Livestock Research for Rural Development 27 (2) 2015 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Influence of production system on the quality of Gudali beef in Cameroon

F A Fonteh3, N M Bawe1, N P Tuncha, O W Bessong1, M E Muluh and E Piasentier2

University of Dschang, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Production. P.O. Box 222 Dschang, Cameroon
1 Livestock Development Corporation “SODEPA”, Cameroon
2 Department of Agriculture and Environmental Science, University of Udine, Italy
3 Fonteh Florence Anyangwe, P.O. Box 447, Dschang, Cameroon. Tel: (237) 7757 7840
fontehflorence@yahoo.com

Abstract

Information on the quality of beef produced in Cameroon is almost non-existent. Therefore, the aim of this study was to contribute to providing scientific data on the quality of Gudali beef produced under different production systems in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Three production systems were selected: ranching, transhumance and nomadism. Ten Gudali bulls of similar age (3-5 years) were slaughtered from each production system for analysis.

 

Samples were collected from the Longissimus dorsi muscle and used to evaluate some physical, chemical and technological properties. Results revealed that irrespective of the production system, carcass pH24 and pH48 values (5.3-5.8) were within the acceptable range for table meats. Ranched carcass consistently recorded the lowest pH values after 24 hours of storage. Carcass from ranching expressed the lowest drip loss (0.77%), cook-out-loss (19.7%) and freezing loss (9.4%), while the highest losses were registered in carcass from nomadic system. Ranched samples again expressed the highest crude lipid (0.97%) and crude protein (24.4%) contents while the lowest values were found in nomad samples. These results indicate that production system significantly influences beef quality in Cameroon with beef from the ranching system presenting the best quality.

Keywords: carcass, cattle, chemical properties, physical properties, technological properties


Résumé

L’information sur la qualité du bœuf produit au Cameroun est presqu’inexistante. Cette étude avait donc pour but de contribuer à la mise à disposition des données scientifiques sur la qualité du bœuf Gudali produit sous différents systèmes de production dans les Hauts Plateaux de l’Ouest Cameroun. Trios systèmes de production étaient sélectionnes: le ranching, la transhumance et le nomadisme. Dix taureaux Gudali d’âge similaire (3 -5 ans) prélevés par système de production ont été abattus aux fins d’analyse. Des échantillons ont étés prélevés du muscle Longissimus dorsi et ont servi à estimer quelque propriétés physiques, chimiques et technologiques.

 

Les résultats ont relevés qu’indépendamment du système de production, les valeurs de pH24 et pH48 de la carcasse (5,3 -5,8) étaient comprises dans la tranche acceptable comme morceaux de viande à table. Les carcasses provenant du ranche ont enregistrées de manière consistante les valeurs de pH les plus faibles après 24 heures de stockage. Les carcasses du ranching ont exprimées les pourcentages de perte les plus faibles au ressuyage (0,77%), à la préparation (19,7%) et à la congélation (9,4%), pendant que les carcasses du nomadisme enregistraient les pertes les plus élevées.

 

Les échantillons du ranche ont également exprimés les teneurs les plus élevées en matières grasses (0,97%) et en protéines bruts (24,4%), pendant que les échantillons issus du nomadisme donnaient les valeurs les plus faibles. Ces résultats indiquent que le système de production influence significativement la qualité du bœuf au Cameroun, la meilleure qualité du bœuf étant obtenue avec le système de ranching.

Mots clés: carcasse, bétail, propriétés-chimiques, propriétés-physiques, propriétés-echnologiques


Introduction

Livestock production currently accounts for about 30% of the gross value of agricultural production in Africa. Seventy percent of the rural poor in Africa own livestock, including pastoralists living in arid and semi-arid zones (ILRI 2004). Despite this, food scarcity and especially protein malnutrition still prevail due to the ever increasing rate of population growthin the continent. Cameroon being a developing country is not an exception.  Cattle contribute approximately 28% of the total protein produced in the country (Bayemi et al 2008). The Gudali breed constitutes  about  60%  of  total cattle  production  in  Cameroon  and  remains  the  most popular,  especially  in  the smallholder  sector  of  the  Adamawa highlands (Bayemi et al 2008). The Gudali is  of  good  temperament; excellent beef production potential with a relatively higher carcass dressing percentage of 55-60% and it can produce and reproduce optimally under the prevailing conditions of the tropical  environment  without  much  additional  inputs (Ebangi et  al 2002a). Cattle are reared under a number of different production systems existing in the country.

