| Literature DB >> 33816590 |
G M Suliman1,2, A N Al-Owaimer1, A M El-Waziry3, E O S Hussein1, K Abuelfatah2, A A Swelum1,4.
Abstract
Fattening performance, Carcass characteristics, chemical composition, and meat quality were evaluated in three sheep breeds: Awassi, Harri, and Najdi. Forty-five lambs of similar weight and age were raised for 90 days under similar conditions. The Harri and Najdi breeds had higher dressing-out percentages than Awassi sheep. The Awassi and Harri breeds had thicker backfat than the Najdi breed. No significant difference was found in moisture, protein, and intramuscular fat among the breeds. However, the Harri breed had a higher ash content than the Awassi and Najdi breeds. The Najdi breed had higher ultimate pH and lower cooking loss than the Awassi and Harri breeds. Awassi and Harri sheep had a higher myofibril fragmentation index, longer sarcomere length, and lower hardness and chewiness than Najdi sheep. Subjectively, no significant differences were detected between the breeds, except for flavor intensity while the Awassi sheep were rated in between and not significantly different. In conclusion, breed affected carcass characteristics, meat composition, and the quality of sheep. The dressing yield was higher in Harri and Najdi than Awassi sheep. Awassi sheep showed superior meat quality characteristics followed by Harri sheep. However, Najdi sheep had the best cooking loss percentage and flavor intensity score.Entities:
Keywords: breed; carcass; meat quality; muscle; sheep
Year: 2021 PMID: 33816590 PMCID: PMC8017126 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.647192
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Fattening performance of the three sheep breeds fed the experimental diet (n = 15/group).
| Initial live weight, kg | 24.31 | 24.70 | 24.68 | 23.40 | 25.87 | 0.23 |
| Final live weight, kg | 50.52 | 44.51 | 48.54 | 42.00 | 53.70 | 0.86 |
| ADI kg/day | 1.69 | 1.41 | 1.64 | 1.35 | 1.87 | 16.12 |
| ADG kg/day | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 10.11 |
| FCR | 5.49 | 6.91 | 5.95 | 5.16 | 6.81 | 0.20 |
ADI, Average daily intake; ADG, Average daily gain; FCR, Feed conversion ratio.
Means within rows not sharing the same letter (s) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Slaughter weight and Carcass characteristics of three sheep breeds (n = 8/group).
| SBW (kg) | 50.53 | 45.19 | 49.54 | 43.05 | 57.20 | 0.74 |
| EBW (kg) | 46.48 | 41.70 | 45.46 | 39.50 | 51.50 | 0.64 |
| HCW (kg) | 24.04 | 22.93 | 24.69 | 21.15 | 27.94 | 0.30 |
| CCW (kg) | 23.35 | 22.39 | 24.06 | 20.67 | 27.10 | 0.29 |
| DP (SBW) | 47.60 | 50.80 | 49.50 | 45.30 | 53.00 | 0.47 |
| DP (EBW) | 51.75 | 54.96 | 54.38 | 49.40 | 57.40 | 0.51 |
| CS% | 2.90 | 2.39 | 2.53 | 1.89 | 3.49 | 0.09 |
| Rib-eye area (cm2) | 7.77 | 8.94 | 8.67 | 6.07 | 11.90 | 0.30 |
| Back fat (mm) | 2.58 | 1.99 | 1.29 | 0.88 | 3.94 | 0.16 |
| Body wall fat (mm) | 3.99 | 3.53 | 4.35 | 2.01 | 6.40 | 0.22 |
Means within rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
SBW, slaughter body weight; EBW, empty body weight; DP (EBW), dressing percentage per empty body weight; DP (SBW), dressing percentage per full body weight; HCW, hot carcass weight; CCW, cold carcass weight; CS, chiller shrinkage.
