View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
The importance of prenatal The importance of prenatal events for postnatal muscle events for postnatal muscle
growth in relation to the quality growth in relation to the quality of muscle based foodsof muscle based foods
Pia M. NissenPia M. NissenDept. of Food ScienceDept. of Food Science
Faculty of Agricultural SciencesFaculty of Agricultural SciencesThe University of AarhusThe University of Aarhus
DenmarkDenmark
Thanks to: John Brameld, Carsten Werner, Brigitte Picard, Florence Gondret, Mehmet Kuran, Luisa Valente, Charlotte Rehfeldt, Aidan Moloney
Milestone 2:Milestone 2:Comparative aspects of prenatal events on Comparative aspects of prenatal events on
growth and meat/fish qualitygrowth and meat/fish quality
Ad 2) the second milestone will be obtained year Ad 2) the second milestone will be obtained year 2005. It is recognised that e.g. quality problem of 2005. It is recognised that e.g. quality problem of meat and fish differ to a great extent. meat and fish differ to a great extent. Consequently, prenatal events leading to optimal Consequently, prenatal events leading to optimal quality in fish may have opposite effects in quality in fish may have opposite effects in mammals. These comparative aspects are very mammals. These comparative aspects are very important in the future work in animal/fish important in the future work in animal/fish production for obtaining optimal production and production for obtaining optimal production and meat/fish qualitymeat/fish quality
Prenatal events that may affect growth and Prenatal events that may affect growth and meat qualitymeat quality
No. of muscle fibresNo. of muscle fibres Fixed at birth in mammals and chickenFixed at birth in mammals and chicken Continous development in fishContinous development in fish
Hyperthrophy/cross-sectional area of fibresHyperthrophy/cross-sectional area of fibres Grow until mature size in mammals and chickenGrow until mature size in mammals and chicken Continous growth in most fish Continous growth in most fish
Types of fibresTypes of fibres Overall the same types in mammals, chicken and fishOverall the same types in mammals, chicken and fish Pattern of fibre types different among speciesPattern of fibre types different among species
Fibre type patternFibre type pattern
Valente, 2007
90 – 95 % fast-white fibres
Nissen, 2003
FISH
PIG CATTLE
Therkildsen, 2002
Differences in prenatal events accomplished Differences in prenatal events accomplished by:by:
Environmental regulation:Environmental regulation: Maternal feedingMaternal feeding Incubation temperature (fish/chicken)Incubation temperature (fish/chicken)
Genetics:Genetics: BreedsBreeds BreedingBreeding
Both:Both: Birth weightBirth weight
700
800
900
1000
C A25-50 A25-70
Maternal treatment
Aver
age
daily
ga
in, g
/d
ab
a
300
350
400
450
C A25-50 A25-70
Maternal treatment
M.s
emi-
tend
inos
u, g
Increased feeding of the sow during Increased feeding of the sow during gestationgestation
Nissen et al., 2003
0
200
400
600
800
Total fibre number S-fibre number
Fib
re n
umbe
r,
in th
ousa
nds
C A25-50 A25-70
01234567
MFA Type I Type II
Fibe
r ar
ea, μ
m2
in th
ousa
nds
C A25-50 A25-70
Item Treatment
Control 25-50 25-70 SEM
PH24
Drip loss, %L* (lightness)a* (redness)b* (yellowness)Pigment, mg/g
5.585.5
53.87.46.4
0.73
5.555.4
53.17.56.2
0.72
5.595.5
53.87.66.6
0.74
0.030.70.60.30.3
0.03
Increased feeding of the sow during Increased feeding of the sow during gestationgestation
Nissen et al., 2003
LDT*F P=0.003 S*F P=0.008
S*T P=0.007
Daniel et al, 2007
Effect of maternal restriction on lamb performance
