| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Instrumentação. |
|
Data corrente: |
28/09/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
23/01/2024 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
GÓMEZ, J. F. M.; CÔNSOLO, N. R. B.; ANTONELO, D. S.; BELINE, M.; GAGAOUA, M.; HIGUERA-PADILLA, A.; COLNAGO, L. A.; GERRARD, D. E.; SILVA, S. L. |
|
Afiliação: |
LUIZ ALBERTO COLNAGO, CNPDIA. |
|
Título: |
Impact of cattle feeding strategy on the beef metabolome. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Metabolites, v. 12, 640, 2022. |
|
Páginas: |
14 p. |
|
ISSN: |
2218-1989 |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo12070640 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The present study explored changes in the meat metabolome of animals subjected to Different finishing systems and growth rates. Thirty-six Angus × Nellore crossbred steers were used in a completely randomized design with four treatments: (1) feedlot system with high average daily gain (ADG; FH); (2) feedlot system with low ADG (FL); (3) pasture system with high ADG (PH); and (4) pasture system with low ADG (PL). After harvest and chilling, Longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle samples were taken for metabolite profile analysis using nuclear magnetic resonance. Spectrum was analyzed using chenomx software, and multi- and mega-variate data analyses were performed. The PLS-DA showed clear separation between FH and PL groups and overlap among treatments with different finishing systems but similar for matching ADG (FL and PH) treatments. Using a VIP cut-off of around 1.0, ATP and fumarate were shown to be greater in meat from PL cattle, while succinate, leucine, AMP, glutamate, carnosine, inosine, methionine, G1P, and choline were greater in meat from FH. Comparing FL and PH treatments, glutamine, carnosine, urea, NAD+, malonate,lactate, isoleucine, and alanine were greater in the meat of PH cattle, while G6P and betaine were elevated in that of FL cattle. Relevant pathways were also identified by differences in growth rate (FH versus PL) and finishing system were also noted. Growth rate caused a clear difference in meat metabolism that was highlighted by energy metabolism and associated pathways, while the feeding system tended to alter protein and lipid metabolism. MenosThe present study explored changes in the meat metabolome of animals subjected to Different finishing systems and growth rates. Thirty-six Angus × Nellore crossbred steers were used in a completely randomized design with four treatments: (1) feedlot system with high average daily gain (ADG; FH); (2) feedlot system with low ADG (FL); (3) pasture system with high ADG (PH); and (4) pasture system with low ADG (PL). After harvest and chilling, Longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle samples were taken for metabolite profile analysis using nuclear magnetic resonance. Spectrum was analyzed using chenomx software, and multi- and mega-variate data analyses were performed. The PLS-DA showed clear separation between FH and PL groups and overlap among treatments with different finishing systems but similar for matching ADG (FL and PH) treatments. Using a VIP cut-off of around 1.0, ATP and fumarate were shown to be greater in meat from PL cattle, while succinate, leucine, AMP, glutamate, carnosine, inosine, methionine, G1P, and choline were greater in meat from FH. Comparing FL and PH treatments, glutamine, carnosine, urea, NAD+, malonate,lactate, isoleucine, and alanine were greater in the meat of PH cattle, while G6P and betaine were elevated in that of FL cattle. Relevant pathways were also identified by differences in growth rate (FH versus PL) and finishing system were also noted. Growth rate caused a clear difference in meat metabolism that was highlighted by energy metabolism and associ... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Feeding system; Growth rate. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/doc/1146903/1/P-Impact-of-Cattle-Feeding-Strategy-on-the-Beef-Metabolome.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02338naa a2200277 a 4500
001 2146903
005 2024-01-23
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a2218-1989
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.3390/metabo12070640$2DOI
100 1 $aGÓMEZ, J. F. M.
245 $aImpact of cattle feeding strategy on the beef metabolome.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
300 $a14 p.
