Water buffalo versus cattle under similar rearing condition. II. Eating and nutritional quality

Buffalo meat is generally perceived as poor and inferior to beef. Conversely, there is strong advocacy in favor of the nutritional properties of Buffalo meat. Most studies have not compared the quality of meats from water buffalo and cattle produced under the same experimental conditions. This review discusses results from 24 selected experiments reporting eating and(or) nutritional qualities of meats from both species reared under similar feeding and environmental conditions. The evidence reveals the potential of young buffaloes to produce comparable or higher-quality meat than cattle counterparts. Under the same production conditions these species are similar in meat nutrient composition. Domesticated buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is indigenous and prototypical of the multispecies coexistence and traditional farming in Asian countries where it is raised with a triple purpose: milk, meat, and draught power (Cockrill, 1981; Ijaz et al., 2020). Water buffalo (Buffalo) has been successfully introduced as a milk- or dual-purpose bovine in countries of Europe, Oceania, and The Americas (Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia, 2021). Most of the Buffalo meat production has become a byproduct of dairy operations; hence, its eating quality has been generally perceived as poor and generally inferior to beef (Cockrill, 1981). Since the early eighties, Cockrill (1981) had disputed the inferiority in palatability of Buffalo meat versus beef, but his assertions were not based upon evidence but on anecdotal information. On the other hand, advocates and scientific reports usually claim the unique advantages of Buffalo’s lean meat, particularly due to its lower contents of fat and cholesterol (Naveena and Kiran, 2014; Guerrero-Legarreta et al., 2020). Advocacy for Buffalo meat in terms of nutritional quality is so strong that in the review of Kandeepan et al. (2013) cited by Naveena and Kiran (2014), it has been referred (quoted by Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia, 2021) as “the healthiest meat among red meats for human consumption.” This narrative raises an obvious question: what direct, experimental evidence is supporting these very assertive claims? In their respective reviews, Naveena et al. (2014) and Guerrero-Legarreta et al. (2020) used averages or range values for physicochemical variables of interest from studies where, in several cases, both species were not included. Needless to say, inferences derived from statistics thus reported could be misleading. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of comparative studies to appropriately test the validity of all these assumptions. An obstacle to the scientific comparison of these very distinct bovine groups may partly lie in the fact that they possess different and diverse maturity rates, frames, and conformations. Therefore, it is difficult to choose a fair endpoint for the desired comparison. Occasionally, the methodology is ambiguous (or not suitably described) to ensure a fair comparison, or comparable endpoints were not intentionally planned, or the genotypes’ background is little known. According to Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia (2021), few studies have compared Buffalo and cattle (Cattle) under the same rearing conditions. Comparisons of Buffaline versus Taurine genotypes (Borghese et al., 1978;,Valin et al., 1984; Gigli et al. 1993; Spanghero et al., 2004) are highly justified in European countries, but such information is of little use in tropical and subtropical regions because it eludes the omnipresence and leanness of B. indicus-influenced Cattle raised in those ecosystems. The present selective review aimed to assess and discuss the available, direct evidence from actual comparative studies addressing the interspecific differences in meat-eating and nutritional qualities. The main inclusion criterion was that any comparison between Cattle (including both taurine and indicine types) and Buffalo must be made under very similar experimental conditions. That is, the comparison was only deemed valid when the species were reared under similar environmental and production systems (extensive or intensive/semi-intensive; Figures 1 and 2, respectively), and harvested at comparable endpoints. Buffalos and Zebu cattle under an extensive production system. Bulls are Zebu (430 kg, average liveweight) and Murrah × Mediterranean crossbred buffalo (500 kg average liveweight) grazing on Bermuda grass pastures at the start of the rainy season (mid-May, 2023). In 60 d will be fully fattened on pasture and ready for the market. The groups were forced to be joined for the picture but in