Effect of maternal restriction on lamb performance
TreatmentTreatment P-valueP-value
CFCF RFRF CMCM RMRM TreatTreat SexSexTreat x Treat x
SexSex
Trial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wksTrial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wks
Birth Wt, kgBirth Wt, kg 4.814.81 4.614.61 5.245.24 5.345.34 0.2700.270 <0.001<0.001 0.3390.339
Slaughter Wt, kgSlaughter Wt, kg 50.7550.75 47.0647.06 64.1064.10 63.463.4 0.0180.018 <0.001<0.001 0.4490.449
Growth rate, kg/dGrowth rate, kg/d 0.300.30 0.290.29 0.410.41 0.380.38 0.0090.009 <0.001<0.001 0.6570.657
Food Intake, kg/dFood Intake, kg/d 16371637 14761476 18501850 18971897 0.1570.157 <0.001<0.001 0.2290.229
Daniel et al, 2007
Effect of maternal restriction on lamb fatness
TreatmentTreatment P-valueP-value
CFCF RFRF CMCM RMRM TreatTreat SexSexTreat x Treat x
SexSex
Trial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wksTrial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wks
Backfat, mmBackfat, mm 6.186.18 5.765.76 5.115.11 4.964.96 0.7360.736 0.0440.044 0.4930.493
Sub adip diaSub adip dia 103103 101101 9999 108108 0.5740.574 0.6900.690 0.1960.196
Omental wt, gOmental wt, g 951951 967967 11541154 10451045 0.3860.386 0.0590.059 0.3920.392
Omental adip diaOmental adip dia 127127 123123 115115 116116 0.8360.836 0.0360.036 0.5780.578
Perirenal wt, gPerirenal wt, g 945945 965965 944944 954954 0.8800.880 0.9310.931 0.9480.948
Perirenal adip diaPerirenal adip dia 119119 128128 106106 118118 0.0400.040 0.0430.043 0.8110.811
Daniel et al, 2007
Effect of maternal restriction on muscle
TreatmentTreatment P-valueP-value
CFCF RFRF CMCM RMRM TreatTreat SexSexTreat x Treat x
SexSex
Trial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wksTrial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wks
LD, gLD, g 664664 644644 848848 777777 0.037 <0.001<0.001 0.4510.451
LD, % fatLD, % fat 5.75.7 5.95.9 5.65.6 6.86.8 0.4000.400 0.3880.388 0.0830.083
ST, gST, g 154154 135135 170170 168168 0.1180.118 0.0010.001 0.2600.260
ST, % fatST, % fat 7.17.1 7.67.6 6.76.7 8.08.0 0.0480.048 0.9420.942 0.4260.426
VL, gVL, g 192192 179179 238238 226226 0.0140.014 <0.001<0.001 0.8720.872
VL, % fatVL, % fat 4.44.4 4.14.1 3.83.8 3.63.6 0.7340.734 0.0270.027 0.7590.759
Daniel et al, 2007
Incubation temperature in chicken
Material: Fertilized eggs (N = 360) from a Cobb parent stock (age 45- 50 weeks) were incubated in two identical commercial incubators as follows:
Group 1Group 1 Group 2Group 2
TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C
PeriodPeriod ED 0 - 6ED 0 - 6
TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C 38.5 °C38.5 °C
PeriodPeriod ED 7 – 10ED 7 – 10 ED 7 – 10ED 7 – 10
TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C
PeriodPeriod ED 11 - 21ED 11 - 21
At embryonic day 6 (ED 6) the eggs were candled, the fertilized eggs were divided randomly to the two incubation groups 1 and 2 and treated as shown in the table.
Werner, COST 925, 2007
Effects on slaughter and muscle weights
Fig. 1: Mean values (LSM) of the slaughter, breast and leg weights of the investigated birds depending on the incubation group (Group 1 = ED 7-10:37.5°C; Group 1 = ED 7-10:38.5°C). Considered are 60 birds per incubation group. a Columns with different letters between the incubation groups differ significantly (P<0.05).
Werner, COST 925, 2007
Effects on meat quality
Tab. 1: Mean values (LSM) and standard errors (SEM) of the pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and colour values (L*a*b*) of the breast muscles depending on the incubation group of the investigated birds. a LSM with different letters within a line differ significantly (P<0.05).
