| Literature DB >> 35327306 |
Manuela Merayo1,2, Sergio Aníbal Rizzo1,3, Luciana Rossetti1, Dario Pighin1,3, Gabriela Grigioni1,3.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to study the effect of finishing diets including distiller grains (DG) on color and oxidative stability of beef after being exposed to aerobic retail display conditions, with or without previous aging. For this purpose, beef samples from animals fed with finishing diets including 0%, 15%, 30%, and 45% DG (on a dry matter basis), which had been exposed to aerobic retail display conditions, with or without previous aging under vacuum packaging, were evaluated. The content of γ-tocopherol, β-carotene, and lutein in diet samples increased with the level of DG. Beef evaluated at 72 h post-mortem showed greater content of γ-tocopherol and retinol as the DG level increased. Meat color was not affected by DG inclusion, but color parameters decreased with retail conditions. Meat from animals fed with DG showed the lowest values of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), independently of the retail display conditions. However, all samples were below the threshold associated with rancid aromas and above the a* value related to meat color acceptance. Thus, feeding diets including up to 45% of DG improved the antioxidant status of meat, preserving the color, and delaying lipid oxidation in meat samples under the display conditions evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; beef; color; distiller grains; oxidative stability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327306 PMCID: PMC8954531 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Composition of the finishing diets on a dry matter (DM) basis (g/100 g DM).
| Item | Dietary Treatment 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0DG | 15DG | 30DG | 45DG | |
| Ingredient (% DM) | ||||
| Cracked corn grain | 84 | 74 | 64 | 48 |
| Distiller grains (DG) | 0 | 15 | 30 | 45 |
| Soybean meal | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Alfalfa hay | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Nucleus 2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Chemical composition (% DM) | ||||
| Crude protein | 11.72 | 12.82 | 14.02 | 16.80 |
| Fat | 4.16 | 5.37 | 6.44 | 7.56 |
| Ash | 2.87 | 3.14 | 3.27 | 3.73 |
1 Dietary treatment: 0DG, control, 15DG 15% DG, 30DG 30% DG and 45DG 45% DG. 2 Nucleus composition (Vetifarma SA, La Plata, Argentina): vitamin A: 1,000,000 IU/kg; vitamin D3: 200,000 IU/kg; vitamin E: 6500 IU/kg; vitamin B1: 650 ppm; manganese: 12,000 ppm; zinc: 12,000 ppm; copper: 6000 ppm; cobalt: 40 ppm; selenium: 60 ppm; iodine: 200 ppm; with added calcium 0.05%.
Tocopherol and carotenoid contents (µg/g DM) in feeding diets 1.
| Item | 0DG 1 | 15DG | 30DG | 45DG | SEM 2 | L 3 | Q | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| γ-tocopherol | 48.37 c | 102.43 b | 132.80 a,b | 160.68 a | 9.84 | 0.0002 | <0.0001 | NS |
| α-tocopherol | 5.25 b | 12.00 a | 16.15 a | 17.27 a | 1.45 | 0.002 | 0.0003 | NS |
| β-carotene | 1.91 c | 1.95 b,c | 2.04 a,b | 2.11 a | 0.02 | 0.0002 | <0.0001 | NS |
| α-carotene | n.d. 4 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | ||||
| Lutein | 9.62 b | 9.53 b | 13.18 a | 15.01 a | 0.75 | 0.002 | 0.0004 | NS |
1 Dietary treatment: 0DG, control; 15DG, 15% DG; 30DG, 30% DG and 45DG, 45% DG (%DM basis). 2 SEM: standard error of the mean. 3 Linear (L) and quadratic (Q) response to DG level. Means in the same row having different letters are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. NS: no significant. 4 n.d., not detectable.
Figure 1Average intake (mean ± SD) of antioxidant compounds weighted with the consumption of the animals, for each dietary treatment (0, 0% DG control; 15, 15% DG; 30, 30%DG; 45, 45% DG, DM basis).
