Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:56:49.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, meat and feed efficiency traits of lambs born to ewes submitted to energy restriction during mid-gestation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2017

L. Piaggio ,
G. Quintans ,
R. San Julián ,
G. Ferreira ,
J. Ithurralde ,
S. Fierro ,
A. S. C. Pereira ,
F. Baldi  and
G. E. Banchero
L. Piaggio
Affiliation:
Secretariado Uruguayo de la Lana, Servando Gómez 2408, Montevideo, Uruguay
G. Quintans
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, km 12, Colonia Uruguay
R. San Julián
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, km 12, Colonia Uruguay
G. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Secretariado Uruguayo de la Lana, Servando Gómez 2408, Montevideo, Uruguay
J. Ithurralde
Affiliation:
Area of Histology and Embryology, Department of Morphology and Development, Veterinary Faculty, Lasplaces 1550, Montevideo, Uruguay
S. Fierro
Affiliation:
Secretariado Uruguayo de la Lana, Servando Gómez 2408, Montevideo, Uruguay
A. S. C. Pereira
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Duque de Caxias Norte, 225, Pirassununga, SP 13635-900, Brazil
F. Baldi
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Via de Acesso Castellane s/n, Jaboticabal, SP 14884-900, Brazil
G. E. Banchero*
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 50, km 12, Colonia Uruguay
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the energy restriction of gestation of adult ewes from day 45 to day 115 on lamb live performance parameters, carcass and meat traits. In experiment I, dietary energy was restricted at 70% of the metabolizable energy (ME) requirements, after which ewes were re-fed ad libitum until lambing. In experiment II, dietary energy was restricted at 60% of the ME requirements, and ewes were re-fed to ME requirements until lambing. All ewes grazed together from the end of the restriction periods to weaning. Lambs were weaned and lot fed until slaughter. Feed intake, weight gain and feed efficiency were recorded, and body fat thickness and ribeye area (REA) were measured in the longissimus thoracis muscle. After slaughter, carcass weight and yield, fat depth, carcass and leg length, and frenched rack and leg weights and yields were determined. Muscle fiber type composition, Warner-Bratzler shear force, pH and color were determined in the longissimus lumborum muscle. In experiment I, energy restriction followed by ad libitum feeding affected lamb birth weight (P<0.05); however, no effects (P>0.05) were observed on later BW, REA, BF or carcass traits. Lambs born to non-restricted-fed ewes had higher (P<0.05) weight and yield of the frenched rack cut and their meat tended (P=0.11) to be tender compared with that of lambs from restricted ewes. The percentage of oxidative muscle fibers was lower for lambs born to non-restricted ewes (P<0.05); however, no effects of ewe treatment were observed on other muscle fiber types. For experiment II, energy restriction followed by ME requirements feeding, affected (P<0.01) pre-weaning live weight gain, weaning and final weights. Lambs from restricted ewes had higher (P<0.05) feed intake as % of leg weight and a trend to be less efficient (P=0.16) than lambs from unrestricted dams. Ribeye area and BF were not influenced by treatment. Treatment significantly affected slaughter weight, but had no effects on carcass yield and traits or on meat traits. The results obtained in both experiments indicate submitting ewes to energy restriction during gestation affects the performance of their progeny but the final outcome would depend on the ewe’s re-feeding level during late gestation and the capacity of the offspring to compensate the in utero restriction after birth.

Keywords

fetal programmingmetabolizable energyfeedlot
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , February 2018 , pp. 256 - 264
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

