Next Article in Journal
Advanced Sustainable Epoxy Composites from Biogenic Fillers: Mechanical and Thermal Characterization of Seashell-Reinforced Composites
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Drone Flight Stability for Building a Korean Urban Air Traffic (K-UAM) Delivery System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/app15158497
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Animal Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in Different Production Systems in the Tropics

by
Jean Fagner Pauly
1,2,
Jéssica Geralda Ferracini
1,3,
Henrique Rorato Freire
4,
Bianka Rocha Saraiva
4,
Maribel Valero Velandia
1,
Ana Guerrero
5,*,
Rodolpho Martin do Prado
6 and
Ivanor Nunes do Prado
1,4
1
Programa de Pós Graduação em Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá CEP 87020-900, Paraná, Brazil
2
PRIME, Chácara 27, Rodovia Perimetral Norte, s/n, Jardim Porto Alegre, Toledo CEP 85906-290, Paraná, Brazil
3
Gasparin, Rua Santa Helena, 240, Vila Santa Helena, Presidente Prudente CEP 19015-670, São Paulo, Brazil
4
Programa de Pós Graduação em Ciência de Alimentos, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá CEP 87020-900, Paraná, Brazil
5
Departamento Producción y Sanidad Animal, Salud Pública Veterinaria y Ciencia y Tecnología de los Alimentos, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Alfara del Patriarca, CP 46115 Valencia, Spain
6
Département des Sciences Animales, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(15), 8497; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158497
Submission received: 20 June 2025 / Revised: 28 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Food Science and Technology)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Featured Application

This work presents the effect of different production systems on animal performance and carcass quality that could be suitable to improve a sustainable beef production system in tropical regions.

Abstract

Extensive beef systems in the tropics are the cheapest but require more land and longer rearing times with environmental impact. This study was carried out to evaluate three beef bull’s production systems in tropics: pasture-based system (PASTU), feedlot system immediately after weaning (FELOT) and a system with the combination of rearing in pasture and finishing in feedlot (PRIME) on animal performance and carcass characteristics of 30 bulls crossbred Angus x Nellore. The final weight, average daily gain and carcass weight (hot and cold) were higher (p < 0.050) for the FELOT system, intermediate for the PRIME system and lowest for the PASTU system. The carcass dressing (hot and cold), dripping losses, ratio (Longissimus dorsi) and degree of finishing were similar (p > 0.050). The carcass pH24h was higher for the PRIME system (p < 0.010). Subcutaneous fat thickness (mm) was lower for the PASTU system (p < 0.050). Marbling was better for the PRIME system. The tissular composition was similar among systems related to muscle percentage but PASTU showed the highest bone percentage (p < 0.050) and lowest of adipose (p < 0.050). PRIME enable cost-effective, fast beef production with less environmental impact.

