THE INFLUENCE OF DIETARY ENERGY AND PROTEIN-LEVELS ON PERFORMANCE, CARCASS AND MEAT QUALITY OF BELGIAN WHITE-BLUE DOUBLE-MUSCLED FINISHING BULLS

Citation
Lo. Fiems et al., THE INFLUENCE OF DIETARY ENERGY AND PROTEIN-LEVELS ON PERFORMANCE, CARCASS AND MEAT QUALITY OF BELGIAN WHITE-BLUE DOUBLE-MUSCLED FINISHING BULLS, Animal Science, 66, 1998, pp. 319-327
Citations number
28
Categorie Soggetti
Agriculture Dairy & AnumalScience","Veterinary Sciences
Journal title
ISSN journal
13577298
Volume
66
Year of publication
1998
Part
2
Pages
319 - 327
Database
ISI
SICI code
1357-7298(1998)66:<319:TIODEA>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
The effect of three protein (77, 97 and 117 g DVE (true protein digest ed in the small intestine) per kg dry matter (DM)) and two energy leve ls (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 o n the quality of their carcasses and meat was investigated. The diet, offered ad Libitum, consisted of 650 g/kg concentrates and 350 g/kg ma ize silage on DM basis. No significant influence was found of the ener gy level on the growth rate. The low protein level reduced live-weight gain, from 370 to 501 kg (1.43 kg on average v. 1.60 and 1.66 kg dail y; P < 0.01). 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 weig ht during the 20-h fasting period before slaughter. Their carcasses we re classified with a higher fatness score and a better conformation. T hese carcasses had a higher fat content, while the proportion of bone in the carcass was lower than in the low energy groups. The cold carca ss weight of the low protein groups (456 kg on average) was significan tly smaller than that of the four other groups (470 kg on average). Al though 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. 691 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 e nergy level (5.5 v. 6.0 for the low and the high energy level, respect ively). Although the differences in conformation, fatness score and dr essing proportion are significant, because of the small variation, the practical meaning is less important.