Rhonda K. Miller and Gordon E. Carstens Professor and Associate Professor Meat Science and Animal Nutrition Section. Texas A&M University

Transcription

1 Feedlot: Nutrition and Meat Quality Rhonda K. Miller and Gordon E. Carstens Professor and Associate Professor Meat Science and Animal Nutrition Section Department of Animal Science Texas A&M University

2 The Feedlot Segment of the Beef Industry Improves Beef Quality

3 Why the Improvement in Eating Quality? Increased growth rate Increased lean growth and carcass fatness Increased marbling

4 Objective Current Research Use of wet distillers grain plus solubles as a carbohydrate source in the animal diet New implant strategies Assessing animal temperament and eating behavior as it related to animal performance and meat quality Automated grading for beef tenderness

5 Newest Grain Source Wet Distillers Grain Plus Solubles By-product of ethanol production Replaces up to 35% of corn in the feedlot diet Ethanol production from current 6.5 billion gallons to 15 billion gallons by 2022 o 40 million tons (DM basis) per year

6 Can the Feedlot Industry Use All of fth the WDGP Produced? d? Feed 27 million head of cattle per year (USDA, 2008) Each animal consumes 25 lbs of dry matter per day Average days on feed = 150 day Feedlots use 50 million tons of feed o Have to feed 80% WDG o Too high of a level - up to 35% of diet

7 What Effect Does Feeding WDG Have on Marbling Level? Starch intake and digestibility may decrease Diets that include WDG have increased ruminal propionate, precursor for glucose (Erickson and Klopfenstein, n, 2006) Diets with from 0 to 50% WDG decreased marbling (VanderPol et al., 2006) o When adjusted to a constant YG, may not be significant (Corah and McCully, 2006)

8 Marbling attributes and sensory ratings of beef loins resulting from dietary distillers grains inclusion in combination with two corn processing methods Objective o to understand the effects of WDGS in combination with corn processing method on marbling, flavor and shelf-life of beef Experimental design o 54 crossbred steers (309±8 kg; 3/4 Angus, 1/4 Hereford) from single source ofour dietary treatments Steam-flaked corn with 0 or 35% WDG Dry-rolled corn with 0 or 35% WDG

9 Table 1. Composition of experimental diets 0% WDGS 35% WDGS Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Ingredient, % of DM WDGS Dry rolled corn Steam flaked corn Alfalfa hay Yellow grease Glycerin Cottonseed meal Supplement Urea Limestone Premix

10 Table 1. Composition of experimental diets 0% WDG 35% WDG Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Chemical analysis, % DM DM CP Ether extract Ca P K S

11 Fed 174 d Experimental Design Harvested at a commercial beef processor Carcass USDA Quality and Yield grade factors at 48 hr Intramuscular chemical lipid Fatty acid profile Trained meat descriptive attribute panel Aerobic, refrigerated shelf-lifelife

12 Table 2. Live animal performance 0% WDG 35% WDG P-values Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Live performance Initial BW, kg 310. (8) 307. (8) 308. (8) 307. (8) Final BW, kg 563. (11) 545. (11) 557. (11) 561. (12) DMI, kg/d 8.52 (0.22) 9.16 (0.21) 8.21 (0.21) 8.99 (0.23) < ADG, kg 1.45 (0.04) 1.37 (0.04) 1.43 (0.04) 1.45 (0.05) G:F (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003)<

13 Table 2. Carcass characteristics 0% WDG 35% WDG P-values Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Carcass characteristics HCW, kg 366. (7) 355. (7) 364. (7) 367. (7) Dressing % 65.1 (0.4) 65.1 (0.3) 65.4 (0.3) 65.4 (0.4) Fat thickness, mm 14.8 (1.1) 13.4 (1.1) 14.0 (1.1) 13.7 (1.2) Marbling 561. (17) 504. (16) 516. (16) 516. (18) KPH, % 2.15 (0.09) 2.14 (0.09) 1.96 (0.09) 1.71 (0.09) 0.15 < LM area, cm (1.9) 86.2 (1.8) 82.5 (1.8) 82.0 (1.9) USDA yield grade 317(017) 3.17 (0.17) 294(016) 2.94 (0.16) 320(016) 3.20 (0.16) 320(017) 3.20 (0.17) Yield Grade 1 Yield Grade 2 Yield Grade 3 Yield Grade 4 Yield Grade 5

