Carcass and Meat Quality of Assaf Milk Fed Lambs: Effect of Rearing System and Sex

1Carcass and meat quality of Assaf milk fed lambs: effect of rearing2 system and sex3 *Rodríguez, A.B., Landa, R., Bodas, R., Prieto, N., Mantecón, A.R.,4 Giráldez, F.J.5 Estación Agrícola Experimental (CSIC). Finca Marzanas, 24346-Grulleros, León (Spain)67* Corresponding author: Tel. (34) 987 31 71 56; Fax (34) 987 31 71 618E-mail address: [email protected]1 1 9Abstract 10The effect of sex and rearing system on growth and carcass and meat characteristics of milk-11fed Assaf lambs was studied. Thirty-six lambs, 18 males and 18 females were used. Twelve12lambs remained with their mothers throughout the experiment (NR). Within 24-36 hours of13birth, the rest were housed individually and fed twice a day ad libitum (AAR) or at 70% of ad14libitum consumption (RAR) with reconstituted cow milk. Sex did not affect animal15performance, yet females showed higher carcass and non carcass fat deposits. NR lambs16showed greater BWG than AAR fed lambs, and AAR, higher than the RAR. Differences17between naturally and artificially reared lambs in CCW and killing out percentage were not18significant. Empty digestive tract and mesenteric fat weights were greater for RAR than NR19lambs, with the AAR lambs demonstrating intermediate values; conversely, omental fat was20greater in NR lambs. Carcass ether extract content was greater for NR lambs, possibly due to21the greater growth. Use of ad libitum cow’s milk substitute in suckling lambs twice a day22resulted in less body weight gain but similar killing out percentages than naturally raised23lambs. A 70% restricted supply increased the days in suckling and reduced carcass fatness and24compactness. Except for water loss, which was less in NR than artificially fed lambs, no25differences were found in meat characteristics.26Keywords: Lamb; naturally; artificially milk feeding system; growth, carcass, non carcass,27meat quality.28Introduction29Traditionally, in the Mediterranean countries of EU, most dairy sheep systems produce lambs30aimed at 10 kg live weight. This type of lamb is a very valuable product due to its appreciated31organoleptic qualities. In Spain during many decades, Churra and Castellana were the most32important dairy breeds and hence most of milk fed lambs were from these breeds.33Nevertheless, in the last twenty years the population of local dairy breeds has greatly2 2 34decreased whereas the population of foreign breeds, such as Awassi or Assaf, has increased35(Ugarte, Ruiz, Gabiña, & Beltrán de Heredia, 2001). Currently, the Assaf breed is becoming36the most important dairy sheep breed in a number of Spanish regions and, at this moment, its37population is estimated to be around 800,000 animals (Ugarte et al., 2001). In consequence of38this, lamb meat production of this foreign breed has significantly increased. 39It is well known that ewe genotype could have a significant effect on lamb performance and40carcass and meat quality (Sañudo, Campo, Sierra, María, Olleta, & Santolaria, 1997; Beriaín,41Horcada, Purroy, Lizaso, Chasco, & Mendizabal, 2000; Santos-Silva, Mendes, & Bessa,422002). Different authors have analysed the growth and carcass and meat characteristics of fat-43tailed lambs, and the Awassi is one of the most studied (Macit, Esenbuga, & Karaoglu, 2002;44Titi, Dmour, & Abdullah, 2007). 45Likewise, comparative studies of Awassi and Spanish dairy breeds have been carried out and46differences in parameters such as killing out percentage, carcass conformation, meat colour or47cooking losses have been reported (Sañudo et al., 1997). Nevertheless, to the best of our48knowledge, there are not many published data on performance and carcass and meat quality of49Assaf lambs. 