1. Introduction

In the global scenario, Brazil has the largest herd, the principal exporter, and one of the largest consumers of beef in the world [1,2]. However, has been the low productivity and inferior quality. The low productivity of beef in Brazil has been associated with several factors [1], ranging from predominance genetics (zebu and their crosses) to productive factors related to management [2]. Among them, various studies highlight the following of low carcass weight and conformation, low quality forage (predominantly tropical and subtropical grasses), high temperatures for much of the year, deficiency of minerals and energy in the dry season, presence of reproductive and non-reproductive diseases in the herd, late slaughter age, and, above all, lack of business management [3,4,5,6]. During the rearing phase, from born to weaning (7 months), calves remain on low-quality pastures with their respective mothers [4]. These calves are then raised from weaning to puberty (24 months) in extensive systems [4]. The final part of this cycle can be fattening on pastures (90%) and a small part in more intensive systems [1].
Previous studies showed that Zebu (Nellore) and it crosses with Europeans (Bos taurus) that average daily gain (ADG) of bulls finished on pasture is low (average of 0.40–0.50 kg/day) [7,8] when compared to bulls finished in feedlots (1.50 to 2.0 kg/day) [9,10]. This is due to the energy and protein density of the diets fed to cattle raised on pasture and finished in feedlots or cattle that have been finished in feedlot since weaning [7,8,11,12]. Feed efficiency is better for animals finished in feedlots when compared to animals finished on pasture. Diets fed to animals finished in feedlots are adjusted to achieve the maximum potential allowed by the genetic potential of the animals [7,8,11,12].
Several studies show that cattle finished in feedlot show a feed conversion from 6.0 to 8.0 kg of dry matter consumed for a gain of 1.0 kg of body weight [9,10,13]. On the other hand, the feed efficiency of cattle finished on pasture with or without supplementation is between 12 to 20 kg of dry matter for 1.0 kg of body weight gain per day [14].
Cattle finished in feedlots have higher slaughter weight and, consequently, higher carcass weight [8,9,13,15]. Cattle finished in feedlot with low or high grains are slaughtered in less time (days) than cattle finished on pasture [7,8]. Maciel et al. [8] observed a higher slaughter age for crossbred Red Angus steers finished on pasture than those fed high-grain diets. Angus steers finished in feedlots with a high-grain diet had better carcass dressing than steers finished on pasture [7]. Similarly, Ducket et al. [16] observed higher carcass dressing when comparing Angus steers finished with silage and concentrate (62.3%) and steers finished on pasture (54.3%). In addition, higher carcass dressing was observed for Nellore animals when finished in feedlot (58.9%) than on pasture (56.4%). The better carcass dressing in diets with less forage can be explained by the smaller size of the gastrointestinal tract due to the lack of fiber in the diet [17], when comparing conventional feedlot with high-grain diets, found no differences in carcass dressing.
In general, it is accepted that the cost of producing pasture-raised cattle is cheaper [4,5,18]. In this context, there would be no need for changes in the breeding, rearing and finishing system of beef bulls. Another important factor is the quality of the meat produced [19,20,21,22]. In addition to meat quality, new issues are being debated, such as animal welfare, environmental protection, among others [23,24,25,26]. Therefore, experts seek new bulls’ production systems based on more efficient systems such as genetic material (new breeds and crossbreeds), pasture improvement, use of additives and ionophores, systematic changes in active ingredients in medications, feedlot more professional management [1,27,28].
The introduction of alternative beef production concepts coming along with economic, social, and environmental preoccupations. A growing literature study evaluation pasture conventional, semi-intensive and feedlot exist, comparative assessment of systems that simultaneously indicators are scarce. Evaluating food sources in livestock diets is crucial for optimizing performance, nutrient utilization, by reducing the use of systems with a high carbon footprint.
This study was conducted to evaluate animal performance and meat characteristics of three systems for breeding, rearing and finishing of crossbred beef (Angus x. Nellore) in the tropics. Three systems were studied: bulls reared and finished on conventional pasture (PASTU), reared in pasture and finished in feedlot from weaning (FELOT) and raised in pasture and reared in improved pasture and finished in conventional feedlot with high-grain diets (PRIME).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Pasture Location

In the PASTU conventional production system, the experimental essay was carried out on the Ipê farm, located in the Luziânia region, at an altitude of 900 m, longitude 24°30′46.761′′ S, latitude 52°22′19.726′′ W, with an average rainfall of 1897 mm, with clayey soil, without a large slope, in the northwest region of the state of Paraná.
In the FELOT system, the bulls were raised and finished on the Araucária farm, located in the Luziânia region, at an altitude of 900 m, longitude 24°30′46.761′′ S, latitude 52°22′19.726′′ W, with an average rainfall of 1897 mm, with clayey soil, without a large slope, in the northwest region of the state of Paraná.
In the PRIME system, the experimental trial was carried out at the Água Azul farm, located in the Luziânia region, at an altitude of 900 m, longitude 24°30′46.761′′ S, latitude 52°22′19.726′′ W, with an average rainfall of 1897 mm, with clayey soil, without great slope, in the northwest region of the state of Paraná.

2.2. Feeding and Experimental Diets

In the PASTU system, the bulls were raised (seven months) and reared (11 months) on low-quality pasture, without correction and fertilization, in an extensive form and finished in a feedlot (four months). The pasture consisted mainly of grasses of the genus Brachiaria ruziziencies, whose chemical composition is shown in Table 1. The pastures are shown at the beginning of the production cycle with some reforms throughout this period. In this system, the bulls were supplemented only with mineral salt. Mineral salt was supplied once a week. The estimated salt consumption was 50 g/day. Water was always available in fixed masonry drinkers. This model is the main system for breeding, rearing and finishing beef bulls in Brazil. Pasture reforms are carried out when necessary and can be done in a cycle of up to five years. During the feedlot period, the bulls were kept in collective stalls of 20 m2/animal, covered, with collective feeders and drinkers with water distributed ad libitum.
In the FELOT system, during the breeding period (seven months), the calves were kept with their mothers on good quality Brachiaria pasture, fertilized and corrected. During the feedlot period (11 months), the bulls were housed in a 20 m2 facility per animal, covered with masonry feeders and water distributed in collective drinkers ad libitum. During the feedlot period, the bulls were fed high-energy and high-protein diets (Table 1).
In the PRIME system, the calves were raised on good-quality pasture until they were seven months old with their mothers. Then, the bulls were reared up to 350 kg on corrected pasture and with multiple forage species (tyfton, clover, alfalfa, chicory, oats and peas), eight months, from 350.0 kg to 542.3 kg of body weight. In this system, the bulls were reared in feedlot receiving a diet based on this same forage, but in ensiled form (five months). These animals were finished in the feedlot system from 450 kg until slaughter at 580.0 kg.

