Water buffalo versus cattle under similar rearing condition. I. Growth and carcass performance

Buffalo has shown a favorable growth performance regarding weight gains under grazing conditions rather than feeding them with concentrate rations. While buffalo may have a heavier body, its dressing yield is lower than cattle due to a higher percentage of non-carcass components, specifically the hide and head. Buffalo evidence more desirable carcass attributes than cattle, so their carcasses might show advantages when graded by quality. Both species present a high variation in carcass yield of individual subprimals. However, buffalo offers a high yield in some high-value subprimals, allowing different muscle-specific commercialization strategies. Meat produced from buffaloes has become popular in various regions of the world, such as southeastern and middle-eastern Asian countries, Africa, and Latin America (Naveena and Kiran, 2014; Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia, 2021). These animals have the ability to adapt well in flooded native pastures, have low production costs, their meat offers favorable eating quality, and are widely accepted by consumers (Huerta-Leidenz et al., 2015; Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia, 2021). Thus, tremendous opportunities exist for the expansion of the buffalo meat sector. However, prejudice exists in the marketplace against buffalo carcasses because most come from animals at the end of their productive life on the dairy farm. Water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is a multipurpose species that has been exploited mainly for dairy purposes while poorly utilized for meat production (Naveena and Kiran, 2014; Di Stasio and Brugiapaglia, 2021). Unfortunately, there is scarce literature establishing comparative biological endpoints between water buffaloes and cattle (Bos indicus or Bos taurus) as meat producers, and many unanswered questions remain regarding buffalo growth performance, carcass traits, and composition concerning cattle. Furthermore, most literature reviews on the same topic made inferences using observational studies and (or) tabulated findings of different researchers that did not include both species in the same experiment or did not use exclusion criteria to minimize the bias of the alleged interspecific contrasts. Compilation of these comparative studies is necessary to inform all segments of the meat value chain; therefore, this review will discuss the pros and cons of water buffalo meat production concerning cattle in different production systems at similar endpoints regarding the previous production traits. Although these published comparative studies had similar endpoints (age or slaughter weight), other factors, including breed, sex, and diet, could vary the meat production performances between species whose results should be interpreted cautiously. Table 1 summarizes 16 trials between 1975 and 2020, and most studies originated in Tropical America, Europe, and Asia, comparing both species under similar rearing conditions and harvested at common endpoints. Also, 8 out of 16 investigations were conducted in confinement (feed yards or individual pens under concentrate feeding), and the other articles were under grazing with or without pasture supplementation or confinements with roughage feeding. An experimental summary description of studies comparing buffalo (BUF) and cattle (CAT) under similar experimental conditions CW, carcass weight; MOA, months of age; ND, not defined; SW, slaughter weight; TOF = time on feed. *INT: Intensive (confinement-concentrate feeding); EXT: Extensive (grazing with or without pasture supplementation/all-roughage feeding under confinement); MLK: dam’s milk feeding. †Buffalo breeds: Murrah (Mur), Mediterranean (Med), Philippine Carabao (PhiC), Bulgarian buffalo (Blb) or Indian buffalo (IBu), Native Swamp type (NSwp). ‡Cattle breeds: Brahman (Brh), Frisian (Frs), Red Bulgarian (Rbl), Hereford (Hef), Angus (Ang), Charolaise (Chr), Simmenthal (Sim), Romo Sinuno (Rom), Nelore (Nel), Philippine native cattle (PhiN) In initial studies of the species under confinement conditions (Table 2), Jonhson and Charles (1975) compared buffalo (B. bubalis) with three B. taurus breeds (Angus, Friesian. and Hereford) following similar periods of feeding. The authors reported that Hereford and Friesian steers (1.08 and 0.88 kg, respectively) were higher in average daily gain (ADG) than those of the buffalo steers (0.67 kg) and Angus steers (0.72 kg); and at the end of the feeding period, buffalo