 

To address the deficit in supply of animal proteins in Cameroon, there is a need to improve beef productivity not only in quantity but also in quality. However, it is expedient first to know the current quality of beef produced in the country as further attempts are made towards quantitative improvement.

 

The production system has a direct influence on the quality as well as the quantity of the meat produced (Diaz et al 2002).  Unfortunately, there is no data in Cameroon that relates production system to beef quality. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to investigate the possible influence ofproduction system on the quality of Gudali beef produced in Cameroon.


Materials and methods

Sampling

 

Thirty Gudali bulls of similar slaughter age (3-5 years inclusive) were selected and slaughtered from three production systems (transhumance, ranching, nomadism) in the Western Highlands region of Cameroon. Immediately after carcass dressing, from the left side, a sample (approximately 1000g) of Longissimus dorsi muscle (between 12th and 13th rib) was removed by cutting a three-centimetre thick chop from the section dividing the thoracic and lumbar parts of the muscle of each animal. Fractions from each sample were used for the evaluation of the physical, technological and chemical properties.

 

Evaluation of physical properties

 

pH and temperature readings were taken using a pH meter/temperature probe (HI8484, HANNA) which had been previously standardized using pH buffer solutions 4 and 7. Beef samples were stored at 4oC. Readings were recorded at intervals of 1,12, 24 and 48 hours post slaughter.

 
Evaluation of technological properties

 

Drip loss was measured according to Honikel (1998). After 24hrs storage of meat samples at 4oC, drip loss was calculated as the difference between initial and final weights and expressed as a percentage.

 

Cook-out-loss was evaluated using the method described by Piasentier et al (2003). Six hours after slaughter, meat samples in ziploc bags were immersed in a thermostatic water bath at 75oC for 15mins. Cook-out-loss was obtained as the difference between the initial and the final weights and expressed as a percentage.

 

Freezing loss was evaluated using the method described by Piasentier et al (2003). Meat samples were frozen at -20oC for 14days, then thawed to room temperature (21oC) and reweighed.  Freezing loss was calculated as the difference in weight loss before and after freezing and expressed as a percentage.

 

Evaluation of chemical properties

 

Meat samples were minced and dried in a ventilated oven at 60oC until a constant weight was attained. The samples were analyzed for moisture, crude protein, crude lipid and ash contents as described (AOAC 2000).

 

Statistical analysis

 

ANOVA was done using the General Linear Model approach (SPSS version 19.0). Means were separated for significant differences (p<0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test (Steel and Torrie 1980).


Results

Effect of production system on some physical properties of beef

 

Influence of production system on pH

 

Figure 1 shows the pH variations with time in the beef of animals from three production systems.


Figure 1: pH evolution of beef from different production systems


The highest pH value (one hour after slaughter) was recorded in carcasses from nomadism (pH1 = 6.94) and 48 hours after slaughter, the lowest value was recorded in ranched beef (pH48 = 5.30). It was observed that carcass pH was relatively very high during the first hour and dropped rapidly up to 24 hours after slaughter in all the three production systems. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) in pH values between carcasses from the different production systems from the time of slaughter up till 24 hours post slaughter although pH drop was greatest in ranched carcasses. At 48 hours post slaughter, the pH value of ranched beef was significantly lower (p<0.05) than that from nomadism and transhumance respectively. The pH values in carcasses from nomadism remained consistently higher than those from the other production systems throughout the storage period.

 

Influence of production system on temperature

 

Figure 2 reveals that 1hour after slaughter, the temperature in the beef from all three systems was quite high but dropped sharply up to 24 hours post slaughter and slowed down thereafter. The drop in temperature was more rapid in ranched carcass than in the other carcasses.


Figure 2: Temperature evolution in beef from different production systems


One hour after slaughter, the lowest temperature (28.9oC) was recorded in carcasses from transhumance and this was significantly lower (p<0.05) than the temperature recorded in samples from ranching and nomadism respectively (Table 1).

