Lamb Eating Quality Current research, trials and results. Matthew Knight, Lamb Production Science

Transcription

1 Lamb Eating Quality Current research, trials and results Matthew Knight, Lamb Production Science

2 The challenge: Future Eating quality of Australian lamb Lean Yield up kg in 10 years Now No change in tenderness

3 Now more than ever we must KEEP focusing on the consumer Meet consumer requirements Price, value for $$$ Good consumer eating experience

4 Key drivers for future lamb industry LMY + EQ = Meets Consumer needs? Strategic improvement in lamb (meat) production using ASBV s Optimising carcase compliance using MSA guidelines

5 Definition of Lean Meat Yield Score 4 Score 2 Carcase Wt 23.0 kg Carcase Wt 23.0 kg GR 20.0 mm GR 10.0 mm Saleable Meat Yield Saleable Meat Yield 47.2% 51.1% 1% 900g more fat 900g more meat

6 Maximise profits LMY affects value, efficiency (& quality) Consumer - wants value for $$$ Processor Paying meat price for fat (may change!!!) Less meat to sell Extra cost of trim = labour, disposal Very important for farm profitability Score 2 to 4 = extra 40kg DM of feed Grow muscle not fat More meat, less fat = Increase LMY

7 An important eating quality trait IMF content Juiciness, flavour (& tenderness) Ideal range 4 6 % 4.2 % average of crossbred lambs Moderate to high heritability (~0.3)

8 Genetic correlations IMF tenderness (high, +0.8) LMY IMF (high, -0.5) LMY tenderness (mod, -0.4)

9 Implications Significant ifi changes in LMY (growth rate, leanness & muscling) Little or no management of EQ or nutritional content of lamb passive approach carries risk of decreasing overall meat quality Active management Improve product quality (consistency) of Australian lamb & sheep meat Manage LMY & EQ together

10 Two current studies investigating LMY & EQ Lamb Foundations I Investigating the impact of sire breeding values for low, moderate and high lean meat yield under different gestational nutrition and finishing systems on lamb survival, carcass and meat quality traits. Matt McDonagh and Ralph Behrendt Lean meat yield and eating quality Producer demonstration site (LMY&EQ PDS) trial. Janelle Hocking-Edwards (SARDI) and Peter Bailey

11 Study 1: Lamb Foundations I Why are we doing this? Sheep CRC has generated research breeding values for LMY (heritability ~0.30) and intramuscular fat content (~0.3). Differences in lean meat yield have been valued at between $1 and $10 per carcass. There is a need to understand how these new genetics perform on-farm and under different management conditions. LMY is negatively correlated with IMF content (Important trait for consumer eating quality preference)

12 Lamb Foundations I 9 Industry sires with RBV for lean meat yield (high, moderate and low LMY) Mixture of Poll Dorset and White Suffolk sires

13 Lamb Foundations I Artificially inseminated ~960 maternal-composite ewes (CS3.0) 3 different gestational treatments (CS 2.5, 3.0, 3.5) Gestational treatment managed from D50 gestation until birth 3 different finishing systems High energy, High protein (14 MJ ME/kg DM & 20% CP) High energy, Moderate protein (14 MJ ME/kg DM &16% CP) Moderate energy, High protein (12 MJ ME/kg DM & 20% CP)

14 Lamb Foundations I Experimental Design

15 LF I measurements Lamb reproduction, survival & marking data Live DXA, weaning and feedlot growth data EMD and fat scan data Carcass and meat quality data including DXA, partial/full bone-out data

16 Reproduction results 78-80% 80% conception to AI Target at Lambing ~150% scanning rate CS Ewe divergence in CS and live-weight 0.7 CS at lambing 13kg at lambing Liveweight (kg)

17 CS Profiles (1 to 5 scale) Condition Score CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS Days from Joining

18 Liveweight Profiles (kg) Liveweight ( CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS Days from Joining

19 CS Profiles - Singles Condition n Score Error bars denote standard error of difference /06/ /06/2012 5/07/ /07/2012 2/08/ /08/ /08/ /09/ /09/ /10/2012

