| Literature DB >> 24961285 |
Pasquale De Palo1, Alessandra Tateo, Aristide Maggiolino, Pasquale Centoducati.
Abstract
The present work describes the effect of nutritive level on horse carcass traits and on meat quality. Eighteen male Italian Heavy Draught Horse (IHDH) breed foals were employed in the study. Soon after foaling they were randomly subdivided into three groups according to three nutritive level classes: 150%, 180% and 200% of maintenance requirements. Live weight, hot carcass weight and dressing percentage of each animal were recorded. After slaughtering, meat samples were collected from Longissimus dorsi muscle. The right half carcass of each animal was then divided into cuts. Each one was subdivided into lean, fat and bones. Live weight, carcass weight and dressing percentage were not affected by nutritive level (P>0.05). Horses fed with the lower nutritive level showed a higher incidence of lean and a lower incidence of fat (P<0.01). Moreover, fatty acid profile was not affected by nutritive level (P>0.05). Probably the tendency of IHDH foals to concentrate adipogenesis in the subcutaneous district could explain the lack of influence of nutritive level on meat quality parameters and its influence on carcass and cut composition, which tend to be richer in fat.Entities:
Keywords: fatty acid profile; horse; meat quality; nutritive level
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24961285 PMCID: PMC4140599 DOI: 10.1111/asj.12203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Sci J ISSN: 1344-3941 Impact factor: 1.749
Chemical composition (%DM) of diet fed to horses
| Item | Concentrate | Oat hay |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical composition | ||
| DM | 87.6 | 88.4 |
| Crude protein | 13.5 | 11.6 |
| Crude fibre | 10.8 | 33.4 |
| Ether extract | 3.2 | 2.9 |
| Ash | 7.0 | 11.1 |
| NDF | 27.9 | 54.5 |
| ADF | 13.2 | 40.9 |
| ADL | 2.5 | 7.2 |
| Horse FU (n/kg of DM) | 0.82 | 0.50 |
| DP (g/kg) | 104.2 | 21.5 |
ADF, acid detergent fibre; ADL, acid detergent lignin; DM, Dry matter; DP, digestible protein; FU, horse forage units calculated according to Martin-Rosset et al. (1994); NDF, neutral detergent fibre.
Live weight (LW), carcass weight (CW), dressing percentage (DP), carcass composition and first quality cuts incidence of foals fed with low nutritive level (150%), medium nutritive level (180%) and high nutritive level (200%)
| Nutritive level | Significance | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150% | 180% | 200% | |||
| LW (kg) | 448.13 | 456.45 | 473.15 | n.s. | 12.15 |
| CW (kg) | 330.60 | 329.42 | 345.41 | n.s. | 5.83 |
| DP (%) | 73.71 | 72.60 | 72.99 | n.s. | 0.65 |
| Carcass composition (%) | |||||
| Fore quarter | 37.63A | 35.43A | 39.73B | *** | 0.33 |
| Hind quarter | 62.70A | 65.07A | 60.60B | *** | 0.49 |
| Lean | 78.96A | 74.48B | 74.73B | *** | 0.84 |
| Fat | 11.82A | 15.95Ba | 15.52Bb | *** | 0.12 |
| Bone | 9.25A | 9.55 | 9.77B | ** | 0.10 |
| First quality incidence (%) | |||||
| 1st quality† on carcass | 59.26 | 60.57 | 59.65 | n.s. | 0.51 |
| 1st quality on fore quarter | 55.13A | 55.78A | 49.15B | *** | 0.55 |
| 1st quality on hind quarter | 72.86A | 73.52A | 75.52B | * | 0.64 |
Significance: ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, n.s., not significant. †1st quality cuts: Steaks I-VIII, Loin + Steaks IX-XVIII, fore leg and tenderloin. Different letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B: P < 0.01; a, b: P < 0.05).