Group 1 (N = 60)Group 1 (N = 60)(ED 7 – 10 (ED 7 – 10 at 37.5°C)at 37.5°C)
Group 2 (N = 60)Group 2 (N = 60)(ED 7 – 10 (ED 7 – 10 at 38.5°C)at 38.5°C)
pHpH24 h24 h 6.05 6.05 ± 0.02a± 0.02a 6.04 6.04 ± 0.02a± 0.02a
ECEC24 h 24 h (mS/cm)(mS/cm) 4.16 4.16 ± 0.11a± 0.11a 4.09 4.09 ± 0.11a± 0.11a
Brightness (L*) 20 minBrightness (L*) 20 min 47.01 47.01 ± 0.23a± 0.23a 46.87 46.87 ± 0.23a± 0.23a
Redness (a*) 20 minRedness (a*) 20 min 2.68 2.68 ± 0.11a± 0.11a 2.64 2.64 ± 0.11a± 0.11a
Yellowness (b*) 20 Yellowness (b*) 20 minmin
2.64 2.64 ± 0.13a± 0.13a 2.74 2.74 ± 0.13a± 0.13a
Werner, COST 925, 2007
Temperature effect on muscle fibre number Temperature effect on muscle fibre number in blackspot seabreamin blackspot seabream
aire water
Two sampling points
aire water
Two incubation temperatures
• 14 ºC (natural)
18 ºC
1- hatching (H)
2- mouth opening (MO)
Valente et al., 2007
ConclusionConclusion
High temperature accelerates rate of High temperature accelerates rate of development and muscle growth of development and muscle growth of P. P. bogaraveobogaraveo
The high incubation and cultivation The high incubation and cultivation temperature promoted an hyperplastic temperature promoted an hyperplastic growth of white fibres at the postopercular growth of white fibres at the postopercular levellevel
Valente et al., 2007
Comparative aspectsComparative aspects
Increased feeding Increased feeding No effect on fibres, postnatal growth and meat quality in pigsNo effect on fibres, postnatal growth and meat quality in pigs
Restrictive feedingRestrictive feeding Less fibres but no difference in area in some muscles in cattleLess fibres but no difference in area in some muscles in cattle Decreased growth, LD muscle weight and ST fat % in cattleDecreased growth, LD muscle weight and ST fat % in cattle No overall difference in carcass lean/fat in cattleNo overall difference in carcass lean/fat in cattle
Higher incubation temperatureHigher incubation temperature no effect on weights/growth and meat quality in chickenno effect on weights/growth and meat quality in chicken More white fibres in fishMore white fibres in fish Accelerated development and growth in fishAccelerated development and growth in fish
Genetics - correlationsGenetics - correlations in pigs in pigs
Rehfeldt et al., 2000
Piétrain grisePiétrain grise
Cattle differences in fibres and meat qualityCattle differences in fibres and meat quality
BreedBreed Carcass Carcass weightweight
Weight of STWeight of ST MFAMFA
(μm(μm22) )
TFNTFN
(* 10(* 1066))
German AngusGerman Angus 429.4429.4 3,3263,326 6,6316,631 1.701.70
GallowayGalloway 357.6357.6 2,6482,648 6,0186,018 1.591.59
Holstein Holstein FreisianFreisian
401.0401.0 2,8322,832 4,8124,812 1.831.83
Belgian BlueBelgian Blue 475.6475.6 5,4325,432 5,0585,058 3.363.36
BreedBreed L*L* Shear ForceShear Force IMFIMF
German AngusGerman Angus 37.137.1 13.713.7 2.42.4
GallowayGalloway 37.937.9 14.114.1 2.92.9
Holstein FreisianHolstein Freisian 36.936.9 13.213.2 2.62.6
Belgian BlueBelgian Blue 40.840.8 14.414.4 0.640.64
Wegner et al., 2000
with an antibody specific of fast MyHC (IIa, IIx, IIb)
Ma: masseter, slow (I),Di: diaphragma (I +IIa), CT: cutaneus trunci (IIa+ IIx )
ST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LT
Identification of isoform IIb in bovine musclesisoform IIb in bovine muscles
Immuno-detection
5161 64595962 5360
Ma Di CT MaST
MyHC IIb??
