| Literature DB >> 34474537 |
Christiano Raphael de Albuquerque Borges1, Francisco Fernando Ramos de Carvalho2, Maria Luciana Menezes Wanderley Neves2, José Diógenes Pereira Neto2, Guilherme Heliodoro Pedroso Vieira2, Ricardo Alexandre Silva Pessoa2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of increasing levels of spineless cactus (0%, 33%, 66%, and 100%) used as a substitute for wheat bran in buffalo diets on quantitative and qualitative traits of the meat and carcass.Entities:
Keywords: Buffalo; Meat Tenderness; Nutrition; Tissue Composition
Year: 2021 PMID: 34474537 PMCID: PMC8738930 DOI: 10.5713/ab.20.0825
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Biosci ISSN: 2765-0189
Proportion of ingredients and chemical composition of sugarcane-based diets supplemented with spineless cactus replacing wheat bran
| Items | Replacement level (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0 | 33 | 66 | 100 | |
| Ingredient (g/kg as fed DM) | ||||
| Sugarcane | 384.0 | 384.0 | 384.0 | 384.0 |
| Soybean meal | 40.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 |
| Ground corn | 245.0 | 245.0 | 245.0 | 245.0 |
| Wheat bran | 300.0 | 200.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Spineless cactus | 0.0 | 95.0 | 190.0 | 285.0 |
| Urea+AS for cactus | 0.0 | 5.00 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| Urea+AS for Sugarcane | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 |
| Minerals | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 |
| Chemical composition of diets (g/kg DM) | ||||
| DM | 647.4 | 576.6 | 505.7 | 434.9 |
| OM | 937.1 | 936.3 | 935.6 | 934.8 |
| Ash | 41.99 | 58.03 | 74.07 | 90.10 |
| CP | 141.2 | 141.1 | 140.9 | 140.8 |
| EE | 39.3 | 36.3 | 33.3 | 30.3 |
| NFC | 430.1 | 459.7 | 489.2 | 518.8 |
| NDFap | 345.0 | 325.4 | 305.8 | 286.2 |
| ADF | 104.76 | 109.19 | 113.62 | 118.05 |
| TC | 692.31 | 697.24 | 702.16 | 707.09 |
| TDN | 640.0 | 650.0 | 670.0 | 700.0 |
DM, dry matter; AS, ammonium sulfate, g/kg as fed; OM, organic matter; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; NFC, non-fibrous carbohydrates; NDFap, neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein; ADF, acid detergent fiber; TC, total carbohydrates; TDN, total digestible nutrients.
Performance and carcass characteristics of buffaloes fed sugarcane-based diets supplemented with spineless cactus replacing wheat bran
| Parameter | Replacement level (%) | SEM | Polynomial contrast | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 33 | 66 | 100 | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Initial body weight (kg) | 307.2 | 289.5 | 296.3 | 292.9 | - | - | - |
| Slaughter weight (kg) | 401.60 | 376.68 | 350.76[ | 339.28[ | 21.7956 | <0.0001 | 0.6831 |
| Average daily gain (kg/d) | 1.19 | 1.09 | 0.68[ | 0.58[ | 0.08577 | <0.0001 | 0.9909 |
| Feed conversion (kg) | 7.58 | 8.88 | 14.16 | 12.88 | 1.8409 | 0.0218 | 0.4899 |
| Hot carcass weight (kg) | 201.20 | 187.40 | 173.81[ | 171.98[ | 12.7347 | 0.0006 | 0.4595 |
| Cold carcass weight (kg) | 195.33 | 182.06 | 167.64[ | 166.85[ | 12.5512 | 0.0008 | 0.4199 |
| Cooling loss (%) | 2.93 | 2.88 | 3.60 | 3.02 | 0.645 | 0.3487 | 0.4993 |
| Hot carcass yield (%) | 50.11 | 49.65 | 49.55 | 50.65 | 0.8476 | 0.6425 | 0.3013 |
| Cold carcass yield (%) | 48.64 | 48.23 | 47.77 | 49.13 | 0.9213 | 0.7703 | 0.2621 |
| Carcass length (cm) | 123.00 | 120.80 | 120.75 | 120.20 | 2.0383 | 0.2384 | 0.6891 |
| Carcass compactness index (%) | 1.59 | 1.50 | 1.39[ | 1.39[ | 0.05106 | 0.0018 | 0.3149 |
| Leg length (cm) | 76.00 | 76.40 | 75.25 | 73.00 | 0.9112 | 0.0214 | 0.1528 |
| Leg thickness (cm) | 25.40 | 24.20 | 23.75 | 23.20 | 1.097 | 0.02 | 0.521 |
| Leg circumference (cm) | 106.20 | 100.80 | 101.25 | 100.40 | 2.8581 | 0.0607 | 0.2651 |
| Chest depth (cm) | 43.00 | 41.80 | 42.67 | 41.80 | 1.8093 | 0.6003 | 0.7666 |
| pH after 24 h | 5.40 | 5.53 | 5.42 | 5.67 | 0.139 | 0.6791 | 0.2689 |
| T 24 h (°C) | 10.38 | 10.22 | 9.90 | 10.18 | 0.2881 | 0.4271 | 0.3989 |
| 60.60 | 54.80 | 50.75 | 48.60 | 4.432 | 0.0175 | 0.5888 | |
| Backfat thickness (mm) | 8.84 | 6.65 | 7.65 | 9.13 | 1.1017 | 0.6956 | 0.1005 |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
Differ from control by Dunnett test (p<0.05).
