The importance of prenatal events for postnatal muscle growth in relation to the quality of muscle...

The importance of prenatal The importance of prenatal events for postnatal muscle events for postnatal muscle

growth in relation to the quality growth in relation to the quality of muscle based foodsof muscle based foods

Pia M. NissenPia M. NissenDept. of Food ScienceDept. of Food Science

Faculty of Agricultural SciencesFaculty of Agricultural SciencesThe University of AarhusThe University of Aarhus

DenmarkDenmark

Thanks to: John Brameld, Carsten Werner, Brigitte Picard, Florence Gondret, Mehmet Kuran, Luisa Valente, Charlotte Rehfeldt, Aidan Moloney

Milestone 2:Milestone 2:Comparative aspects of prenatal events on Comparative aspects of prenatal events on

growth and meat/fish qualitygrowth and meat/fish quality

Ad 2) the second milestone will be obtained year Ad 2) the second milestone will be obtained year 2005. It is recognised that e.g. quality problem of 2005. It is recognised that e.g. quality problem of meat and fish differ to a great extent. meat and fish differ to a great extent. Consequently, prenatal events leading to optimal Consequently, prenatal events leading to optimal quality in fish may have opposite effects in quality in fish may have opposite effects in mammals. These comparative aspects are very mammals. These comparative aspects are very important in the future work in animal/fish important in the future work in animal/fish production for obtaining optimal production and production for obtaining optimal production and meat/fish qualitymeat/fish quality

Prenatal events that may affect growth and Prenatal events that may affect growth and meat qualitymeat quality

No. of muscle fibresNo. of muscle fibres Fixed at birth in mammals and chickenFixed at birth in mammals and chicken Continous development in fishContinous development in fish

Hyperthrophy/cross-sectional area of fibresHyperthrophy/cross-sectional area of fibres Grow until mature size in mammals and chickenGrow until mature size in mammals and chicken Continous growth in most fish Continous growth in most fish

Types of fibresTypes of fibres Overall the same types in mammals, chicken and fishOverall the same types in mammals, chicken and fish Pattern of fibre types different among speciesPattern of fibre types different among species

Fibre type patternFibre type pattern

Valente, 2007

90 – 95 % fast-white fibres

Nissen, 2003

FISH

PIG CATTLE

Therkildsen, 2002

Differences in prenatal events accomplished Differences in prenatal events accomplished by:by:

Environmental regulation:Environmental regulation: Maternal feedingMaternal feeding Incubation temperature (fish/chicken)Incubation temperature (fish/chicken)

Genetics:Genetics: BreedsBreeds BreedingBreeding

Both:Both: Birth weightBirth weight

700

800

900

1000

C A25-50 A25-70

Maternal treatment

Aver

age

daily

ga

in, g

/d

ab

a

300

350

400

450

C A25-50 A25-70

Maternal treatment

M.s

emi-

tend

inos

u, g

Increased feeding of the sow during Increased feeding of the sow during gestationgestation

Nissen et al., 2003

0

200

400

600

800

Total fibre number S-fibre number

Fib

re n

umbe

r,

in th

ousa

nds

C A25-50 A25-70

01234567

MFA Type I Type II

Fibe

r ar

ea, μ

m2

in th

ousa

nds

C A25-50 A25-70

Item Treatment

Control 25-50 25-70 SEM

PH24

Drip loss, %L* (lightness)a* (redness)b* (yellowness)Pigment, mg/g

5.585.5

53.87.46.4

0.73

5.555.4

53.17.56.2

0.72

5.595.5

53.87.66.6

0.74

0.030.70.60.30.3

0.03

Increased feeding of the sow during Increased feeding of the sow during gestationgestation

Nissen et al., 2003

LDT*F P=0.003 S*F P=0.008

S*T P=0.007

Daniel et al, 2007

Effect of maternal restriction on lamb performance

Effect of maternal restriction on lamb performance

TreatmentTreatment P-valueP-value

CFCF RFRF CMCM RMRM TreatTreat SexSexTreat x Treat x

SexSex

Trial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wksTrial 2: Restricted d30-70, lambs 24 wks

