Th is study was conducted over two years to evaluate the use of field peas during two phases of production (grazing and finishing) on overall fresh beef quality. The backgrounding treatments included: no supplement, field peas, or dry- rolled corn and finishing treatments included the presence or absence of field peas. Loin samples (n = 232) were aged for 14 d and placed under retail display conditions for 7 d. Dietary treatments had no effect on tenderness (WBSF or SSF) or visual discoloration and minimal effects on objective color, lipid oxidation and fatty acid composition. These data indicate field peas may be used as an alternative feed for growing and finishing cattle with minimal to no negative impact on fresh meat quality

Calkins, Chris R.

Domenech, Katherine I.

Jenkins, Karla H.

Kunze, Emery K., Kunze

MacDonald, Jim C.

Ribeiro, Felipe A.

Voegele, Hope R.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2017Effect of Feeding Field Peas on Fresh Beef QualityHope R. VoegeleUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnKatherine I. DomenechUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnEmery K. Kunze KunzeUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnFelipe A. RibeiroUniversity of Nebraska - LincolnKarla H. JenkinsUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, kjenkins2@unl.eduSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons, Meat Science Commons, andthe Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Voegele, Hope R.; Domenech, Katherine I.; Kunze, Emery K. Kunze; Ribeiro, Felipe A.; Jenkins, Karla H.; MacDonald, Jim C.; andCalkins, Chris R., "Effect of Feeding Field Peas on Fresh Beef Quality" (2017). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 1000.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/1000AuthorsHope R. Voegele, Katherine I. Domenech, Emery K. Kunze Kunze, Felipe A. Ribeiro, Karla H. Jenkins, Jim C.MacDonald, and Chris R. CalkinsThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/10002017 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 101 ©  Th e Board Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.evaluation was conducted, six cores (1/2- inch diameter) were removed parallel to the muscle fi ber orientation of each steak and were measured with a Food Texture Analyz-er with a Warner- Bratzler blade.Subjective Discoloration (Visual Discoloration)Percent discoloration was estimated daily for seven days by six graduate students during the fi rst year and eight graduate stu-dents during the second year, all of whom had previous experience with subjective color scoring.Objective Color (L*, a*, b* values)During retail display, objective color was assessed daily with a Minolta Colorimeter (CR- 400, Minolta Camera Company, Osa-ka, Japan). Th e D65 illuminant setting and 2° observer were used with an 8 mm diame-ter measurement area. Th e colorimeter was calibrated daily and color measures were obtained by averaging 6 readings from dif-ferent areas of the steak surface. Th e CIE L* measured lightness (black = 0, white = 100), a* measured redness (red = positive values, green =negative values) and b* measured yellowness (yellow = positive values, blue = negative values).Lipid Oxidation (TBARS)Frozen samples (from retail display days 0, 4 and 7) were diced into small pieces, with no subcutaneous fat, and fl ash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Th e frozen pieces were homogenized in a Waring commercial blender and a 5 g sample was weighed in duplicate to conduct the TBARS protocol.Fatty Acid Profi leFrozen samples, with no subcutaneous fat, were diced into small pieces and fl ash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Samples were then homogenized in a Waring commer-ProcedureA total of 232 crossbred cattle (repli-cated over 2 yrs; steers during year one, heifers during year 2) were subjected to one of three background treatments on crested wheatgrass pastures with either: 1) no supplement, 2) fi eld peas at 0.5% BW, or 3) dry- rolled corn supplemented at 0.5% BW and one of two fi nishing treatments: 1) supplemented with fi eld peas (20% on a DM basis) or 2) no peas were added to the diet. Each background treatment consisted of 4 replications with 10 hd per pasture for a total of 40 hd per treatment per year. A 3- inch thick slice of the anterior portion of the strip loin was collected at the 12/13th rib area from every side of every carcass. All samples were immediately fabricat-ed and then aged for 14 days. Right loin samples were fabricated into ¾- inch thick steaks and 1- inch steaks. Th e ¾- inch steak was used for laboratory analysis of fatty acid composition while the 1- inch steak was used for tenderness measurement [Warner- Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF) and Slice Shear Force (SSF)] for day 0 of retail display. Left  loin samples were fabricated into ½- inch thick steaks and 1- inch steaks. Th e ½- inch steak