Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:01:25.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of dietary energy and protein levels on performance, carcass and meat quality of Belgian White-blue double-muscled finishing bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. O. Fiems
Affiliation:
National Institute for Animal Nutrition, Centre for Agricultural Research — Ghent, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium
S. de Campeneere
Affiliation:
National Institute for Animal Nutrition, Centre for Agricultural Research — Ghent, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium
D. F. Bogaerts
Affiliation:
AVEVE Animal Nutrition Experimental Station, Mierdsedijk 116, B-2382 Poppel, Belgium
B. G. Cottyn
Affiliation:
National Institute for Animal Nutrition, Centre for Agricultural Research — Ghent, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium
Ch. V. Boucqué
Affiliation:
National Institute for Animal Nutrition, Centre for Agricultural Research — Ghent, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

The effect of three protein (77, 97 and 117 g DVE (true protein digested in the small intestine) per kg dry matter (DM)) and two energy levels (7·38 and 8·03 MJ NEF (net energy for fattening) per kg DM) on the performance of Belgian White-blue double-muscled finishing bulls and on the quality of their carcasses and meat was investigated. The diet, offered ad libitum, consisted of 650 g/kg concentrates and 350 g/kg maize silage on DM basis.

No significant influence was found of the energy level on the growth rate. The low protein level reduced live-weight gain, from 370 to 501 kg (1·43 kg on average v. 2·60 and 1·66 kg daily; P < 0·02). The growth rate during the entire period (370 to 692 kg) and the live weight at slaughter were significantly influenced by the protein content.