American Meat Science Association 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory. Evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Bauman, DEJ, Eisemann, H and Currie, WB 1982. Hormonal effects on partitioning of nutrients for tissue growth: role of growth hormone and prolactin. Federation Proceedings 41, 2538–2544.Google Scholar
Bee, G 2004. Effect of early gestation feeding, birth weight and gender of progeny on muscle fiber characteristics of pigs at slaughter. Journal of Animal Science 82, 826–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beermann, DH, Cassens, RG and Hausman, GJ 1978. A second look at fiber type differentiation in porcine skeletal muscle. Journal of Animal Science 46, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bispham, J, Gopalakrishnan, GS, Dandrea, J, Wilson, V, Budge, H, Keisler, DH, Pipkin, FB, Stephenson, T and Symonds, ME 2003. Maternal endocrine adaptation throughout pregnancy to nutritional manipulation: consequences for maternal plasma leptin and cortisol and the programming of fetal adipose tissue development. Endocrinology 144, 3575–3585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boggiano, P, Zanoniani, R and Millot, JC 2005. Respuestas del campo natural a manejos crecientes de intervención. En Seminario de Actualización Técnica en manejo de campo natural (Serie Técnica 151), (eds. R Gómez Miller and MM Albicette), pp. 105–114. INIA, Montevideo, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Burt, BE, Hess, BW, Nathanielsz, PW, Nijland, MJ and Ford, SP 2005. Impact of multi-generational selection on insulin resistance in offspring of undernourished ewes. Journal of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation 12, 278A.Google Scholar
Cañeque, V and Sañudo, C 2005. Estandarización de las metodologías para evaluar la calidad del producto (animal vivo, canal, carne y grasa) en los rumiantes. INIA. Serie Ganadera No. 1. Madrid, España.Google Scholar
Close, WH and Pettigrew, JF 1990. Mathematical models of sow reproduction. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 40 (suppl.), 83–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Daniel, ZCTR, Brameld, JM, Craigon, J, Scollan, ND and Buttery, PJ 2007. Effect of maternal dietary restriction on lamb carcass characteristics and muscle fibre composition. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1565–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, M, Gayle, D, Babu, J and Ross, MG 2005. Programmed obesity in intrauterine growth-restricted newborns: modulation by newborn nutrition. American Journal of Physiology Regulatory Integrative Comparative Physiology 288, R91–R96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du, M, Tong, J, Zhao, J, Underwood, KR, Zhu, M, Ford, SP and Nathanielsz, PW 2010. Fetal programming of skeletal muscle development in ruminant animals. Journal of Animal Science 88, E51–E60.Google ScholarPubMed
Du, MJ, Wang, B, Fu, X, Yang, Q and Zhu, M 2015. Fetal programming in meat production. Meat Science 109, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubowitz, V and Brooke, MH 1973. Muscle biopsy: a modern approach. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Fahey, AJ, Brameld, JM, Parr, T and Buttery, PJ 2005. Ontogeny of factors associated with proliferation and differentiation of muscle in the ovine fetus. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2330–2338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, CL and Jenkins, TG 1984. Energy utilization by mature, nonpregnant, nonlactating cows of different types. Journal of Animal Science 58, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glitsh, K 2000. Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. British Food Journal 102, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graz Feed™ 2010. Versión 5.03. CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Greenwood, PL and Cafe, LM 2007. Prenatal and pre-weaning growth and nutrition of cattle: long-term consequences for beef production. Animal 1, 1283–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, PL, Hunt, AS, Hermanson, JW and Bell, AW 1998. Effects of birth weight and postnatal nutrition on neonatal sheep: I. Body growth and composition, and some aspects of energetic efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2354–2367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, PL, Hunt, AS, Hermanson, JW and Bell, AW 2000. Effects of birth weight and postnatal nutrition on neonatal sheep: II. Skeletal muscle growth and development. Journal of Animal Science 78, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, PL, Thompson, A and Ford, SP 2010. Postnatal consequences of the maternal environment and growth during prenatal life for productivity of ruminants. In Managing the prenatal environment to enhance livestock productivity (eds. PL Greenwood, AW Bell, PE Vercoe and GJ Viljoen), pp. 3–36. Springer Science Business Media, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heasman, L, Clarke, L, Stephenson, TJ and Symonds, ME 1999. The influence of maternal nutrient restriction in early to mid-gestation on placental and fetal development in sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, RW 1992. Nutrition and placental development. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 17, 203–211.Google Scholar
Kelly, RW, Greeff, J and Macleod, I 2006. Lifetime changes in wool production of Merino sheep following differential feeding in fetal and early life. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57, 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, RW and Newnham, JP 1990. Nutrition of the pregnant ewe. In Reproductive physiology of Merino sheep – concepts and consequences (eds. CM Oldham, GB Martin and I Purvis), pp. 161–168. School of Agriculture, Animal Science, University of Western Australia, Perth.Google Scholar
Maltin, C, Balcerzak, D, Tilley, R and Delday, M 2003. Determinants of meat quality: tenderness. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, PM, Danielson, VO, Jorgensen, PF and Oksbjerg, N 2003. Increased maternal nutrition of sows has no beneficial effects on muscle fiber number or postnatal growth and has no impact on the meat quality of the offspring. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3018–3027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordby, DJ, Field, RA, Riley, ML and Kercher, CJ 1987. Effects of maternal undernutrition during early-pregnancy on growth, muscle cellularity, fiber type and carcass composition in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1419–1427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, FN, Gill, DR, Secrist, SD and Coleman, SW 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3152–3172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehfeldt, C and Kuhn, G 2006. Consequences of birth weight for postnatal growth performance and carcass quality in pigs as related to myogenesis. Journal of Animal Science 84 (E-Suppl.), E113–E123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, DL, Cafe, LM and Greenwood, PL 2013. Meat Science and Muscle Biology Symposium: developmental programming in cattle: consequences for growth, efficiency, carcass, muscle, and beef quality characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1428–1442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, AJF, Doney, JM and Gunn, RG 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 72, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickland, NC 1978. A quantitative study of muscle development in the bovine foetus (Bos indicus). Anatomy, Histology, Embryology 7, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symonds, ME, Pearce, S, Bispham, J, Gardner, DS and Stephenson, T 2004. Timing of nutrient restriction and programming of fetal adipose tissue development. Proeedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 397–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underwood, KR, Tong, JF, Price, PL, Roberts, AJ, Grings, EE, Hess, BW, Means, WJ and Du, M 2010. Nutrition during mid to late gestation affects growth, adipose tissue deposition, and tenderness in cross-bred beef steers. Meat Science 86, 588–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, MJ, Ford, SP, Means, WJ, Hess, BW, Nathanielsz, PW and Du, M 2006. Maternal nutrient restriction affects properties of skeletal muscle in offspring. Journal of Physiology 575, 241–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, MJ, Ford, SP, Nathanielsz, PW and Du, M 2004. Effect of maternal nutrient restriction in sheep on the development of fetal skeletal muscle. Biology of Reproduction 71, 1968–1973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed