Reactivity, performance, color and tenderness of meat from Zebu cattle finished in feedlot

Abstract

-The objective of this study was to study the animal reactivity and correlate it with performance and meat quality of cattle finished in feedlots. A total of 20 animals of the Tabapuã breed and 20 animals of the Nellore breed were confined for 112 days: 28 days of adaptation and 84 days of data collection. Performance was determined by the average daily weight gain (ADG) and average dry matter intake (DMI) estimated through the use of indicators. On the 1 st , 42 nd and 84 th days of the experiment, two methods were used to measure the animal reactivity: animal reactivity in mobile cage and visual reactivity during handling. The characteristics of meat quality were evaluated by the color, shear force and pH24 after slaughter (pH24). Through the study of correlation, the degree and direction of linear association on animal reactivity, performance and meat quality were established. Regression equations were generated for the parameters evaluated according to the values of animal reactivity. Correlations between mobile cage and visual reactivity were 0.77, 0.56 and 0.45 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd evaluations, respectively. There was no correlation between animal reactivity and DMI. The correlations between ADG, pH24, and color with animal reactivity were -0.31, 0.40, 0.47 and -0.34, and -0.33 for mobile cage, 0.74, 0.71 and -0.51, for visual reactivity, respectively. The parameters of meat quality varied according to the reactivity. Undesirable values of pH24, animal reactivity and color were found when mobile cage reactivity was higher than 780, 590 and 540, respectively. In general, animals that show greater reactivity tend to have lower daily weight gain and lower meat quality. The reactivity can be used in animal breeding programs, in order to improve performance and meat quality of Zebu cattle finished in feedlot.

Características bovinas y eventos aversivos durante el faenado en un Centro de Beneficio convencional

“…La correlación inversa entre LP y CC podría explicarse por el bajo estado nutricional, en la que se resalta la composición ósea de animal (por ejemplo en la pelvis), incrementando la posibilidad de lesión al contacto con cualquier superficie y a la vez reduciendo la capacidad de cicatrización de heridas. Aunque no hubo correlación entre EEA y pH24h, Ribeiro y col. [31] afirman que, a mayor reactividad del animal, mayor es el nivel de pH final. El temperamento animal está determinado por factores genéticos y ambientales, y la reactividad estaría relacionada a la eficiencia durante la alimentación y el manejo, y se refleja en el rendimiento y calidad cárnica [3,17].…”

Influence of temperament on performance and carcass quality of commercial Brahman steers in a Colombian tropical grazing system

“…In Australia, daily gain in nervous Brahman steers is lower than in docile steers, while cattle adapted to tropical conditions lose less weight during long distance transport and regain weight more rapidly afterwards (Burrow & Dillon, 1997). In Brazil, Zebu cattle with greater reactivity to handling tended to present lower ADG and meat with higher pH and lower tenderness (Ribeiro et al, 2012).…”

Pre-slaughter cattle welfare indicators for use in commercial abattoirs with voluntary monitoring systems: A systematic review

“…Overall, stressors appear to be additive and multiple stressors in the pre-slaughter period will result in a higher ultimate muscle pH than a single stressor alone (del Campo et al, 2010). Other studies have found that differences in ultimate pH are due to feeding system, temperament and breed (Lensink et al, 2000;Lensink et al, 2001;Amtmann, Gallo, van Schaik, & Tadich, 2006;Mounier et al, 2006;Ribeiro et al, 2012;Pighin et al, 2013;Mpakama et al, 2014), commercial category (Mach, Bach, Velarde, & Devant, 2008;Romero et al, 2013), and bruises (McNally & Warriss, 1996;Strappini, Frankena, Metz, Gallo, & Kemp, 2010;Vimiso & Muchenje, 2013). Hence, ultimate pH is a valid indicator to measure meat quality, being both reliable and commercially viable, to such the extent that many abattoirs systematically measure meat pH (María, 2008).…”

“…María et al (2003) mention that no single factor is responsible for meat discoloration, which is probably due to a combination of factors associated with post-mortem changes. Other factors that have been related to an increase in both the color and the water holding capacity of the meat are the position of the animal inside the livestock vehicle (front vs back) (Van de Water et al, 2003), lairage time (Gallo et al, 2001;del Campo et al, 2010;Teke et al, 2014), stunning method (Onenc & Kaya, 2004;Kim et al, 2013), temperament of the animals (Voisinet, Grandin, O'Connor, Tatum, & Deesing, 1997;Lensink et al, 2000;Lensink et al, 2001;King et al, 2006;del Campo et al, 2010;Ribeiro et al, 2012;Miranda-de la Lama et al, 2013;Pighin et al, 2013;Mpakama et al, 2014;Peña et al, 2014;Francisco et al, 2015), and the carcass suspension method (Kamatara et al, 2014;Hou et al, 2014). Measurement of water holding capacity in abattoirs is limited; however, meat color could be evaluated using a color standards.…”