Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:10:45.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dietary supplementation with different sources of selenium on growth response, selenium blood levels and meat quality of intensively finished Charolais young bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2011

G. Cozzi ,
P. Prevedello ,
A. L. Stefani ,
A. Piron ,
B. Contiero ,
A. Lante ,
F. Gottardo  and
E. Chevaux
G. Cozzi*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Animali, Università degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
P. Prevedello
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Animali, Università degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
A. L. Stefani
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Viale dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
A. Piron
Affiliation:
Lallemand SAS, 19 rue des Briquetiers, 31702 Blagnac, France
B. Contiero
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Animali, Università degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
A. Lante
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie, Viale dell’ Università 10, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
F. Gottardo
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Animali, Università degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell’ Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
E. Chevaux
Affiliation:
Lallemand SAS, 19 rue des Briquetiers, 31702 Blagnac, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The study aimed at comparing three strategies of supplementing selenium (Se) during the finishing period of Charolais young bulls: (1) administration of sodium selenite throughout the finishing (NaSe); (2) administration of an Se-enriched yeast strain (Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R397) throughout the finishing (Se-Y); (3) administration of sodium selenite for 140 days replaced by Se-enriched yeast during the last 70 days of finishing (Switch). Eighty-four young bulls (mean initial BW = 434.2 ± 31.9 kg; mean age = 382 ± 52 days) were stratified by live weight and equally assigned to one of three Se treatments. Experimental groups were fed the same diets and the inclusion rate of the different treatments was targeted to achieve 0.3 mg of Se/kg of dry matter (DM) in the complete feed. The average daily gain of bulls was 1.36 kg/d and no differences due to Se treatment were recorded. Dry matter intake and feed conversion ratio were not affected by Se treatment resulting in, on average, 10.3 kg/d and 7.65, respectively. Repeated blood samples were taken at days 0, 120, 180 and 210 of finishing to assess the Se status of the animals. As compared to NaSe, both organic Se treatments (Se-Y and Switch) increased plasma Se in the last two sampling sessions according to a significant treatment × time interaction (P < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for serum total antioxidant status of the young bulls, whereas there was only a significant time effect (P < 0.001) on glutathione peroxidase activity that was raised by all Se treatments. The finishing period lasted 210 days and at the abattoir there were no differences across Se treatments in carcass weight and dressing percentage. A higher Se content in the Longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle was instead observed in Se-Y samples as compared with NaSe (0.85 v. 0.47 mg/kg DM; P < 0.05). Meat quality evaluation was carried out on LT samples after 6 and 11 days of ageing under a vacuum package. Regardless of ageing time, meat from young bulls supplemented with Se yeast had higher colour lightness (L*) values than those receiving NaSe (38.1 v. 36.6; P < 0.01) and showed a significant decrease in shear force (3.69 v. 4.22 kg/cm2; P < 0.01). The outcomes of the study suggest that the provision of Se yeast throughout the finishing period is a strategy to increase the benefits of the replacement of sodium selenite with organic selenium in beef cattle.