Content of antioxidant vitamins and oxidation stability in fresh meat samples (LTL) muscle at 72 h post-mortem.
| Item | 0DG 1 | 15DG | 30DG | 45DG | SEM 2 | L 3 | Q | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antioxidant compounds (µg/g meat) | ||||||||
| γ-tocopherol | 0.83 b | 1.02 a,b | 1.05 a,b | 1.44 a | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.007 | 0.39 |
| α-tocopherol | 0.78 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 1.41 | 0.22 | NS | 0.06 | 0.52 |
| Retinol | 0.017 | 0.025 | 0.030 | 0.024 | 0.003 | 0.099 | 0.12 | 0.93 |
| Oxidation stability | ||||||||
| FRAP (eq Fe+2/µM) | 204 | 229 | 226 | 216 | 17 | NS | 0.73 | 0.33 |
| TBARS (mg MDA/kg meat) | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.06 | NS | 0.09 | 0.27 |
1 Dietary treatment: 0DG, control; 15DG, 15% DG; 30DG, 30% DG and 45DG, 45% DG (%DM basis). 2 SEM: standard error of the mean. 3 Linear (L) and quadratic (Q) response to DG level. Means in the same row having different letters are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. NS: no significant.
Content of antioxidant vitamins and antioxidant stability in LTL muscle at the end of each storage and retail display condition.
| Item | Dietary Treatment 1 | Retail Treatment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0DG | 15DG | 30DG | 45DG | SEM 2 | R1 | R2 | SEM | D*R 3 | D | R | |
| Antioxidant compounds (µg/g meat) | |||||||||||
| γ-tocopherol | 0.62 b | 0.88 a | 0.81 a,b | 0.75 a,b | 0.05 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.04 | NS | 0.04 | NS |
| α-tocopherol | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.04 | NS | NS | NS |
| Retinol | 0.023 b | 0.026 a,b | 0.030 a | 0.024 a,b | 0.001 | 0.027 | 0.025 | 0.002 | NS | 0.03 | NS |
| Antioxidant capacity | |||||||||||
| FRAP (eq Fe+2/µM) | 261 | 250 | 261 | 251 | 9.20 | 270 a | 241 b | 6.82 | NS | NS | 0.004 |
1 D, Dietary treatment: 0DG, control; 15DG, 15% DG; 30DG, 30% DG and 45DG, 45% DG (%DM basis); R, retail treatment: R1, aerobic exposure for seven days; R2, vacuum-packed conditions for 25 days, plus aerobic exposure for three days. 2 SEM: standard error of the mean. 3 D*R, dietary treatment x retail treatment interaction. Means in the same row having different letters are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. NS: no significant.
Figure 2Lipid oxidation (mean ± SEM) measured as thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) in LTL at the end of storage and retail display conditions for each dietary treatment (0, 0%DG control; 15, 15% DG; 30, 30%DG; 45, 45% DG, DM basis).
Color parameters (CIELab) in LTL muscle at the end of each storage and retail display condition.
| Item | Dietary Treatment 1 | Retail Treatment | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0DG | 15DG | 30DG | 45DG | SEM 2 | R1 | R2a | R2b | SEM | D*R 3 | D | R | |
| L* | 43.24 | 42.50 | 41.85 | 41.37 | 0.57 | 40.93 b | 42.84 a | 42.94 a | 0.37 | NS | NS | 0.0002 |
| a* | 17.10 | 18.32 | 18.02 | 18.08 | 0.47 | 15.72 c | 20.09 a | 17.83 b | 0.26 | NS | NS | <0.0001 |
| C* | 19.96 | 21.45 | 20.98 | 21.01 | 0.45 | 19.03 c | 22.71 a | 20.82 b | 0.31 | NS | NS | <0.0001 |
1 D, Dietary treatment: 0DG, control; 15DG, 15% DG; 30DG, 30% DG and 45DG, 45% DG (%DM basis); R, retail treatment: R1, aerobic exposure; R2a, end of vacuum-packed storage (25 days); R2b, end of aerobic exposure of R2. 2 SEM: standard error of the mean. 3 D*R, dietary treatment x retail treatment interaction. Means in the same row having different letters are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. NS: no significant.
Figure 3Principal component analysis (PCA) depicting the relationship between the oxidant/antioxidant status and the color parameters, at (A) R1 conditions (aerobic exposure for seven days) and at (B) R2 conditions (vacuum-packed storage for 25 days, plus aerobic exposure for three days).