4.4 Article

Adding heat-treated rapeseed to the diet of yak improves growth performance and tenderness and nutritional quality of the meat

Journal

ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
Volume 90, Issue 9, Pages 1177-1184

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/asj.13266

Keywords

fatty acids profile; heat-treated rapeseed; meat quality; tenderness; yak

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0500504, 2018YFD0502300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31660673]
  3. National Key Basic Research Development Earlier Stage Plan [2012CB722906]
  4. Qinghai Key Laboratory Platform Project [2013-Z-Y03]
  5. International Cooperation Project of Ministry of Science and Technology [2015DFG31870]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Heat-treated rapeseed was supplemented to indoor fed yaks in winter to test the effect on dry matter intake (DMI), body mass change, and meat quality. Sixteen 3-year-old yak steers (124 +/- 15.3 kg) were divided randomly into two groups and were offered either heat-treated rapeseed (HTR) or rapeseed meal (CONT). The yaks were allowed 14 days for adjustment and measurements were made over 120 d. There was no difference in DMI between groups (p = 0.67), but average daily gain tended to be higher (p < 0.056) and feed to gain ratio tended to be lower (p = 0.050) in HTR than in CONT yaks. Meat from HTR yaks was more tender (p = 0.006), had higher intramuscular fat (p = 0.013), and had lower cholesterol content (p = 0.009) than from CONT yaks. In addition, the atherogenic index was lower (0.37 vs. 0.43; p = 0.049), the PUFA:SFA ratio was higher (0.55 vs. 0.37; p = 0.049), and the n-6:n-3 (n-6 PUFA to n-3 PUFA) ratio was lower (2.76 vs. 4.78; p = 0.003) in HTR than in CONT yaks, which all favoured the HTR yaks. Meat from HTR yaks met human health standards of a PUFA:SFA ratio of above 0.4 and n-6:n-3 ratio of less than 4, whereas meat from CONT yaks just missed these standards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available