| Literature DB >> 33920806 |
Nieves Núñez-Sánchez1, Carmen Avilés Ramírez2, Francisco Peña Blanco1, Pilar Gómez-Cortés3, Miguel Ángel de la Fuente3, Montserrat Vioque Amor2, Alberto Horcada Ibáñez4, Andrés Luis Martínez Marín1.
Abstract
There is growing interest in increasing omega-3 fatty acid (FA) contents in ruminant meat by means of dietary manipulation, but the effects of such manipulation on productive results and meat quality need to be ascertained. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of supplementing lambs with competent reticular groove reflex (RGR) with marine algae as a source of omega-3 fatty acids on growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality characteristics. Forty-eight feedlot lambs were distributed into three equal groups: the control group neither consumed marine algae nor had competent RGR, the second group received daily 2.5% of algae meal mixed in the concentrate, and the last group consumed the same amount of algae meal, but emulsified in a milk replacer and bottle-fed. Lambs in the second and third groups had competent RGR. There were not any negative effects on performance, carcass or meat quality parameters with algae supplementation. However, the results of the oxidative stability parameters were not conclusive. Ageing for 6 days improved meat tenderness and color, and increased lipid oxidation. In conclusion, algae meal inclusion in the diet of fattening lambs with competent RGR has no detrimental effects on animal performance, carcass traits or meat quality characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: lambs; marine algae; meat quality; performance
Year: 2021 PMID: 33920806 PMCID: PMC8071124 DOI: 10.3390/foods10040857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot lambs fed a conventional diet alone (NOALG) or feedlot lambs with competent reticular groove reflex fed the same diet supplemented with 2.5% of algae meal, either mixed in the concentrate (ALGCON) or in the milk replacer (ALGMILK).
| DIET | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters 1 | NOALG | ALGCON | ALGMILK | SEM |
|
| Initial body weight (kg) | 11.4 | 11.6 | 11.8 | 0.24 | 0.86 |
| Final body weight (kg) | 25.0 | 25.7 | 25.4 | 0.31 | 0.78 |
| Average feed intake (g) | 825 | 801 | 805 | 6.0 | 0.44 |
| Average daily gain (g) | 326 | 335 | 324 | 4.2 | 0.33 |
| Feed conversion ratio (kg/kg) | 2.54 | 2.43 | 2.49 | 0.030 | 0.13 |
| Hot carcass weight (kg) | 10.5 ab | 11.4 a | 10.4 b | 0.16 | <0.05 |
| Dressing 2 (%) | 42.2 ab | 44.6a | 40.9 b | 0.60 | <0.05 |
| Carcass composition 3: | |||||
| Muscle (%) | 60.8 a | 58.0 b | 59.8 ab | 0.38 | <0.05 |
| Fat (%) | 14.5 b | 17.2 a | 15.2 ab | 0.39 | <0.05 |
| Bone (%) | 24.8 | 24.8 | 24.9 | 0.19 | 0.95 |
1 Within each treatment, 8 pens were used for determination of growth performance (2 animals per pen) and 16 animals were used for determination of carcass traits. 2 Calculated as hot carcass weight/final body weight. 3 Estimated by shoulder dissection. SEM: standard error of the mean. Means with different superscripts between treatments are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Quality characteristics and oxidative stability of meat samples from feedlot lambs fed a conventional diet alone (NOALG) or from feedlot lambs with competent reticular groove reflex fed the same diet supplemented with 2.5% of algae meal, either mixed in the concentrate (ALGCON) or in the milk replacer (ALGMILK).
| Parameters 1 | Ageing Time (A) | Diet (D) | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOALG | ALGCON | ALGMILK | D | A | D × A | |||
| Meat characteristics | ||||||||
| pH24 | 1 | 5.77 | 5.70 | 5.73 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.87 |
| 7 | 5.78 | 5.72 | 5.74 | |||||
| Drip Loss (%) | 1 | 1.93 | 1.74 | 1.63 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.06 |
| 7 | 1.49 | 1.86 | 1.59 | |||||
| Cooking Loss (%) | 1 | 21.5 | 22.7 | 20.6 | 0.96 | 0.33 | <0.01 | 0.19 |
| 7 | 19.9 | 12.7 | 15.0 | |||||
| WBSF (kg/cm2) | 1 | 7.85 | 7.28 | 7.28 | 0.21 | 0.97 | <0.001 | 0.07 |
| 7 | 4.85 | 5.18 | 5.38 | |||||
| L* | 1 | 37.4 | 38.7 | 38.8 | 0.34 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.87 |
| 7 | 41.6 | 42.7 | 42.6 | |||||
| a* | 1 | 6.27 | 5.67 | 6.06 | 0.20 | 0.97 | <0.001 | 0.09 |
| 7 | 7.87 | 8.55 | 8.29 | |||||
| b* | 1 | 16.4 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 0.32 | <0.05 | <0.001 | 0.18 |
| 7 | 10.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 | |||||
| C* | 1 | 17.6 | 17.7 | 17.7 | 0.24 | 0.20 | <0.001 | 0.13 |
| 7 | 13.0 | 14.2 | 14.0 | |||||
| h° | 1 | 69.3 | 71.5 | 70.2 | 1.09 | 0.54 | <0.001 | 0.44 |
| 7 | 50.7 | 51.6 | 52.5 | |||||
| Oxidative stability | ||||||||
| TBARS (mg MDA/kg) | 1 | 0.23 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 0.06 | <0.001 | 0.24 |
| 7 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 1.14 | |||||
| DPPH fat (%) | 1 | 24.2 AB,a | 29.0 A,a | 17.5 B | 1.03 | <0.05 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 7 | 14.6 b | 15.0 b | 14.4 | |||||
| DPPH water (%) | 1 | 6.28 | 6.76 | 6.63 | 0.31 | 0.78 | <0.01 | 0.96 |
| 7 | 4.20 | 4.58 | 4.81 | |||||
| Polyphenols (mg GAE/100 g) | 1 | 3.72 | 3.93 | 4.34 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.92 | 0.21 |
| 7 | 4.10 | 3.91 | 4.03 | |||||
1 In each time within each treatment, 16 samples were analyzed for each parameter. SEM: standard error of the mean. L*: lightness; a*: redness; b*: yellowness; C*: chroma; h°: hue; WBSF: Warner–Braztler shear force; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; DPPH fat: 2-2 diphenyl picryl hydrazyl in fat extract; DPPH water: 2-2 diphenyl picryl hydrazyl in aqueous extract. Means with different superscript letters between treatments (capital) or ageing times (lowercase) are significantly different.