reality, buffaloes and cattle do not get along. Buffaloes are nongregarious animals and can be mean with cattle. Location: La Soledad ranch (Source: Mr. Angelo Pluchino). Under feed-lot conditions bulls of both species are jointly fattened but in separate pens. They are fed with a mixed ration. In approximately 90 d will be ready to be harvested at around 500 kg liveweight. Both extensive and semi-intensive operations are located at Cojedes State, Venezuela. Source: Mauro D. Herrera Bello, Agropecuaria FELMAR CA. Table 1 summarizes in chronological order a selection of 24 articles published between 1976 and 2021 complying with the inclusion criteria. A word of caution in regard to possible inferences: in many cases, the species were represented by 10 or fewer heads. Since this topic has been rarely addressed in North America, most studies originated in Tropical America, Europe, and Asia. Summary of reports comparing meat-eating quality from water buffalo (BUF)* and cattle (CAT)† reared under similar conditions TOF, time on feed. *Buffalo breeds: Mediterranean (Med), Murrah (Mur), Buffalypso (Bfl), Carabao (Crb). †Cattle breeds: Brahman (Brh), Frisian (Frs), Red Bulgarian (Rbl), Bulgarian Black and White (BBW); Red Angus (Rang), Black Angus (Bang); Romagnola (Rmn), Podolica (Pod), Charolaise (Chr), Simmental (Sim), Simbrah (Simb), Romo Sinuano (Rom), Nelore (Nel), Red Sindhi (Rsi), Sinhala (Shl), Nelore × Sindi crossbred (Nsi). ‡INT: Intensive (confinement-concentrate feeding); EXT: Extensive (grazing with or without pasture supplementation or all-roughage feeding); MIX: Semi-intensive (confinement-mixed feeding system); MLK: dam’s milk feeding. §S: castrated males (steers); YB: young bulls (<30 mo of age); B: mature bulls (older than 30 mo of age); C: Cows; H: heifers. Summary of reports comparing meat-eating quality from water buffalo (BUF)* and cattle (CAT)† reared under similar conditions TOF, time on feed. *Buffalo breeds: Mediterranean (Med), Murrah (Mur), Buffalypso (Bfl), Carabao (Crb). †Cattle breeds: Brahman (Brh), Frisian (Frs), Red Bulgarian (Rbl), Bulgarian Black and White (BBW); Red Angus (Rang), Black Angus (Bang); Romagnola (Rmn), Podolica (Pod), Charolaise (Chr), Simmental (Sim), Simbrah (Simb), Romo Sinuano (Rom), Nelore (Nel), Red Sindhi (Rsi), Sinhala (Shl), Nelore × Sindi crossbred (Nsi). ‡INT: Intensive (confinement-concentrate feeding); EXT: Extensive (grazing with or without pasture supplementation or all-roughage feeding); MIX: Semi-intensive (confinement-mixed feeding system); MLK: dam’s milk feeding. §S: castrated males (steers); YB: young bulls (<30 mo of age); B: mature bulls (older than 30 mo of age); C: Cows; H: heifers. Muscle-to-muscle, breed-to-breed, and the respective performance of the species at comparable endpoints are examples of how to approach fair, interspecific comparisons. From these vis-à-vis comparisons, there were only three possible outcomes: (1) nonsignificant (P > 0.05) mean differences between the species (which were denoted with the “equal-to” sign in tables); (2) significant (P < 0.05) difference(s) in favor of -, or (3) against one of the selected species. When significant, mean differences were detected, the “greater than” (>) or “less than” (<) signs were used in tables to denote the statistical inequalities between the two species’ means. The frequency of outcomes (FOO) from the interspecific comparisons for any response variable was described as “n out of N (total number)” of vis-à-vis comparisons. For all muscle-to-muscle comparisons under assessment, the longissimus dorsi (LD) was the primary muscle of interest for computing the FOO. Conversely, when more than one breed of cattle was chosen to be compared against the water buffalo, all the breed-to-breed comparisons were taken into consideration for the computation of FOO. Likewise, when the species were compared at several endpoints (i.e., in serial harvest experiments), the results at each endpoint were taken into consideration for estimating the FOO. Because the Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF) is the most common instrumental measurement of meat texture, it was the response variable of interest for comparing the species’ textural quality. Rodas-González et al. (2015) developed a tenderness threshold or dividing line to differentiate tender from tough meats by using ratings of trained or nontrained panelists. The resulting threshold value was 3.87 kg (Rodas-González et al., 2009). The WBSF outcomes derived from the vis-a-vis comparisons of beef and Buffalo meat (Tables 2 and 3) may be further qualified by making use of the tenderness thresholds as that reported by Rodas-González et al. (2009). Accordingly, an adverse outcome in terms of a relatively greater (P < 0.05) WBSF mean value for any species can have two types of connotations (see WBSF remarks in Tables 2 and 3): “less tender than” (when the WBSF mean value for both species fall into the tender [<3.87 kg] category) or “tougher than” (when their WBSF mean values fall into the “tough” (>3.87 kg] category). Summary of differences in shear force and selected sensory traits for muscles† of water buffalo (BUF)‡ and cattle (CAT)§ compared under similar extensive systemic conditions NOR, not reported. Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species/breeds. †Muscles described as LD: Longissimus dorsi; SM: Semimembranosus; ST: Semitendinosus; PM: Psoas major. ‡Buffalo breeds: Murrah (Mur). §Cattle breeds: Brahman (Brh), Frisian (Frs), Red Sindhi (Rsi), Sinhala (Shl). ‖Connotation of significant, adverse outcomes in mean shear force values (i.e., less tender or tougher than) based on the tenderness threshold (< 3.87 kg = tender meat; > 3.87 kg = tough meat) developed by Rodas-González et al. (2009). *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Summary of differences in shear force and selected sensory traits for muscles† of water buffalo (BUF)‡ and cattle (CAT)§ compared under similar extensive systemic conditions NOR, not reported. Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species/breeds. †Muscles described as LD: Longissimus dorsi; SM: Semimembranosus; ST: Semitendinosus; PM: Psoas major. ‡Buffalo breeds: Murrah (Mur). §Cattle breeds: Brahman (Brh), Frisian (Frs), Red Sindhi (Rsi), Sinhala (Shl). ‖Connotation of significant, adverse outcomes in mean shear force values (i.e., less tender or tougher than) based on the tenderness threshold (< 3.87 kg = tender meat; > 3.87 kg = tough meat) developed by Rodas-González et al. (2009). *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Summary of differences in shear force and selected sensory attributes for muscles† between water buffalo (BUF)‡ and cattle (CAT)§ compared under similar intensive or semi-intensive systemic conditions NOR, not reported. Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species/breeds. †Muscles described as LD: Longissimus dorsi; SM: Semimembranosus; ST: Semitendinosus; PM: Psoas major. ‡Buffalo breeds: Murrah (Mur), Carabao (Crb), Mediterranean (Med). §Cattle breeds: Red Bulgarian (Rbl), Brahman (Brh), Simmental (Sim), Romagnola (Rmn), Podolica (Pod), Nelore (Nel), Nelore × Sindi (NSi). ‖Connotations of significant, adverse outcomes in mean shear force values (i.e., less tender or tougher than) are based on the tenderness threshold (<3.87 kg = tender meat; >3.87 kg = tough meat) developed by Rodas-González et al. (2009). *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Summary of differences in shear force and selected sensory attributes for muscles† between water buffalo (BUF)‡ and cattle (CAT)§ compared under similar intensive or semi-intensive systemic conditions NOR, not reported. Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species/breeds. †Muscles described as LD: Longissimus dorsi; SM: Semimembranosus; ST: Semitendinosus; PM: Psoas major. ‡Buffalo breeds: Murrah (Mur), Carabao (Crb), Mediterranean (Med). §Cattle breeds: Red Bulgarian (Rbl), Brahman (Brh), Simmental (Sim), Romagnola (Rmn), Podolica (Pod), Nelore (Nel), Nelore × Sindi (NSi). ‖Connotations of significant, adverse outcomes in mean shear force values (i.e., less tender or tougher than) are based on the tenderness threshold (<3.87 kg = tender meat; >3.87 kg = tough meat) developed by Rodas-González et al. (2009). *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). For sensorial quality, only ratings for tenderness, juiciness, and flavor were chosen as the variables of interest because they were the most common characteristics used for sensory evaluation in the selected reports. Ratings to these palatability characteristics were assigned either by trained sensory panels or nontrained consumer panels. Table 2 summarizes comparative results in texture (WBSF values) and sensory ratings for cooked muscles from six trials conducted under extensive conditions in tropical environments (Sri Lanka, Northern Australia, India, and Venezuela). In all comparisons, Bos indicus-influenced cattle were used as the Buffalo counterparts and, with the only exception of weaner calves in Huerta-Leidenz et al. (2015), all experimental groups were pasture grazed. In general, the observed FOO of textural quality (WBSF mean values) from six experiments under extensive systems are rather inconsistent (Table 2). In four out of nine interspecific, muscle-to-muscle comparisons, no significant differences were found in WBSF mean values between the species. Three out of the nine comparisons indicated significantly higher WBSF values (i.e., tougher meat) for Cattle, whereas