was used to measure lipid oxidation while the 1- inch steak was used for visual discoloration and tenderness measurements for day 7 of retail display.Tenderness— Warner- Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF) & Slice Shear Force (SSF)For all steaks (never frozen), an internal raw temperature and weight were recorded. Steaks were cooked to a target temperature of 160°F on a Belt Grill (TBG60- V3 Magi-Gril, MagiKitch’n Inc., Quakertown, PA). Aft er cooking, an internal temperature and weight were recorded and slice shear force evaluation was conducted using a Food Tex-ture Analyzer with a Slice Shear Force blade. Th e remainder of the steak was individually bagged and stored in a cooler (maintained at 33°F). Approximately 24 hours aft er SSF Hope R. VoegeleKatherine I. DomenechEmery K. KunzeFelipe A. RibeiroKarla H. JenkinsJim C. MacDonaldChris R. CalkinsSummary with ImplicationsTh is study was conducted over two years to evaluate the use of fi eld peas during two phases of production (grazing and fi nishing) on overall fresh beef quality. Th e back-grounding treatments included: no sup-plement, fi eld peas, or dry- rolled corn and fi nishing treatments included the presence or absence of fi eld peas. Loin samples (n = 232) were aged for 14 d and placed under retail display conditions for 7 d. Dietary treatments had no eff ect on tenderness (WBSF or SSF) or visual discoloration and minimal eff ects on objective color, lipid oxidation and fatty acid composition. Th ese data indicate fi eld peas may be used as an alternative feed for growing and fi nishing cattle with minimal to no negative impact on fresh meat quality.IntroductionField peas have become a viable feed supplement for beef cattle. Field peas are an annual cool- season legume crop primarily produced in South Dakota, North Dakota and the western panhandle of Nebraska. Th ey compare favorably with other grains for several nutrients including crude protein, starch and fat. However, the impact of feed-ing fi eld peas on fresh meat quality has not been well studied. Th erefore, this study was conducted to determine the eff ect of feeding fi eld peas on shelf- life, tenderness, lipid oxidation, and fatty acid profi les of beef. Eff ect of Feeding Field Peas on Fresh Beef Quality102 · 2017 Nebraska Beef Cattle ReportTable 1. Amount1 of fatty acids of beef from cattle fed corn, fi eld peas or no supplement (L. dorsi)No supplement on pastureField Peas on pasture Corn onpastureP- valueFatty Acid Corn FinishingField Peas FinishingCorn FinishingField Peas FinishingCorn FinishingField Peas FinishingPasture Finishing Pasture* FinishingSEM2C10:0 3.97 5.11 5.40 5.11 4.41 4.45 0.28 0.52 0.44 0.69C12:0 4.20 5.56 4.70 4.87 4.53 4.35 0.69 0.30 0.31 0.61C14:0 185.96 204.88 179.51 184.02 180.12 184.34 0.34 0.28 0.73 11.40C14:1 44.88 49.22 40.92 45.31 42.25 44.67 0.41 0.16 0.94 3.50C15:0 32.89 32.62 29.51 29.41 31.40 29.48 0.23 0.63 0.88 2.12C15:1 40.40 49.64 51.02 43.43 45.72 45.02 0.76 0.90 0.03 3.48C16:0 1,688.57 1,852.63 1,655.76 1,627.45 1,653.85 1,677.08 0.32 0.47 0.55 98.37C16:1 240.45 271.14 241.89 254.20 251.59 260.25 0.81 0.13 0.70 15.12C17:0 99.61 110.05 104.09 95.75 103.14 94.50 0.61 0.68 0.24 7.00C17:1 94.98 102.52 98.79 85.78 89.13 85.12 0.21 0.55 0.29 7.10C18:0 1,059.83 1,158.86 1,059.53 1,006.33 1,010.95 1,009.54 0.25 0.77 0.46 66.97C18:1 2,892.93 3,209.57 2,886.72 2,801.20 2,876.43 2,973.08 0.41 0.39 0.44 169.91C18:1v 114.01 124.05 115.85 115.97 100.62 104.09 0.16 0.54 0.86 9.98C19:0 44.65 36.22 32.02 39.54 33.51 33.20 0.30 0.91 0.22 5.06C18:2TT 273.28 252.67 267.17 255.87 272.13 238.71 0.93 0.20 0.87 23.96C18:2 230.40 239.45 298.65 252.77 223.82 225.08 0.04a 0.49 0.37 23.02C18:3ω3 11.37 15.39 15.59 15.00 14.16 14.04 0.25 0.24 0.10 1.35C20:0 22.94 20.97 26.18 20.64 24.52 23.83 0.47 0.06 0.37 1.95C20:1 26.04 26.02 24.20 23.55 22.01 27.76 0.70 0.41 0.31 2.83C20:3ω6 14.01 15.24 14.47 14.28 14.96 13.46 0.91 0.84 0.35 1.03C20:4ω6 41.11 42.05 43.15 41.96 43.01 41.34 0.91 0.73 0.83 2.44C22:5 12.45 14.57 11.98 12.07 12.28 11.56 0.13 0.50 0.26 0.94Total 7,106.65 7,749.47 7,092.94 6,894.24 7,000.84 7,059.18 0.41 0.57 0.49 387.66Other 22.77 49.72 46.15 27.79 52.25 50.93 0.32 0.80 0.14 12.48SFA2 3,123.64 3,372.91 3,075.65 2,994.65 3,024.53 3,040.94 0.33 0.65 0.60 179.91UFA2 3,983.02 4,376.57 4,017.30 3,899.59 3,976.32 4,018.24 0.49 0.51 0.42 214.44SFA:UFA2 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.54 0.69 0.95 0.02MUFA2 3,433.64 3,817.86 3,429.83 3,358.83 3,419.25 3,505.81 0.44 0.38 0.46 199.74PUFA2 549.38 558.70 587.47 540.77 557.07 512.43 0.60 0.26 0.57 32.44ω6 52.56 52.93 54.63 54.21 55.24 51.30 0.83 0.57 0.72 3.07ω3 11.37 15.39 15.59 15.00 14.16 14.04 0.25 0.24 0.10 1.35ω6:ω3 4.59 3.90 3.96 3.81 4.66 4.00 0.34 0.06 0.64 0.381Amount (mg/100 g tissue) of fatty acid in powdered loin sample determined by gas chromatography.2SEM = Standard Error of the Mean, SFA = Saturated fatty acids, UFA= Unsaturated