Birth Wt, kgBirth Wt, kg 4.814.81 4.614.61 5.245.24 5.345.34 0.2700.270 <0.001<0.001 0.3390.339

Slaughter Wt, kgSlaughter Wt, kg 50.7550.75 47.0647.06 64.1064.10 63.463.4 0.0180.018 <0.001<0.001 0.4490.449

Growth rate, kg/dGrowth rate, kg/d 0.300.30 0.290.29 0.410.41 0.380.38 0.0090.009 <0.001<0.001 0.6570.657

Food Intake, kg/dFood Intake, kg/d 16371637 14761476 18501850 18971897 0.1570.157 <0.001<0.001 0.2290.229

Daniel et al, 2007

Effect of maternal restriction on lamb fatness



SexSex


Backfat, mmBackfat, mm 6.186.18 5.765.76 5.115.11 4.964.96 0.7360.736 0.0440.044 0.4930.493

Sub adip diaSub adip dia 103103 101101 9999 108108 0.5740.574 0.6900.690 0.1960.196

Omental wt, gOmental wt, g 951951 967967 11541154 10451045 0.3860.386 0.0590.059 0.3920.392

Omental adip diaOmental adip dia 127127 123123 115115 116116 0.8360.836 0.0360.036 0.5780.578

Perirenal wt, gPerirenal wt, g 945945 965965 944944 954954 0.8800.880 0.9310.931 0.9480.948

Perirenal adip diaPerirenal adip dia 119119 128128 106106 118118 0.0400.040 0.0430.043 0.8110.811

Daniel et al, 2007

Effect of maternal restriction on muscle



SexSex


LD, gLD, g 664664 644644 848848 777777 0.037 <0.001<0.001 0.4510.451

LD, % fatLD, % fat 5.75.7 5.95.9 5.65.6 6.86.8 0.4000.400 0.3880.388 0.0830.083

ST, gST, g 154154 135135 170170 168168 0.1180.118 0.0010.001 0.2600.260

ST, % fatST, % fat 7.17.1 7.67.6 6.76.7 8.08.0 0.0480.048 0.9420.942 0.4260.426

VL, gVL, g 192192 179179 238238 226226 0.0140.014 <0.001<0.001 0.8720.872

VL, % fatVL, % fat 4.44.4 4.14.1 3.83.8 3.63.6 0.7340.734 0.0270.027 0.7590.759

Daniel et al, 2007

Incubation temperature in chicken

Material: Fertilized eggs (N = 360) from a Cobb parent stock (age 45- 50 weeks) were incubated in two identical commercial incubators as follows:

Group 1Group 1 Group 2Group 2

TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C

PeriodPeriod ED 0 - 6ED 0 - 6

TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C 38.5 °C38.5 °C

PeriodPeriod ED 7 – 10ED 7 – 10 ED 7 – 10ED 7 – 10

TemperatureTemperature 37.5 °C37.5 °C

PeriodPeriod ED 11 - 21ED 11 - 21

At embryonic day 6 (ED 6) the eggs were candled, the fertilized eggs were divided randomly to the two incubation groups 1 and 2 and treated as shown in the table.

Werner, COST 925, 2007

Effects on slaughter and muscle weights

Fig. 1: Mean values (LSM) of the slaughter, breast and leg weights of the investigated birds depending on the incubation group (Group 1 = ED 7-10:37.5°C; Group 1 = ED 7-10:38.5°C). Considered are 60 birds per incubation group. a Columns with different letters between the incubation groups differ significantly (P<0.05).


Effects on meat quality

Tab. 1: Mean values (LSM) and standard errors (SEM) of the pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and colour values (L*a*b*) of the breast muscles depending on the incubation group of the investigated birds. a LSM with different letters within a line differ significantly (P<0.05).