520 $aThe present study explored changes in the meat metabolome of animals subjected to Different finishing systems and growth rates. Thirty-six Angus × Nellore crossbred steers were used in a completely randomized design with four treatments: (1) feedlot system with high average daily gain (ADG; FH); (2) feedlot system with low ADG (FL); (3) pasture system with high ADG (PH); and (4) pasture system with low ADG (PL). After harvest and chilling, Longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle samples were taken for metabolite profile analysis using nuclear magnetic resonance. Spectrum was analyzed using chenomx software, and multi- and mega-variate data analyses were performed. The PLS-DA showed clear separation between FH and PL groups and overlap among treatments with different finishing systems but similar for matching ADG (FL and PH) treatments. Using a VIP cut-off of around 1.0, ATP and fumarate were shown to be greater in meat from PL cattle, while succinate, leucine, AMP, glutamate, carnosine, inosine, methionine, G1P, and choline were greater in meat from FH. Comparing FL and PH treatments, glutamine, carnosine, urea, NAD+, malonate,lactate, isoleucine, and alanine were greater in the meat of PH cattle, while G6P and betaine were elevated in that of FL cattle. Relevant pathways were also identified by differences in growth rate (FH versus PL) and finishing system were also noted. Growth rate caused a clear difference in meat metabolism that was highlighted by energy metabolism and associated pathways, while the feeding system tended to alter protein and lipid metabolism.
653 $aFeeding system
653 $aGrowth rate
700 1 $aCÔNSOLO, N. R. B.
700 1 $aANTONELO, D. S.
700 1 $aBELINE, M.
700 1 $aGAGAOUA, M.
700 1 $aHIGUERA-PADILLA, A.
700 1 $aCOLNAGO, L. A.
700 1 $aGERRARD, D. E.
700 1 $aSILVA, S. L.
773 $tMetabolites$gv. 12, 640, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Instrumentação (CNPDIA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Semiárido; Embrapa Uva e Vinho. |
|
Data corrente: |
20/12/2016 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
20/12/2016 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Resumo em Anais de Congresso |
|
Autoria: |
NICOLLI, K. P.; BIASOTO, A. C. T.; GUERRA, C. C.; SANTOS, H. P. dos; WELKE, J, E.; ZINI, C. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
KARINE P. NICOLLI, UFRGS; ALINE TELLES BIASOTO MARQUES, CPATSA; CELITO CRIVELLARO GUERRA, CNPUV; HENRIQUE PESSOA DOS SANTOS, CNPUV; JULIANE E. WELKE, UFRGS; CLÁUDIA A. ZINI, UFRGS. |
|
Título: |
Influence of vineyard managements on aroma of Merlot wines. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2016 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: WORLD VINE AND WINE CONGRESS, 39.; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OIV, 14., 2016, Bento Gonçalves. Vitiviniculture: technological advances to market challenges: abstracts. Bento Gonçalves: International Organisation of Vine and Wine, 2016. |
|
Descrição Física: |
1 Pen drive. |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of vineyard managements on aroma of Campanha Gaúcha Merlot wines through quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA), gas chromatography ? olfactometry (GC - O) and comprehensive two - dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of -flight mass spectrometric detection (GC × GC/TOFMS) . |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Análise quantitativa descritiva; Vinho Merlot. |
|
Thesagro: |
Aroma; Cromatografia; Uva; Vinho; Vitis Vinifera. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Grapes. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
F Plantas e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/152049/1/Aline-2016.pdf
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/202789/1/39OIV2016-2064.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01277nam a2200277 a 4500
001 2058947
005 2016-12-20
008 2016 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aNICOLLI, K. P.
245 $aInfluence of vineyard managements on aroma of Merlot wines.$h[electronic resource]
260 $aIn: WORLD VINE AND WINE CONGRESS, 39.; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OIV, 14., 2016, Bento Gonçalves. Vitiviniculture: technological advances to market challenges: abstracts. Bento Gonçalves: International Organisation of Vine and Wine$c2016
300 $c1 Pen drive.
