الفهرس 
DedicationOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 246 |  |  |
| | | from | 246 | | |
Abstract
In the current study in order to estimate the extent of ability to rely on Sudanese cattle meat to fill red meat gap in Egypt the quality of Sudanese cattle meat was assessed through selection of 500 imported Sudanese bulls slaughtered in Abu simble city abattoirs by ear tag number and divided into 2 groups:
1-group (I) 250 immediately slaughter sudanese bulls: subdivided into 5 subgroups, each of which formed of 50 bulls, according to the bulls’ breed for (Baggara breed Nyalawi subtype, Baggara breed Rizzaki subtype, Baggara breed Messiri subtype, Kenana breed and Butana breed). Each subgroup further subdivided into 5 divisions, each combines 10 bulls, according to bulls age for (2-2.5 years, 2.5-3.5 years, 3.5-4.5 years, 4.5-5.5 years and >5.5 years). Each division also subdivided into 5 subdivisions, each combines 2 bulls, according to ration type for (ration a3, ration b3, ration c3, ration d3 and ration e3) were fed for a month before slaughter.
2- group (II) 250 fattening sudanese bulls: aged 2-2.5 years, subdivided into 5 subgroups, each of which formed of 50 bulls, according to the bulls’ breed for (Baggara breed Nyalawi subtype, Baggara breed Rizzaki subtype, Baggara breed Messiri subtype, Kenana breed and Butana breed). Each subgroup subdivided into 5 subdivisions, each combines 10 bulls, according to ration type for (ration a, ration b, ration c, ration d and ration e) were fattened for 6 months before slaughter.
There were significant variability in sensory evaluation parameters including color, tenderness, flavor, juiciness and overall acceptability as well as meat quality attributes including color (lightness, redness and yellowness), pH and water holding capacity tests (pressing loss, thawing loss and cooking loss) and chemical analysis including proximate analysis (protein %, fat %, ash %, moisuture %, carbohydrate % and energy (Kcal/100g)), cholesterol determination, chemical assessment of meat tenderness by estimation of hydroxiproline content (connective tissue , collagen and hydroxyproline) as well as determination of some essential elements (Ca, P, Mg, Fe and Zn (mg/100 g)) between total means (p<0.001) and means of each group.
Effects of breed, age, weight and ration within group I on all meat quality assessment items were studied and reflected significant variability (p<0.05) mostly for breed, age and weight subgroups and mostly no variability between ration subgroups.
Effect of breed on quality assessment items reflected mostly significant variability between group I mean (p<0.05) and each breed subgroup mean for sensory evaluation parameters, proximate analysis and chemical assessment of meat tenderness, while mostly there were no significant variability between group I mean (p>0.05) and each breed subgroup mean of the rest of quality assessment items.
Effect of Age reflected mostly significant variability between group I mean (p<0.05) and each age subgroup mean for all quality assessment items except sensory evaluation parameters including color and overall acceptability that mostly showed no significant variability between group I mean (p>0.05) and each age subgroup mean.
In group I there were positve linear correlations between age and quality assessment items including juiciness, color redness (a), color yellowness (b), meat pH, cholesterol and chemical assessment of meat tenderness (connective tissue , collagen and hydroxiproline contents).
In group I there were negative linear correlations between age and quality assessment items including sensory evaluation parameters (color and tenderness), color lightness (L), water holding capacity tests (pressing loss, thawing loss and cooking loss) and some essential elements (Ca, P, Mg, Fe and Zn (mg/100 g)).
Effect of ration reflected mostly no significant variability between group I mean (p>0.05) and each ration subgroup mean for all quality assessment items.
Effect of slaughter weight reflected mostly significant variability between group I mean (p<0.05) and each slaughter weight subgroup mean for all quality assessment items except sensory evaluation parameters including color and overall acceptability and proximate analysis that mostly showed no significant variability between group I mean (p>0.05) and each slaughter weight subgroup mean.
In group I there were positve linear correlations between slaughter weight and quality assessment items including sensory evaluation parameters (color, flavor, juiciness and overall acceptability), color redness (a), color yellowness (b), meat pH, proximate analysis (protein %, fat and energy (Kcal/100g)), cholesterol and chemical assessment of meat tenderness (connective tissue , collagen and hydroxiproline contents).
In group I there were negative linear correlations between slaughter weight and quality assessment items including sensory evaluation parameters (tenderness), color lightness (L), water holding capacity tests (pressing loss, thawing loss and cooking loss), proximate analysis (ash %, moisuture % and carbohydrate %) and some essential elements (Ca, P, Mg, Fe and Zn (mg/100 g)).
Effect of breed on quality assessment items reflected mostly significant variability between group II mean (p<0.05) and each breed subgroup mean for sensory evaluation parameters, proximate analysis and essential elements, while mostly there were no significant variability between group II mean (p>0.05) and each breed subgroup mean of the rest of quality assessment items.
Effect of ration reflected mostly no significant variability between group II mean (p>0.05) and each ration subgroup mean for all quality assessment items except proximate analysis and essential elements that showed significant variability between group II mean (p<0.05) and each ration subgroup mean.
Effect of slaughter weight reflected mostly significant variability between group II mean (p<0.05) and each slaughter weight subgroup mean for all quality assessment items except sensory evaluation of flavor, proximate analysis and essential elements that mostly showed no significant variability between group II mean (p>0.05) and each slaughter weight subgroup mean.
In group II there were positve linear correlations between Slaughter weight and quality assessment items including sensory evaluation parameters, color redness (a), color yellowness (b), meat pH, proximate analysis (protein %, fat and energy (Kcal/100g)) and cholesterol.
In group II there were negative linear correlations between slaughter weight and quality assessment items including color lightness (L), water holding capacity tests (pressing loss, thawing loss and cooking loss), proximate analysis (ash %, moisuture % and carbohydrate %), chemical assessment of meat tenderness (connective tissue , collagen and hydroxiproline contents) and some essential elements (Ca, P, Mg, Fe and Zn (mg/100 g)).