Preliminary analysis of growth, carcass and meat quality traits in Uruguayan Creole Cattle steers in comparison with Hereford steers.

Keywords: Uruguayan Creole Cattle; carcass quality; meat quality; beef production; genetic resources.

Abstract

The Uruguayan Creole cattle (UCC) reserve has aproximately 600 individuals. These animals have shown high capability of adaptation to unfavorable environments. In this work we evaluated growth and meat production traits of 30 UCC steers in comparison with 10 Hereford steers. All animals received the same sanitary and nutritional management (grazing in natural grasslands, without supplementation), from 6-8 months of age. At 43 months of age a sample of 6 UCC and 6 Hereford steers was selected for carcass and meat evaluation. The evolution of body weight was similar, having Hereford steers higher weight (p < 0.05) only at the beginning and at the end of the trial. Significant diferences were observed in rib-eye area and fat thickness (p < 0.05) towards UCC. Most of the carcass measures did not show significant differences, except pH which was lower in UCC (p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in muscle and bone porcentaje at the 10th rib favorable to UCC steers (p < 0.05), and a slightly significant difference towards Hereford in visible fat percentage (p = 0,049). No significant differences were observed between both breeds for meat quality traits, except for fatty acids profile. Hereford showed higher unsaturated fatty acids percentage (p < 0.05), and UCC higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA, p < 0,05). No differences were observed in the comsumer panel trial. A larger sample is needed to obtain firm conclusions, but these results are promising and show a very good potential of UCC for beef production, in comparison with a highly selected breed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

American Meat Science Association (AMSA). 2016. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat, version 1.02, 2nd edition. AMSA, Champaign, IL, USA.

Armstrong E, Fila D, Saravia F, Novo J, Aragunde R, Franca A, Merola G, Evia G, Llambí S. 2017. Evaluación de novillos Criollo Uruguayo para producción de carne. Primeros resultados. X Jornadas Técnicas Veterinarias, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Arredondo H (1958). Santa Teresa y San Miguel. La restauración de las fortalezas. La formación de sus parques. Imprenta “El Siglo Ilustrado”, Montevideo.

Bligh E G, & Dyer WJ. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology, 37(8), 911-917.

Feed O. 2010. Metodología para la evaluación de las características cualitativas de la canal y de la carne. En: Introducción a la Ciencia de la Carne, Bianchi G. y Feed O. Eds., Editorial Hemisferio Sur, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Ferguson DM, and Warner RD. 2008. Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat Science, 80: 12-19. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.004

Ferrando C, Paloma E, Namur P, Leguiza D. 2006. Ganado bovino Criollo Argentino y Aberdeen Angus en los llanos de La Rioja. Resultado de 11 años de evaluación en sistemas de cría. Serie de publicaciones del Área de Investigación del INTA EEA La Rioja, Argentina. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1883.1204

Ferrario JD y Fernandex MA. Estudio de características de carcasa por ultrasonido: medir para creer. Braford, 23(58):72-75.2007. http://www.produccion-animal.com.ar/informacion_tecnica/ecografia_ultrsonido/67-medir.pdf

Garriz CA, Vranic L, Suárez V. 2008. Conformación y terminación en reses de novillos puros y cruzas Criollo Argentino. Revista Argentina de Producción Animal, Vol 28, pp: 177-233. http://www.produccion-animal.com.ar/informacion_tecnica/raza_criolla/48-conformacion.pdf

Holgado FD, Ortega MF. 2019. Caracterización productiva del bovino Criollo Argentino: período 2006-2016. Ediciones INTA. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Pp.: 26. https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/inta_caracterizacion_productiva_bovino_2016_2019.pdf

IUPAC. 1987. Standard Method 2.301, Preparation of Fatty Acid Methyl Ester, in Standard Methods for Analysis of Oils, Fats and Derivatives. 7th Edition, Blackwell, Oxford.

Spiegal SA, Estell RE, Cibils AF, James DK, Peinetti R, Browning DM, Romig KB, Gonzalez AL, Lyons AJ, Bestelmeyer BT. 2019. Seasonal divergence of landscape use by heritage and conventional cattle on desert rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 72(4):590-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2019.02.008

Tarrant VP. 1989. Animal behavior and environment in the dark-cutting condition – A review. Irish Journal of Food Sciences and Technology, 13, 1–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25580937

Wulf D, Emnett R, Leheska J, and Moeller S. 2002. Relationships among glycolytic potential, dark-cutting (dark, firm, and dry) beef, and cooked beef palatability. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1895-1903. doi: 10.2527/2002.8071895x.

Published
2021-06-25
How to Cite
Armstrong, Eileen, Danilo Fila, Juan Carlos Boggio, Rafael Aragunde, Felipe Saravia, Agustín Isaurralde, Rody Artigas, Fernando Vila, Santiago Luzardo, Gustavo Brito, Gerardo Evia, and Gerardo Dattele. 2021. “Preliminary Analysis of Growth, Carcass and Meat Quality Traits in Uruguayan Creole Cattle Steers in Comparison With Hereford Steers.”. Latin American Archives of Animal Production 29 (3-4), 181-90. https://doi.org/10.53588/alpa.293410.