14 Table 3. Fatty acid percentages 0% WDG 35% WDG P-values Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Fatty acid, % 14: (0.20) a 2.49 (0.20) b 2.88 (0.20) ab 3.05 (0.21) ab : (0.066) 0.58 (0.066) 0.67 (0.063) 0.63 (0.069) : (0.6) 25.7 (0.6) 25.0 (0.6) 26.3 (0.6) : (0.12) 2.82 (0.12) 2.68 (0.12) 2.60 (0.13) : (0.4) 14.9 (0.4) 13.8 (0.4) 14.9 (0.4) < :1 trans (0.63) 2.10 (0.63) 6.71 (0.61) 6.19 (0.66) 0.02 < :1 cis (0.8) 36.6 (0.8) 32.4 (0.8) 33.6 (0.9) 0.17 < :1 cis (0.09) 1.38 (0.09) 1.31 (0.09) 0.99 (0.09) 0.03 < : (0.57) a (0.57) b 5.97 (0.55) b 517(059) 5.17 (0.59) ab

15 Table 3. Fatty acid ratios 0% WDG 35% WDG P- values Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Ratios 16:1/18: (0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014) MUFA:SFA (0.030) (0.030) (0.029) (0.031) 0.59 < PUFA:SFA (0.020) a (0.020) b (0.019) b (0.021) ab Moisture, % 72.1 (0.3) 72.6 (0.3) 71.5 (0.3) 71.4 (0.4) 0.59 < Total fat, % wet weight 3.86 (0.47) 3.87 (0.47) 4.64 (0.45) 4.84 (0.49) % dry weight 13.7 (1.5) 13.9 (1.5) 16.0 (1.4) 16.7 (1.5) Inclusion of WDGS most likely depressed SCD gene expression o Result: depression in i.m. adipocyte differentiation Concomitantly reduced Δ9 desaturase activity in i.m. adipose tissue o Result: more saturated lipids

16 Trained Descriptive Attribute Sensory Evaluation 0=none; 15=extremely intense Palatability Attributes o Juiciness o Muscle fiber tenderness o Connect tissue amount o Overall tenderness o Overall flavor intensity Aromatics o Cooked beefy/brothy Mouthfeels o Astringent o Metallic o Chemical burn Basic tastes o Sour o Bitter o Salt o Sweet o Cooked beef fat

17 Table 4. Trained sensory attributes Interaction Corn % WDG 0% WDG 35% WDG Probability Attribute Steam Dry 0 35 Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Palatability Attributes Juiciness 12.3 a 13.0 b 12.8 b 12.5 a 12.2 a 13.5 c 12.4 ab 12.6 b < <0.01 Muscle fiber tenderness b 13.2 a 13.1 ab 13.6 c 13.3 b 13.0 a <0.01 Connect tissue amount 14.3 a 14.4 b a 14.5 c 14.4 bc 14.3 ab Overall tenderness a 13.6 b 13.3 b 13.1 a <0.01 Overall flavor intensity b 12.3 a 12.3 a 12.5 b 12.3 ab 12.2 a

18 Table 4. Trained sensory attributes Interaction Corn % WDG 0% WDG 35% WDG Probability Attribute Steam Dry 0 35 Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Aromatics Cked beefy 12.5 b 11.4 a 12.4 b 11.5 a Cked beef fat 3.5 a 3.7 b ab 3.6 ab 3.5 a 3.8 b Serumy/bloody 3.8 a 4.3 b < Cardboardy 0.1 a 0.2 b 0.1 a 0.2 b Browned/burnt b 1.6 a Livery/organy 0.2 b 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.2 b <0.01 <0.01 <0.0 Mouthfeels Astringent b 3.2 a < Metallic a b < Chemical burn 0.4 b 0.2 a 0.4 b 0.2 a <0.01 < Basic tastes Sour Bitter b a b a < < Salt 2.5 b 2.4 a < Sweet 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 b <0.01 <0.01

19 Summary of Sensory Results 0% WDGS were higher than 35% WDGS in: o cooked beefy/brothy and browned/burnt flavor aromatics o chemical burn and astringent mouthfeels o bitter basic tastes when compared to steaks from steers fed 35% WDGS 0% WDGS were lower than 35% WDGS in: o cardboardy and livery/organy flavor aromatics o sweet basic tastes

20 QuickTime and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Shelf-life Results Minolta Color Space Values Treatment L* a* b* TBARS Corn Processing (CP) Steam-flaked corn a Dry rolled corn b Wet-Distillers till Grain (WDG) b a a b CP X WDG Steam-flaked corn, 0% WDG b a Steam-flaked corn, 35% WDG a b Dry rolled corn, 0% WDG ab b Dry-rolled corn, 35% WDG ab b