fatty acids, SFA:UFA = Saturated fatty acids: Unsaturated fatty acids, MUFA= Monounsaturated fatty acids, and PUFA=Polyunsaturated fatty acidsaFor C18:2, peas on pasture treatment were higher than the corn on pasture (P = 0.04), no supplement on pasture was not diff erent to peas or corn on pasture.2017 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 103 content of saturated fatty acids, unsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids or polyunsaturated fatty acids (P > 0.05; Table 1). Th ere was a signifi cant interaction between pasture and fi nishing treatments for C15:1 but the range in values was relative low and no implications from these diff erences could be identifi ed. Supplement-ing cattle on pasture with fi eld peas resulted in signifi cantly more C18:2 fatty acids than when cattle were supplemented with corn, while cattle without supplement were in-termediate. However, these diff erences did not carry over into total PUFA content, and diff erences among treatments could not be identifi ed. Th us, subtle diff erences in fatty acid composition that occurred from the treatments did not infl uence meat quality.Overall, there were minimal changes in discoloration, color, or tenderness. In con-clusion, these data indicate fi eld peas may be used as an alternative diet for growing and fi nishing cattle with minimal to no negative impact on fresh meat quality.Hope R. Voegele, graduate studentKatherine I. Domenech, graduate studentEmery K. Kunze, graduate studentFelipe A. Ribeiro, graduate studentKarla H. Jenkins, associate professor, Animal Science, University of Nebraska— Lincoln Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Scottsbluff Jim C. MacDonald, associate professor, Animal Science, LincolnChris R. Calkins, professor, Animal Science, LincolnResultsIn general, there were minimal eff ects due to diet. Tenderness (measured with WBSF and SSF) only presented diff erences due to retail display, showing an increase in tenderness with days of retail display (P < 0.0001). Neither backgrounding, nor fi nishing treatment infl uenced tender-ness measurements. A strong correlation between WBSF and SSF was observed (r = 0.65; P = < 0.0001).Discoloration, L* and a* had triple interactions of retail display, by pasture, by fi nishing diets (P < 0.0001, p=0.0524 and p=0.024, respectively). In general, samples placed under retail display did not exhibit meaningful discoloration as samples only reached 1.47% discoloration by d 7 irrespective of dietary treatment during both combined years. Although these interactions were statistically signifi cant, no consistent patterns due to treatments could be identifi ed. Similarly, the magni-tude of diff erence would require extended aging periods to visually infl uence the color diff erences perceived by consumers.Meat from cattle fi nished with fi eld peas had slightly greater lipid oxidation than samples from cattle not receiving fi eld peas during fi nishing (1.56 vs. 1.44 mg malonal-dehyde/kg tissue, respectively; P = 0.0541), although this is not a meaningful diff erence. As expected, lipid oxidation increased over time of simulated retail display (0d = 0.94, 4d = 1.46 and 7d = 2.11 mg malonaldehyde/kg tissue; P < 0.0001).Dietary treatment had no eff ect on cial blender and a 1 g sample was weighed out to conduct fatty acid determination via gas chromatography. Total fatty acids converted to methyl esters were separated on a fused silica column (Chromopack CP- Sil; 0.25mm x 100m) which was placed in an oven programmed from 284°F for 10 min to 428°F at a rate of 35°F/min and held at 428°F for 20 min. Total run time was 70 min. Th e injector and detector were programmed to work at 518°F and 572°F, respectively. Each lipid extract was separated into fatty acids by using helium as the carrier gas at a fl ow rate of 1mL/min. Individual fatty acids of each sample were determined by comparison of retention times with known standards and the percent of fatty acid was determined by the peak area in the chromatograph.Statistical AnalysisTh is study was conducted with a treatment design of a 3 x 2 factorial (backgrounding diet x fi nishing diet) and analyzed using SAS® 9.4 package, SAS Insti-tute, Inc., USA. Objective color and percent discoloration were analyzed for treatment main eff ects using the PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with day as repeated mea-sures when traits were measured over time. All other analyses were conducted with PROC GLIMMIX as well; all means were separated with the LS MEANS statement and TUKEY adjustment with an alpha level of 0.05 and tendencies were considered at an alpha level of 0.1.

Effect of Feeding Field Peas on Fresh Beef Quality

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1979&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Effect of Feeding Field Peas on Fresh Beef Quality

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska