Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T05:19:49.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Activities of some stress enzymes as indicators of slaughter cattle welfare and their relationship with physico-chemical characteristics of beef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2017

A.-Y. Chulayo  and
V. Muchenje
A.-Y. Chulayo
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
V. Muchenje*
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The study determined the activities of creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in transported cattle as indicators of welfare and how they relate to beef quality. A total of 219 (n=219) (85 Beefmaster, 48 Charolaise, 32 Holstein-Friesian and 54 nondescript) cattle brought to the abattoir for slaughter were used in the study. Disposable vacutainer tubes with anticoagulant (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) were used to collect 4 ml of blood samples to determine the activities of CK and LDH. The measurements of pHu and colour coordinates (L*, a* and b*) were carried out at 48 h after slaughter on the representative samples of muscularis longissimuss thoracis et. lumborum (LTL). Longer distance travelled by cattle had a significant effect (P<0.05) on ultimate pH (pHu), lightness (L*), redness (a*) and Warner–Bratzler Shear Force. Animals that travelled for 366, 877 and 1012 km had higher CK (>3000 to 5000) and those that travelled for 1263 km had lower CK activities (1000). The activities of LDH were observed in cattle that travelled for 366 and 1012 km (7000) and for those that travelled for 877 and 922 km (6000). Results of the principal component analysis showed that the first three principal components (PCs) explained about 53% of the total variability. The first PC was correlated with meat quality attributes (pHu, Tm, a* and b* values). The activities of CK and LDH were related and useful to define the second PC. However, CK and LDH were not related to beef quality. Therefore, CK and LDH can be used as indicators of welfare in slaughter cattle but cannot be used to predict the quality of meat.

Keywords

animal welfaredistance travelledlactate dehydrogenasemeat qualitystress biomarkers
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , September 2017 , pp. 1645 - 1652
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