Buffalo samples exhibited significantly higher WBSF than Cattle (tougher meat) in two comparisons. Australian workers (Robertson et al., 1983, 1986) reported significantly higher WBSF in loin (LD), or eye of round (semitendinosus muscle, ST) and tenderloin (Psoas major muscle, PM) from conventionally hung (Achilles tendon) sides of Buffalo steers as compared to those from Brahman-cross equivalents. Opposite, significant WBSF differences in favor of grass-fed Buffalo LD (i.e., Brahman-influenced cattle > riverine Buffalo) were found in two Venezuelan studies (Merle et al., 2004; Huerta-Leidenz et al., 2015). Based on the outcomes of these comparisons, it is clear that they do not support the widespread belief that buffalo meat is generally tougher than beef. Regarding tenderness ratings, two reports (Robertson et al., 1986; Prabhakar and Rao, 1986) out of nine found significantly lower sensorial tenderness for Buffalo meat (involving loin, tenderloin, or inside round [m. semimembranosus] samples). Contrarily, in agreement with WBSF data, the majority of reports found similar or significantly greater tenderness in grass-fed buffalo meat relative to beef. The comparison in other palatability attributes of four-year old Buffaloes vs. cattle, beef was deemed juicier, more flavorful with higher overall acceptability ratings than Buffalo meat (Robertson et al. 1983). In a follow-up study, Robertson et al. (1986) could only confirm beef was significantly juicier. Contrarily, for the most part of the reviewed literature, Buffalo loins rated similar (P > 0.05) or significantly juicier than beef loins. Noteworthy, veal loins from suckling Buffalo calves were rated significantly more tender, more flavorful, and juicer than those from Brahman-influenced counterparts (Huerta-Leidenz et al., 2015). Table 3 depicts comparative results in WBSF or sensory ratings of Buffalo versus Cattle under intensive (confinement-concentrate feeding) or semi-intensive (confinement-mixed concentrate: roughage feeding) conditions. These reports originated from diverse locations and environments (both tropical and temperate) and include a of each species. is that of the comparisons made under these conditions traditional beef from comparisons of Buffalo versus Bos cattle in textural quality under are rather out of interspecific, muscle-to-muscle comparisons 10 indicated significantly lower WBSF values (i.e., more tender meat) for The was samples with significantly lower WBSF than only in three comparisons, no significant differences between species were in the comparisons. to the of Ijaz et al. (2020) in most comparisons of Buffalo versus B. cattle in under tropical conditions on a more meat texture lower for Buffalo and 2004; et al., et al., or no significant interspecific differences et al., et al., The that beef is more tender than buffalo can be by the FOO for tenderness ratings assigned to meats derived from or fed under the intensive of the comparisons the that beef is more tender than differences in flavor ratings were nonsignificant or (P < 0.05) Buffalo In the of et al. found LD samples more flavorful (P < 0.05) than those from Brahman-cross no differences (P > 0.05) in were et al. the species’ significant differences in shear force tenderness at any of the endpoints. in the reports et al. ratings for acceptability were not significantly groups of have the for the species in WBSF and tenderness and aimed to support their inferences include of tougher of or in muscles or values around tougher muscle tougher and or tougher of muscle or higher of their tougher or the no significant interspecific differences have been found in (Robertson et al., 1983, 1986; et al., muscle and or et al., 1984; Spanghero et al., are results in the of in Buffalo et al., in Buffalo the et al., or in and in Robertson et al., 1986; and 2004; Spanghero et al., 2004; and et al., versus a lower in Buffalo muscles in et al., and in Buffalo et al., more in Buffalo and and reported by et al., 1984; Spanghero et al., 2004; et al., On the other hand, et al. a higher (P < in Buffalo meat and et al. the lower WBSF in Buffalo by a significantly higher the same et al., found a significantly higher in early Buffalo LD muscle at a comparative studies with nutritional quality were to the comparing buffalo meat and beef in nutrient the FOO from these few experiments is of the system. Table summarizes comparative results between Buffalo and Cattle at comparable endpoints and production systems in of longissimus Most reports found nonsignificant differences in of out of out of and out of 10 of these outcomes support the claim that Buffalo meat is than beef. differences in fat were rather inconsistent among the but in most comparisons out of there were no significant differences in