| Literature DB >> 34944115 |
Santiago Luzardo1, Georgget Banchero2, Virginia Ferrari3, Facundo Ibáñez3, Gonzalo Roig4, Valentín Aznárez4, Juan Clariget2, Alejandro La Manna2.
Abstract
The use of fruit by-products such as citrus pulp represents a feeding ingredient that deserves to be evaluated as an energy source in animal rations. Thirty-six British breed steers were allotted to one of the three feeding treatments (12 steers/treatment): 0%, 15% and 30% of fresh citrus pulp inclusion in the ration in a randomized complete block design to evaluate animal performance and carcass and meat quality traits. In the present study, the inclusion of fresh citrus pulp up to 30% of the diet did not affect the animal average daily gain (p > 0.05) but steers that were fed the pulp consumed less feed (p < 0.05) and presented a lower feed conversion ratio (p < 0.05) than their counterparts without citrus pulp in their diet. No effect of fresh citrus pulp was observed on carcass and meat quality (p > 0.05). A greater lipophilic antioxidant capacity (p < 0.05) in meat was observed when fresh citrus pulp was offered at 15% of the diet. Fresh citrus pulp used up to 30% as a feed ingredient in feedlot rations does not negatively affect animal performance or meat quality but, rather, has a positive effect on dry matter intake and a better feed conversion ratio.Entities:
Keywords: animal performance; antioxidant; citrus pulp; meat quality; steers
Year: 2021 PMID: 34944115 PMCID: PMC8698122 DOI: 10.3390/ani11123338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Feed ingredients and chemical composition of the diets.
| Item | Dietary Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| FCP0 | FCP15 | FCP30 | |
| Fresh citrus pulp (%) | 0.0 | 15.0 | 30.0 |
| Steam flake corn (%) | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.0 |
| Corn grain (%) | 13.3 | 5.8 | 0.0 |
| Soybean meal (%) | 11.8 | 11.8 | 11.8 |
| Corn silage (%) | 40.0 | 31.1 | 20.6 |
| Wheat straw (%) | 13.9 | 15.1 | 16.3 |
| Premix (%) | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Urea (%) | 0.67 | 0.83 | 0.98 |
| Premix 1 (%) | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Physically effective 2 NDF (%) | 22.8 | 22.1 | 21.0 |
| Chemical Composition | |||
| DM (% as fed) | 51.90 | 39.60 | 32.40 |
| Ash (% of DM) | 5.31 | 6.22 | 7.07 |
| NDF (% of DM) | 31.21 | 31.19 | 32.16 |
| ADF (% of DM) | 20.02 | 21.97 | 23.65 |
| CP (% of DM) | 14.30 | 14.80 | 14.90 |
| EE (% of DM) | 3.21 | 3.03 | 2.90 |
| Lignin (% DM) | 2.49 | 2.56 | 2.56 |
| NEm 3 (Mcal/kg DM) | 1.76 | 1.71 | 1.68 |
| NEg 3 (Mcal/kg DM) | 1.13 | 1.10 | 1.07 |
1: Premix, calcium carbonate 69 (g/day); potassium iodide 0.012 (g/day); potassium chloride 10 (g/day); sodium chloride 30 (g/day); sodium selenite 0.0949 (g/day); copper sulfate 1.03 (g/day); zinc sulfate 0.50 (g/day); manganese sulfate 0.10 (g/day); vitamin A 15,000 (UI/day); vitamin D 2250 (UI/d); yeast (Celmanax) 6 (g/day); and monensin al 20% 1.25 (g/day). 2: Calculated based on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM, 2016). 3: Calculated according to Weiss et al. [22]. FCP: fresh citrus pulp. DM: dry matter. NDF: neutral detergent fiber. ADF: acid detergent fiber. CP: crude protein. EE: ether extract.
Least square means ± standard errors of animal performance according to dietary treatments.
| Dietary Treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | FCP0 | FCP15 | FCP30 | Diet | Linear | Quadratic | FCP0 vs. |
| Initial weight (kg) | 386.4 ± 7.97 | 385.1 ± 7.97 | 382.5 ± 8.19 | 0.8841 | 0.6278 | 0.9277 | 0.7015 |
| Final weight (kg) | 523.5 ± 10.6 | 520.1 ± 10.6 | 509.8 ± 11.0 | 0.4601 | 0.2328 | 0.7203 | 0.3761 |
| ADG (kg BW/day) 1 | 1.580 ± 0.06 | 1.535 ± 0.06 | 1.480 ± 0.06 | 0.3629 | 0.1594 | 0.9260 | 0.2293 |
| Dry matter intake (kg DM/day) | 11.80 a ± 0.33 | 11.28 a ± 0.33 | 10.31 b ± 0.35 | 0.0066 | 0.0019 | 0.5551 | 0.0101 |
| F:G (kg DM/kg BW) 2 | 7.51 a ± 0.15 | 7.37 a ± 0.15 | 6.98 b ± 0.16 | 0.0352 | 0.0168 | 0.4653 | 0.0699 |
| Water intake (lt/day) | 24.02 ± 0.79 | 23.20 ± 0.79 | 22.30 ± 0.82 | 0.4350 | 0.2309 | 0.6802 | 0.2084 |
| WI:DMI (lt/kg DM) 3 | 2.04 ± 0.79 | 2.07 ± 0.79 | 2.25 ± 0.82 | 0.0500 | 0.0231 | 0.3054 | 0.1169 |
1: ADG, average daily gain (kg/day); 2: F:G, (average daily feed intake (kg DM/day)/average daily gain (kg BW/day)); 3: WI:DMI, (water intake (lt/day)/dry matter intake (kg/day)). a,b: Values with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Least square means for hourly ruminal pH throughout the day by feeding treatment. Symbols indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). *: a linear contrast, x: a quadratic contrast among treatments, +: contrasts between FCP0 and FCP15 + FCP30 treatments. Black arrows indicate the time of feeding.