50In addition to genotype, animal performance and meat quality can also be affected by rearing51system (Napolitano, Braghieri, Cifuni, Pacelli, & Girolami, 2002a; Napolitano, Cifuni,52Pacelli, Riviezzi, & Girolami, 2002b; Osorio, Zumalacárregui, Bermejo, Lozano, Figueira, &53Mateo, 2006). In Assaf flocks, artificial rearing with milk is commonly used either for54avoiding transmission of diseases (e.g. Visna-Maedi) and to obtain a greater amount of milk,55provided the market price of this last one is high enough. Moreover, through artificial56lactation controlling milk intake and, to a certain extent, the length of the rearing period could57be easier. It might be possible to get the maximal incomes from the sale of the lambs provided58carcass and meat characteristics were not affected.3 3 59There are several studies comparing performance and meat quality of naturally and artificially60reared lambs of local breeds (Osorio et al., 2006). Despite this, there is not information about61the rearing system on performance and meat quality of Assaf lambs. 62Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of sex and rearing system on63growth and carcass and meat characteristics of Assaf milk fed lambs.64Material and methods65Experimental design and animal management66Thirty-six Assaf lambs were included in a 2 x 3 factorial design in which the effects of sex67and feeding system (naturally and artificially rearing at two different levels of intake) were68studied in lambs from 2 days old to 10 kg live body weight. Naturally reared (NR) lambs (669males and 6 females) were raised exclusively on maternal milk from birth to slaughter and did70not receive any kind of solid food. Throughout of the course of the experiment NR lambs71were always kept with their dams. Dams were supplemented with hay and concentrate, and at72second day postpartum were allowed to graze at pasture for four hours a day. 73Artificially reared lambs were removed from the ewes within 24-36 hours of birth and housed74in individual pens. Twelve of them (AAR) (6 males and 6 females) were fed ad libitum twice75daily (09:00 and 19:00 h) with a commercial reconstituted cow’s milk [18.5% dry matter76(DM), 45 g of crude protein (CP)/kg and 47 g of crude fat (ether extract)/kg]. The other77twelve lambs (RAR) (6 males and 6 females) were fed with the same reconstituted milk78offered twice a day at 70% of the level intake of AAR group. Daily allowance of RAR group79was adjusted three times a week, according to LBW and intake of AAR group. The milk80replacer was prepared immediately before the distribution and supplemented with NaCl (0.581g/kg), Ca2PO4 (1 g/kg) and vitamins A (500 µg/g), D3 (7.5 µg/g) and E (600 µg/kg). Reconstituted82milk replacer was offered in clean bottles, and lambs were trained to suck the milk replacer using4 4 83polythene tubes and silicone teats. Milk refusals were weighed to determine the milk intake. All84lambs were weighed at birth and three times a week throughout the experimental period. 85Slaughter procedure and non carcass weights86When animals reached 10 kg live body weight, they were anaesthetised using sodium87pentobarbitone and slaughtered by exsanguination from the jugular vein, eviscerated and88skinned. The whole body of each lamb was dissected into carcass (which included thymus,89testicles, kidneys and the kidney knob and channel fat). The weights of the empty digestive90tract and the digestive (omental and mesenteric) fat and kidney knob carcass fat depots were91recorded. 92Carcass characteristics93Carcasses were chilled at 4 ºC during 24 h in a conventional chill cooler and then, cold94carcasses weight (CCW) was recorded (CCW). Chilling losses were estimated as the95difference between cold and hot carcass weight relative to the hot carcass weight. The killing96out percentage was calculated as the CCW expressed as a proportion of the slaughter weight. 97The following carcass measurements described by Colomer-Rocher, Delfa, and Sierra Alfranca,981988) were assessed to determine carcass morphology: buttock perimeter (B), buttock length (G),99carcass external length (K) and pelvic limb length (F). The index for carcass conformation (cold100carcass weight/carcass external length) was calculated. Right half carcasses containing the tails101were minced, mixed and homogenized in a commercial blender, and samples were taken and102stored at -30 ºC, then lyophilized (FTS-Lyostar, United States) for chemical composition103analysis. 