| Literature DB >> 25049633 |
Xiangxue Xie, Qingxiang Meng, Zhenliang Cui, Liping Ren.
Abstract
The objective was to compare meat quality, muscle fiber characteristics, lipid oxidation and fatty acids of Limousin (LIM), Simmtental (SIM), Luxi (LX), Qinchuan (QC) and Jinnan (JN) offered the same diet in China. After finishing, eight bulls from each breed were randomly selected for slaughter at 18.5 months old. Longissimus dorsi (ld) muscle was taken from the carcass for meat quality evaluations. Breed had little effect on most of meat and fat color parameters except for Hue and b* in which QC had lower values. LIM showed higher pH (24 h) and better water holding capacity than other breeds. LIM showed the lowest dry matter content but the highest crude protein. LX and LIM had higher percentage and density of red muscle fiber than other breeds. Lipid oxidations were significantly lower in LIM than in QC, with the LX, SIM and JN having the intermediate values. Compared to other four breeds, QC provided the highest values of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), n-6 fatty acids and n-3 fatty acids. In conclusion, LIM scored better on most of meat quality characteristics; however, local breeds such as LX and QC also had better muscle fiber characteristics and better fatty acids composition.Entities:
Keywords: Beef Cattle; Breed; Fatty Acids; Lipid Oxidation; Meat Quality; Muscle Fiber Characteristic
Year: 2012 PMID: 25049633 PMCID: PMC4093089 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Comparison of meat traits of the five cattle breeds
| Item | Breed | SEM | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| LIM | SIM | LX | QC | JN | |||
| Meat color (24 h) | |||||||
| L* | 38.92 | 35.80 | 38.45 | 36.32 | 36.95 | 1.065 | 0.195 |
| a* | 19.81 | 19.52 | 20.52 | 18.64 | 20.57 | 0.927 | 0.336 |
| b* | 9.96a | 9.11ab | 9.59a | 7.92b | 9.43ab | 0.633 | 0.092 |
| C | 21.13 | 21.55 | 22.67 | 20.27 | 22.63 | 1.092 | 0.268 |
| Hue | 28.06a | 24.95b | 24.90b | 22.67c | 24.57bc | 0.816 | 0.0005 |
| Subcutaneous fat color (24 h) | |||||||
| L* | 78.37 | 79.02 | 78.64 | 79.87 | 79.57 | 1.082 | 0.852 |
| a* | 3.39 | 3.43 | 2.47 | 3.42 | 2.31 | 0.394 | 0.109 |
| b* | 7.34 | 6.89 | 6.24 | 6.04 | 6.15 | 0.422 | 0.156 |
| C | 8.18 | 7.75 | 6.83 | 7.06 | 6.63 | 0.491 | 0.157 |
| Hue | 64.32ab | 63.67ab | 68.73ab | 61.90b | 69.75a | 2.343 | 0.102 |
| pH (24 h) | 6.18a | 5.61b | 5.61b | 5.73b | 5.62b | 0.064 | 0.0001 |
| Drip loss (24 h, %) | 9.57 | 10.29 | 10.26 | 10.32 | 10.08 | 0.424 | 0.7012 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 26.99b | 29.38ab | 31.01a | 30.53a | 29.04ab | 1.026 | 0.0759 |
| Warner-Bratzler-Shear (WBS, kg) | 4.67 | 5.36 | 4.39 | 5.29 | 5.15 | 0.416 | 0.4077 |
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).
LIM = Limousin; SIM = Simmtental; LX = Luxi; QC = Qinchuan; JN = Jinnan.
Comparison of chemical composition of the cattle breeds
| Item | Breed | SEM | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| LIM | SIM | LX | QC | JN | |||
| Dry matter (%) | 24.18b | 25.40a | 25.49a | 25.34a | 25.59a | 0.290 | 0.0051 |
| Crude protein (% DM) | 88.73a | 85.53ab | 84.17b | 87.19ab | 84.48b | 1.232 | 0.0422 |
| Ether extract (% DM) | 8.26 | 10.21 | 10.91 | 10.44 | 10.32 | 1.194 | 0.5754 |
| Ash (% DM) | 3.69bc | 4.05abc | 4.90ab | 3.15c | 5.11a | 0.493 | 0.0261 |
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).
LIM = Limousin; SIM = Simmtental; LX = Luxi; QC = Qinchuan; JN = Jinnan.
Comparison of histological characteristics of muscle fiber of the five cattle breeds
| Item | Breed | SEM | p | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| LIM | SIM | LX | QC | JN | ||||
| Myofiber type percentage | R | 29.46a | 15.24b | 32.73a | 16.91b | 20.62b | 2.691 | 0.0001 |
| I | 26.54abc | 28.58ab | 24.02bc | 29.17a | 23.23c | 1.842 | 0.0313 | |
| W | 44.00b | 56.16 a | 43.24b | 53.90a | 56.14a | 2.899 | 0.0001 | |
| Myofiber diameter | R | 35.99 b | 36.55 b | 38.98b | 60.00a | 37.58b | 2.915 | 0.0001 |
| I | 41.49 b | 39.22 b | 41.42b | 61.10a | 42.19b | 2.491 | 0.0001 | |
| W | 49.47 c | 49.46 c | 59.27 b | 67.80a | 47.94c | 2.808 | 0.0001 | |
| Myofiber density | R | 58.33ab | 32.41 d | 67.59 a | 36.36cd | 49.54 bc | 6.808 | 0.0001 |
| I | 55.56 ab | 62.04 a | 48.15 b | 54.04ab | 51.85 ab | 4.582 | 0.1427 | |
| W | 97.22 b | 121.30 a | 87.96 b | 98.99 b | 125.00 a | 8.822 | 0.0001 | |
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).