Group 1 (N = 60)Group 1 (N = 60)(ED 7 – 10 (ED 7 – 10 at 37.5°C)at 37.5°C)

Group 2 (N = 60)Group 2 (N = 60)(ED 7 – 10 (ED 7 – 10 at 38.5°C)at 38.5°C)

pHpH24 h24 h 6.05 6.05 ± 0.02a± 0.02a 6.04 6.04 ± 0.02a± 0.02a

ECEC24 h 24 h (mS/cm)(mS/cm) 4.16 4.16 ± 0.11a± 0.11a 4.09 4.09 ± 0.11a± 0.11a

Brightness (L*) 20 minBrightness (L*) 20 min 47.01 47.01 ± 0.23a± 0.23a 46.87 46.87 ± 0.23a± 0.23a

Redness (a*) 20 minRedness (a*) 20 min 2.68 2.68 ± 0.11a± 0.11a 2.64 2.64 ± 0.11a± 0.11a

Yellowness (b*) 20 Yellowness (b*) 20 minmin

2.64 2.64 ± 0.13a± 0.13a 2.74 2.74 ± 0.13a± 0.13a


Temperature effect on muscle fibre number Temperature effect on muscle fibre number in blackspot seabreamin blackspot seabream

aire water

Two sampling points

aire water

Two incubation temperatures

• 14 ºC (natural)

18 ºC

1- hatching (H)

2- mouth opening (MO)

Valente et al., 2007

ConclusionConclusion

High temperature accelerates rate of High temperature accelerates rate of development and muscle growth of development and muscle growth of P. P. bogaraveobogaraveo

The high incubation and cultivation The high incubation and cultivation temperature promoted an hyperplastic temperature promoted an hyperplastic growth of white fibres at the postopercular growth of white fibres at the postopercular levellevel

Valente et al., 2007

Comparative aspectsComparative aspects

Increased feeding Increased feeding No effect on fibres, postnatal growth and meat quality in pigsNo effect on fibres, postnatal growth and meat quality in pigs

Restrictive feedingRestrictive feeding Less fibres but no difference in area in some muscles in cattleLess fibres but no difference in area in some muscles in cattle Decreased growth, LD muscle weight and ST fat % in cattleDecreased growth, LD muscle weight and ST fat % in cattle No overall difference in carcass lean/fat in cattleNo overall difference in carcass lean/fat in cattle

Higher incubation temperatureHigher incubation temperature no effect on weights/growth and meat quality in chickenno effect on weights/growth and meat quality in chicken More white fibres in fishMore white fibres in fish Accelerated development and growth in fishAccelerated development and growth in fish

Genetics - correlationsGenetics - correlations in pigs in pigs

Rehfeldt et al., 2000

Piétrain grisePiétrain grise

Cattle differences in fibres and meat qualityCattle differences in fibres and meat quality

BreedBreed Carcass Carcass weightweight

Weight of STWeight of ST MFAMFA

(μm(μm22) )

TFNTFN

(* 10(* 1066))

German AngusGerman Angus 429.4429.4 3,3263,326 6,6316,631 1.701.70

GallowayGalloway 357.6357.6 2,6482,648 6,0186,018 1.591.59

Holstein Holstein FreisianFreisian

401.0401.0 2,8322,832 4,8124,812 1.831.83

Belgian BlueBelgian Blue 475.6475.6 5,4325,432 5,0585,058 3.363.36

BreedBreed L*L* Shear ForceShear Force IMFIMF

German AngusGerman Angus 37.137.1 13.713.7 2.42.4

GallowayGalloway 37.937.9 14.114.1 2.92.9

Holstein FreisianHolstein Freisian 36.936.9 13.213.2 2.62.6

Belgian BlueBelgian Blue 40.840.8 14.414.4 0.640.64

Wegner et al., 2000

with an antibody specific of fast MyHC (IIa, IIx, IIb)

Ma: masseter, slow (I),Di: diaphragma (I +IIa), CT: cutaneus trunci (IIa+ IIx )

ST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LTST ST STLT LT LT

Identification of isoform IIb in bovine musclesisoform IIb in bovine muscles

Immuno-detection

5161 64595962 5360

Ma Di CT MaST

MyHC IIb??