21 Table 3. Fatty acid ratios 0% WDG 35% WDG P- values Item Steam Dry Steam Dry Corn WDG CxW Ratios 16:1/18: (0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014) MUFA:SFA (0.030) (0.030) (0.029) (0.031) 0.59 < PUFA:SFA (0.020) a (0.020) b (0.019) b (0.021) ab Moisture, % 72.1 (0.3) 72.6 (0.3) 71.5 (0.3) 71.4 (0.4) 0.59 < Total fat, % wet weight 3.86 (0.47) 3.87 (0.47) 4.64 (0.45) 4.84 (0.49) % dry weight 13.7 (1.5) 13.9 (1.5) 16.0 (1.4) 16.7 (1.5) Inclusion of WDGS most likely depressed SCD gene expression o Result: depression in i.m. adipocyte differentiation Concomitantly reduced Δ9 desaturase activity in i.m. adipose tissue o Result: more saturated lipids

22 Shelf-life Results Minolta Color Space Values Treatment L* a* b* TBARS Days of Storage < < < < c c b a c c 5.75 b 0.41 a d 8.85 b 4.18 a 1.12 b a 8.48 b 6.79 d 1.91 c b 5.05 a 6.17 c 2.82 d Root Mean Square Error

23 Feeding Wet Distillers Grain: What is the impact? May impact marbling o WDG addition may have altered the activity of enzymes important in the deposition of intramuscular fat (marbling) o Inclusion of 35% WDG reduced i.m. fat accretion o WDG tended to reduce the palmitoleic:steric acid (16:1 to 18:0) ratio which h is an indicator of decreased d Δ9 desaturase s activity it Minimal impacts on beef taste and quality o Subtle differences in palatability attributes, aromatics, mouthfeels, and basic tastes. May impact shelf-life o Steaks from steers fed 35% WDG were darker in color and more susceptible to lipid oxidation

24 Implant Strategies Tatum, % of US feedlot cattle are implanted Estimated Product name Approved Use Estrogen, mg Androgen, mg effect, d Estrogenic Implants Component E-S S 14 E Synovex-S S 14 E Compudose S/H 25.7 E Duralease S/H 14 E Encore S/H 43.9 E Ralgro Magnum S 72 Zeranol 90 (22-26 E 2 activity) Ralgro S/H 36 Zeranol 70 (11-13 E 2 activity) Androgenic Component T-S S 140 TBA 105 Component T-H H 200 TBA 105

25 Tatum, 2006 Implant Strategies Estimated m Product name Approved Use Estrogen, mg Androgen,mg effect, d Combination Estrogenic and Androgenic Component TE-IS S 18 E 2 80 TBA 110 Revalor-IS S 16 E 2 80 TBA 110 Synovex Choice S 10 E TBA 120 Component TE-S S 24 E TBA 120 Revalor-S S 24 E TBA 120 Component TE-IH H 8 E 2 80 TBA 110 Revelor-IH H 8 E 2 80 TBA 110 Component TE-H H 14 E TBA 120 Revelor-H H 14 E TBA 120 Component E-H H 14 E TP Synovex-H H 14 E TP 120 Component TE-200S 20 E TBA 130 Revalor-200 S/H 20 E TBA 130 Synovex Plus S/H 20 E TBA 130

26 Multiple Implants Negatively Impact Beef Tenderness Synovex Plus/Syovex Plus Synoves -S or Ralgro/Revalor Revalor/Revalor Synovex-S or Ralgro/Synovex Plus Synovex Revalor/Revalor Standardized Warner-Bratzler Shear Force from Non-Implanted Control, kg Adapted from Tatum, 2006

27 New Strategy: Zilmax (zilpaterol hydrochloride Intervet, Inc. Approved for use with Rumensin, Tylan, and MGA alone or in combination Fed last 20 d o Improves feed efficiency and ADG o Reduces % Yield Grade 4 and 5 s o Increases % Yield Grade 1 Effects on tenderness? RMC conference - June, 2009

28 Does Tenderness Matter? No economic incentive Improved production efficiency and growth outweighs tenderness Will there be economic incentive for beef tenderness?

29 Automated t Grading Technologies for Beef Tenderness Beef Cam NIR devices: Oklahoma State University US Meat Animal Research Center Other devices: Colorado State University University of Nebraska Analytical Spectral Devices, Inc.

30 Animal Temperament and Eating Behavior Research New technology for assessment of animal temperament and eating behavior o Effects on live animal efficiency and performance o Meat quality traits

31 QuickTime and a YUV420 codec decompressor are needed to see this picture. Table 7. Correlations Growing Phase Trait ADG DMI FCR RFI Growing temperament indicator traits Arrival exit velocity (EV), m/sec Arrival chute score Day-0 EV, m/sec Day-0 chute score Day-0 escape behavior, m/sec Day-70 EV, m/sec Day-70 chute score

32 Table 7. Correlations Finishing Phase Trait ADG DMI FCR RFI Finishing temperament indicator traits Day 0 exit velocity, m/sec Day-0 chute score Day-70 exit velocity, m/sec Day-70 chute score QuickTime and a YUV420 codec decompressor are needed to see this picture.