20 CS Profile - Twins Condition Score Error bars denote standard error of difference 2.5 7/06/ /06/2012 5/07/ /07/2012 2/08/ /08/ /08/ /09/ /09/ /10/2012

21 Liveweight Profile - Singles Error bars denote standard error of difference ht (kg) Live weig /06/ /06/2012 5/07/ /07/2012 2/08/ /08/ /08/ /09/ /09/ /10/2012

22 Liveweight Profiles - Twins Condition n Score Error bars denote standard error of difference /06/ /06/2012 5/07/ /07/2012 2/08/ /08/ /08/ /09/ /09/ /10/2012

23 LF I birth weight results Average birth weight across all lambs was 5.18kg. The main effect of CS was significant (P<0.05, LSD=0.18). CS 2.5 treatment lambs were lighter (5.06kg) than CS3.0 lambs averaged 5.34kg. CS 3.5 lambs were also lighter at 5.15kg compared to CS3.0 treatment lambs (similar results observed in Lifetime Wool and other studies).

24 Lamb marking and survival data Lamb marking weights of CS2.5 treatment lambs were significantly lighter (P<0.05, LSD=0.7) than both CS 3.0 and CS 3.5 treatment lambs. Averages 15.7kg compared to 16.7kg and 16.4kg respectively. The number of lambs marked as a percentage of the number lambs born within each experimental replicate was compared across CS treatments using ANOVA. There was no significant effect of CS on this measure of lamb survival (P=0.224, LSD=3.1%) with CS2.5, CS3.0 and CS3.5 averaging 92.5%, 93.4% and 95.1% respectively. Th hi h f l b i l i di i f d bi h The high rates of lamb survival are indicative of good average birth weights, a very mild lambing season - mid to late September, and the use of tall wheat grass hedgerow plots for twin bearing ewes.

25 Multiples Average Marking Weight Multiple progeny from high and moderate LMY sires (with similar overall ASBVs for birth weight and weaning weight by design) have lower marking weights when placed on declining i condition score during pregnancy ~10% less LMY Condition Score ASBV Low Mod High The P-value for an interaction is SED = 0.41 within columns; SED = 0.48 otherwise ;

26 Singles Average Marking Weight The situation is less clear with single birth types. LMY Condition Score RBV Low Medium High sed = 0.61 within columns; sed = 0.61 otherwise

27 Summary to date Low CS2.5 lambs weighed 274 grams less than CS3.0 lambs. Lamb marking weight was also different with a 1kg difference between the CS2.5 and CS3.0 lambs. CS3.5 lambs were intermediate for birth weight and marking weight between the CS2.5 and CS3.0 treatments. CS2.5 to 3.0 difference driven by twins.

28

29 Lamb finishing results The nutritive value of the three finishing rations were; High Energy, High Protein 13.1MJ ME/kg DM and 23.8% CP High Energy, Moderate protein 12.7MJ ME/kg DM and18.6% CP Moderate Energy, High protein 12.1MJ ME/kg DM and 23.1% CP Based on GrazFeed predicted weight gain for prime lambs (35kg) using the nutritive value of these rations the predicted growth rates should be 296, 288 and 242g/day, respectively. Average starting weight was 35.4kg. Average finishing weight was 53.3kg (ranging from 34.6kg and 71.6kg). Average growth rate was 326g/day ranging from (69g/day to 509g/day). Average pre-slaughter weight 51.8kg (ranging from 33kg to 69.4kg)

30 Lamb finishing results The live weight gain, growth rate, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of lambs fed three different rations ad libitum in the feedlot. Feedlot Ration Average Weight Gain Average Growth rate (g/day) Average Feed Intake (kg/hd/day) Average Feed intake per animal Average FCR (kg fed/kg gain) (kg) High ME High CP High ME Moderate CP Moderate ME High CP *Feed intake was almost 50% great for this ration. However it was cheaper to produce. Thus, still waiting on economic analysis. **Weight gain is greater, however not transferred to carcass weight. Maybe related to gut fill. Still to analyse related to LMY RBVs.

