4.4 Article

Stable isotopes to discriminate lambs fed herbage or concentrate both obtained from C3 plants

Journal

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 22, Issue 23, Pages 3701-3705

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.3773

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ente di Sviluppo Agricolo (ESA) della Regione Siciliana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was aimed at determining whether isotopic ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) enables us to discriminate between lambs fed herbage or concentrate, both obtained from C-3 plants, and those fed a concentrate obtained from C-4 plants. Thirty-four Comisana male lambs (age 45 days) were assigned to three feeding treatments. Fourteen lambs were fed vetch (Vicia sativa) ad libitum. Another fourteen lambs received a barley-based concentrate. The remaining six lambs were fed a maize-based concentrate. After 60 days of experimental treatment the animals were slaughtered and the wool, perirenal fat and muscle longissimus dorsi were sampled. The delta C-13 and delta N-15 values of the muscle, wool and feed were measured by continuous flow elemental analysis (CF-EA)-IRMS. The delta C-13 of the fat was determined likewise. The isotopic composition of the tissues reflected that of the three diets. For the lambs which were fed herbage the muscle delta C-13 values were higher (P < 0.0005) and delta N-15 values were lower (P < 0.0005) than those of the lambs receiving concentrates. The delta N-15 and delta C-13 values in the muscle and delta C-13 values in the adipose tissue allowed perfect discrimination between the lambs fed the three different diets. The regression between the delta C-13 values measured in muscle and in wool of lambs was linear (R-2 = 0.99; P < 0.0005). This result shows that delta C-13 measured in the wool can predict muscle 313 C distribution, suggesting that wool is a valuable matrix for meat authentication. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available