LIM = Limousin; SIM = Simmtental; LX = Luxi; QC = Qinchuan; JN = Jinnan.
Figure 1Comparison of lipid hydroperoxides at different times in the longissimus dorsi (ld) muscle of five cattle breeds (μmol/kg) (N = 8). Data are presented as mean±SD. Values with different superscript letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
Figure 2Comparison of TBARS at different times in the longissimus dorsi (ld) muscle of five cattle breeds (μmol/kg) (N = 8). Data are presented as mean±SD. Values with different superscript letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
Comparison of fatty acids (mg/g)1 of five cattle breeds
| Fatty acid | Structure | Breed | SEM | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| LIM | SIM | LX | QC | JN | ||||
| Lauric | C12:0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.011 | 0.5627 |
| Myristic | C14:0 | 2.63 | 2.42 | 2.08 | 1.70 | 1.93 | 0.393 | 0.4336 |
| Myristoleic | C14:1n5 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.100 | 0.2781 |
| Pentadecanoic | C15:0 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.036 | 0.9271 |
| Palmitic | C16:0 | 21.49 | 22.07 | 19.26 | 18.16 | 19.40 | 2.909 | 0.845 |
| Palmitoleic | C16:1n7 | 2.91 | 2.36 | 2.20 | 2.03 | 2.26 | 0.440 | 0.6383 |
| Heptadecanoic | C17:0 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.078 | 0.9876 |
| Cis-10-Heptadecenoic | C17:1n7 | 0.47 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.059 | 0.7008 |
| Stearic | C18:0 | 13.32 | 14.05 | 14.02 | 14.85 | 13.90 | 1.706 | 0.9787 |
| Elaidic | C18:1n9t | 1.65 | 1.77 | 1.63 | 1.67 | 1.49 | 0.217 | 0.9267 |
| Oleic | C18:1n9c | 27.73 | 30.86 | 25.66 | 22.68 | 26.12 | 3.876 | 0.6354 |
| Linolelaidic | C18:2n6t | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.028 | 0.7552 |
| Linoleic | C18:2n6c | 3.63b | 3.67b | 4.08b | 4.77a | 3.86b | 0.227 | 0.0059 |
| Arachidic | C20:0 | 0.09a | 0.09a | 0.10a | 0.03b | 0.10a | 0.013 | 0.0011 |
| γ-Linolenic | C18:3n6 | 0.07ab | 0.10a | 0.08ab | 0.03b | 0.10a | 0.022 | 0.0527 |
| Eicosenoic | C20:1n9 | 0.13a | 0.13a | 0.12ab | 0.08b | 0.12ab | 0.015 | 0.0406 |
| Linolenic | C18:3n3 | 0.13ab | 0.12ab | 0.13ab | 0.16a | 0.09b | 0.020 | 0.0693 |
| Eicosadienoic | C20:2 | 0.16ab | 0.22a | 0.10b | 0.08b | 0.11b | 0.036 | 0.0462 |
| Behenic | C22:0 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.032 | 0.5387 |
| Eicosatrienoic | C20:3n6 | 0.03b | 0.03b | 0.05b | 0.26a | 0.06b | 0.004 | 0.0004 |
| Arachidonic | C20:4n6 | 0.45b | 0.46b | 0.62b | 1.01a | 0.58b | 0.084 | 0.0002 |
| Eicosapentaenoic | C20:5n3 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0.1 | 0.09 | 0.044 | 0.9815 |
| Docosahexaenoic | C22:6n3 | 0.26ab | 0.2b | 0.14b | 0.61a | 0.18b | 0.014 | 0.1339 |
| SFA | 38.56 | 39.69 | 36.47 | 35.68 | 35.27 | 4.586 | 0.9506 | |
| MUFA | 33.44 | 36.02 | 30.44 | 26.78 | 29.65 | 4.183 | 0.5808 | |
| PUFA | 5.01b | 5.05b | 5.41b | 6.96a | 5.06b | 0.320 | 0.0004 | |
| n-6 | 4.35b | 4.43b | 4.98b | 6.19a | 4.65b | 0.286 | 0.0004 | |
| n-3 | 0.5ab | 0.39b | 0.33b | 0.8a | 0.31b | 0.112 | 0.0230 | |
| n-6:n-3 | 12.31b | 18.14ab | 18.7ab | 8.93b | 22.99a | 3.369 | 0.0339 | |
| Total | 77.00 | 80.75 | 72.31 | 69.42 | 69.98 | 8.884 | 0.8363 | |
Milligrams per gram of freeze-dried tissue.
LIM = Limousin; SIM = Simmtental; LX = Luxi; QC = Qinchuan; JN = Jinnan.
SFA = C12:0+C14:0+C15:0+C16:0+C17:0+C18:0+C20:0+C22:0.
MUFA = C14:1n5+C16:1n7+C17:1n7+C18:1n9t+C18:1n9c+C20:1n9.
PUFA = C18:2n6t+C18:2n6c+C18:3n6+C18:3n3+C20:2+C20:3n6+C20:4n6+C20:5n3+C22:6n3.
n-6 = C18:2n6t+C18:2n6c+C18:3n6+C20:3n6+C20:4n6.
n-3 = C18:3n3+C20:5n3+C22:6n3.