| Literature DB >> 26761843 |
Won Ho Kim1, Suk-Nam Kang2, Mariadhas Valan Arasu1, Gyo-Moon Chu3, Da Hye Kim4, Jae-Hong Park5, Young Kyoon Oh6, Ki Choon Choi1.
Abstract
The objective of this work was to evaluate the growth performance, feed intake, slaughter characteristics, meat quantity and quality characteristics of Hanwoo steers fed with Italian ryegrass (IRG) silage (TRT). IRG silage consisted 11.70% protein, 2.84% ether extract, 53.50% dry matter digestibility and 63.34% total digestible nutrients. The daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio of TRT were significantly (p<0.01) higher than that of control diet (CON; fed rice straw) in the whole periods. However, the slaughter weight, dressing percentage, quantity grade and quantity traits (marbling score, meat color, fat color, and quality grade) of either TRT or CON were similar. Meat fed TRT diet showed higher crude fat and lightness (L*) value and lower moisture content and pH value compared with the CON diet (p<0.05). Overall the carcass yield was 12.5% higher than CON diet.Entities:
Keywords: Hanwoo steers; Italian ryegrass silage; carcass characteristics; fatty acid profiles; meat quality
Year: 2015 PMID: 26761843 PMCID: PMC4662352 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.3.299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Ingredient composition and chemical analysis of the experimental diets
| Growing period | Early fattening period | Middle fattening period | Late fatting period | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cornflake | 25.00 | 29.00 | 30.00 | 35.00 |
| Barley | - | - | - | 8.00 |
| Cottonseed whole | - | - | - | 3.00 |
| Wheat | 18.00 | 18.00 | 18.00 | 18.00 |
| Gluten feed | 8.00 | 9.58 | 12.00 | 3.00 |
| Rice bran polished | - | 1.00 | 2.36 | 1.93 |
| Tapioca residue | 4.58 | 6.22 | 5.23 | 5.23 |
| Wheat bran | 11.79 | 12.40 | 13.81 | 6.34 |
| Palm kernal meal | 8.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 2.05 |
| Coconut oil meal | 3.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Rapseed meal | 5.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 |
| Soybean meal | 7.39 | 3.28 | 0.94 | 2.12 |
| Distillers dried grains | 2.22 | 3.50 | 4.00 | 5.71 |
| Limestone | 2.17 | 2.31 | 1.75 | 1.64 |
| Molasses | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 |
| Salt | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| Probiotics | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| Magnesium oxide | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Mineral premixa | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 |
| Vitamin premixb | 0.18 | - | 0.10 | 0.18 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Dry matter (%) | 87.71 | 87.32 | 87.21 | 87.06 |
| Crude protein (% of DM) | 16.00 | 14.00 | 13.72 | 12.39 |
| Acid detergent fiber (% of DM) | 9.37 | 10.05 | 8.14 | 8.16 |
| Neutral detergent fiber (% of DM) | 26.28 | 26.06 | 24.43 | 22.67 |
| TDN | 70.17 | 72.07 | 73.30 | 75.00 |
aSteers had free access to mineral blocks (Rincal block, Daehan New Pham, Korea; provided following nutrients per kg: I, 150 mg; Mn, 200 mg; S, 4,000 mg; Co, 100 mg; Fe, 2,000 mg; Zn, 100 mg; Ni, 50 mg; Cu, 100 mg; Mg, 3,000 mg; Ca, 2,000 mg; Se, 40 μg; NaCl, 380 g) throughout the experiment.
bProvided following nutrients per kg of additive (Grobic-DC, Bayer HealthCare, Germany): Vitamin A, 2,650,000 IU; Vitamin D3, 530,000 IU; Vitamin E, 1,050 IU; Niacin, 10,000 mg; Mn, 4,400 mg; Zn, 4,400 mg; Fe, 13,200 mg; Cu, 2,200 mg; I, 440 mg; Co, 440 mg.
Nutrient composition of rice straw and Italian ryegrass (IRG) silage (%)
| Rice straw | IRG silage | SEM1 | Pr > F2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry matter (DM) | 90.01 | 68.04 | 4.56 | 0.01 |
| Crude protein (CP) | 3.62 | 11.70 | 1.01 | 0.01 |
| Ether extract (EE) | 1.90 | 2.84 | 0.32 | 0.01 |
| Crude ash (CA) | 32.41 | 12.70 | 1.22 | 0.01 |
| Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) | 80.02 | 55.32 | 2.58 | 0.01 |
| Acid detergent fiber (ADF) | 53.14 | 32.70 | 3.60 | 0.01 |
| In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) | 51.63 | 53.50 | 0.82 | 0.05 |
| Total digestible nutrient (TDN) | 47.03 | 63.34 | 2.46 | 0.01 |
1Standard error of the mean. 2 Probability levels.