104Meat characteristics105Meat characteristics were evaluated in the longissimus thoracis and longissimus lumborum106muscles of the left carcass. At the 6th rib, the muscle pH was measured, using a Metrohm® pH107meter, equipped with a penetrating electrode. Immediately after 1 hour blooming,5 5 108instrumental color CIE L* (lightness), a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) (CIE, 1986) readings109were taken in the longissimus thoracis muscle at 13th rib using a spectrophotometer (Minolta110Croma Meter 2002, Germany). Eye muscle area was measured in the 6th rib position by111outlining on a transparency and then using a plannimeter (Areameter MK2, Holland).112The longissimus lumborum muscle was minced, frozen (–20 ºC), lyophilized (FTS-Lyostar,113United States) and analyzed for chemical composition. A subsample from longissimus114thoracis muscle was taken to determine the water holding capacity. Filter paper press115procedure described by Grau and Hamm (1953) and modified by Sierra (1973) was used to116determine pressure losses. The remaining portion was vacuum-packed and frozen (–20º C) for117subsequent measurements of cooking losses and instrumental hardness. Longissimus thoracis118muscles were cooked in a water bath until internal temperature reached 70ºC. Cooking loss119was expressed as a proportion of the initial weight. Longissimus thoracis cooked samples (10120x 10 x 20 mm prismatic portions) were used to determine Warner-Bratzler shear force121(Texture Analyzer TA.XT2, Great Britain).122Chemical analysis123The procedures outlined by the AOAC (1999) were used to determine dry matter (DM,124method ID 950.46), ash (method ID 920.153), Kjeldahl N (CP, method ID 981.10) and crude125fat content (method ID 960.39) of the carcass and longissimus lumborum samples.126Statistical analysis127The data were subject to an analysis of variance according to a factorial design to determine128the effect of sex and rearing system on animal performance, carcass and meat characteristics.129When the F-test for rearing system or sexrearing system effects were significant (P < 0.05),130multiple comparisons among means were examined by the least significance difference test.131All analyses were performed using the GLM procedure of the Statistical Analysis Systems132(SAS, 1999). 6 6 133Results134Intake and growth performance135Mean values of dry matter intake, daily body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion136efficiency are shown in Table 1. Neither growth rate nor feed conversion efficiency were137affected (p>0.05) by sex. Regarding the effect of feeding treatments, daily body weight gain138of naturally reared lambs was consistently (p<0.05) higher than that of artificially reared139lambs. As expected, AAR lambs showed also a higher growth rate and lower feed conversion140efficiency than those of restricted group (RAR) (p<0.05). There was no significant (p>0.05)141interaction between rearing system and sex for any of these parameters. 142 (Table 1 near here)143Non-carcass and carcass characteristics144Neither dietary treatment nor sex affected non-carcass weight (see table 2). Sex did not affect145the weight of the empty digestive tract, but significant differences in the weight of empty146digestive tract were observed between rearing systems (p<0.05). The empty digestive tract147was 19% greater in RAR than in NR lambs (p<0.05). Digestive tract and fat depots were148affected by rearing system. NR lambs showed greater omental and lower mesenteric content149than RAR lambs (p<0.05). As regards the sex effect, males presented lower total digestive fat150values than females (p<0.05). 151 (Table 2 near here)152Carcass weight and killing out percentage were not significantly (P>0.05) affected. Chilling153losses were significantly (p<0.05) greater in RAR lambs than in NR or AAR lambs. The RAR154lambs showed significantly longer carcasses (p<0.001) than NR and AAR lambs, while pelvic155limbs length where higher for RAR than for NR lambs (p<0.05). Consequently, NR carcass156compactness index was greater than in artificially reared lambs (p<0.01). There were not157significant differences in linear measurements due to sex effect (p>0.10). 