Effect of the diet on performance characteristics and quality of meat fat of lamb by principal component analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of use of agroindustrial co-products in the diet of lambs on the performance and nutritional quality of meat fat. Twenty lambs were distributed into four experimental groups: control diet (C) or diets containing cottonseed (CS), sunflower meal (SFM), and castor cake (CC). During the experimental period, data on dry matter consumption (DMC) and total weight gain (TWG) were collected. After slaughter, samples of Logissimus dorsi (LD) muscle were taken for fatty acids and cholesterol analysis. Diets C and CS provided similar characteristics of fat quality and animal performance. However, SFM and CC diets tend to form isolated groups, with different fat and performance characteristics. The SFM diet results in meat with a higher saturated fatty acids and cholesterol content. The CC diet is related to improved performance characteristics and lower cholesterol content. In conclusion, the inclusion of CC in the experimental diets provided, in the proportions used in this experiment, better characteristics of animal performance and meat fat quality.

Keywords:
castor cake; cholesterol; cottonseed; fatty acids; principal component analysis; sunflower meal

Authorship

Marcus Andrade Wanderley Junior^** Author for correspondence. E-mail: marcusandrade@ifba.edu.br

Departamento de Ensino, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da Bahia, Rod. BR-367, Rua José Fontana, 1, 45810-000, Porto Seguro, Bahia, BrazilInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da BahiaBrazilPorto Seguro, Bahia, BrazilDepartamento de Ensino, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da Bahia, Rod. BR-367, Rua José Fontana, 1, 45810-000, Porto Seguro, Bahia, Brazil

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-6739

Cristiane Leal dos Santos

Departamento de Tecnologia Rural e Animal, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, BrazilUniversidade Estadual do Sudoeste da BahiaBrazilItapetinga, Bahia, BrazilDepartamento de Tecnologia Rural e Animal, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil

Leandro Pereira Lima

Coordenação de Ensino, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, BrazilInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da BahiaBrazilItapetinga, Bahia, BrazilCoordenação de Ensino, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil

Thon Jovita Farias

Programa de Pós-graduação em Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, BrazilUniversidade Estadual do Sudoeste da BahiaBrazilItapetinga, Bahia, BrazilPrograma de Pós-graduação em Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil

Rodrigo Soares Junqueira

Ivon Pinheiro Lôbo

Departamento de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, BrazilUniversidade Estadual de Santa CruzBrazilIlhéus, Bahia, BrazilDepartamento de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

Jeferson Ladeia dos Santos

Andrezza Miguel da Silva

* Author for correspondence. E-mail: marcusandrade@ifba.edu.br

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (5)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Distribution of experimental diets (a) and weights of the variables under study (b) between the first two principal components.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Proportion of ingredients and chemical composition of experimental diets.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Dry matter intake and performance parameters of Dorper x Santa Inês lambs submitted to experimental diets with agroindustrial co-products.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Average content (g 100 g⁻¹) of fatty acids of the four experimental concentrates.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Eigenvalues and percentage of explained and cumulative variance over the Principal Components (PC).

Thumbnail

Table 5
Weights of the variables under study in the first four principal components (PC).

Figure 1 Distribution of experimental diets (a) and weights of the variables under study (b) between the first two principal components.

Table 1 Proportion of ingredients and chemical composition of experimental diets.

	Diets¹
	C	CS	SFM	CC
Ingredient (g kg⁻¹ Dry matter)
Tifton-85 hay	500.0	500.0	500.0	500.0
Ground corn	365.0	305.0	345.0	345.0
Soybean meal	120.0	80.0	60.0	60.0
Cottonseed	-	100.0	-	-
Sunflower meal	-	-	80.0	-
Castor cake	-	-	-	80.0
Urea	10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0
Mineral supplement²	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
Chemical composition (g kg⁻¹ Dry matter)
Dry matter	861.8	866.3	874.4	858.1
Organic matter	944.1	942.8	942.9	936.7
Crude protein	166.8	166.6	165.6	166.9
Ether extract	28.5	23.4	20.2	22.1
Mineral matter	55.9	57.2	57.1	63.3
Neutral detergent fiber	591.1	594.8	571.1	579.3
Non-fibrous carbohydrates	317.7	317.5	339.9	341.4
Total carbohydrates	748.8	752.8	757.1	747.7

¹C: control; CS: cottonseed; SFM: sunflower meal; CC: castor cake. ²Composition (supplement per kg) = calcium, 155 g; phosphorus, 65 g; sodium, 155 g; sulfur, 12 g; magnesium, 6 g; copper, 100 mg; cobalt, 175 mg; iron, 1,000 mg; iodine, 175 mg; manganese, 1,400 mg; selenium, 27 mg; zinc, 6,000 mg; nickel, 42 mg; fluorine, 650 mg

Table 2 Dry matter intake and performance parameters of Dorper x Santa Inês lambs submitted to experimental diets with agroindustrial co-products.

