effects of size and rate of maturing on carcass composition of pasture- or feedlot-developed steers. Asian Australian Journal of Animal Science 19, 661–671.Google Scholar
Commission Internationale de L' eclairage 1978. Recommendations on uniform color spaces – color difference equations, psychometric color terms, 15th edition. Bureau Central de la CIE, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1993. Some factors affecting fat colour in beef. CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Comunidad Económica Europea 1981. Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas. Reglamento (CEE) n. 1208/81 Del Consejo de 28 de abril de 1981. Por el que se estabelece el modelo comunitario de clasificación de las canales de vacuno pesado, volume 21. CEE, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Del Campo, M, Brito, G, Lima, JMS, Martins, DV, Sañudo, C, Julián, RS, Hernández, P and Montossi, F 2008. Effects of feeding strategies including different proportion of pasture and concentrate, on carcass and meat quality traits in Uruguayan steers. Meat Science 80, 753–760.Google Scholar
Descalzo, AM, Rossetti, L, Sancho, AM, García, PT, Biolatto, A, Carduza, F and Grigioni, GM 2008. Antioxidant consumption and development of oxidation during ageing of buffalo meat produced in Argentina. Meat Science 79, 582–588.Google Scholar
Duckett, SK, Neel, JPS, Lewis, RM, Fontenot, JP and Clapham, WM 2013. Effects of forage species or concentrate finishing on animal performance, carcass and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1454–1467.Google Scholar
Dunne, PG, Monahan, FJ, Mara, FPO and Moloney, AP 2009. Colour of bovine subcutaneous adipose tissue: a review of contributory factors, associations with carcass and meat quality and its potential utility in authentication of dietary history. Meat Science 81, 28–45.Google Scholar
Esterhuizen, J, Groenewald, IB, Strydom, PE and Hugo, A 2008. The performance and meat quality of Bonsmara steers raised in a feedlot, on conventional pastures or on organic pastures. South African Journal of Animal Science 38, 303–314.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 2017. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. In Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (ed. WAO Database). Iowa State University and University of Missouri-Columbia, Ames, IA, USA. Retrieved on 25 July 2018 from http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/about.aspx.Google Scholar
Guerrero, A, Sañudo, C, Albertí, P, Ripoll, G, Campo, MM, Olleta, JL, Panea, B, Khliji, S and Santolaria, P 2013b. Effect of production system before the finishing period on carcass, meat and fat qualities of beef. Animal 7, 2063–2072.Google Scholar
Guerrero, A, Valero, MV, Campo, MM and Sañudo, C 2013a. Some factors that affect ruminant meat quality: from the farm to the fork. Review. Acta Scientiarum 35, 335–347.Google Scholar
Hamm, R 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Advances in Food Research 10, 355–463.Google Scholar
Hankins, OG and Howe, PE 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Hornick, JL, Van Eenaeme, C, Gérard, O, Dufrasne, I and Istasse, L 2000. Mechanisms of reduced and compensatory growth. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 19, 121–132.Google Scholar
Insani, EM, Eyherabide, A, Grigioni, G, Sancho, AM, Pensel, NA and Descalzo, AM. 2008. Oxidative stability and its relationship with natural antioxidants during refrigerated retail display of beef produced in Argentina. Meat Science 79, 444–452.Google Scholar
Instituto Agronômico do Paraná 2017. Médias Históricas-1976/2017. Retrieved on 14 April 2017 from http://www.iapar.br/arquivos/Image/monitoramento/Medias_Historicas/Londrina.htm.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, LD, Münger, A, Rérat, M, Junghans, P, Görs, S, Metges, CC and Dohme-Meier, F 2011. Energy expenditure of grazing cows and cows fed grass indoors as determined by the 13C bicarbonate dilution technique using an automatic blood sampling system. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1989–2000.Google Scholar
Koch, BM, Bowen, LE, Milopoulos, JT, Lagreca, GV and Duckett, SK 2016. Effects of post-weaning exposure to a high-concentrate diet vs. pasture on live performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of early harvested steers. In Proceedings of the 2016 Joint Annual Meeting, 19–23 July 2016, South Lake City, UT, USA, p. 418.Google Scholar
Köppen, W and Geiger, R 1928. Klimate der Erde. Verlag Justus Perthes, Gotha. (Wall-map 150 cm×200 cm).Google Scholar
Müller, L, Maxson, WE, Palmer, AZ and Carpenter, JW 1973. Evaluación de tecnicas para determinar la composición de la canal. In Proceedings of the Associación Latinoamericana de Producción Animal, Guadalajara, Mexico, p. 171.Google Scholar
Neel, JPS, Fontenot, JP, Clapham, WM, Duckett, SK, Felton, EED, Scaglia, G and Bryan, WB 2007. Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: I. Animal performance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2012–2018.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Dubesk, P and Hansont, CF 1993. Factors that alter the growth and development of ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3138–3150.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Gill, DR, Secrist, DS and Coleman, SW 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3152–3172.Google Scholar
Picard, B, Jurie, C, Duris, MP and Renand, G 2006. Consequences of selection for higher growth rate on muscle fibre development in cattle. Livestock Science 102, 107–120.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rashid, MM, Huque, KS, Sarker, NR and Bhuiyan, AKFH 2015. Effect of levels of concentrates on carcass characteristics, meat traits and by-products in crossbred brahman cattle. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 3, 542–549.Google Scholar
Realini, CE, Duckett, SK, Brito, GW, Rizza, MD and Mattos, D 2004. Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science 66, 567–577.Google Scholar
Rotta, PP, Prado, RM, Prado, IN, Valero, MV, Visentainer, JV and Silva, RR 2009. The effects of genetic groups, nutrition, finishing systems and gender of Brazilian cattle on carcass characteristics and beef composition and appearance: a review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 22, 1718–1734.Google Scholar
Suman, SP, Hunt, MC, Nair, MN and Rentfrow, G 2014. Improving beef color stability: practical strategies and underlying mechanisms. Meat Science 98, 490–504.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1996. Standards for grades of slaughter cattle and standards for grades of carcass beef. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Varela, A, Oliete, B, Moreno, T, Portela, C, Monserrat, L, Carballo, JA and Sánchez, L 2004. Effect of pasture finishing on the meat characteristics and intramuscular fatty acid profile of steers of the Rubia Gallega breed. Meat Science 67, 515–522.Google Scholar
Webb, EC and Erasmus, LJ 2013. The effect of production system and management practices on the quality of meat products from ruminant livestock. South African Journal of Animal Science 43, 413–423.Google Scholar
Wheeler, TL, Shackelford, SD and Koohmaraie, M 1996. Sampling, cooking, and coring effects on Warner-Bratzler shear force values in beef. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1553–1562.Google Scholar