7 7 158With the exception of ether extract content of the carcass (26% higher for females than for159males, p<0.01), there were not significant differences in chemical composition of the carcass160composition due to sex effect (p>0.10). There were differences in carcass fat content between161feeding systems, RAR lambs showed lower values than NR lambs (p<0.05).162Meat characteristics163As shown in Table 3, there were not significant differences due to feeding system in the164longissimus thoracis pH after 24 hours postmortem, colour parameters, cooking losses and165chemical composition (p>0.05). Pressure losses showed 15% greater values in artificially166(AAR and RAR) than in NR lambs. Sex did not affect longissimus thoracis and longissimus167lumborum characteristics, with the exception of water (p<0.05) and ether extract contents168(p<0.001). Male lambs showed significantly 45% lower values in ether extract content than169female lambs.170 (Table 3 near here)171Discussion172Effect of sex173There is convincing evidence that growth rate, feed conversion efficiency, body composition174and carcass and meat quality can be affected by sex, although sexual dimorphism appears at175different body weight depending on the sheep breed.176Greater fat content, either in digestive depots or in the carcass and meat, in females than in177males observed in the present experiment could be supported by the concept that females178mature faster and fatten earlier than males (Butterfield, 1988). Similar results have been found179by Miguel, Huidobro, Díaz, Velasco, Lauzurica, Pérez et al. (2003) in Manchega and by180Horcada, Beriain, Purroy, Lizaso, and Chasco (1998) in Lacha suckling lambs. These results181confirm that, in Assaf breed, differences due to sex can be also evident at a very low body182weight, although adult size is greater for Assaf than other native Spanish breeds.8 8 183The results of meat chemical composition found in this study are in agreement with those of184Hoffman, Muller, Cloete, and Schmidt (2003) who reported that water is mainly located in185muscle and its content decrease as intramuscular fat proportion increase. Several meat186characteristics such as hardness or colour parameters are related to intramuscular fat content187(Fahmy, Boucher, Poste, Grégoire, Butler, & Comeau, 1992). Nevertheless, the lack of188differences in all of these parameters suggests that differences due to sex in adipose growth189observed in the present study were quantitatively irrelevant on meat characteristics. Other190studies on Spanish sheep breeds, including the Churra (Manso, Mantecón, & Castro, 1998)191and Manchega (Cañeque, Lauzurica, Guía, & López, 1990; Vergara & Gallego, 1999)192reported non differences between sexes. 193Effect of rearing system194Spanish dairy sheep flocks are usually conceived to produce lambs and milk. Feed intake of195suckling lambs during the first weeks of life depends on milk production of their dams and the196suckling regime. Thus, milk intake and, consequently, growth rate increase as milk yield and197the suckling frequency increase and it is not surprising that for low yielding dairy ewes lamb198performance may be worse for naturally than artificially reared lambs, if those receive milk-199replacer several times a day. In the present study, AAR lambs received milk-replacer only200twice a day, whereas NR lambs remained continuously with their mothers, which are high201yielding dairy ewes (Ugarte et al., 2001). Therefore, the differences reported in average daily202gain between NR and AAR lambs probably were associated with differences in the milk203intake.204Native dairy Spanish sheep breeds, such as Churra, Manchega, Lacha or Castellana, are much205less productive than Assaf or Awassi ewes (Ugarte et al., 2001). Thus, it is not surprising that206average daily gain values for NR Assaf lambs were similar to those reported by Al Jassim,207Aziz, Zorah, and Black (1999) for Awassi suckling lambs and greater than those reported for9 9 208naturally reared lambs of different Spanish breeds (Peláez, 1979; De la Fuente, Tejón, Rey,209Thos, & López-Bote, 1998; Beriain et al., 2000). 