Effects of finishing lambs in rich aromatic plant pasture or in feedlot on growth and meat quality

Figures & data

Table 1. Grass production and availability.

Stage	Beginning	Middle	End
Total production (kg)	1938	2063	1373
Dry matter content (%)	61.8	48.1	77.8
Dry matter (kg)	1197	992	1068
Availability/period (kg/lamb/day)	5.4		5.2

Table 2. Effect of rearing system and aromatic plants incorporation on lamb‘s growth, offal and carcass characteristics.

Group	CFL	APFL	NPG	SEM	p	C1	C2	C3
Initial BW (kg)	33.5	35.1	35.7	2.87	ns	ns	ns	ns
Final BW (kg)	42.6	43.5	45.3	3.80	ns	ns	ns	ns
Daily gain (g/day)	163	150	171	22.2	ns	ns	ns	ns
Total gain (kg)	9.1	8.4	9.6	1.85	ns	ns	ns	ns
SBW (kg)	42.6	43.5	45.3	3.80	ns	ns	ns	ns
EBW (kg)	35.5	35.7	40.0	3.29	ns	*	ns	ns
Carcass (kg)	19.5	19.5	21.8	2.34	ns	*	ns	ns
Dressing percentage	45.8	44.8	48.1	2.92	ns	*	ns	ns
Dig-content (kg)	7.1	7.8	5.3	2.05	ns	*	ns	ns
Gut (% EBW)	6.11	6.10	5.92	0.82	ns	ns	ns	ns
Red organs (% EBW)	3.79	3.786	4.13	0.32	ns	ns	ns	ns

Notes: CFL: Control feedlot group; NPG: Natural pasture grazing group; APFL: Feedlot group receiving aromatic plants; C1: (NPG) vs. (CFL + APFL): effect of grazing; C2: (CFL) vs. (NPG + APFL): global effect of aromatic species; C3: (CFL) vs. (APFL): effect of aromatic species in FL; SBW: slaughter body weight; EBW: empty body weight; ns: not significant.

* p < 0.05.

Table 3. Effect of rearing system and aromatic plants incorporation on carcass composition.

Group	CFL	APFL	NPG	SEM	p	C1	C2	C3
Primary cuts (% of half carcass weight)
Leg	33.4	34.8	35.2	2.34	ns	*	ns	ns
Shoulder	15.9	16.9	17.6	2.93	*	*	ns	ns
Lombar region	16.6	17.3	17.7	1.69	ns	ns	ns	ns
Tot	65.9	69.0	70.5	5.78	*	**	*	*
Tissular composition
Muscle (g)	4181	4099	4522	535.3	ns	ns	ns	ns
Muscle (%)	49.8	49.7	49.8	3.38	ns	ns	ns	ns
Bone (g)	1768	1774	1803	215.2	ns	ns	ns	ns
Bone (%)	21.0	21.5	20.0	2.05	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fat (g)	2472	2383	277	535.2	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fat (%)	29.1	28.8	30.2	4.21	ns	ns	ns	ns

Notes: CFL: Control feedlot group; NPG: Natural pasture grazing group; APFL: Feedlot group receiving aromatic plants; C1: (NPG) vs. (CFL + APFL): effect of grazing; C2: (CFL) vs. (NPG + APFL): global effect of aromatic species; C3: (CFL) vs. (APFL): effect of aromatic species in FL; ns: not significant.

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 4. Effect of rearing system and APs incorporation on estimated muscle and fat importance.

Group	CFL	APFL	NPG	SEM	p	C1	C2	C3
Muscle
Initial weight (kg)	7.4	7.8	8.0	0.24	ns	ns	ns	ns
Final weight (kg)	10.6	10.9	11.5	5.20	ns	ns	ns	ns
ADG (g)	57	55	63	4.6	0.07	ns	ns	ns
% of (fat + muscle)	55	56	59	4.8	0.06	ns	ns	ns
Fat
Initial weight (g)	3.5	3.8	4.1	0.12	ns	ns	ns	ns
Final weight (g)	6.1	6.2	6.5	0.19	ns	ns	ns	ns
ADG (g)	46	43	43	3.1	ns	0.07	ns	ns
% of (fat + muscle)	45	44	41	2.9	ns	ns	ns	ns

Notes: CFL: Control feedlot group; NPG: Natural pasture grazing group; APFL: Feedlot group receiving aromatic plants; C1: (NPG) vs. (CFL + APFL): effect of grazing; C2: (CFL) vs. (NPG + APFL): global effect of aromatic species; C3: (CFL) vs. (APFL): effect of aromatic species in FL; ADG: average daily gain; ns: not significant.

Table 5. Effect of rearing system and APs incorporation on meat physical characteristics.

Group	CFL	APFL	NPG	p	SEM	C1	C2	C3
pH1	6.94	6.92	7.23	**	0.23	**	**	ns
pH2	6.23	6.06	6.09	ns	0.19	ns	ns	ns
Cooking loss	8.23	9.6	11.1	ns	4.56	ns	ns	ns
L*	36.5	35.2	37.3	ns	3.42	ns	ns	ns
a*	15.5	15.8	17.1	ns	2.41	*	ns	ns
b*	5.8	7.0	7.7	ns	2.05	ns	*	ns

Notes: CFL: Control feedlot group; NPG: Natural pasture grazing group; APFL: Feedlot group receiving aromatic plants; C1: (NPG) vs. (CFL + APFL): effect of grazing; C2: (CFL) vs. (NPG + APFL): global effect of aromatic species; C3: (CFL) vs. (APFL): effect of aromatic species in FL; ns: not significant.

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 6. Effect of rearing system and APs incorporation on sensory attributes of roasted meat (Longissimus dorsi muscle).

Group	CFL	APFL	NPG	SEM	p	C1	C2	C3
Tenderness	6.76	7.20	7.21	0.39	ns	ns	*	ns
Juiciness	6.21	6.71	5.58	0.56	ns	*	ns	ns
Flavour	7.16	7.06	7.14	0.19	ns	ns	ns	ns

Notes: CFL: Control feedlot group; NPG: Natural pasture grazing group; APFL: Feedlot group receiving aromatic plants; C1: (NPG) vs. (CFL + APFL): effect of grazing; C2: (CFL) vs. (NPG + APFL): global effect of aromatic species; C3: (CFL) vs. (APFL): effect of aromatic species in FL; ns: not significant.

* p < 0.05.