RT-PCRprimer in the 5’-UTR of

the pig MyHC IIb

Amplification of a cDNA fragment : MyHC IIb?

This isoform is a fast MyHC It seems to be the IIb MyHC

Picard et al. COST 925, Volos

Note of tenderness

Mean Young bull with the MyHC?

0123456

Note of jutosity

Mean Young bull with

the MyHC?

01234567

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

Mean Young bull with the MyHC?

Relation between this isoform and meat sensorial quality

Note of flavour

Picard et al. COST 925, Volos


Higher correlations between muscle fibre area and meat Higher correlations between muscle fibre area and meat quality – than between muscle fibre number and meat quality – than between muscle fibre number and meat quality in pigsquality in pigs

pH, drip loss and shear force not affected by moderate pH, drip loss and shear force not affected by moderate changes in fibre number and area in both pigs and cattlechanges in fibre number and area in both pigs and cattle

Fiber type may affect meat quality in cattleFiber type may affect meat quality in cattle

LW MW HW

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Fib

re n

um

ber

(x 1

0 –

3 )

Total fibre number Secondary fibre number

Intra-litter variation in pigs

PBWG < 0.05

Rehfeldt & Kuhn, J Anim Sci 84 (2006) E-Suppl, 113-123

Offspring of 63 sowsLW 102 < 1.22 kg MW 180HW 96 > 1.54 kg

Carcass quality

LW MW HW

Car

cass

wei

gh

t (k

g)

54.2

54.5

54.8

55.1

55.4

55.7

56.0

Lea

n m

eat

(FO

M)

(%)

42

44

46

48

50

52

Lo

in m

usc

le a

rea

(cm

2)

70

71

72

73

74

75

Ham

per

imet

er (

cm)

8082848688909294

a

bc

a

bb

a

bb

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

Per

iren

al f

at (

%)

a

b

b

Intr

amu

scu

lar

fat

(%)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

ab b

Rehfeldt et al. Meat Sci 78 (2008) 170-175

Offspring of 63 sowsMeat quality

LW MW HW

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

pH

45-v

alu

e

4.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.7

Co

nd

uct

ivit

y 45

(mS

/cm

)

46.0

46.5

47.0

47.5

48.0

48.5

49.0

Lig

htn

ess

(L*)

4.85.05.25.45.65.86.06.2

Dri

p lo

ss (

%)

a

bab

ab

a

b

ab

a

b

a

b

ab

Intr

amu

scu

lar

fat

(%)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

ab b

Rehfeldt et al. Meat Sci 78 (2008) 170-175

Variations in birth weight in pigs

Gondret et al., 2006

Low birth-

weight group

0.75-1.25 kg 1.75-2.05 kg

Heavy birth-

weight group

Within litter

(females)

0

400000

800000 -19%**

Total fiber number

Myofiber traits at slaughter in ST

4500

9000 +13%*HW

LW

Growth Performance

P

Feed consumption (kg/d) 2.3

Feed conversion 2.7 **

Av. daily gain (g/d)

HW

2.2

2.5

690650 **

LW

0

Fiber cross-sectional area

Carcass and tissue lipids

LW

Subcutaneous fat depth (mm) 18.2***

Subcutaneous fat (% carcass) 6.7 ***

HW

5.2

15.0

Leaf fat (kg) 1.2 ***0.9

Muscle lipid content (%) in Semitendinosus muscle)

4.2 **3.3

P

Loin (0: ---; 10: +++)

Sensory tenderness 4.64.0

Eating meat quality

HWLW P

**

Correlation coeff. between Tenderness score and Myofiber cross-sectional area : -0.34, P = 0.07