210On the other hand, it is noteworthy to point out that intake, growth rate and feed conversion211efficiency values of AAR lambs obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by212Peláez (1979) in Churra lambs also fed with cow’s reconstituted milk twice a day. This213suggests that, when they are fed in the same conditions, performance of Assaf lambs is similar214to that of Churra lambs. Other authors reported similar growth rates for artificially or215naturally reared lambs, although this fact depends on breed and feeding regime (Napolitano et216al., 2002a).217The regulation of the digestive tract growth is complex as it is affected by metabolic,218chemical and physical factors, and most of the development occurs during the fetal and219perinatal period (Baldwin et al., 2004). Regarding milk fed lambs, it has been suggested that220ruminal and intestinal mass development is usually faster for lambs reared under natural221conditions (Kaiser, 1976; De la Fuente et al., 1998). Our findings do not agree with those,222since digestive tract weight was greater for artificially than for naturally reared lambs.223However, feeding frequency or meal size could modulate gastrointestinal development224(Kristensen, Sehested, Jensen, & Vestergaard, 2007), which could explain the differences225between naturally and artificially reared lambs as average meal size could be expected to be226greater for the latter. On the other hand, the effect of the feeding system on omental and227mesenteric fat deposition followed different patterns. Thus, the greatest mesenteric fat228deposition occurred with the artificially reared lambs, while naturally reared lambs showed229the greater omental fat content. Although differences in the development of the different230sections of the digestive tract could explain those effects, this statement can not be confirmed231since those data were not recorded in the present study. 10 10 232In agreement with Napolitano et al. (2002a) there were not differences in killing out233percentage between naturally and artificially reared lambs. However, the higher chilling234losses observed in RAR lambs might be attributed to a lower carcass fat content compared235with NR and AAR lambs. It is well known that fat content has an effect on chilling losses236since fat act slows down moisture evaporation (Johnson, Hunt, Allen, Kastner, Danler, &237Schrock, 1988).238The 70% milk restriction level of RAR compared with AAR lambs resulted in a lower carcass239fat deposition, yet not in a muscle deposition as was shown by the similar values of carcass240crude protein content. This differences points out that RAR raised animals, had energy and241protein supply enough to reach the maximum protein deposition but not for achieving the242same fat accretion, as was suggested by Webster (1986) who reported that fat deposition is243directly related to energy:protein intake rate. 244The rearing system affected the pressure losses of water from the longissimus thoracis245muscle, the other meat characteristics being unaffected. Generally restricted feeding animals246could lower water holding capacity as a result of a lower fat content (Hornick, Van Eenaeme,247Clinquart, Diez, & Istasse, 1998). In our case, the differences between artificially reared248lambs were not significant, whereas differences in pressures losses were found between249artificial and naturally reared lambs. Naturally reared lambs could be more sensitive to pre-250slaughter stress than artificially reared lambs as the latter were individually accommodated251and used to management. Pre-slaughter stress could reduce muscle glycogen reserves and as a252consequence result in a higher initial pH and lower pressure losses. Results of the present253study showed that pH values at 24 hours were similar for both, naturally and artificially reared254groups. However, as was previously reported (Fernandez, Monin, Culioli, Legrand, &255Quilichini, 1996), differences in the pH decline during the first hours from slaughter may256affect water holding