fat between beef and buffalo meat. Summary of differences in for dorsi muscles between water buffalo and cattle compared under similar experimental conditions NOR, not reported. Cattle breed = Bulgarian Black and = = = Nelore × Sindi = Red = Buffalo breed = (confinement-concentrate feeding); semi-intensive (confinement-mixed feeding system); extensive (grazing with or without pasture *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Summary of differences in for dorsi muscles between water buffalo and cattle compared under similar experimental conditions NOR, not reported. Cattle breed = Bulgarian Black and = = = Nelore × Sindi = Red = Buffalo breed = (confinement-concentrate feeding); semi-intensive (confinement-mixed feeding system); extensive (grazing with or without pasture *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). and are deemed for human the of and in human and the of (i.e., and in red only two reports addressed the comparative of beef and Buffalo meat et al., et al., 2021). Both reports that Buffalo meat has a higher (P < 0.05) of than beef. it has been that Buffalo veal exhibited higher of and of than that from Brahman-influenced calves et al., at harvest and 24 of the differences not statistical The present review that there is a paucity of studies comparing meat between these of the most in favor of Buffalo meat is the lower cholesterol relative to beef. in the most reviews, the supporting evidence for this claim was based on et al., or from experiments where both species were not (Naveena et al., Table depicts interspecific comparisons in of vis-à-vis comparisons in cholesterol (Table only et al. found a significant cholesterol in Buffalo In regard to comparisons of major present at of from fed young Mediterranean et al., 2004) or Bulgarian Murrah Buffalo et al. versus European cattle had indicated significantly less and more and in Buffalo differences in and were with fed bulls compared to Mediterranean × Murrah Buffalo et al., et al. (2015) with could only the relatively greater (P < 0.05) of in grass-fed Buffalo meat from animals harvested at Summary of differences in for dorsi muscles between water buffalo and cattle compared under similar experimental conditions Bulgarian Black and White Bulgarian Murrah NOR, not Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species. *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Summary of differences in for dorsi muscles between water buffalo and cattle compared under similar experimental conditions Bulgarian Black and White Bulgarian Murrah NOR, not Equality symbol (=) denotes nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) between species. *Statistically significant (P < 0.05). **Highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). the results of Table to those that buffalo meat of from Buffalo to have higher or contents of three out of similar or contents of all out of three and out of three and higher contents of on two comparisons reported by et al., Noteworthy, the conducted under conditions of a significantly higher of in buffalo meat with to beef from Brahman-influenced the statistically different were rather et al., Therefore, the very of fat present in these grass-fed meats et al., the of present in any species will not the of and may not have the from a This review was conducted to the comparative advantages or of buffalo versus cattle in meat-eating quality. is the review to the outcomes of valid comparisons not only between Buffalo and B. cattle but with B. indicus-influenced types as counterparts in textural and sensory in experimental and the of found in many the of that can be from the studies but there is strong evidence that young Buffalo has a to produce meat comparable or with higher quality than their cattle under conditions. Likewise, the is and not for evidence in regard to the nutritional quality. more than differences were found in and composition. for the higher in Buffalo meat, other were similar between the meats when compared at with B. indicus-influenced cattle under conditions. is to out studies with traditional at similar maturity endpoints to the in the evidence a approach will to the interspecific Huerta-Leidenz as a meat at the of and of his from La and his of and in and from is an of main have been meat and quality of meat and meat nutrient composition. his and have and or and in has as a of of different scientific and a of Since has been a of the is a meat his is to and of and and species buffalo and species to and meat quality characteristics and is on the to performance and test the of to and meat in different and quality and of and to meat and of interest The that they have no or that could have to the reported in this

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.