Keywords

selenium sourcebeef cattlefatteningmeat quality
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , 26 August 2011 , pp. 1531 - 1538
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arteel, GE, Sies, H 2001. The biochemistry of selenium and the glutathione system. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 10, 153–158.Google Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Awadeh, FT, Kincaid, RL, Johnson, KA 1998. Effect of level and source of dietary selenium on concentrations of thyroid hormones and immunoglobulins in beef cows and calves. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1204–1215.Google Scholar
Boccard, R, Buchter, L, Casteels, E, Cosentino, E, Dransfield, E, Hood, DE, Joseph, RL, McDougall, DB, Rhodes, DN, Shön, I, Timbergen, BJ, Touraille, C 1981. Procedures for measuring meat quality characteristics in beef production experiments. Report of a Working Group in the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) beef production research program. Livestock Production Science 8, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botsoglou, NA, Fletouris, DJ, Papageorgiou, GE, Vassilopoulos, VN, Mantis, AJ, Trakatellis, AG 1994. Rapid, sensitive and specific thiobarbituric acid method for measuring lipid peroxidaton in animal tissue, food and feedstuff samples. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 42, 1931–1937.Google Scholar
Brown, KM, Pickard, K, Nicol, F, Beckett, GJ, Duthie, GG, Arthur, JR 2000. Effects of organic and inorganic selenium supplementation on selenoenzyme activity in blood lymphocytes, gralulocytes, platelets and erythrocytes. Clinical Science 98, 593–599.Google Scholar
Celi, P 2010. The role of oxidative stress in small ruminants’ health and production. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39, 348–363.Google Scholar
Charolais 2011. Le Charolaise. Chiffres clés. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://www.charolaise.fr/Google Scholar
DeVore, VR, Colnago, GL, Jensen, LS, and Breene, BE 1983. Thiobarbituric acid values and glutathione peroxidase activity in meat from chickens fed a Se supplemented diet. Journal of Food Science 48, 300–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunshea, FR, D'Souza, DN, Pethick, DW, Harper, GS, Warner, RD 2005. Effects of dietary factors and other metabolic modifiers on quality and nutritional value of meat. Meat Science 71, 8–38.Google Scholar
Edens, FW 1996. Organic selenium: from feathers to muscle integrity to drip loss. Five years onwards: no more selenite!. In Biotechnology in the feed industry, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium (ed. TP Lyons and KA Jacques), pp. 165–185. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Fisinin, V, Tigran, T, Surai, PF 2009. Producing selenium-enriched eggs and meat to improve the selenium status of the general population. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 29, 18–28.Google Scholar
Gunter, SA, Beck, PA, Phillips, JM 2003. Effects of supplementary selenium source on the performance of blood measurements in beef cows and their calves. Journal of Animal Science 81, 856–864.Google Scholar
Halliwell, B 2008. Are polyphenols antioxidants or pro-oxidants? What do we learn from cell culture and in vivo studies? Archieves of Biochemistry and Biophysics 476, 107–112.Google Scholar
Hardy, G, Hardy, I 2004. Selenium: the Se-XY nutraceutical. Nutrition 20, 590–593.Google Scholar
Hartikainen, H 2005. Biochemisty of selenium and its impact on food chain quality and human health. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 18, 309–318.Google Scholar
INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Joseph, RL 1979. Recommended method for assessment of tenderness. In The future of beef production in the European community (ed. JC Bowman and P Susmel), pp. 596–606. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Juniper, DT, Phipps, RH, Givens, DI, Jones, AK, Green, C, Bertin, G 2008a. Tolerance of ruminant animals to high dose in-feed administration of a selenium-enriched yeast. Journal of Animal Science 86, 197–204.Google Scholar
Juniper, DT, Phipps, RH, Ramos-Morales, E, Bertin, G 2008b. Effect of dietary supplementation with selenium-enriched yeast or sodium selenite on selenium tissue distribution and meat quality in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3100–3109.Google Scholar
Lawler, TL, Taylor, JB, Finley, J, Wand Caton, JS 2004. Effect of supranutritional and organically bound selenium on performance, carcass characteristics, and selenium distribution in finishing steers. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1488–1493.Google Scholar
Lindahl, G, Lagerstedt, Å, Ertbjerg, P, Sampels, S, Lundström, K 2010. Ageing of large cuts of beef loin in vacuum or high oxygen modified atmosphere – effect on shear force, calpain activity, desmin degradation and protein oxidation. Meat Science 85, 160–166.Google Scholar
MacDougall, DB 1982. Changes in the color and opacity of meat. Food Chemistry 9, 75–88.Google Scholar
Mahan, DC, Cline, TR, Richert, B 1999. Effects of dietary levels of selenium-enriched yeast and sodium selenite as selenium sources fed to growing-finishing pigs on performance, tissue selenium, serum glutathione peroxidase activity, carcass characteristics, and loin quality. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2172–2179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna, DR, Mies, PD, Baird, BE, Pfeiffer, KD, Ellebracht, JW, Savell, JW 2005. Biochemical and physical factors affecting discoloration characteristics of 19 bovine muscles. Meat Science 70, 665–682.Google Scholar
Mézes, M, Balogh, K 2009. Prooxidant mechanisms of selenium toxicity – a review. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 53 (suppl. 1), 15–18.Google Scholar
Nicholson, JWG, McQueen, RE, Bush, RS 1991. Response of growing cattle to supplementation with organically bound or inorganic sources of selenium or yeast cultures. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 803–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, MN, Monohan, FJ, Fallon, RJ, Allen, P 2001. Effects of dietary supplementation with vitamin E and organic selenium on the oxidative stability of beef. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2827–2834.Google Scholar
Oldfield, JE 2002. Selenium world atlas (2002 updated edition). Selenium-Tellurium Development Association, Grimbergen, Belgium.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems Institute) 2001. User's guide: statistics, version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Seko, Y, Saiti, Y, Kitahara, J, Imura, N 1989. Active oxygen generation by the reaction of selenite with reduce glutathione in vitro. In Selenium in biology and medicine (ed. A Wendel), pp. 33–70. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Deutschland.Google Scholar
Skrivan, M, Marounek, M, Dlouha, G, Sevcikova, S 2008. Dietary selenium increases vitamin E contents of egg yolk and chicken meat. British Poultry Science 49, 482–486.Google Scholar
Skřivanová, E, Marounek, M, De Smet, S, Raes, K 2007. Influence of dietary selenium and vitamin E on quality of veal. Meat Science 76, 495–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swecker, WS Jr, Eversole, DE, Thatcher, CD, Blodgett, DJ, Schrig, GG, Meldrum, JB 1989. Influence of supplemental selenium on humoral immune response in weaned beef calves. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50, 1760–1763.Google Scholar
Van Ryssen, JBJ, Deagen, JT, Beilstein, MA, Whanger, PD 1989. Comparative metabolism of organic and inorganic selenium by sheep. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 37, 1358–1363.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Vignola, G, Lambertini, L, Mazzone, G, Giammarco, M, Tassinari, M, Martelli, G, Bertin, G 2009. Effects of selenium source and level of supplementation on the performance and meat quality of lambs. Meat Science 81, 678–685.Google Scholar
Zhang, W, Xiao, S, Samaraweera, H, Lee, EJ, Ahn, DU 2010. Improving functional value of meat products. Meat Science 86, 15–31.Google Scholar