Cuts incidence (%) and their tissue composition (%) of foals fed with low nutritive level (150%), medium nutritive level (180%) and high nutritive level (200%)
| Nutritive level | Significance | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150% | 180% | 200% | |||
| Hind leg | 17.42A | 15.32B | 22.67C | *** | 0.15 |
| Meat (%) | 76.73A | 71.27B | 71.47B | *** | 0.69 |
| Fat (%) | 7.57A | 9.77B | 14.35C | *** | 0.31 |
| Bone (%) | 16.05A | 19.47B | 14.52C | *** | 0.28 |
| Neck | 9.53Aa | 8.98b | 8.43Bc | ** | 0.17 |
| Meat (%) | 80.28Aa | 77.37Ab | 71.45B | *** | 0.90 |
| Fat (%) | 5.33A | 11.12B | 16.93C | *** | 0.35 |
| Bone (%) | 14.73A | 12.02B | 11.92B | *** | 0.48 |
| Briskets I-VIII | 5.70A | 6.42B | 5.58A | *** | 0.05 |
| Meat and bone (%) | 90.88A | 82.32B | 76.62C | *** | 0.61 |
| Fat (%) | 9.45A | 18.18B | 23.72C | *** | 0.57 |
| Briskets IX-XVIII | 7.20Aa | 6.85Ab | 5.53B | *** | 0.08 |
| Meat and bone (%) | 77.67A | 77.93A | 73.01B | *** | 0.66 |
| Fat (%) | 22.67A | 22.57A | 27.32B | *** | 0.30 |
| Steaks I-VIII | 5.00A | 4.75B | 3.08C | *** | 0.06 |
| Meat and bone (%) | 94.76A | 94.87A | 89.97B | ** | 0.90 |
| Fat (%) | 5.56A | 5.63A | 10.37B | *** | 0.38 |
| Loin + steaks IX-XVIII | 10.40A | 8.47B | 8.68B | *** | 0.13 |
| Meat and bone (%) | 98.17Aa | 94.47Ab | 88.63B | *** | 0.92 |
| Fat (%) | 2.16A | 6.03B | 11.70C | *** | 0.42 |
| Bacon | 9.21A | 9.60A | 7.02B | *** | 0.13 |
| Meat (%) | 56.63A | 49.73B | 64.67C | *** | 0.68 |
| Fat (%) | 43.80A | 50.77B | 35.67C | *** | 0.73 |
| Fore leg | 32.17A | 36.42B | 36.35B | *** | 0.35 |
| Meat (%) | 77.58 | 75.88 | 76.80 | n.s. | 0.62 |
| Fat (%) | 9.21A | 13.32B | 13.38B | *** | 0.21 |
| Bone (%) | 13.50A | 11.28B | 10.18C | *** | 0.20 |
| Tenderloin | 2.76A | 2.55B | 2.27C | *** | 0.04 |
| Meat (%) | 93.18A | 85.60B | 79.97C | *** | 1.03 |
| Fat (%) | 7.15A | 14.90B | 20.37C | *** | 0.66 |
Significance: ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, n.s., not significant. Different letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B, C: P < 0.01; a, b: P < 0.05).
Chemical composition and rheological properties of meat of foals fed with low nutritive level (150%), medium nutritive level (180%) and high nutritive level (200%)
| Nutritive level | Significance | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150% | 180% | 200% | |||
| Moisture (g/100 g) | 71.26a | 71.32a | 68.98b | * | 0.82 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 21.90 | 21.24 | 20.81 | n.s. | 0.48 |
| Fat (g/100 g) | 2.96 | 3.11 | 3.15 | n.s. | 0.38 |
| Ash (g/100 g) | 1.36A | 1.38A | 2.02B | *** | 0.08 |
| Water-holding capacity (%) | 18.05 | 19.49 | 18.80 | n.s. | 0.55 |
| Post-thawing losses (%) | 9.06 | 7.27 | 8.69 | n.s. | 0.78 |
| Cooking losses (%) | 36.33 | 37.92 | 37.78 | n.s. | 0.84 |
| Collagen solubility (%) | 18.52 | 21.46 | 20.41 | n.s. | 1.74 |
| WBSF on cooked meat (kg) | 4.78a | 5.31b | 5.38b | * | 0.18 |
Significance: ***P < 0.001, *P < 0.05, n.s., not significant. Different letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B: P < 0.01; a, b: P < 0.05). WBSF, Warner-Bratzler Shear Force.
Fatty acid profile (% of fatty acids methyl esters) from Longissimus dorsi muscle of foals fed with low nutritive level (150%), medium nutritive level (180%) and high nutritive level (200%)
| Nutritive level | Significance | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150% | 180% | 200% | |||
| C 12:0 | 1.61a | 1.28b | 1.45 | * | 0.18 |
| C 14:0 | 6.09 | 5.34 | 5.60 | n.s. | 0.21 |
| C 14:1 | 1.40 | 1.36 | 1.40 | n.s. | 0.12 |
| C 16:0 | 33.28 | 31.77 | 32.53 | n.s. | 1.08 |
| C 16:1 | 1.25 | 1.11 | 1.14 | n.s. | 0.09 |
| C 18:0 | 6.81 | 7.02 | 6.55 | n.s. | 0.21 |
| C 18:1 | 25.80 | 26.01 | 25.44 | n.s. | 1.22 |
| C 18:2 | 1.06 | 1.27 | 1.17 | n.s. | 0.09 |
| C 18:2 n6 | 17.71 | 18.82 | 18.04 | n.s. | 0.95 |
| C 18:3 n6 | 0.91 | 0.66A | 1.12B | ** | 0.09 |
| C 18:3 n3 | 4.48 | 4.50 | 4.31 | n.s. | 0.28 |
| C 20:4 n6 | 0.77 | 0.56 | 0.67 | n.s. | 0.11 |
| n-3/n-6 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.22 | n.s. | 0.03 |
| SFA | 47.75a | 45.36b | 46.12 | * | 1.43 |
| MUFA | 23.84 | 28.47 | 25.30 | n.s. | 1.01 |
| PUFA | 28.44 | 25.82 | 27.94 | n.s. | 1.56 |
| SFA/MUFA | 1.68 | 1.60 | 1.70 | n.s. | 0.14 |
| SFA/PUFA | 1.99a | 1.74b | 1.84 | * | 0.21 |
Significance: **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, n.s., not significant. MUFA, mono-unsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, poly-unsaturated fatty acids; SFA, saturated fatty acids.