FellowshipS Seminar 2016
2fFF9y9
2fFF9y9
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Poster ABSTRACTS<br />
Effect of winter growth rate on subsequent<br />
performance of suckler bulls and ultimate<br />
muscle colour and sensory quality of beef<br />
G.B. Mezgebo 1,2 , F.J. Monahan 2 , M. McGee 1 , E.G. O’Riordan 1 and A.P. Moloney 1<br />
1 Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co.Meath<br />
2 University College Dublin, School of Agriculture and Food Science, Dublin 4<br />
Variations in early life growth rate can influence the physiological state of beef cattle and muscle characteristics, which<br />
in turn influence meat quality. The effect of restricting growth during winter on the performance during subsequent<br />
growing and finishing periods, and muscle colour and sensory characteristics of beef from bulls, was investigated.<br />
Weaned Charolais and Limousin sired suckler bulls (n = 42) were assigned to one of three target winter growth rate<br />
treatments: 0.6, 1.0 and 1.5 kg liveweight/day. The feeding regimes to achieve the target growth rates were 2, 4 and 6<br />
kg concentrate daily, respectively, plus grass silage ad libitum. The duration of the winter feeding period was 123 d after<br />
which bulls were turned out to pasture and grazed for 99 d before re-housing and finishing on ad libitum concentrates<br />
plus grass silage. The duration of the concentrate finishing periods was 71, 65 and 51 d for 0.6, 1.0 and 1.5 treatments,<br />
respectively. Liveweight gain during the grazing period was higher (P < 0.001) for the 0.6 treatment than for the 1.0 and<br />
1.5 treatments, which did not differ. Muscle colour, metabolic enzyme activity and fibre type distribution were similar<br />
(P > 0.05) between treatments. Apart from tenderness, which was rated higher (P < 0.05) for the 0.6 compared to the<br />
1.0 treatment, juiciness, beefy flavour, flavour liking and overall liking scores of the beef were not influenced by winter<br />
growth rate. Overall, restricting growth rate during winter had little effect on the animal performance during subsequent<br />
periods or on beef quality.<br />
21