520 $aThe objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of vineyard managements on aroma of Campanha Gaúcha Merlot wines through quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA), gas chromatography ? olfactometry (GC - O) and comprehensive two - dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of -flight mass spectrometric detection (GC × GC/TOFMS) .
650 $aGrapes
650 $aAroma
650 $aCromatografia
650 $aUva
650 $aVinho
650 $aVitis Vinifera
653 $aAnálise quantitativa descritiva
653 $aVinho Merlot
700 1 $aBIASOTO, A. C. T.
700 1 $aGUERRA, C. C.
700 1 $aSANTOS, H. P. dos
700 1 $aWELKE, J, E.
700 1 $aZINI, C. A.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Semiárido (CPATSA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Catálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Algodão; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Meio-Norte; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Rondônia; Embrapa Semiárido; Embrapa Soja; Embrapa Trigo; Embrapa Uva e Vinho. MenosCatálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Algodão; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Meio-Norte; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Rondônia... Mostrar Todas |
|
Identificador: |
2826 |
|
Data corrente: |
09/05/2002 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
09/05/2002 |
|
Código do título: |
0900592 |
|
ISSN: |
0100-6967 |
|
Código CCN: |
027582-4 |
|
Título e Subtítulo: |
DIVULGACAO AGRONOMICA |
|
Entidade: |
Shell Quimica S.A. |
|
Local de publicação: |
Sao Paulo-SP |
|
Periodicidade: |
irregular |
|
Inicio de publicação: |
1959 |
|
Coleções da unidade: |
Embrapa Algodão
1961/79 (3,5-9,11,13,14-19,21-46)
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Amapá
1966 (22); 1969 (27); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1975 (36); 1976 (39-41); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (46)
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental
1959 (1); 1960 (2); 1961 (3-4); 1962 (5-8); 1963 (10); 1964 (11-13); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47)
Classificação: 632.05D518
Embrapa Arroz e Feijão
1960 (1); 1962 (6); 1963 (10); 1964 (12-13,15); 1965 (16-17); 1966 (19,22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-40); 1977 (42); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45)
Embrapa Cerrados
1959-60 (1-2); 1961 (4); 1962 (6); 1964 (11); 1965; 1966 (18-22); 1968 (24,26); 1969 (27); 1970-80 (28-47)
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura
1960(1-2); 1961(3-4); 1962(5-8); 1963(9-10); 1964(11-13); 1965(14-17); 1966(18-22); 1967(23); 1968(24-26); 1969(27); 1970(28-29); 1971(30-31); 1972(32); 1973(33); 1974(34-35); 1975(36-37); 1976(38-41); 1977(42); 1978(43-44); 1979(45-46); 1980(47);
Embrapa Meio-Norte
1961 (4); 1964 (12); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-21); 1967 (23); 1968/78 (25-44); 1979 (45)
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Pantanal
1971-80 (30,33,38-40,42-47)
Classificação: 23A
Embrapa Rondônia
1967 (23); 1969-71 (27-30); 1973-74 33-35; 1976 (39); 1978 (43-44); 1979-80 (45-47);
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Semiárido
1960 (2); 1961 (1,3); 1962 (7-8); 1965 (14-16); 1966 (20); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (39-41); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47);
Embrapa Soja
1965 (17); 1966(20); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978(43-44); 1979 (46); 1980 (47)
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Trigo
1960/80 (1-2) 1960; (3-4) 1961; (5-8) 1962; (9-10) 1963; (11-13) 1964; (15-16) 1965; (18-22) 1966; (23) 1967; (24-26) 1968; (27) 1969; (28-29) 1970; (30-31) 1971; (32) 1972; (33) 1973; (34-35) 1974; (36-37) 1975; (38-41) 1976; (42) 1977; (43-44) 1978; (45-46) 1979; (47) 1980.
Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Uva e Vinho
1961 (1); 1962 (8); 1963 (10); 1964 (11-13); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34); 1975 (35-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978 (44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47)
Classificação: 632.05 |
|
Fechar
|
|
|