Bailey, AJ 2002. Changes in bone collagen with age and disease. Journal of Musculoskeletal Neuronal Interactions 6, 529–531.Google Scholar
Baird, MF, Graham, SM, Baker, JS and Bickerstaff, GE 2012. Creatine kinase and exercise related muscle damage implications for muscle performance and recovery. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 2012, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/960363.Google Scholar
Brancaccio, P, Lippi, G and Maffulli, N 2010. Biochemical markers of muscular damage. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 48, 757–767.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2000. Welfare assessment and welfare problem areas during handling and transport. In Livestock handling and transport livestock, 2nd edition (ed. S Grandin), pp. 43–61. CABI Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2005. The effects of land transport on animal welfare. Revue Scientifique et Technique 24, 683–691.Google Scholar
Buller, H and Roe, E 2013. Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies 33, 141–149.Google Scholar
Destefanis, G, Barge, MT, Brugiapaglia, A and Tassone, S 2000. The use of principal component analysis (PCA) to characterize beef. Meat Science 56, 255–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dokmanović, M, Velarde, A, Tomović, V, Glamočlija, N, Marković, R, Janjić, J and Baltica, MŽ 2014. The effects of lairage time and handling procedure prior to slaughter on stress and meat quality parameters in pigs. Meat Science 98, 220–226.Google Scholar
Drent, M, Cobben, NAM, Henderson, RF, Wouters, EFM and Dieijen-Visser, M 2014. Usefulness of lactate dehydrogenase and its isoenzymes as indicators of lung damage or inflammation. European Respiratory Journal 9, 1736–1742.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to the welfare of animals during transport. Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-094. European Food Safety Authority Journal 44, 1–36.Google Scholar
Fiems, LO 2012. Double muscling in cattle: genes, husbandry, carcasses and meat. Animal 2, 472–506.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, DM, Jiang, ST, Hearnshaw, H, Rymill, SR and Thompson, JM 2000. Effect of electrical stimulation on protease activity and tenderness of m. longissimus from cattle with different proportions of Bos indicus content. Meat Science 55, 265–272.Google Scholar
Ferguson, DM and Warner, RD 2008. Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat Science 80, 12–19.Google Scholar
Frimpong, S, Bebresenbet, G, Bobobee, E, Aklaku, ED and Hamdu, I 2014. Effect of transportation and pre-slaughter handling on welfare and meat quality of cattle: case study of Kumasi abattoir, Ghana. Veterinary Sciences 1, 174–191.Google Scholar
Gebresenbet, G, Ljunberg, D, Geers, R and van de Water, G 2004. Effective logistics to improve animal welfare in the production chain, with special emphasis on farm-abattoir system. International Society Animal Hygiene 1, 37–38.Google Scholar
Gebresenbet, G, Wikner, I, Bobobee, EYH, Maria, G and Villarroel, M 2012. Effect of transport time and handling on physiological responses of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A 2, 800–814.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2000. Introduction: management and economic factors of handling and transport. In Livestock handling and transport, 2nd edition (ed. T Grandin), pp. 1–9. CAB International, Wallingford UK.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2010. Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science 86, 56–65.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2015. Animal welfare during transport and slaughter. Sustainable Animal Production. Retrieved on 1 April 2015 from http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5atransport.htm.Google Scholar
Gregory, NG 2007. Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter. Meat Science 80, 2–11.Google Scholar
Guzek, D, Gląbska, D, Pogorzelski, G, Kozań, K, Pietras, J, Konarska, M, Skowaska, A, Gląbski, K, Pogorzeska, EM, Barszczewski, J and Wierzbicka, A 2013. Variation of meat quality parameters due to conformation and fat class in Limousin bulls slaughtered at 25 to 27 months of age. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 26, 716–722.Google Scholar
Hopkins, DL, Ponnampalam, EN, van de Ven, RJ and Warner, RD 2014. Effect of pH decline rate on the meat and eating quality of beef carcasses. Animal Production Science 54, 407–413.Google Scholar
Huertas, SM, Gil, AD, Piaggio, JM and Eerdenburg, FJCM 2010. Transportation of beef cattle to slaughterhouses and how this relates to animal welfare and carcass bruising in an extensive production system. Animal Welfare 19, 281–285.Google Scholar
Joo, ST, Kim, GD, Hwang, YH and Ryu, YC 2013. Control of fresh meat quality through manipulation of muscle fibre characteristics. Meat Science 95, 828–836.Google Scholar
Kandeepan, G, Mendiratta, SK, Shukla, V and Vishnuraj, MR 2013. Processing characteristics of buffalo meat – a review. Journal of Meat Science and Technology 1, 1–11.Google Scholar
Koch, AJ, Pereira, R and Machado, M 2014. The creatine kinase response to resistance exercise. Journal of Musculoskeletal Neuronal Interactions 14, 68–77.Google Scholar
Li, P, Wang, T, Mao, Y, Zhang, Y, Niu, L, Liang, R, Zhu, L and Luo, X 2014. Effect of ultimate pH on post-mortem myofibrillar protein degradation and meat quality characteristics of Chinese yellow crossbreed cattle. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 1–8.Google Scholar
Liotta, L, Nanni Costa, L, Chiofalo, B, Rvarottor, L and Chiofalo, V 2007. Effects of lairage time on same blood constituents and on beef quality of bulls after long journey. Italian Journal of Animal Science 7, 375–384.Google Scholar
Mader, TL 2003. Environmental stress in confined beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, E110–E119.Google Scholar
Marenčić, D, Ivanković, A, Pintić, V, Horvat-Marković, R, Horvat, M, Konjačić, M and Kelava, N 2009. Effects different transport period and mixing of groups on meat quality of Simmental bulls. Stočarstvo 63, 251–261.Google Scholar
Melesse, A, Maak, S, Schmidt, R and von Lengerken, G 2011. Effect of long-term heat stress on key enzyme activities and T3 levels in commercial layer hens. International Journal Livestock Production 2, 107–116.Google Scholar
Minka, NS and Ayo, JO 2010. Physiological response of food animals to road transportation stress. African Journal of Biotechnology 9, 6601–6613.Google Scholar
Mounier, L, Dubroeucq, H, Andanson, S and Veissier, L 2006. Variations in meat pH of beef bulls in relation to conditions of transfer to slaughter and previous history of the animals. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1567–1576.Google Scholar
Muchenje, V, Dzama, K, Chimonyo, M, Raats, JG and Strydom, PE 2008. Meat quality of Nguni, Bonsmara and Aberdeen Angus steers raised on natural pasture in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Meat Science 79, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muchenje, V, Dzama, K, Chimonyo, M, Strydom, PE and Raats, JG 2009. Relationship between pre-slaughter stress responsiveness and beef quality in three cattle breeds. Meat Science 81, 653–657.Google Scholar
Ndou, SP, Muchenje, V and Chimonyo, M 2011. Animal welfare in multipurpose cattle production systems and its implications on beef quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 10, 1049–1064.Google Scholar
Peña, F, Bonvillani, A, Freire, B, Juárez, J and Gómez, G 2009. Effects of genotype and slaughter weight on the meat quality of Criollo Cordobes and Anglonubian kids produced under extensive feeding conditions. Meat Science 83, 417–422.Google Scholar
Probst, JK, Neff, AS, Leiber, F, Kreuzer, M and Hillmann, E 2012. Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidance distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 139, 42–49.Google Scholar
Sahin, T, Gurgoze, SY, Cmkerten, I and Yuksek, N 2009. The effect of transport stress on erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase activity, plasma concentrations of lipid peroxidation and some trace element levels in beef cattle. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8, 2223–2227.Google Scholar
Sattler, T and Fürll, M 2004. Creatine kinase and aspartate aminotransferase in cows as indicators for endometritis. Journal Veterinary Medicine: A Physiology Pathology Clinic Medicine 51, 132–137.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 2003. SAS/STAT guide to personal computers, Version 6, Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 2010. JMP 9. Discovering JMP. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2013. Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influences the behavioural expression of cattle. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 143, 18–30.Google Scholar
Tackett, J, Reynolds, AS and Dickerman, RD 2008. Enzyme elevations with muscle injury: know what to look for!. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 66, 725–725.Google Scholar
Tarrant, PV, Kenny, FJ and Harrington, DWJ 1992. Long distance transportation of steers to slaughter: effect of stocking density on physiology, behaviour and carcass quality. Livestock Production Science 30, 223–238.Google Scholar
Teke, B, Akdag, F, Ekiz, B and Ugurlu, M 2014. Effects of different lairage times after long distance transportation on carcass and meat quality characteristics of Hungarian Simmental bulls. Meat Science 96, 24–229.Google Scholar
Van der Water, G, Verjans, F and Geers, R 2003. The effect of short distance transport under commercial conditions on the physiology of slaughter calves; pH and colour profiles of veal. Livestock Production Science 82, 171–179.Google Scholar
Warriss, PD 1990. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, M, Hepp, C, Soto, C, Gallardo, P, Bustamante, H and Gallo, C 2013. Effects of long distance transport and subsequent recovery in recently weaned crossbred beef calves in Southern Chile. Livestock Science 152, 42–46.Google Scholar
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, C, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012. Qualitative behavioural assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4523–4535.Google Scholar
Wythes, JR and Shorthose, WR 1984. Marketing cattle: its effects on live weight, carcasses and meat quality. AMRC Review No. 46. Australian Meat Research Committee, Sydney.Google Scholar