Table 1: Mean temperature variations of beef from different production systems

Time after
slaughter (hours)

Production system

Nomadism

Ranching

Transhumance

SEM

Prob .

1

31.3a

32.5a

28.9b

0.53

0.01

12

24.5a

20.1b

23.2a

0.51

0.00

24

14.5a

14.3a

13.3a

0.48

0.61

48

10.0a

10.9a

10.8a

0.34

0.80

a, b Means in the same row with a common letter are not significantly different

At the 12th hour post slaughter, the temperature of carcasses from ranching was significantly lower than that from either nomadism or transhumance. At 24 hours post slaughter, the lowest temperature was recorded in beef from transhumance while at 48 hours temperature was lowest in beef from nomadism. However, no significant differences (p>0.05) between production systems were recorded beyond 12 hours of storage. 

 

Influence of production system on some technological properties of beef

 

Table 2 summarizes the effect of production system on drip loss, cook-out-loss and freezing loss of Gudali beef from different production systems.

Table 2: Technological properties of Gudali beef from different production systems                            

Technological

property (%)

Production system

Nomadism

(n = 10)

Ranching

(n = 10)

Transhumance

(n = 10)

SEM

Prob.

Drip loss

0.99a

0.77a

0.98a

0.39

0.62

Cook-out-loss

25.2b

19.7a

24.7b

3.15

0.03

Freezing loss

11.1a

9.4a

10.4a

3.60

0.87

a, b Means in the same row with a common letter are not significantly different

Drip loss was highest in beef from nomadism (0.99%) although there were no significant differences (p>0.05) between values from the three production systems.  Cook-out-loss was least in beef from ranching (19.7%) and this was significantly lower than that in beef from transhumance and nomadism respectively. There were no significant differences in freezing loss (p>0.05) between the three production systems although it was highest in beef from nomadism and lowest in beef from ranching.

 

Influence of production system on some chemical properties of beef

 

The effect of production system on moisture, crude ash, crude protein and crude lipid contents are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Chemical properties of Gudali beef from different production systems                     

Chemical property

(%)

Production system

Nomadism

(n = 10)

Ranching

(n = 10)

Transhumance

(n = 10)

SEM

Prob.

Moisture

71.7b

75.2

73.4ab  

6.15

0.99

Crude ash

1.62a  

1.55a  

1.56a

0.75

0.81

Crude protein

21.4a

24.4b

22.9ab

0.84

0.04

Crude lipid

0.39a

0.97b

0.79ab

0.30

0.02

a, b Means in the same row with a common letter are not significantly different

The lowest moisture content was recorded in beef from nomadism (71.7%) and it was statistically lower than from ranched beef (p<0.05).

The crude ash contents of beef from the three production systems were not significantly different from each other (p>0.05).

The highest crude protein content was recorded in beef from ranching (24.4%) and was significantly higher (p<0.05) than in beef from nomadism (22.9%).

Similarly, the highest crude lipid content was recorded in beef from ranching (0.97%) and was significantly higher (p<0.05) than in beef from nomadism (0.39%). Furthermore, the moisture, ash, protein and lipid contents in beef from ranching were not significantly different from those obtained in beef from transhumance (p>0.05).


Discussion

Effects of production system on some physical properties of beef

 

pH

 

The highest pH values were obtained 1hour after slaughter (pH1).The values ranged from 6.88-6.94 in all three production systems and these values are very close to the pH of a living muscle (7.0-7.2) as reported by Munchenje et al (2009b).

 

Within 24 hours post slaughter, the pH24 values dropped significantly to below 6.0 in carcasses from all three production systems. This is expected because under anaerobic conditions, glycogen is converted into lactic acid which accumulates in the animal carcass; the muscle gradually acidifies, causing a decline in muscle pH (Warriss 2000).

 

The pH24 values obtained fall within the normal range accepted for commercial beef (Tarrant 1989).Our results are similar to the results reported by Munchenje et al (2009b). The pH values obtained 48 hours after slaughter ranged from 5.30 to 5.52 for all the three production systems and these results were in accordance with the results of Corrazzin and Piasentier (2011).