Effects of feeding IRG silage/concentrate on growth performance and feed intake of Hanwoo steers during growing and first fattening period
| Items | Growing period | Early fattening period | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | CON | T | SEM | Pr > F | |
| Initial body weight (kg) | 212.40 | 167.60 | 4.38 | 0.00 | 305.90 | 314.90 | 13.37 | 0.64 |
| Final body weight (kg) | 305.90 | 314.90 | 13.37 | 0.64 | 376.30 | 407.70 | 14.85 | 0.15 |
| Daily weight gain (kg)5 | 0.68 | 1.08 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.57 | 0.75 | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| Feed intake (kg)6 | 6.61 | 8.50 | 0.30 | 0.01 | 11.59 | 12.47 | 0.32 | 0.13 |
| Concentrate (kg)7 | 3.68 | 3.22 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 7.09 | 4.93 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
| Rice straw (kg)8 | 2.93 | 0.00 | - | - | 4.50 | 0.00 | - | - |
| IRG silage (kg)9 | 0.00 | 5.28 | - | - | 0.00 | 7.54 | - | - |
| Feed efficiency | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.19 |
| Feed conversion ration | 13.47 | 8.98 | 2.18 | 0.16 | 21.04 | 18.58 | 1.45 | 0.25 |
1CON: Rice straw+concentrate, 2T: Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3Standard error of the mean. 4Probability levels. 5Total weight gain and daily weight gain calculated for each animal per a day that it received the test diets. 6-9Feed intake, concentrate, and rice straw/IRG silage calculated for each animal for each period that it received the test diets (kg/head/day, DM basis).
Effects of feeding IRG silage/concentrate on growth performance and feed intake of Hanwoo steers during middle fattening and finish fattening period
| Items | Middle fattening period | Late fatting period | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | CON | T | SEM | Pr > F | |
| Initial body weight (kg) | 376.30 | 407.70 | 14.85 | 0.15 | 501.00 | 554.90 | 17.25 | 0.04 |
| Final body weight (kg) | 501.00 | 554.90 | 17.25 | 0.04 | 676.10 | 735.40 | 23.46 | 0.09 |
| Daily weight gain (kg)5 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.03 | 0.72 |
| Feed intake (kg)6 | 11.40 | 11.43 | 0.49 | 0.96 | 9.57 | 9.24 | 0.21 | 0.33 |
| Concentrate (kg)7 | 8.66 | 6.96 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 8.49 | 7.63 | 0.23 | 0.06 |
| Rice straw (kg)8 | 2.93 | 0.00 | - | - | 0.00 | 1.60 | - | - |
| IRG silage (kg)9 | 0.00 | 4.48 | - | - | 1.08 | 0.00 | - | - |
| Feed efficiency | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.36 |
| Feed conversion ration | 17.36 | 14.80 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 16.28 | 15.89 | 0.99 | 0.78 |
1CON: Rice straw+concentrate, 2T: Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3Standard error of the mean. 4Probability levels. 5Total weight gain and daily weight gain calculated for each animal per a day that it received the test diets. 6-9Feed intake, concentrate and rice straw/IRG silage calculated for each animal for each period that it received the test diets (kg/head/day, DM basis).
Effects of feeding IRG silage/concentrate on growth performance and feed intake of Hanwoo steers during whole period
| Items | Whole period | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | |
| Daily weight gain (kg)5 | 0.63 | 0.77 | 0.034 | 0.01 |
| Feed intake (kg)6 | 9.83 | 10.20 | 0.11 | 0.08 |
| Concentrate (kg)7 | 7.42 | 6.20 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
| Rice straw (kg)8 | 2.41 | 0.00 | - | - |
| IRG silage (kg)9 | 0.00 | 4.00 | - | - |
| Feed efficiency | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.07 |
| Feed conversion ration | 16.22 | 13.44 | 0.78 | 0.02 |
1CON: Rice straw+concentrate, 2T: Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3Standard error of the mean. 4Probability levels. 5Total weight gain and daily weight gain calculated for each animal per a day that it received the test diets. 6-9Feed intake, concentrate and rice straw/IRG silage calculated for each animal for each period that it received the test diets (kg/head/day, DM basis).