RT-PCRprimer in the 5’-UTR of
the pig MyHC IIb
Amplification of a cDNA fragment : MyHC IIb?
This isoform is a fast MyHC It seems to be the IIb MyHC
Picard et al. COST 925, Volos
Note of tenderness
Mean Young bull with the MyHC?
0123456
Note of jutosity
Mean Young bull with
the MyHC?
01234567
4,2
4,4
4,6
4,8
5
5,2
5,4
Mean Young bull with the MyHC?
Relation between this isoform and meat sensorial quality
Note of flavour
Picard et al. COST 925, Volos
Comparative aspectsComparative aspects
Higher correlations between muscle fibre area and meat Higher correlations between muscle fibre area and meat quality – than between muscle fibre number and meat quality – than between muscle fibre number and meat quality in pigsquality in pigs
pH, drip loss and shear force not affected by moderate pH, drip loss and shear force not affected by moderate changes in fibre number and area in both pigs and cattlechanges in fibre number and area in both pigs and cattle
Fiber type may affect meat quality in cattleFiber type may affect meat quality in cattle
LW MW HW
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Fib
re n
um
ber
(x 1
0 –
3 )
Total fibre number Secondary fibre number
Intra-litter variation in pigs
PBWG < 0.05
Rehfeldt & Kuhn, J Anim Sci 84 (2006) E-Suppl, 113-123
Offspring of 63 sowsLW 102 < 1.22 kg MW 180HW 96 > 1.54 kg
Carcass quality
LW MW HW
Car
cass
wei
gh
t (k
g)
54.2
54.5
54.8
55.1
55.4
55.7
56.0
Lea
n m
eat
(FO
M)
(%)
42
44
46
48
50
52
Lo
in m
usc
le a
rea
(cm
2)
70
71
72
73
74
75
Ham
per
imet
er (
cm)
8082848688909294
a
bc
a
bb
a
bb
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
Per
iren
al f
at (
%)
a
b
b
Intr
amu
scu
lar
fat
(%)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
ab b
Rehfeldt et al. Meat Sci 78 (2008) 170-175
Offspring of 63 sowsMeat quality
LW MW HW
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
pH
45-v
alu
e
4.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.7
Co
nd
uct
ivit
y 45
(mS
/cm
)
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
Lig
htn
ess
(L*)
4.85.05.25.45.65.86.06.2
Dri
p lo
ss (
%)
a
bab
ab
a
b
ab
a
b
a
b
ab
Intr
amu
scu
lar
fat
(%)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
ab b
Rehfeldt et al. Meat Sci 78 (2008) 170-175
Variations in birth weight in pigs
Gondret et al., 2006
Low birth-
weight group
0.75-1.25 kg 1.75-2.05 kg
Heavy birth-
weight group
Within litter
(females)
0
400000
800000 -19%**
Total fiber number
Myofiber traits at slaughter in ST
4500
9000 +13%*HW
LW
Growth Performance
P
Feed consumption (kg/d) 2.3
Feed conversion 2.7 **
Av. daily gain (g/d)
HW
2.2
2.5
690650 **
LW
0
Fiber cross-sectional area
Carcass and tissue lipids
LW
Subcutaneous fat depth (mm) 18.2***
Subcutaneous fat (% carcass) 6.7 ***
HW
5.2
15.0
Leaf fat (kg) 1.2 ***0.9
Muscle lipid content (%) in Semitendinosus muscle)
4.2 **3.3
P
Loin (0: ---; 10: +++)
Sensory tenderness 4.64.0
Eating meat quality
HWLW P
**
Correlation coeff. between Tenderness score and Myofiber cross-sectional area : -0.34, P = 0.07
Gondret et al., 2006
Intra-litter variation in pigsIntra-litter variation in pigs
a a
b
500
550
600
650
700
750
LW MW HWPig weight within litter
Tot
al fi
bre
num
ber,
th
ousa
nds
bb
a
0.40.450.5
0.550.6
0.650.7
0.750.8
LW MW HW
Pig weight within litter
Pig
men
t in
LD, m
g/g
b
aa