The bulls given the high energy level lost less weight during the 20-h fasting period before slaughter. Their carcasses were classified with a higher fatness score and a better conformation. These carcasses had a higher fat content, while the proportion of bone in the carcass was lower than in the low energy groups. The cold carcass weight of the low protein groups (456 kg on average) was significantly smaller than that of the four other groups (470 kg on average). Although no differences between the six groups were found concerning the dressing proportion, this measurement was significantly influenced by the protein level (685 g/kg for low protein v. 692 for high protein). The SEUROP conformation was positively influenced by the protein and the energy level, while the fatness score was influenced only by the energy level (5·5 v. 6·0 for the low and the high energy level, respectively). Although the differences in conformation, fatness score and dressing proportion are significant, because of the small variation, the practical meaning is less important.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, H. R. 1978. Effect of energy level on growth and efficiency. In Patterns of growth and development in cattle (ed. De Boer, H. and Martin, J.), pp. 393412. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. T., Bergen, W. G., Merkel, R. A. and Hawkins, D. R. 1988. The effect of dietary crude protein level on rate, efficiency and composition of gain of growing beef bulls. Journal ofAnimal Science 66: 19901996.Google ScholarPubMed
Anonymous. 1991. Community scale for the classification carcasses of adult bovine animals. Official publications of European Communities no. 1208/81, 2930/81 and 1026/91, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Ansay, M. and Hanset, R. 1979. Anatomical, physiological and biochemical differences between conventional and double-muscled cattle in the Belgian Blue and White breed. Livestock Production Science 6: 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C. B. 1989. Carcass composition of steers given hay, hay supplemented with ruminal undegradable protein, or concentrate Canadian Journal ofAnimal Science 69: 905909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, P., Culioli, J., Renerre, M., Touraille, C., Micol, D. and Geay, Y. 1993. Effect of feed protein on carcass composition and meat quality in steers Meat Science 35: 7992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boccard, R. 1981. Facts and reflections on muscular hypertrophy in cattle: double muscling or culard. In Developments in meat science (ed. Lawrie, R.), pp. 128. Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Boccard, R., Buchter, L., Casteels, M., Cosentino, E., Dransfield, E., Hood, D. E., Joseph, R. L., MacDougall, D. B., Rhodes, D. N., Schon, I., Tinbergen, B. J. and Touraille, C. 1981. Procedures for measuring meat quality characteristics in beef production experiments. Report of a working group in the Commission of the European Communities beef production research programme. Livestock Production Science 8: 385397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boever, J. L. de, Cottyn, B. G., Fiems, L. O. and Boucque, Ch. V. 1992. Determination of chemical composition of beef meat by NIRS. In Near infra-red spectroscope. Bridging the gap between data analysis and NIR applications (ed. Hildrum, K. I., Isakson, T., Naes, T. and Tandberg, A.), pp. 339344. Ellis Horwood, London.Google Scholar
Boucqué, Ch. V., Fiems, L. O., Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1980. Belgian energy and protein feeding standards for growing and fattening cattle Annales Zootechnie 29: 383387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucqué, Ch. V., Fiems, L. O., Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1984. Besoin en proteines de taureaux culards au cours de la periode de finition Revue de VAgriculture 37: 661670.Google Scholar
Bouquiaux, J.-M. and Hellemans, R. 1996. Problématique de la production de viande bovine en Belgique. Publication no. 583 de I' Institut Economique Agricole, Bruxelles, pp. 48.Google Scholar
Fiems, L. O., Bogaerts, D. F., Cottyn, B. G., Decuypere, E. and Boucque, Ch. V. 1995a. Effect of protein level on performance, carcass and meat quality, hormone levels and nitrogen balance of finishing Belgian White-blue double-muscled bulls. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 73: 213223.Google Scholar
Fiems, L. O., Boucque, Ch. V., Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1990. Effect of energy density by dietary incorporation of fats on the performance of the double-muscled bulls. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30:267274.Google Scholar
Fiems, L. O., Hoof, J. van, Uytterhaegen, L., Boucque, Ch. V. and Demeyer, D. 1995b. Comparative quality of meat from double-muscled and normal beef cattle. In Expression of tissue proteinases and regulation of protein degradation as related to meat quality (ed. Ouali, A., Demeyer, D. I. and Smulders, J. M.), pp. 381393. Ecceamst, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Geay, Y., Robelin, J., Vermorel, M. and Béranger, C. 1982. Muscular development and energy utilisation in cattle: the double muscled as an extreme or a deviant animal. In Muscle hypertrophy of genetic origin and its use to improve beef production (ed. King, J. W. B. and Menissier, F.), pp. 7487. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanset, R. 1996. Le Blanc-Bleu Beige face à la nouvelle donné économique. Journée d'etude, Agribex, 15 February, Brussels.Google Scholar
Holzer, Z., Levy, D., Samuel, V. and Bruckenthal, I. 1986. Interactions between supplementary nitrogen source and ration energy density on performance and nitrogen utilization in growing and fattening male cattle Animal Production 42:1928.Google Scholar
Levy, D., Holzer, Z., Folman, Y., Bleiberg, M. and Ilan, D. 1980. Protein requirements of male cattle fattened on diets differing in energy concentrations Animal Production 30: 189197.Google Scholar
Martin, T. G., Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M. and Mohler, M. T. 1978. Protein levels for bulls: comparison of three continuous dietary levels on growth and carcass traits. Journal ofAnimal Science 47: 2933.Google Scholar
Minet, V., Eenaeme, C. van, Raskin, P., Dufrasne, I., Clinquart, A., Hornick, J. L., Diez, M., Mayombo, P., Baldwin, P., Bienfait, J. M. and Istasse, L. 1996. Fattening of Belgian Blue double muscled bulls: technical data. Université Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Prior, R. L., Kohlmeier, R. H., Cundiff, L. V., Dikeman, M. E. and Crouse, J. D. 1977. Influence of dietary energy and protein on growth and carcass composition in different biological types of cattle Journal of Animal Science 45: 132146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S., Straelen, W. M. van, Subnel, A. P. J., Meijer, R. G. M., Steg, A., Wever, C. J. G. and Blok, M. C. 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB-system Livestock Production Science 40:139155.Google Scholar
Uytterhaegen, L., Claeys, E., Demeyer, D., Lippens, M., Fiems, L. O., Boucque, Ch. V., Voorde, G. van de and Bastiaens, A. 1994. Effects of double-muscling on carcass quality, beef tenderness and myofibrillar protein degradation in Belgian Blue White bulls Meat Science 38: 255267.Google Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. I. The system in use from May 1977 onwards in The Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5: 331345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H., Vermorel, M. and Bickel, H. 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants: new energy systems in the Netherlands, France and Switzerland; general introduction Livestock Production Science 5: 327330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition Journal of Dairy Science 74: 35833597.Google Scholar
Verbeke, R. and Van de Voorde, G. 1978. Détermination de la composition de demi-carcasses de bovins par la dissection d'une seule cote Revue de I'Agriculture 31: 575580.Google Scholar
Zinn, R. A. 1989. Influence of level and source of dietary fat on its comparative feeding value in finishing diets for steers: feedlot cattle growth and performance. Journal of Animal Science 67: 10291037.Google Scholar