steers (87 kg) were less heavy than Hereford steers (141 kg), the Friesians (108 kg), and the Angus (98 kg). In agreement, Valin et al. (1984) compared Bulgarian cattle versus Murrah buffalo (river buffalo) young bulls (at 14 and 17 months of age [MOA], respectively) and steers (at 24 and 25 MOA, respectively) in a commercial feedlot, indicating that regardless of the similar slaughter weight, cattle grew faster (i.e., higher ADG) and more efficiently (less feed per live weight kg) than buffalo; however, castration produced an evident diminishment of the growth performance in cattle than buffalo. Similarly, Spanghero et al. (2004) compared young bulls (10 MOA) under concentrate feeding where the Mediterranean buffalo growth rate was slower than Simmental cattle (930 vs. 1,040 g, respectively) and required 14 more days than Simmental to reach a comparable live weight (312 vs. 329 kg). In contrast, in tropical Philippines but under confinement and a concentrated mixture, Lapitan et al. (2004) registered crossbred buffalo (22 MOA; Philippine Carabao × Murrah or Bulgarian or Indian breeds) did not differ in ADG (P > 0.05) from Brahman-cross cattle (Philippine × Brahman crossbred cattle). Additionally, a study in confinement conditions and a concentrate diet (Joksimovic and Ognjanovic, 1977) reported no difference in growth performance between species (water buffalo vs. Busha cattle). In agreement, Mello et al. (2018) did not find differences in growth performance between Mediterranean × Murrah crossbred buffaloes and Nellore; however, water buffalo finished the feeding period heavier than Nellore cattle. Summary of relevant growth performance and slaughter trait results from studies* comparing buffalo (BUF) and cattle (CAT) under similar experimental conditions ADG, average daily gain, g/d; CW, hot or cold carcass weight (kg); DP, dressing percentage; FCR, feed conversion ratio (kg/kg); RV, red viscera refers to pluck, liver and kidney; SW, slaughter weight (kg); WDOA, average weight gain per day of age (g/d); WV, White viscera refers to gastrointestinal organs. “>” or “<” significant different (P < 0.05); “=” not significantly different (P > 0.05). *Experimental conditions of each study were summarized in Table 1. On the other hand, under grazing conditions or a higher roughage diet, articles showed that buffaloes are advantaged in growth when raised under such conditions (Figure 1). Rodas-Gonzalez et al. (2015) compared bull and steer water buffaloes Murrah × Mediterranean crossbred versus Brahman-influenced cattle (crossbred and purebred Brahman) at four age endpoints (7, 17, 19, and 24 mo) in the same grazing conditions and reported calves and postweaning buffaloes grew more rapidly (weight per day of age or ADG) and heavier than Brahman-influenced cattle counterparts. In agreement, Lapitan et al. (2008a) indicated that buffalo had higher weight gains and final slaughter weight than crossbred Brahman cattle when both bovids were fed with roughage rations but without difference in feed conversion rate. In addition, many authors have reported the higher digestion capacity of buffalo over low-quality forages (higher fiber content) than cattle, which could explain its outperformance (Ichikawa and Homma, 1986; Lapitan et al., 2008a; Czerniawska-Piatkowska et al., 2010). Crossbred buffalo and crossbred Brahman grazing together. Source: Rafael Hoogestijn, DVM. Director, Jaguar Conflict Program, Panther General Manager, Panthera Brazil and Fazenda Jofre Velho. Regardless of the production system, the reviewed articles indicated the equal or superiority (10 out of 15 articles) of buffalo in live weight at the end of the trial when species were compared at similar age endpoints; however, heavier animals do not always mean heavier carcasses, 13 out of 15 articles reported buffalo carcasses were equal or lower in carcass weight, even when the animals were killed at a similar age or slaughter weight endpoint (Joksimovic and Ognjanovic, 1977; Robertson et al., 1983, 1986; Valin et al., 1984; Purchas et al., 1993; Merle et al., 2004; Spanghero et al., 2004; Mello et al., 2018), or carcass weight was adjusted by slaughter weight as covariable (Rodas-Gonzalez et al., 2015). It is noteworthy that a similar carcass weight can be observed either in younger and adult animals under grazing conditions; Rodas-Gonzalez et al. (2015) adjusted carcass weight by slaughter weight and reported even heavier buffalo at weaning (7 MOA) and postweaning (17, 19, and 24 MOA), with no differences detected in carcass weight. In