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
LW MW HWPig weight within litter
Birt
h w
eigh
t, kg
a
b b
30003500400045005000550060006500
LW MW HW
Pig weight within litter
MFA
, um
2
Nissen et al., 2004
Material:
Lamb birth weight groups (at day 110 after birth);
►High birth weight H=4.06±0.14 kg, n=7 ad lib feeding► Low birth weight L; 2.61±0.12 kg, n=8 for 55 days► Low birth weight long feeding LH; 2.68±0.07 kg, n=7 low birth weight allowed to reach weight of H group at slaughter► Slaughter at day 165
Variation in birth weight in lambs
Ensoy et al. 2007
High birth weight resulted in higher carcass weights
Low birth weight and feeding long period resulted in• an increase in fat thickness, • higher fat and pelvic fat weights • higher b* value (yellowness) and caused tougher meat
with a higher shear force value comparison with L and H groups
ResultsResults
Ensoy et al. 2007
►Low birth weight influences ►postnatal growth performance, ►carcass characteristics such as fat thickness, muscles weights, innerfat weight ►meat quality such as tenderness/toughness, intramuscular fat and moisture contents
►The effects on meat quality parameters may be due to higher fat depositions in the carcass of lambs with low birth weight when they were allowed to reach body size of lambs with high birth weight
Conclusions
Ensoy et al. 2007
Calf weightCalf weight
20
30
40
50
60
L M H
Sed 1.04 P<0.001Sed 1.04 P<0.001
Birth-weight classification
kg
300
315
330
345
L M H
Sed 7.65 P=<0.05Sed 7.65 P=<0.05
kg
Birth-weight classification
Moloney and Drennan, COST 925, Volos
Birth weight Carcass weight
0
1
2
3
L M H
Meat qualityMeat quality
g/1
00
g
Sed 0.36 P=0.07Sed 0.36 P=0.07
No effect (P>0.05) of birth-weight on :No effect (P>0.05) of birth-weight on :
• ultimate pH,
• lightness, redness or yellowness
• drip loss (P=0.077)
• shear force
• sensory characteristics
(tenderness, texture, juiciness, chewiness,
flavour, firmness or acceptability)Moloney and Drennan, COST 925, Volos
Intra-muscular FatIntra-muscular Fat
Comparative aspectsComparative aspects
Low birth weight compared to high birth weight animals:Low birth weight compared to high birth weight animals:
Lower fibre no in pigsLower fibre no in pigs Higher fibre CSA in pigsHigher fibre CSA in pigs Lower postnatal growth in pigs, lamb and cattleLower postnatal growth in pigs, lamb and cattle Higher fat in carcass and meat in pigs, lambs and cattleHigher fat in carcass and meat in pigs, lambs and cattle Lower tenderness/higher shear force in pigs and lambLower tenderness/higher shear force in pigs and lamb No differences in meat quality in cattleNo differences in meat quality in cattle
Overall comparability among speciesOverall comparability among species
Less fibresLess fibres Decreased growthDecreased growth Decreased muscle weightsDecreased muscle weights Maybe less meat/more fat in carcass and muscleMaybe less meat/more fat in carcass and muscle No general effect on meat qualityNo general effect on meat quality
Fibre areaFibre area More related to meat quality (colour, pH and drip loss)More related to meat quality (colour, pH and drip loss) Controversial whether the relationship is positive or negative Controversial whether the relationship is positive or negative
Fiber typeFiber type Not sureNot sure
Recommended