Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr 16;5(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/2049-1891-5-21. eCollection 2014.

Effects of different dietary energy and protein levels and sex on growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of F1 Angus × Chinese Xiangxi yellow cattle

Affiliations

Effects of different dietary energy and protein levels and sex on growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of F1 Angus × Chinese Xiangxi yellow cattle

Lingyan Li et al. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. .

Abstract

Background: The experiment evaluated the effect of nutrition levels and sex on the growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of F1 Angus × Chinese Xiangxi yellow cattle.

Methods: During the background period of 184 d,23 steers and 24 heifers were fed the same ration,then put into a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial arrangement under two levels of - dietary energy (TDN: 70/80% DM), protein (CP: 11.9/14.3% DM) and sex (S: male/female) during the finishing phase of 146 d. The treatments were - (1) high energy/low protein (HELP), (2) high energy/high protein (HEHP), (3) low energy/low protein (LELP) and (4) low energy/high protein (LEHP). Each treatment used 6 steers and 6 heifers, except for HELP- 5 steers and 6 heifers.

Results: Growth rate and final carcass weight were unaffected by dietary energy and protein levels or by sex. Compared with the LE diet group, the HE group had significantly lower dry matter intake (DMI, 6.76 vs. 7.48 kg DM/d), greater chest girth increments (46.1 vs. 36.8 cm), higher carcass fat (19.9 vs.16.3%) and intramuscular fat content (29.9 vs. 22.8% DM). The HE group also had improved yields of top and medium top grade commercial meat cuts (39.9 vs.36.5%). The dressing percentage was higher for the HP group than the LP group (53.4 vs. 54.9%). Steers had a greater length increment (9.0 vs. 8.3 cm), but lower carcass fat content (16.8 vs. 19.4%) than heifers. The meat quality traits (shear force value, drip loss, cooking loss and water holding capacity) were not affected by treatments or sex, averaging 3.14 kg, 2.5, 31.5 and 52.9%, respectively. The nutritive profiles (both fatty and amino acid composition) were not influenced by the energy or protein levels or by sex.

Conclusions: The dietary energy and protein levels and sex significantly influenced the carcass characteristics and chemical composition of meat but not thegrowth performance, meat quality traits and nutritive profiles.

Keywords: Carcass characteristics; Energy; F1 Angus × Chinese Xiangxi yellow cattle; Growth performance; Meat quality; Protein; Sex.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. MOA. National Protection List of Livestock and Poultry Genetic Resources. Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. 2006;662:245.
    1. Ouyang SJ. Livestock and poultry breeds of Hunan Province. Changsha: Hunan Science and Technology Press; 1984. pp. 54–60.
    1. Dunshea FR, D’Souza DN, Pethick DW, Harper GS, Warner RD. Effects of dietary factors and other metabolic modifiers on quality and nutritional value of meat. Meat Science. 2005;71:8–38. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.05.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arthaud VH, Mandigo RW, Koch RM, Kotula AW. Carcass composition, quality and palatability attributes of bulls and steers fed different energy levels and killed at four ages. J Anim Sci. 1970;44:53–64. - PubMed
    1. Kannan G, Gadiyaram KM, Galipalli S, Carmichael A, Kouakou B, Pringle TD, McMillin KW, Gelaye S. Meat quality in goats as influenced by dietary protein and energy levels, and postmortem aging. Small Ruminant Research. 2006;61:45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.01.006. - DOI