Parameters	Diets				Mean ± MSE
Parameters	C	CS	SFM	CC	Mean ± MSE
ILW (kg)	19.58	19.59	21.02	19.20	20.07±0.55
FLW (kg)	34.27	35.67	35.89	38.51	36.08±0.57
ADG (kg day^-1)	0.16	0.17	0.15	0.21	16.05±0.69
TWG (kg)	14.86	16.08	13.97	19.31	0.17±0.01
DMI
(kg day^-1)	1.08	1.07	1.09	1.26	1.13±0.04
(%BW)	3.92	3.65	3.88	4.45	3.98±0.09
g (kg^-1)^-0.75	89.60	84.74	89.50	102.47	91.58±1.90

Mean (n = 5) ± Mean standard error; C: control; CS: cottonseed; SFM: sunflower meal; CC: castor cake; ILW = Initial Live Weight; FLW = Final Live Weight; ADG = Average Daily Gain; TWG = Total Weight Gain; DMI = dry matter intake; BW = body weight

Table 3 Average content (g 100 g⁻¹) of fatty acids of the four experimental concentrates.

Fatty acids (g 100 g^-1)	C	CS	SFM	CC
C14:0 (myristic acid)	0.04	0.35	0.07	0.08
C16:0 (palmitic acid)	11.91	16.08	10.36	11.44
C16:1 (palmitoleic acid)	0.11	0.26	0.13	0.12
C17:0 (margaric acid)	0.07	0.09	0.08	0.09
C17:1 (heptadecenoic acid)	0.00	0.03	0.09	0.02
C18:0 (stearic acid)	1.95	2.10	1.98	1.97
C18:1 n9t (elaidic acid)	0.00	0.12	0.00	0.02
C18:1 n9c (oleic acid)	24.84	19.37	24.59	22.96
C18:2 n6c (linoleic acid)	34.90	39.35	30.34	28.58
C20:0 (arachidic acid)	0.49	0.32	0.43	0.46
C20:1 (gadoleic acid)	0.18	0.10	0.17	0.16
C18:3 n3 (linolenic acid)	1.18	0.60	0.79	0.79
C22:0 (behenic acid)	0.22	0.15	0.23	0.20
C20:3 n6 (dihomo-γ-linolenic acid)	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00
C20:4 n6 (arachidonic acid)	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
C24:0 (lignoceric acid)	0.19	0.12	0.18	0.18
C22:6 n3 (docosahexaenoic acid)	0.04	0.01	0.04	0.06
Saturated fatty acids	14.88	19.21	13.34	14.49
Polyunsaturated fatty acids	36.14	39.96	31.18	29.43

C: control; CS: cottonseed; SFM: sunflower meal; CC: castor cake.

Table 4 Eigenvalues and percentage of explained and cumulative variance over the Principal Components (PC).

PC	Eigenvalues	Variance Explained (%)	Cumulative Variance (%)
1	3.88	38.82	38.82
2	2.28	22.80	61.62
3	1.46	14.63	76.25
4	1.07	10.74	86.98
5	0.59	5.86	92.84
6	0.49	4.86	97.70
7	0.18	1.82	99.52
8	0.04	0.39	99.91
9	0.01	0.08	99.99
10	0.00	0.01	100.00

Table 5 Weights of the variables under study in the first four principal components (PC).

Variables	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4
SFA	-0.04	-0.80	0.12	0.47
MUFA	0.35	-0.68	0.04	0.11
PUFA	-0.93	-0.13	-0.13	0.31
P/S	-0.87	0.40	-0.03	-0.16
n-3	-0.49	-0.14	-0.85	0.07
n-6	-0.94	-0.07	-0.04	0.29
n-6/n-3	-0.52	0.10	0.81	0.24
Chol	0.11	-0.82	-0.03	-0.23
TWG	0.68	0.39	-0.17	0.43
DMI	0.51	0.36	-0.14	0.57

SFA = Saturated fatty acids; MUFA = Monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA = Polyunsaturated fatty acids; n-3=∑n-3 PUFA; n-6=∑n-6 PUFA; P/S=(C18:2n6+C18:3n3)/(C14:0+C16:0+C18:0); n6/n3=∑n-6 PUFA/∑n-3 PUFA; Chol = cholesterol; TWG = Total Weight Gain; DMI = dry matter intake; BW = body weight.

How to cite

copy

Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá - EDUEM Av. Colombo, 5790, bloco 40, CEP 87020-900 , Tel. (55 44) 3011-4253, Fax (55 44) 3011-1392 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: actaanim@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Effect of the diet on performance characteristics and quality of meat fat of lamb by principal component analysis

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] * Author for correspondence. E-mail: marcusandrade@ifba.edu.br