Physical and chemical composition1) of the carcass of buffaloes fed sugarcane-based diets supplemented with spineless cactus replacing wheat bran
| Parameter | Replacement level (%) | SEM | Polynomial contrast | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 33 | 66 | 100 | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Muscle tissue (%) | 61.78 | 64.26 | 62.05 | 60.00 | 1.6272 | 0.2192 | 0.1061 |
| Adipose tissue (%) | 24.42 | 23.15 | 23.02 | 24.64 | 2.0016 | 0.9427 | 0.361 |
| Bone tissue (%) | 15.08 | 14.22 | 15.89 | 16.20 | 0.5596 | 0.0347 | 0.2406 |
| Muscle tissue (kg) | 120.99 | 117.58 | 103.94[ | 100.01[ | 7.562 | 0.0011 | 0.95 |
| Adipose tissue (kg) | 47.30 | 41.72 | 38.76 | 41.40 | 3.7572 | 0.1756 | 0.2246 |
| Bone tissue (kg) | 29.52 | 25.77[ | 26.56[ | 26.88[ | 1.4139 | 0.0329 | 0.0093 |
| Water (%) | 54.95 | 58.69 | 54.11 | 53.60 | 1.6821 | 0.1769 | 0.1408 |
| Fat (%) | 21.77 | 18.20 | 21.35 | 23.01 | 1.9277 | 0.2709 | 0.0719 |
| Protein (%) | 18.17 | 17.77 | 18.13 | 17.64 | 0.392 | 0.4721 | 0.8932 |
| Ashes (%) | 4.59 | 4.80 | 5.18 | 4.91 | 0.1465 | 0.0647 | 0.1207 |
| Water (kg) | 107.58 | 106.94 | 90.42[ | 89.44[ | 6.1852 | <0.0001 | 0.9486 |
| Fat (kg) | 42.16 | 32.91 | 36.11 | 38.49 | 3.5722 | 0.5499 | 0.0613 |
| Protein (kg) | 35.55 | 32.50 | 30.35[ | 29.37[ | 1.9398 | 0.0027 | 0.4227 |
| Ashes (kg) | 9.03 | 8.76 | 8.70 | 8.16 | 0.61 | 0.1212 | 0.7049 |
Estimated by the equations of Hankins and Howe [6].
SEM standard error of the mean.
Differ from control by Dunnett test (p<0.05).
Physical traits of the meat from buffaloes fed sugarcane-based diets supplemented with spineless cactus replacing wheat bran
| Parameter | Replacement level (%) | SEM | Polynomial contrast | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 33 | 66 | 100 | Linear | Quadratic | ||
| Water-holding capacity (%) | 63.03 | 64.73 | 59.07 | 60.98 | 1.7756 | 0.1028 | 0.9843 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 34.93 | 32.10 | 34.05 | 35.65 | 2.5491 | 0.5337 | 0.1929 |
| Shear force (kgf/cm2) | 2.55 | 2.06 | 2.54 | 2.57 | 0.244 | 0.6224 | 0.3203 |
| Color | |||||||
| L* | 39.60 | 42.92 | 41.46 | 41.78 | 1.1739 | 0.2016 | 0.1042 |
| a* | 19.08 | 19.10 | 22.49 | 19.33 | 0.8638 | 0.3087 | 0.0977 |
| b* | 10.61 | 11.67 | 12.69[ | 11.15 | 0.4558 | 0.2092 | 0.014 |
SEM standard error of the mean.
Differ from control by Dunnett test (p<0.05).