31 Carcass composition Effect of condition score target treatment on carcass composition measurements, using grazing system as the experimental unit. CS Group sed P Value CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS 3.5 Weight Hot carcass weight (kg) by DXA All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned Singles Birth Singles * Statistical analysis of full and partial bone-out analysis did not reveal any statistical difference between carcasses. Carcass DXA Adjusted lean (%) All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned singles Birth singles Adjusted fat (%) All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned singles Birth singles Adjusted ash (%) All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned singles Birth singles

32 Carcass composition by DXA Effect of condition score target treatment on carcass composition measurements, using grazing system as the experimental unit. CS Group sed PV Value CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS 3.5 Weight Hot carcass weight (kg) All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned dsingles Birth Singles Carcass DXA Adjusted lean (%) All (Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Scanned singles Birth singles Still to analyse the SIRE interactions with carcass lean by DXA

33 Carcass composition by DXA The fitted and observed relationship for mean values of Carcass DXA Lean (%) with hot carcass weight (kg) for multiple birth lambs.

34 Meat quality - tenderness Preliminary shear force raw data means for the main experimental treatments of condition score (CS) treatment, LMY sire group and finishing ration Experimental Treatment Treatment Group Condition Score Treatment During Pregnancy CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS 3.5 Shear Force at Day 5 (N) Lean Meat Yield Sire Group High Mod Low Shear Force at Day 5 (N) Finishing Ration High ME High ME Mod ME High CP Moderate CP High CP Shear Force at Day 5 (N)

35 Meat quality - tenderness Shear Forc ce at Day 5 (N) High High High Mod Mod Mod Low Low Low Lean Meat Yield Sire Group and Sire FID The raw mean values for the shear force at day 5 for all male progeny of each individual sire used in the experiment. Is this due to change in IMF content? Analysis currently underway.

36 Meat quality - retail colour Table. Effect of CS treatment on average retail meat colour values taken over days 1, 2, 3 and 4. CS Group CS 2.5 CS 3.0 CS 3.5 sed Main Effect P Value Interaction with day of display L value All(Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples a value All(Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples b value All(Singles and Multiples) Scanned multiples Birth multiples Retail colour data suggests CS2.5 progeny has reduced colour which implies reduced shelf life. The effect of sire and finishing diet still needs to be investigated.

37 Conclusions Lamb Foundations I Management throughout gestation in accordance with Lifetime Wool management guidelines should give you: better lamb survival produce a carcass with good quality traits Analysis of all experimental results from LF I is due for completion by June 2014 Management guidelines for Industry on finishing prime lambs Information on how sire genetics for lean meat yield performs under different gestational ti environments. Journal publications highlighting the results of this study

38 Study 2: Lean Meat Yield & Eating Quality Producer Demonstration Site Trial There has been significant advances in growth rate, leanness & muscling of lamb Improvement in Lean Meat Yield (LMY) But little developments in EQ or nutritional content of lamb There are opportunities to Improve meat quality (consistency) of Australian lamb & sheep to meet consumer expectations Standing still is going backwards! Continuous improvement & innovation

39 Image Mums (families) Are good for a variety of dishes Is well liked in our household It's delicious to eat Easy to cook and prepare I trust the safety of this meat Is loved by Australians I'm proud to buy and serve this It's tsnormally yjucya juicy and dtender Is an essential part of a healthy diet Makes healthy meals Contains a wide range of vitamins and minerals Is consistently high quality It's expensive Has an irresistible aroma Encourages the warmth of sharing and togetherness I'm willing to pay a bit more for it Makes an everyday meal occasion a little special It's a children's favourite Good in a weight loss diet Apr - Jun 09, Base: (n=371) Beef Chicken Lamb Pork Fish % % % % %