contrast, buffalo were advantaged under concentrate diet over cattle in carcass weight (Jonson and Charles, 1975; Lapitan et al., 2007; Roy et al., 2020), particularly when buffalo steers were compared with Angus and Friesian steers (Jonson and Charles, 1975). Regardless of the production system (concentrate or grazing), buffalo presented a lower dressing percentage than cattle (Robertson et al., 1983, 1986; Purchas et al., 1993; Merle et al., 2004; Lapitan et al., 2007, 2008b; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Mello et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2020). Similarities in dressing percentage were observed in animals between 7 and 10 MOA (Spanghero et al., 2004; Rodas-Gonzalez et al., 2015) or received high-energy rations (Joksimovic and Ognjanovic, 1977; Valin et al., 1984). Most reviewed articles agreed that hide and head (Joksimovic and Ognjanovic, 1977; Valin et al., 1984; Merle et al., 2004; Spanghero et al., 2004; Lapitan et al., 2008b; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2020) might be the major culprits for the low dressing percentage in buffalo. However, other components, such as red and white viscera and feet, can decrease the dressing percentage in buffalo as well (Merle et al., 2004; Lapitan et al., 2008b; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2020). In those composite byproduct variables, red and white viscera, some individual organs varied between species. For example, Lapitan et al. (2008b) indicated buffalo (Philippine Carabao × Murrah) showed higher yield percentages in liver, heart, lungs, kidney, and spleen than cattle (Philippine native cattle × Brahman), while Roy et al. (2020) specified higher yield percentage of spleen, heart, liver, lung–trachea, and rumen in Native buffalo Swamp type versus Pabna cattle. Additionally, some byproducts can vary according to the interaction between species × age and species × male class. Rodas-Gonzalez et al. (2015) described that the proportion of hide, red and white viscera in Murrah × Mediterranean buffalo did not change with the progressions in postweaning ages; in contrast, in Brahman cattle, the hide, red and white viscera proportion decreased as postweaning age increased (17 to 24 MOA), increasing the differences between species and remarking the relatively higher yield of buffalo in those byproducts. Additionally, the same author detected feet and head proportions were affected by the species × male class interaction where cattle Brahman steers had the highest feet proportions with respect to Brahman bulls and any buffalo male class; in contrary, Buffalo bulls yielded the largest head proportion than buffalo steers and Brahman male classes. Limited studies (n = 8; Table 3) compared buffaloes and cattle in carcass traits (Figure 2), most of which were in grazing conditions. Most articles (Robertson et al., 1983; Purchas et al., 1993; Merle et al., 2004; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Mello et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2020) showed thicker back fat or abundant fat cover and smaller rib-eye area (REA, 46.85 vs. 60.5 cm2) for Buffaloes than cattle carcasses, and it seems the production system does not play a major role in fat and muscle deposition difference between species. A limited number of papers did not significantly differ in fat thickness (2 mm; Robertson et al., 1986) or REA (from 55 to 82 cm2; Lapitan et al., 2007; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2020) Summary of relevant carcass trait results from studies* comparing buffalo (BUF) and cattle (CAT) under similar experimental conditions “>” or “<” significant different (P < 0.05); “=” not significantly different (P > 0.05). *Experimental conditions of each study were summarized in Table 1. Hanging bull carcasses from Brahman cattle (left, No. 4) and buffalo (right, unnumbered) harvested at FITCA (Turmero Co. packing house), Venezuela. Brahman bulls were 29 MOA at harvest (Live weight: 542 kg; dressed weight: 327 kg). Buffalo bulls were 25 MOA, Live weight: 545 kg, dressed weight. 