 

The mean pH value from ranching was significantly lower than that from nomadism and transhumance respectively during 48 hours of storage. This implies that the animals under ranching had enough glycogen reserves (as a result of better nutrition) which continued to be converted into acid during prolonged storage (Warriss 2000).

 

Temperature

 

As expected, beef temperature dropped over time in all three production systems as the muscle starts preparing to get into a state of rigor. Our results were similar to those obtained by Bendall (1972). No definite trend was observed between the production systems. From the results obtained, there seems to be no relationship between temperature and pH in carcasses during storage. This suggests that carcass temperature may not have a direct influence on acid production post mortem.

 

Effect of production system on some technological properties of beef

 

Our results revealed that drip loss was low across all three production systems. Drip loss might have been as a result of protein denaturation (consequently increased bleeding) caused a rapid fall in pH post mortem (Huff-Lonergan and Lonergan 2005). Since drip loss directly affects juiciness and nutrient content of beef, the low values obtained in this study imply that Cameroonian beef is of good technological quality (Warriss 2000). Production system had little effect on drip loss since there were no statistical differences among beef samples from the different production systems. This corroborates with our observation of no significant differences in pH values among beef from the different production systems at 24 hours post slaughter.

 

The cook-out-loss was quite high (about 35%) in all the beef samples irrespective of production system. This may be because our samples were tested 6 hours post slaughter when the pH was still high (above 6). A high pH also contributes to protein denaturation and consequently increased exudation (Huff-Lonergan and Lonergan 2005). Our results are similar to those obtained by Jama et al (2008). However, cook-out losses of beef samples from nomadism and transhumance production systems were slightly higher than those reported by Jeremiah and Gibson (2003) but lower than those reported by Razminowicz et al (2006).

 

There were no differences in freezing loss between samples from the three production systems. These results are in line with those of Enfält et al (1997) who found no differences in freezing loss between samples frozen at -20 °C. Rapid freezing reduces pH changes post mortem thus exudation is subsequently minimized.

 

Effect of production system on some chemical properties of beef

 

The moisture content of beef varied significantly among the production systems. Lowest value was recorded in beef from nomadism. Low accessibility to drinking water by animals in this production system could account for the relatively low moisture content of its beef. These results are similar to those found by Clinquart et al (1994).

 

Production system had little effect on the ash content of beef.  Similar results have been reported by others (Enfält et al 1997, Rowe et al 1999, French et al 2000).  The values obtained were superior to those obtained by Prado et al (2009a) who reported that bulls had crude ash percentages varying between 1.03 and 1.18.

 

In this study, crude protein content obtained varied significantly between the systems.  The results for transhumance and nomadism are similar to those of Arbele et al (2001) who found out that lean portions of red meat contain 19 to 23 percent protein; while crude protein content of beef from ranching was slightly higher than this interval. This is in agreement with Huff- Lonergan and Lonergan (2005) who found that the protein content of meat falls within 20-25%. Difference in management (nutrition) practices in the production systems greatly influences animal feeding and consequently protein build-up.

 

Production system significantly affected the crude lipid content of the resulting beef. Again, differences in management practices (especially trekking distance covered daily) would be responsible for the differences. The lowest crude lipid content was registered in nomadism, since animals continuously trek over very long distances consequently exhausting their lipid reserves. Since animals under ranching are more confined and do not undergo long distance trekking, their lipid reserves are not used up before slaughter.


Conclusions


References

AOAC 2000 Official methods of analysis. 17th edition. Ed. Maryland, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemistry

Arbele E D, Forrest JC, Gerrard D Eand Mills E W 2001 Principles of Meat Science.Fourth Edition.Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.  Dubuque, Iowa. p. 117-123. 

Bayemi PH, Bryant M J, Pingpoh D, Imele H, Mbanya J, Tanya V, Cavestany D, Awoh J, Ngoucheme A, Sali D, Ekoue F, Njakoi H and Webb E C 2008 Participatory Rural Appraisal of Dairy Farms in the North West Province of Cameroon, Volume 17, Art. # 59. Retrieved June 25, 2012, from http://www.cipav.org.co/1rrd17/6/baye17059.htm 

Bendall J R 1972 Postmortem changes in muscle. In: G.H.  Borne (ed), The structure and function of muscle, Academic Press, New York. p. 222–309. 