Least square means ± standard errors of carcass and meat quality traits according to dietary treatments.
| Dietary Treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | FCP0 | FCP15 | FCP30 | Diet | Linear | Quadratic | FCP0 vs. |
| Hot carcass weight (kg) 2 | 274.4 ± 2.1 | 271.6 ± 2.1 | 269.9 ± 2.2 | 0.3463 | 0.1546 | 0.8403 | 0.1732 |
| Marbling 1,3 | 407 ± 11.9 | 387 ± 11.7 | 397 ± 12.5 | 0.5113 | 0.5975 | 0.3144 | 0.3377 |
| Ribeye area 3 (cm2) | 63.2 ± 2.1 | 63.4 ± 2.1 | 63.1 ± 2.3 | 0.9941 | 0.9820 | 0.9156 | 0.9748 |
| Fat thickness 3 (mm) | 14.6 ± 1.2 | 12.7 ± 1.2 | 12.9 ± 1.3 | 0.4521 | 0.3407 | 0.4347 | 0.2221 |
| WBSF–5 day | 3.30 ± 0.23 | 3.11 ± 0.23 | 3.60 ± 0.25 | 0.3621 | 0.3920 | 0.2305 | 0.8482 |
| Cooking losses (%) | 22.5 ± 0.6 | 21.4 ± 0.6 | 21.9 ± 0.6 | 0.4058 | 0.4635 | 0.2626 | 0.2383 |
| L*–0 day | 38.9 ± 0.9 | 38.9 ± 0.9 | 38.8 ± 1.0 | 0.9911 | 0.9323 | 0.9172 | 0.9817 |
| a*–0 day | 22.4 ± 0.5 | 22.3 ± 0.5 | 21.6 ± 0.5 | 0.4233 | 0.2420 | 0.5521 | 0.4668 |
| b*–0 day | 11.8 ± 0.4 | 12.1 ± 0.4 | 11.4 ± 0.4 | 0.4103 | 0.4318 | 0.2769 | 0.8970 |
| L*–5 day | 39.8 ± 0.7 | 39.2 ± 0.7 | 38.3 ± 0.7 | 0.3672 | 0.1627 | 0.8843 | 0.2428 |
| a*–5 day | 22.2 ± 0.7 | 22.7 ± 0.7 | 22.0 ± 0.7 | 0.7415 | 0.7659 | 0.4749 | 0.9231 |
| b*–5 day | 10.6 ± 0.4 | 11.3 ± 0.4 | 10.4 ± 0.5 | 0.3476 | 0.7479 | 0.1580 | 0.6608 |
1: USDA marbling scores were encoded as follows: slight = 300 to 399, small = 400 to 499. 2: Adjusted by slaughter weight. 3: Adjusted by hot carcass weight. L*: lightness, a*: redness and b*: yellowness.
Least square means ± standard errors of micronutrient content and meat antioxidant capacity according to dietary treatments.
| Dietary Treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | FCP0 | FCP15 | FCP30 | Diet | Linear | Quadratic | FCP0 vs. FCP15 + 30 |
| α-tocopherol 1 | 0.96 c ± 0.32 | 2.26 b ± 0.34 | 3.54 a ± 0.34 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.9722 | <0.0001 |
| Retinol 1 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.8413 | 0.7693 | 0.6091 | 0.9885 |
| Retinoid 1 | 0.88 b ± 0.06 | 1.04 a,b ± 0.06 | 1.18 a ± 0.06 | 0.0044 | 0.0011 | 0.9096 | 0.0030 |
| β-carotene 1 | 1.38 a,b ± 0.08 | 1.53 a ± 0.08 | 1.17 b ± 0.08 | 0.0084 | 0.0585 | 0.0086 | 0.7564 |
| Carotenoids 1 | 2.99 ± 0.17 | 3.33 ± 0.18 | 2.83 ± 0.18 | 0.1506 | 0.5164 | 0.0649 | 0.6535 |
| DPPH 2 | 125.4 ± 2.6 | 117.9 ± 4.0 | 119.3 ± 2.6 | 0.1604 | 0.1899 | 0.3161 | 0.0563 |
| ORAC hydrophilic 2 | 414.6 ± 11.6 | 381.6 ± 11.6 | 393.3 ± 12.1 | 0.0999 | 0.1745 | 0.0975 | 0.0472 |
| ORAC lipophilic 2 | 91.9 b ± 4.7 | 113.8 a ± 4.5 | 95.0 b ± 4.7 | 0.0022 | 0.6065 | 0.0006 | 0.0241 |
1: expressed as µg of each standard/g of muscle (wet basis). 2: expressed as µmol TE/100 g fresh weight. a,b: Values with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (p < 0.05).