Meat quality of young Nellore bulls with low and high residual feed intake

Abstract

Fifty-nine Nellore bulls from low and high residual feed intake (RFI) levels were studied with the objective of evaluating meat quality traits. Animals were slaughtered when ultrasound-measured backfat thickness reached 4mm, and samples of Longissimus were collected. A mixed model including RFI as fixed effect and herd and diet as random effects was used, and least square means were compared by t-test. More efficient animals consumed 0.730 kg dry matter/day less than less efficient animals, with similar performance. No significant differences in carcass weight, prime meat cuts proportion, chemical composition, pH, sarcomere length, or color were observed between RFI groups. Shear force, myofibrillar fragmentation index and soluble collagen content were influenced by RFI, with a higher shear force and soluble collagen content and a lower fragmentation index in low RFI animals. Feedlot-finished low RFI young Nellore bulls more efficiently convert feed into meat, presenting carcasses within quality standards.

Animal Performance, Feeding Behaviour and Carcass Traits of Feedlot Cattle Diet Fed With Agro-Industrial By-Product as Fat Source

“…In addition, the values of 55.4 ± 0.22% for HCW/Final BW, 37.0 ± 0.27% for forequarter/HCW, 14.4 ± 0.14% for spare ribs/HCW and 48.6 ± 0.24% for hindquarter/HCW found in this work were close to those reported by Leme et al (2000) for non-castrated Nellore cattle, that found in same traits: 53.7, 40.6, 12.6 and 46.8%, respectively; and by Zorzi et al (2013), who evaluated the effect of residual feed intake in Nellore bulls of similar pedigree to those animals used in this study and found a proportion of forequarter, spare ribs and hindquarter, of 41.2, 12.8 and 46.0, respectively. In terms of cutability proportion, the overall mean was 51.8% cut yields in HCW, a value similar to the 50.5% reported by Larraín et al (2009).…”

Fatty acid profile, meat quality, and carcass traits of Nellore young bulls fed different sources of forage in high-concentrate diets with crude glycerin

“…Average WBSF values were lower (3.58 kgf) than those obtained by Zorzi et al (2013), who reported 4.25 kgf WBSF from Nellore bulls finished in the feedlot. According to Crouse et al (1993), meat from Bos indicus cattle has also been shown to be more variable in tenderness than meat from Bos taurus cattle.…”

Efecto del genotipo y alimentación final sobre cortes cárnicos comerciales y calidad de canal en novillos

“…Las diferencias en los pesos de cosecha de cada raza, se han asociado a diferentes grados de madurez y muscularidad (Santos et al, 2013). Se han reportado valores medios de 316,01, 323,01 y 271,18 kg en las razas Charolais, Limousine y Retinta, respectivamente (Santos et al, 2013), mientras que en animales Nelore, Zorzi et al (2013) reportaron valores de 259±9,1 y 255±6,1 kg en dietas de alto y bajo consumo, respectivamente, sin haber diferencias (P<0,05) entre ellas. Kirkland y Patterson (2006) reportaron diferencias en el peso de la canal caliente en novillos continentales cruzados al utilizar dietas a base de maíz de bajo y alto valor nutricional (310 y 325 kg) respectivamente.…”

“…La longitud de la canal fue mayor a la reportada en animales cebuinos (133,0, 120,5 y 141,0 cm, respectivamente) (Diniz et al, 2010;Zorzi et al, 2013;Correia et al, 2016), pero inferior a la descrita por Coleman et al (2016), en animales Hereford*Angus (219 cm). Similares resultados fueron obtenidos por Morris et al (1997), donde no observaron cambios en el pH entre sistemas de suplementación.…”

“…Estos factores están relacionados con la definición de la calidad de las canales. Una gran cantidad de trabajos han evaluado el efecto de estos factores sobre el crecimiento y la calidad de la canal en bovinos en etapa de finalización o engorde (Wheeler et al, 1990;Eilers et al, 1996;Realini et al, 2004;Monsón et al, 2005;Jiang et al, 2010;Zorzi et al, 2013;Pouzo et al, 2015;Lombardi et al, 2016). Sin embargo, en condiciones tropicales donde se utilizan sistemas de alimentación a base de forrajes, las variables de respuesta asociadas a las características de crecimiento y calidad de carne, pueden verse influenciadas y generar variabilidad.…”