40 Lamb lean is expensive $39.99/kg $59.33/kg $39.99/kg 99/kg $39.99/kg99/kg

41 BUT! Can be up to $100 for lean! $37/kg (44% fat trim) $66.70/kg (36% bone) $106/kg for lean!!

42 Carcase Measurements EQ (RBV) Increasing focus on EQ traits tenderness, ph & intramuscular fat (IMF) percentage Tenderness - shear force (SF5) Higher value = tougher Electrical stimulation & 5 days ageing Gene markers for this trait in sheep (& beef) Mod to high heritability ph change Declines on entry to chiller. The rate of decline is a measure of quality Ultimate ph determined 24 hours post-slaughter

43 LMY & EQ PDS project aims Validate RBV for LMY & EQ On-farm Multiple environments Multiple supply chains Demonstrate that LMY & EQ can be key industry profit drivers Identify marketing options

44 LMY & EQ PDS trial results 2 sites in 2012/13 using terminal sires 20 sites will be completed nationally by July 2014 using terminal and Merino sires Participants Ram breeders Lamb producers Processors Retailer / consumers

45 Lean Meat Yield & Eating Quality Producer Demonstration Sites (PDS) 2 sites in 2012/13 Processor Coles JBS Australia Plant Brooklyn Brooklyn Facilitator DEPI Victoria DEPI Victoria Host Wexford Pastoral Co Maneroo Partnerships Tony Fleetwood Georgina Gubbins Hamilton Greenwald Ewes 600 Composite 600 Composite AI Date 22/23 March /29 March 2012 Lambing date 20 August August 2012 Slaughter Feb-Apr 2013 Feb-Mar 2013

46 Use Genetics & SNP chip Blood sample DNA Relative measurements Describe a rams genotype for these hard to measure traits

47 Potential benefits Assist with developing tools for managing future key industry profit drivers Provide information should there be a move to value based trading for LMY & EQ Using new breeding values with a positive impact on-farm, in-plant & on the plate

48 Carcase Measurements LMY (RBV) HCWT GR thickness EMA C-site fat = LMY

49 2012/13 Results Carcase weight RBV PDS 1 = 22.4kg PDS 2 = 21.2kg HCWT RBV HCWT 22.5 Progeny HCWT (kg) Sire RBV kg increase in sire HCWT RBV 170g increase in average progeny HCWT

50 2012/13 Results Carcase fat RBV PDS 1 = 3.7 mm PDS 2 = 3.0 mm ccfat Progeny 4.0 CCFAT carcase fat -1.2 (mm) Sire RBV 1.0 mm increase in sire CCFAT RBV 0.6 mm increase in average progeny cfat

51 2012/13 Results Carcase EMD RBV PDS 1 = 31 mm PDS 2 = 29 mm cemd CEMD 32 Progeny carcase EMD (mm) Sire RBV Poor relationship between CEMD RBV and carcase EMD

52 Results for tenderness (SF5) and IMF content Farm Fleetwood (84) Average SF5 (N) Low SF5 (N) High SF5 (N) Above 27N (n) Gubbins (91) Farm Avg IMF % Low IMF % High IMF % Fleetwood (84) Gubbins (91)

53 Meat tenderness Sire and farm Intramuscular fat content Sire and farm

54 Summary of 2012/13 year results Relationship between live traits not strong as expected Measurable differences between sires in progeny carcase traits Positive relationships between progeny carcase traits and RBVs (smaller than expected) No negative effect on progeny performance when using sires with desirable carcase traits

55 2013/14 LMY&EQ PDS - 5 new sites in Victoria - 20 sites in total nationally Demonstration across more environments with more sires - record twins and singles Demonstration in more supply chains

56 Current results for tenderness Site Average SF5 (N) Low SF5 (N) High SF5 (N) Above 27N (n) Farm 1 (80) Farm 2 (80) Farm 3 (80) Farm 4 (80) Need to investigate the distribution across sires and Need to investigate the distribution across sires and investigate correlation with IMF content

57 Acknowledgements DEPI Ralph Behrendt and project team (LF I) Peter Bailey and project team (LMY&EQ PDS) Meat and Livestock Australia Alex Ball and Richard Apps SARDI, NSW DPI, Murdoch Uni Janelle Hocking Edwards Processing Plants - JBS, ALC, Frews and Midfields