285 kg). Source: Mr. Angel Lopez (Producer), Eco Carnes company, Venezuela. Rodas-Gonzalez et al. (2015) observed buffalo deposit subcutaneous fat from weaning age (7 MOA), where the back fat thickness was 5.46 mm and increased up to 9.69 mm at 24 MOA; in contrast, Brahman cattle, even at 24 MOA, did not reach more than 3.00 mm of back fat thickness. Also, the author indicated that buffalo can have a more homogeneous and abundant subcutaneous fat cover (based on fat cover score) than Brahman cattle at an early age. A vital quality characteristic used for carcass grading, marbling, has been reported in a few studies during literature searching (Merle et al., 2004; Rodas-González et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2020). Merle et al. (2004) and Rodas-González et al. (2015) agreed that there is no significant difference in marbling score between species (described as “traces”). Conversely, Roy et al. (2020) indicated buffalo presented less marbling than cattle (5 vs. 3 scores on a 9-point scale where 1: high amount and 9: low amount), even in confinement conditions. For commercial purposes in some countries, beef carcasses are segregated based on their quality or yield attributes (Malaver et al., 2000; Aalhus et al., 2014; Segura et al., 2021); in some cases, exotic animals pose an exclusive grading system such as bison (Canada Gazette, 1992; López-Campos et al., 2014); however, water buffalo does not possess its own grading system. Thus, few studies have applied beef grading standards from the United States (USDA 1997) and Venezuela (Decreto Presidencial No. 1896, 1997) in buffalo carcasses to explore its commercial value. Rodas-González et al. (2015) reported that both species’ carcasses were considered youthful (lower than A90 maturity, which means <30 MOA). The author indicated that according to the Venezuelan grading (Decreto Presidencial N° 1896, 1997), both species’ carcasses at weaning were graded as Ternera (equivalent to Veal or Baby beef designations), and at postweaning ages, higher percentages of Buffalo carcasses reached the Venezuelan A grade as compared to Brahman cattle (second-quality grade). On the other hand, based on the U.S. quality grade (USDA, 1997), no significant differences between species were found within USDA quality grades, being more than 50% of carcasses of both species placed in U.S. Standards at postweaning. Additionally, Roy et al. (2020) estimated the U.S. yield grade (USDA, 1997) and observed that buffalo presented a lower yield grade score than cattle (YG W.B. 3 vs. CT 3.5), which meant lesser boneless retail cuts closely fat trimmed (to 13-mm fat). Table 4 summarizes comparative results (n = 10) between buffalo and cattle in carcass composition. The comparative studies addressing carcass composition vary widely in fabrication methods, dissection technique, reporting individual subprimal or composite value cuts, reporting either bone-in or boneless whole carcass or carcass quarter, or expressing the results in absolute value or proportional to carcass weight or live weight. Thus, the discussion was focused on individual boneless or bone-in cuts, total or partial dissection of carcasses, and total commercial cuts or lean and byproducts as a proportion of carcass weight to have a more accurate idea of the carcass composition, muscle distribution, which cannot be captured in composite cut values or bone-in quarter proportions. Summary of relevant carcass cutout results from studies* comparing buffalo (BUF) and cattle (CAT) under similar experimental conditions “>” or “<” significant different (P < 0.05); “=” not significantly different (P > 0.05). *Experimental conditions of each study were summarized in Table 1. HVC: High-value cuts = closely trimmed or not, boneless cuts: tenderloin, ‘loins’, rump cap, rump, eye round, topside, outside flat, knuckle, and bottom sirloin triangle (tri-tip). From rib, loin, sirloin, rump and round primals. MVC: cuts = closely trimmed or not, boneless cuts: and and From boneless cuts from cuts = for the and and all are bone-in From and primals. cuts = the of total of the fabrication fat was trimmed trimmed out of 10 reported differences in individual subprimal The following high-value subprimal cuts cuts from rib, loin, sirloin, rump, and round of which were found in a high proportion in buffalo than in cattle, such as sirloin cap, loin, tenderloin, eye of round, sirloin, outside round, knuckle, and sirloin (Merle et al., 2004; Spanghero et al., 2004; Lapitan et al., 2007; et al., Mello et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2020). In contrast, cattle presented a higher proportion of round, eye loin, sirloin, and from the same high-value cut (Merle et al., 2004; Spanghero et al., 2004; et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2020). On the other hand, et al., 2008b; Mello et al., and (Merle et al., from cut cuts from were in high proportion in buffalo; however, results have been found where (Merle et al., and of round et al., 2020) were in high proportion