capacity of meat. Likewise, differences in water holding capacity when11 11 257lambs have different growth pattern may have been the net effect of a number of factors,258including differences in the nature of the collagen (Purchas, Burnham, & Morris, 2002) that259were not measured directly in this study.260The results of this study show that the employment of artificial rearing systems permitted261carcass characteristics similar to those observed in naturally raised lambs, and similar to the262values found in other autochthonous breeds, when milk replacer is given ad libitum twice a263day. A milk restricted supply reduced carcass fatness and compactness. Except for water264holding capacity, no differences were found in the meat characteristics analyzed. 12 12 265References266AL Jassim, R.A.M., Aziz, D.I., Zorah, K., Black, J.L. 1999. Effect of concentrate feeding on milk 267yield and body-weight change of Awassi ewes and the growth of their lambs. Animal Science, 69, 268441-446.269AOAC (1999). Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist (16th 270Ed.). AOAC, International, Gaithersburg (United States). 271Baldwin, R. L., McLeod, R., Klotz, J. L., & Heitmann, R. N. (2004). Rumen development, 272intestinal growth and hepatic metabolism in the pre- and postweaning ruminant. Journal of Dairy 273Science, 87, 55–65274Beriaín, M.J., Horcada, A., Purroy, A., Lizaso, G., Chasco, J., & Mendizabal, J.A. (2000). 275Characteristics of Lacha and Rasa Aragonesa lambs slaughtered at three live weights. Journal of 276Animal Science, 78, 3070-3077.277Butterfield, R.M. (1988). New concepts of sheep growth. Department of Veterinary Anatomy 278University of Sydney (Australia). 279Cañeque Martínez, V., Lauzurica Gómez, S., Guía, E., & López, E. (1990). Empleo de distintas 280cantidades de leche en lactancia artificial de corderos de raza Manchega. ITEA, 86, 164-171.281CIE (1986). Colorimetry, 2nd Edn. CIE Publications 15.2 Commission Internationale de 282l'Eclairage, Viena (Austria).283Colomer-Rocher, F., Delfa, R., & Sierra Alfranca, I. (1988). Metodo normalizado para el estudio de 284los caracteres cuantitativos y cualitativos de las canales ovinas producidas en el area Mediterránea, 285según los sistemas de producción (1). Cuadernos del INIA, 17, 19-41. 286De la Fuente, J., Tejón, D., Rey, A., Thos, J., & López-Bote, C. (1998). Effect of rearing system on 287growth, body composition and development of digestive system in young lambs. Journal of Animal 288Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 78, 75-83.289Fahmy, M.H., Boucher, J.M., Poste, L.M., Grégoire, R., Butler, G., & Comeau, J.E. (1992). Feed 290efficiency, carcass characteristics and sensory quality of lambs, with or without prolific ancestry, 291fed diets with different protein supplements. Journal of Animal Science, 70, 1365-1374. 13 13 292Fernandez, X., Monin, G., Culioli, J., Legrand, I., & Quilichini, Y. (1996). Effect of duration of 293feed withdrawal and transportation time on muscle characteristics and quality in Friesian-Holstein 294calves. Journal of Animal Science, 74, 1576–1583295Grau, R., & Hamm, R. (1953). Eine einfache methode zur bestimmung der wasserbindung im 296muskel. Naturwissenschafen, 40, 29-30.297Hoffman, L.C., Muller, M., Cloete, S.W.P., & Schmidt, D. (2003). Comparison of six crossbred 298lambs types:sensory, physical and nutritional meat quality characteristics. Meat Science, 65, 1265- 2991274. 300Horcada, A., Beriain, M.J., Purroy, A., Lizaso, G., & Chasco, J. (1998). Effect of sex on meat 301quality of Spanish lamb breeds (Lacha and Rasa Aragonesa). Animal Science, 67, 541-547.302Hornick, J.L., Van Eenaeme, C., Clinquart, A., Diez, M., & Istasse, L. (1998). Different periods of 303feed restriction before compensatory growth in Belgian Blue bulls: I. Animal performance, nitrogen 304balance, meat characteristics, and fat composition. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 249-259.305Johnson, R. D., Hunt, M. C., Allen, D. M., Kastner, C. L. Danler, R. J. & Schrock, C. C. (1988). 306Moisture uptake during washing and spray chilling of holstein and beef-type steer carcasses. 