Effects of feeding IRG silage/concentrate on carcass yield and quality traits of Hanwoo steer
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carcass yield traits | ||||
| Back fat thickness (cm) | 10.50 | 14.50 | 1.23 | 0.03 |
| Rib-eye area (cm2) | 83.00 | 91.10 | 2.54 | 0.04 |
| Slaughter weight (kg) | 400.60 | 429.10 | 11.75 | 0.10 |
| Dressing percent (%) | 65.93 | 63.89 | 0.82 | 0.10 |
| Quantity grade5 | 4.20 | 3.90 | 0.19 | 0.28 |
| Quality traits | ||||
| Marbling score6 | 4.30 | 4.60 | 0.74 | 0.78 |
| Meat color7 | 4.80 | 5.00 | 0.21 | 0.50 |
| Fat color8 | 2.90 | 3.00 | 0.07 | 0.33 |
| Texture9 | 1.60 | 1.50 | 0.16 | 0.67 |
| Mature10 | 2.00 | 1.50 | 0.24 | 0.16 |
| Quality grade11 | 3.90 | 4.80 | 0.37 | 0.10 |
| Total Price (₩) | 6,099,111 | 6,860,567 | 337,726 | 0.15 |
1CON: Hanwoo steer fed rice straw+concentrate. 2T: Hanwoo steer fed Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3Standard error of the mean. 4Probability levels. 5grade A (5 point) ~ grade D (2 point). 6low fat (1 point) ~ high fat (5 point). 7very light cherry red (1 point) ~ very dark red (7 point). 8white (1 point) ~ yellow (7 point). 9very fine (1 point) ~ very coarse (3 point). 10below 15 month old (1 point) ~ from 15 to 26 month old (2 point). 11grade 1+ (7 point) ~ grade 3 (1 point).
Chemical composition and meat qualities of M. longissimus dorsi from Hanwoo steer fed IRG silage/concentrate
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical composition | ||||
| Moisture | 68.17 | 63.42 | 1.22 | 0.03 |
| Crude fat | 11.33 | 17.14 | 1.19 | 0.01 |
| Crude protein | 19.95 | 20.42 | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| Ash | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
| Meat qualities | ||||
| Cooking loss (%) | 24.10 | 23.59 | 1.02 | 0.14 |
| Shear force (kg) | 3.82 | 3.57 | 0.11 | 0.21 |
| Water holding capacity | 55.68 | 55.05 | 1.08 | 0.64 |
| pH | 5.64 | 5.54 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Surface Color | ||||
| L* | 38.64 | 41.90 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
| a* | 23.29 | 23.43 | 0.24 | 0.78 |
| b* | 10.94 | 11.97 | 0.13 | 0.52 |
1CON: Hanwoo steer fed rice straw+concentrate, 2T: Hanwoo steer fed Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3Standard error of the mean. 4 Probability levels.
Fatty acid contents in the M. longissimus dorsi of Hanwoo steer fed IRG silage/concentrate
| CON1 | T2 | SEM3 | Pr > F4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Myristic | 3.62 | 3.18 | 0.28 | 0.30 |
| Palmitic | 27.69 | 27.07 | 1.04 | 0.69 |
| Palmitoleic | 5.12 | 4.45 | 0.41 | 0.29 |
| Stearic | 11.64 | 11.74 | 0.44 | 0.87 |
| Oleic | 48.87 | 50.08 | 1.17 | 0.49 |
| Vaccenic | 0.17 | 0.59 | 0.25 | 0.28 |
| Linoleic | 1.74 | 1.82 | 0.14 | 0.72 |
| Y-linolenic | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.46 |
| Linolenic | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 0.46 |
| Eicosenoic | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.04 | 0.10 |
| Arahidonic | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.43 |
| EFA | 51.26 | 52.98 | 1.22 | 0.35 |
| SFA | 42.95 | 41.99 | 1.08 | 0.55 |
| USFA | 56.86 | 58.01 | 1.05 | 0.46 |
| MSFA | 54.64 | 55.70 | 1.02 | 0.48 |
| PUFA | 2.22 | 2.31 | 0.19 | 0.75 |
| N-3 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 0.46 |
| N-6 | 2.02 | 2.08 | 0.17 | 0.82 |
1CON: Hanwoo steer fed rice straw+concentrate, 2T: Hanwoo steer fed Italian ryegrass silage+concentrate. 3 Standard error of the mean. 4 Probability levels. EFA=Essential fatty acid. SFA=Saturated fatty acid. USFA=Unsaturated fatty acid. MUFA=monounsaturated fatty acid. PUFA=Polyunsaturated fatty acid.