Physicochemical characteristics of lamb meat fed with cottonseed associated with calcium lignosulphonate

Abstract

The physicochemical characteristics of the meat from lambs fed diets containing whole or disintegrated cottonseed, associated or not with calcium lignosulfonate (LignoCaSO3), were evaluated. Thirty non-castrated Dorper x Santa Inês lambs, with an average of 24.9 ± 3.6 kg and four months of age were confined for 60 days in collective stalls and distributed in a completely randomized design with six replications. After slaughter, by means of contrasts, the averages of the parameters of the semimembranous and semitendinosus muscles were analyzed. The cottonseed increased cooking loss and ash, and reduced muscle weight, water holding capacity and red intensity. The disintegration of the cottonseed reduced the shear force in diets without LignoCaSO3, increased the protein and the loss by cooking and reduced the pH in the diets with the additive. The luminosity values increased with the disintegration of the cottonseed in diets with and without LignoCaSO3. The addition of LignoCaSO3 increased the weight of the muscle, protein, ash, pH, shear strength and the intensity of red. Moisture, lipids and yellow intensity were not influenced by the diets. Even changing the physical-chemical characteristics, the cottonseed with or without LignoCaSO3 does not change the quality of the meat

Chemical composition of meat from different species of animals

“…The reason for this could be interpreted as the proportionally higher fat content in the meat composition of Korean Hanwoo cattle. The moisture content in lamb meat was similar (Junkuszew et al, 2020;Khal-Azzawi and Albashr, 2022;Lima et al, 2022), lower (Mioč et al, 2007;Meng et al, 2023;Radzik-Rant et al, 2023) or higher than (Romero-Bernal et al, 2017;Liang et al, 2023) other reported researches. The moisture content reported for chicken meat was similar (Silva Frasao et al, 2021;Xu et al, 2021) to the rates found in the study.…”

“…The protein values found for cattle in the study were similar to some of the values found in the researches (Hamed Hammad Mohammed et al, 2020;Pouzo et al, 2023;Santana et al, 2023), higher than some (Salim et al, 2023) and lower than some (Oliveira et al, 2021;Ngom et al, 2022). While the values reported for sheep were in agreement with (Costa et al, 2009;Romero-Bernal et al, 2017;Radzik-rant et al, 2023) or higher than literature reports and findings (Mioč et al, 2007;Lima et al, 2022;Latoch et al, 2023;Lunesu et al, 2023;Uushona et al, 2023). The rates found for chicken meat were higher than the reported values Xu et al, 2021;Sugiharto et al, 2022;Weng et al, 2022;Fathi et al, 2023).…”

“…The ash ratio in the lamb meat composition is higher than the values reported in the previous studies (Lima et al, 2022;Mercan et al, 2022;Liang et al, 2023). For the beef meat composition values although Santana et al (2023) founded higher ash values; some of researchers found similar values (Oliveira et al, 2021;Bostami et al, 2023).…”

“…The amount of water in the meat is an important factor affecting the profitability in terms of weight loss during the waiting processes of the meat (resting, packaging, freezing, transportation). At the same time, meat that does not lose its water depending on the cooking methods and is able to keep its content is evaluated quality meat category (Belichovska et al, 2017;Lima et al, 2022).…”

“…Carcass score is also one of the parameters to be taken into account as it affects fatness (Rubayet Bostami et al, 2018). The fat values presented in the literature reports were similar (Romero-Bernal et al, 2017), lower (Mioč et al, 2007), or higher (Junkuszew et al, 2020;Lima et al, 2022;Latoch et al, 2023) for lambs; higher for beef (Rubayet Bostami et al, 2018;Hamed Hammad Mohammed et al, 2020;Ngom et al, 2022;Santana et al, 2023); higher Xu et al, 2021) and similar (Weng et al, 2022;Fathi et al, 2023) for chicken; similar (Cardinali et al, 2015;Dalle Zotte et al, 2018;Kumar et al, 2023) and higher (Haque et al, 2016;Frunză et al, 2023;Neagu et al, 2023;Nutautaitė et al, 2023) for rabbit meat.…”