Gondret et al., 2006

Intra-litter variation in pigsIntra-litter variation in pigs

a a

b

500

550

600

650

700

750

LW MW HWPig weight within litter

Tot

al fi

bre

num

ber,

th

ousa

nds

bb

a

0.40.450.5

0.550.6

0.650.7

0.750.8

LW MW HW

Pig weight within litter

Pig

men

t in

LD, m

g/g

b

aa

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

LW MW HWPig weight within litter

Birt

h w

eigh

t, kg

a

b b

30003500400045005000550060006500

LW MW HW

Pig weight within litter

MFA

, um

2

Nissen et al., 2004

Material:

Lamb birth weight groups (at day 110 after birth);

►High birth weight H=4.06±0.14 kg, n=7 ad lib feeding► Low birth weight L; 2.61±0.12 kg, n=8 for 55 days► Low birth weight long feeding LH; 2.68±0.07 kg, n=7 low birth weight allowed to reach weight of H group at slaughter► Slaughter at day 165

Variation in birth weight in lambs

Ensoy et al. 2007

High birth weight resulted in higher carcass weights

Low birth weight and feeding long period resulted in• an increase in fat thickness, • higher fat and pelvic fat weights • higher b* value (yellowness) and caused tougher meat

with a higher shear force value comparison with L and H groups

ResultsResults

Ensoy et al. 2007

►Low birth weight influences ►postnatal growth performance, ►carcass characteristics such as fat thickness, muscles weights, innerfat weight ►meat quality such as tenderness/toughness, intramuscular fat and moisture contents

►The effects on meat quality parameters may be due to higher fat depositions in the carcass of lambs with low birth weight when they were allowed to reach body size of lambs with high birth weight

Conclusions

Ensoy et al. 2007

Calf weightCalf weight

20

30

40

50

60

L M H

Sed 1.04 P<0.001Sed 1.04 P<0.001

Birth-weight classification

kg

300

315

330

345

L M H

Sed 7.65 P=<0.05Sed 7.65 P=<0.05

kg

Birth-weight classification

Moloney and Drennan, COST 925, Volos

Birth weight Carcass weight

0

1

2

3

L M H

Meat qualityMeat quality

g/1

00

g

Sed 0.36 P=0.07Sed 0.36 P=0.07

No effect (P>0.05) of birth-weight on :No effect (P>0.05) of birth-weight on :

• ultimate pH,

• lightness, redness or yellowness

• drip loss (P=0.077)

• shear force

• sensory characteristics

(tenderness, texture, juiciness, chewiness,

flavour, firmness or acceptability)Moloney and Drennan, COST 925, Volos

Intra-muscular FatIntra-muscular Fat


Low birth weight compared to high birth weight animals:Low birth weight compared to high birth weight animals:

Lower fibre no in pigsLower fibre no in pigs Higher fibre CSA in pigsHigher fibre CSA in pigs Lower postnatal growth in pigs, lamb and cattleLower postnatal growth in pigs, lamb and cattle Higher fat in carcass and meat in pigs, lambs and cattleHigher fat in carcass and meat in pigs, lambs and cattle Lower tenderness/higher shear force in pigs and lambLower tenderness/higher shear force in pigs and lamb No differences in meat quality in cattleNo differences in meat quality in cattle

Overall comparability among speciesOverall comparability among species

Less fibresLess fibres Decreased growthDecreased growth Decreased muscle weightsDecreased muscle weights Maybe less meat/more fat in carcass and muscleMaybe less meat/more fat in carcass and muscle No general effect on meat qualityNo general effect on meat quality

Fibre areaFibre area More related to meat quality (colour, pH and drip loss)More related to meat quality (colour, pH and drip loss) Controversial whether the relationship is positive or negative Controversial whether the relationship is positive or negative

Fiber typeFiber type Not sureNot sure

The importance of prenatal events for postnatal muscle growth in relation to the quality of muscle...

Documents

Transcript of The importance of prenatal events for postnatal muscle growth in relation to the quality of muscle...