33 Table 8. Correlations Growing Phase Trait a ADG DMI FCR RFI Growing feeding behavior traits Meal duration, meals/d Meal frequency, min/d Meal eating rate, g/min

34 Table 8. Correlations Finishing Phase Trait a ADG DMI FCR RFI Finishing feeding behavior traits Meal duration, meals/d Meal frequency, min/d Meal eating rate, g/min

35 Table 9. Correlations Growing Temperament Classification Standard Trait Calm Moderate Excitable Error P-value Live animal performance, growth and feeding behavior during growing Initial BW, kg b a a Final BW, kg b a a ADG, kg/d 0.87 b 0.83 a 0.80 a DMI, kg/d Feed:gain ratio RFI, kg/d Meal frequency, meals/d Meal duration, min/d Meal eating rate, g/min

36 Table 9. Temperament Class Temperament Classification Standard Trait Calm Moderate Excitable Error P-value Live animal temperament measures Arrival exit velocity (EV), m/sec 2.38 a 3.38 b 4.14 c < Day-0 EV, m/sec a 3.28 b c Day-70 EV, m/sec 2.34 a 3.09 b 3.94 c < AVG arrival and day-0 EV, m/sec 2.33 a 3.33 b 4.32 c < Arrival chute score (CS) 1.5 a 2.3 b 2.5 b Day-0 CS Day-70 CS 1.1 a 1.3 b 1.1 a Arrival escape behavior, m/sec a b b Day-0 escape behavior, m/sec a b b

37 Table 10. Temperament Class Temperament Classification Standard Trait Calm Moderate Excitable Error P-value Live animal performance, growth and feeding behavior during finishing Initial BW, kg b a a Final BW, kg b a a ADG, kg/d DMI, kg/d Feed:gain ratio RFI, kg/d Meal frequency, meals/d Meal duration, min/d Meal eating rate, g/min QuickTime and a Photo - JPEG decompressor are needed d to see this picture.

38 Table 10. Temperament Class Temperament Classification Standard Trait Calm Moderate Excitable Error P-value Live animal temperament measures during finishing Day-0 exit velocity, m/sec a b c < Day-70 exit velocity, m/sec a b c < Day-0 chute score x Day-70 chute score x

39 Table 11. Temperament Class Temperament Classification Standard Trait Calm Moderate Excitable Error P-value Hot carcass wt, kg b a a Adj fat thickness, cm 1.47 b 0.98 a 0.99 a KPH, % Ribeye area, cm Yield grade b 2.75 a 2.76 a Lean maturity c Bone maturity Marbling d Quality grade e ph L* a* b* Sarcomere length, um a b ab Calpastatin activity, ug/g WBSF (1 d), kg WBSF (14 d), kg

40 MMI Genomics, Inc and Cargill Tru-Marbling TM o 128 DNA markers that are associated ated with genetic expression of marbling score and Quality grade o Validated on Angus cattle from the National Carcass Merit Project, 70% of the genetic variation in marbling was accounted for Tru-Tenderness TM o 11 unique DNA markers o Validated using Angus cattle from the National Carcass Merit Project accounted for 100% of the variation in beef tenderness based on Warner-Bratlzer shear force.

41 Pfizer Animal Genetics (Bovigen LLC) GeneSTAR Feed Efficiency o based on net feed intake (same as residual feed intake or RFI), GeneSTAR Tenderness o combines three markers from two different, independent genes of calpastatin and calpain GeneSTAR Quality Grade o based on four major genes associated with marbling and Quality grade o independently evaluated by the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium.

42

43 Igenity, a Merial Company Ingenity Profile for carcass traits o verified by the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium. o continue to be updated. o DNA markers discovered at universities and research institutions, made available through licensing agreements. o analyzed in a minimum of four separate commercial populations with different environments and breeds. o provide producers with the ability to do marker assisted selection without having to do costly progeny evaluation for beef carcass marbling and tenderness traits, while selecting to maintain or improve animal efficiency.

44 Conclusions Constant state of change o Tying genetic information, nutrition, animal performance in combination with the advent of automated grading o Animal temperament, eating behavior, animal performance and growth and the use of genetic markers - use of outcome groups to take advantage of their positive characteristics without compromising their negative characteristics Distillers grains o Need to maximize animal growth and performance and resultant carcass characteristics Growth promotants and the introduction of new growth promotant strategies Automated grading technology