in cattle. cuts cuts from and buffalo presented a higher yield of (Merle et al., 2004; et al., et al., and et al., 2018; Roy et al., other authors reported (Merle et al., and et al., 2020) in high proportion in cattle. cuts can be affected by the interaction species with male class or age or carcass weight. et al. detected species × male class where Brahman bull carcasses had the highest proportion of and Brahman steers the highest yield of than any male class from buffalo. The same author reported species × age and buffalo showed a significant decrease in muscle and yield and to a growth in the proportion of than Brahman at and 24 the same Brahman presented higher at and 24 On the other hand, Merle et al. (2004) species × carcass weight interaction and that in carcasses kg, the cattle yielded more in tenderloin, round, and while the buffalo the proportion of the same cuts in all the weight are in the of individual between buffalo and cattle, species might be in the muscle such as (river vs. vs. or live weight. can vary due to growth which evidence growth in each species (Spanghero et al., in muscle growth comparing cattle versus and indicated that buffalo has a proportion of total muscle the due to of and the is relatively Also, the author reported that the similar to however, in higher proportions. In agreement, Valin et al. (1984) and Spanghero et al. (2004) reported that Buffaloes were higher at the in the and rump but the was and the was = and with In dissection many researchers agreed (Joksimovic and 1977; Valin et al., 1984; Spanghero et al., 2004; Lapitan et al., that water buffalo showed a significantly lower lean proportion to vs. to due to the higher proportion in trimmed In contrast, and Charles (1975) indicated that the muscle proportion in the buffalo steers was higher than in Friesian by Angus and Hereford steers Valin et al. (1984) reported buffalo bulls had less lean percentage than cattle vs. however, buffalo steers at the live weight, and no difference in between species was detected In contrast, Lapitan et al. did not find differences in lean proportion between the crossbred cattle and crossbred water buffalo however, cattle buffalo. In with Merle et al. (2004) and et al. (2015) did not find any difference in total cuts bone-in of the studies found a significant difference in regardless of the production system. in fat most found differences out of 10) or higher percentages of fat out of 10) in buffalo than in increasing the of fat in Buffalo carcasses might in a decrease of the lean Valin et al. (1984) a higher fat to in buffaloes compared with cattle at younger However, the fat of cattle steers at heavier kg) showed a significant in buffaloes which were with increased live weight (from to kg). In contrast, and Charles (1975) reported that buffalo have a lower fat percentage with respect to or The evidence of buffalo meat production traits comparable to that of cattle. Buffaloes are to favorable weight gain performance when grazing rather than being fed concentrate rations a heavier weight at the However, buffalo carcasses were similar or lower in weight, had lesser dressing percentage and lean and had high variation in the carcass yield of individual than cattle. to the the production system does not play a major role in fat and muscle deposition differences between species. On the other hand, buffaloes fat carcass and similar compared to cattle, their carcasses more desirable for grading by quality. For the buffalo meat buffalo cannot be to other red and an is to there do not exist criteria for buffalo carcasses, and are based on the beef grading system which do not a to the and In addition, buffalo carcasses have shown quality and yield differences carcasses on the class vs. age or and thickness. Thus, a buffalo grading system based on meat quality or fabrication cuts, and muscle-specific commercialization are to value and their in the buffalo will become a relevant meat in it has a in the retail marketplace with an quality to Rodas-Gonzalez is a meat is to study and of and and exotic species (water buffalo and species to carcass and and value. is focused on the following to performance and carcass the ability of to carcass and meat in different yield and quality of and to meat life and as a meat at the of and of from and of and in and from is an of have been meat yield and quality of carcass grading, meat and meat composition. and has and or and in has as a of of different and a of some has been a of the The authors that 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.