Clinquart A, Van Eename C, Van Vooren T, Van Hoof J, Hornick J L and Istasse L 1994 Meat quality in relation to breed (Belgian Blue vs Holstein) and conformation (double muscled vs dual purpose type). Sciences des Aliments, 14, 401-407 

Corazzin M and Piasentier E 2011Main Features of Italian Simmental beef. 29th European Simmental Federation Congress. Udine (Italy) 3-7May 2011.

Díaz M T, Valesco S, Caneque V, Lauzurica S, de Huidobro F R, Perez C, Gonzalez J and Manzanares C 2002 The use of concentrate or pasture for fattening lambs and its effect on carcass and meat quality. Small Ruminant Research, 43, 257-268.

Ebangi A L, Erasmus G J, Tawah C L and Mbah D A 2002  Genetic  trends  for  growth  in  a  selection experiment  involving  Purebred  and  Two-breed  synthetic beef  breed  in  a  tropical  environment. Revue  ÉlevageMédicineVéterinaire Pays Tropicales, 55,4, 305-312. 

Enfalt A C, Lundstrom K, Hansson I, Lundeheim N and Nystrom P E 1997 Effects of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Science, 45, 1–15. 

French P, O`Riordan E G, Monahan F J, CaVrey P J, Vidal M and Mooney M T 2000 Meat quality of steers finished on grass, grass silage or concentrate based diet. Meat Science 56, 173-180. 

Honikel 1998 Fundamentals of water holding capacity of meat: vertical drip determination. http://qpc.adm.slu.se/6_Fundamentals_of_WHC/page_31.htm 

Huff - Lonergan E and Lonergan S M 2005 Mechanisms of water-holding capacity of meat: The role of postmortem biochemical and structural changes.  Meat Science,71,1, 194- 204.

ILRI 2004 Raising livestock production in Africa In Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in Africa by 2020: Prioritizing Action, Strengthening Actors, and Facilitating Partnerships April 1-3, 2004.Kampala, Uganda. Parallel Session: Implementing action in key areas: Raising Agricultural Productivity Panelist: Carlos Sere, Director General, International livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya.

Jama N, Muchenje V, Chimonyo M, Strydom P E  and Dzama K 2008 Cooking loss components of beef from three cattle breeds raised in a low input cattle production system. African Journal of Agricultural Research,3,6, 416-420, June 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2012 fromhttp://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR 

Jeremiah L E and Gibson L L 2003 The effect of dietary poultry litter supplementation on beef chemical, cooking, and palatability properties and consumer acceptance. Food Research International,   36, 943–948.

Muchenje V, Dzama K, Chimonyo M, Strydom P E and Raats J G 2009 Relationship between pre-slaughter stress responsiveness and beef quality in three cattle breeds. Meat Science, 81, 653-657.

Piasentier E, Valusso R, Volpelli L A and Failla S 2003 Meat quality of Simmental young bulls as affected by the genes frequency of Montbeliarde origin. In proceedings 49th international congress of meat science and technology (pp 187-188), 31 August- 5th September 2003, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Prado R M, Prado I N, Marques J A, Rotta P P, Visentainer J V, Silva R R and Souza N  E 2009 Meat quality of the Longissimus muscle of bulls and steers (1/2 Nellore vs. 1/2 Simmental) finished in feedlot. Journal Animal Feed Science, 18, 221-230.

Razminowicz R H, Kreuzer M and Scheeder M R  L 2006 Quality of retail beef from two grass-based production systems in comparison with conventional beef. Meat Science, 73, 351–361.  

Rowe A, Macedo F A F, Visentainer J V, Souza N E and Matsushita M 1999Musclecomposition and fattyacidprofile in lambsfattened in drylotor pasture. Meat Science, 51, 283–288. 

Steele R G and Torrie J H 1980Principles and procedures of statistics.McGraws Hill Book C, New York, 633 pp.

Tarrant P V 1989 Animal Behavior and Environment in the Dark Cutting Condition in Beef- a review. Irish Journal of Food Science and Technology, 13, 1-21.

Warriss P D 2000 Meat Science. An Introductory Text. New York: CABI Publishing.


Received 14 March 2014; Accepted 9 January 2015; Published 4 February 2015

Go to top