Non-carcass components and fat content of the three sheep breeds (n = 8/group).
| Head | 7.57 | 6.94 | 7.58 | 6.15 | 8.56 | 0.15 |
| Heart | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.90 | 0.02 |
| Lungs and trachea | 2.30 | 1.81 | 2.18 | 1.52 | 3.16 | 0.08 |
| Liver | 3.21 | 2.95 | 3.09 | 2.24 | 3.69 | 0.07 |
| Spleen | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.38 | 0.01 |
| Kidneys | 0.51 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.57 | 0.01 |
| Tail | 11.59 | 13.78 | 12.64 | 6.58 | 21.23 | 0.71 |
| Stomach empty | 7.97 | 7.05 | 7.18 | 5.59 | 8.90 | 0.22 |
| Intestine empty | 6.27 | 4.43 | 5.43 | 3.53 | 7.84 | 0.21 |
| Gut fill | 16.85 | 15.16 | 16.48 | 10.90 | 21.80 | 0.66 |
| Pericardial fat | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.56 | 0.02 |
| Omental fat | 3.06 | 3.42 | 2.90 | 1.41 | 5.13 | 0.20 |
| Mesenteric fat | 2.09 | 1.66 | 1.62 | 0.90 | 3.78 | 0.14 |
| KKCF | 2.37 | 3.06 | 1.86 | 0.19 | 6.61 | 0.14 |
Components were computed as a percentage of hot carcass weight.
Means within rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
KKCF, kidney knob and channel fat.
Meat chemical composition of the three sheep breeds (n = 8/group).
| Moisture | 73.34 | 74.40 | 74.37 | 70.73 | 75.85 | 0.28 |
| Protein | 20.86 | 20.64 | 20.62 | 19.48 | 21.97 | 0.12 |
| Fat | 4.74 | 3.84 | 3.95 | 1.28 | 8.29 | 0.35 |
| Ash | 1.07 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.00 | 1.16 | 0.01 |
Means within rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Meat quality characteristics, myofibril fragmentation index (MFI) and texture profile analysis (TPA) of the three sheep breeds (n = 8/group).
| 5.82 | 5.80 | 5.89 | 5.60 | 5.90 | 0.02 | |
| Cooking loss% | 34.54 | 33.47 | 28.96 | 22.12 | 41.81 | 0.86 |
| WHC | 1.23 | 1.38 | 1.41 | 0.23 | 1.53 | 0.05 |
| Drip loss% | 4.33 | 3.73 | 3.88 | 2.60 | 6.60 | 0.23 |
| L | 34.63 | 33.50 | 35.39 | 31.05 | 40.75 | 0.54 |
| a | 16.62 | 16.49 | 16.22 | 14.24 | 18.98 | 1.40 |
| b | 5.76 | 5.17 | 4.91 | 3.92 | 7.29 | 0.18 |
| Chroma (C*) | 17.60 | 17.29 | 16.97 | 14.87 | 20.08 | 0.30 |
| b*/a* Ratio | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.40 | 0.01 |
| Hue Angle (H°) | 19.14 | 17.42 | 16.79 | 12.63 | 22.03 | 0.50 |
| MFI | 110.87 | 104.0 | 77.56 | 45.70 | 153.55 | 6.27 |
| SL (μm) | 1.85 | 1.79 | 1.63 | 1.26 | 2.10 | 0.04 |
| Shear force (N/cm2) | 32.17 | 29.03 | 28.34 | 18.54 | 38.93 | 0.13 |
| Hardness (N/cm2) | 3.83 | 6.47 | 6.67 | 3.04 | 13.04 | 0.06 |
| Springiness | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.70 | 0.01 |
| Cohesiveness | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.59 | 0.01 |
| Chewiness | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
Means within rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
TPA, texture profile analysis.
Sensory evaluation of the meat of three sheep breeds (n = 8/group).
| Juiciness | 5.23 | 4.88 | 5.36 | 4.00 | 6.40 | 0.13 |
| Tenderness | 5.58 | 5.46 | 5.85 | 4.50 | 6.80 | 0.13 |
| Flavor intensity | 5.53 | 5.19 | 5.89 | 4.60 | 6.90 | 0.11 |
Means within rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Sensory evaluation was performed using an eight-point hedonic scale (1 = the least; 8 = the best).