307Journal Animal Science, 66, 2180-2184.308Kaiser, A.G. (1976). The effects of milk feeding on the pre- and post-weaning growth of calves, 309and on stomach development at weaning. Journal of Agriculture Science, Cambridge, 87, 357-363.310Kristensen, N. B., Sehested, J., Jensen, S. K., & Vestergaard, M. (2007). Effect of milk allowance 311on concentrate intake, ruminal environment, and ruminal development in milk-fed holstein Calves. 312Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 4346-4355.313Macit, M., Esenbuga, N., & Karaoglu, M. (2002). Growth performance and carcass characteristics 314of Awassi, Morkaraman and Tushin lamb grazed on pasture and supported with concentrate. Small 315Ruminant Research, 44, 241-246.316Manso, T., Mantecón, A.R., & Castro, T. (1998). Rendimiento a la canal, quinto cuarto y despiece 317de corderos de raza Churra sometidos a distintas estrategias de alimentación. Archivos de 318Zootecnia, 47, 73-84. 319Miguel, E., Huidobro, F.R., Díaz, M.T., Velasco, S., Lauzurica, S., Pérez, C., Onega, E., Blázquez, 320B., & Cañeque, V. (2003). Methods of carcass classification based on subjetive assessments of14 14 321carcass fatness and of carcass conformation: effect of sex on the prediction of tissue composition in 322carcasses of sucking lambs. Animal Science, 77, 383-393.323Napolitano, F., Braghieri, A., Cifuni, G.F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A. (2002a). Behaviour and meat 324production of organically farmed unweaned lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 43, 179-184. 325Napolitano, F., Cifuni, G.F., Pacelli, C., Riviezzi, A.M., & Girolami, A. (2002b). Effect of artificial 326rearing on lamb welfare and meat quality. Meat Science, 60, 307-315.327Osorio, M.T., Zumalacárregui, J.M., Bermejo, B., Lozano, A., Figueira, A.C., & Mateo, J. (2006). 328Effect of ewe's milk versus milk-replacer rearing on mineral composition of suckling lamb meat 329and liver. Small Ruminant Research, 68, 296-302. 330Peláez, R. (1979). Digestibilidad, utilización de la energía y balances de nitrógeno en corderos de 331raza Churra, criados artificialmente a base de leche de oveja, leche de vaca y sustitutivos lácteos. 332PhD Thesis. Universidad de León. Facultad de Veterinaria. León, Spain. 333Purchas, R. W., Burnham, D. L., & Morris, S. T. (2002). Effects of growth potential and growth 334path on tenderness of beef longissimus muscle from bulls and steers. Journal of Animal Science, 33580, 3211–3221.336Santos-Silva, J., Mendes, I.A., & Bessa, R.J.B. (2002). The effect of genotype, feeding system and 337the slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs. 1. Growth, carcass composition and meat quality. 338Livestock Production Science, 76, 17-25.339Sañudo, C., Campo, M.M., Sierra, I., María, G.A., Olleta, J.L., & Santolaria, P. (1997). Breed effect 340on carcasse and meat quality of suckling lambs. Meat Science, 46, 357-365.341SAS INST. INC. (1999). SAS/STAT®. User's Guide (Version 8) .SAS Publishing, Cary, NC 342(United States). 343Sierra, I., 1973. Producción de cordero joven y pesado de la raza Rasa Aragonesa. Instituto de 344Economía y Producciones Ganaderas del Ebro, 18, pp. 1-28. 345Titi, H.H., Dmour R.O., & Abdullah, A.Y. (2007). Growth performance and carcass characteristics 346of Awassi lambs and Shami goat kids fed yeast culture in their finishing diet. Animal Feed Science 347and Technology (In press). 348Ugarte, E., Ruiz, R., Gabiña, D., & Beltrán de Heredia, I. (2001). Impact of high-yielding foreign 349breeds on the Spanish dairy sheep industry. Livestock Production Science, 71, 3-10.15 15 350Vergara, H., & Gallego, L. (1999). Effect of type of suckling and length of lactation period on 351carcass and meat quality in intensive lamb production systems. Meat Science, 53, 211-215.352Webster, A.J.F. (1986). Factors affecting the body composition of growing and adult animals. 353Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 45, 45-53.35435535616 16

Carcass and Meat Quality of Assaf Milk Fed Lambs: Effect of Rearing System and Sex

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support