2.3. Animals

Thirty bulls (10 bulls per evaluated system) were reared in good-quality pasture until they were seven months old with mothers. Then, the bulls were reared up to 350.0 kg on corrected pasture and with multiple forage species (tyfton, clover, alfalfa, chicory, oats and peas), eight months, from 350.0 kg to 542.3 kg of body weight. In this system, the bulls were reared in feedlot receiving a diet based on this same forage, but in ensiled form (five months). These animals were finished in the feedlot system from 450.0 kg until slaughter at 580.0 kg.
Industrial crossbreeding between the Angus and Nellore breeds born in August 2022, raised and reared in an extensive pasture system and finished in a feedlot system were used. The animals were chosen by their weight at weaning time (seven months).
All animals were vaccinated against symptomatic anthrax, gas gangrene, sudden death, enterotoxemia, malignant edema, tetanus and botulism (Excell 10) and pneumonia (Bovi Shield). Likewise, the animals were dewormed every six months (solution 3.5% (MSD) + genisis iver puor on (genesis), solution 3.5% (MSD) + agebendazol + volosso (Ouro Fino), treo ace (Zoetis) + agebendazol + colosso (Ouro Fino). The stocking rate was three animals/hectare.
The average daily gain (ADG) was monitored periodically. The average daily gain (ADG) was obtained by dividing the final weight or slaughter weight by the number of days until slaughter. No bull had to be removed from the experiment, due to failure to adapt or for other reasons.
At the end of the finishing period, the bulls were weighed and transported to the slaughterhouse in the city of Campo Mourão, North of Paraná, 60 km away, after a period of 18 h of fasting from solids, with water always being available. The density of the truck was 0.8 + 0.2 m2/animal.
The slaughter was carried out at the Magistral slaughterhouse, in the city of Campo Mourão, state of Paraná, as recommended by the Brazilian system according to RIISPOA (Regulation for the Industrial and Sanitary Inspection of Products of Animal Origin) [29].
The bulls were stunned with a compressed air gun. They were then bled, with a suitable knife cut through the external jugular vein and the hide, head, feet, tail, diaphragm and pelvic fat (kidney and heart) removed.

2.4. Carcass Characteristics

After slaughter, the carcasses were divided from the sternum to spine, resulting in two halves (right and left) of similar weight. The two half carcasses were immediately weighed to determine the hot carcass weight. The hot carcass dressing was determined using this weight, with the hot carcass weight divided by the live weight of the previous day and multiplied by 100. Thus, it was expressed as a percentage of hot carcass dressing.
Immediately after slaughter, the carcasses were identified and stored in cold rooms at 4 °C for a period of 24 h. The following day, the carcasses were weighed again to calculate the cold carcass dressing. The cold carcass dressing is obtained by dividing the cold carcass weight by the live weight obtained before slaughter and multiplying by 100.
The carcasses were chilling in a cold chamber (+4 °C) for 24 h. The following day, the carcasses were removed and weighed again. The difference between the previous day and the weight after chilling is called dripping losses or dripping in the cold chamber. These losses are due to the runoff of water, blood, lymph and exudate.

2.5. Sampling and Meat Quality

The Longissimus dorsi (thoracis and lumborum) (LD) was excised from the right side. The sixth rib was removed, weighed and kept frozen (−20 °C) before being thawed and after being dissected into muscle, fat (subcutaneous and intermuscular), bone and other tissues (tendons, fascias, blood vessels). Before the sixth rib was frozen, the LD of this rib was separated, weighed and segmented for diverse meat measurements.
The pH24h was determined with a pH meter (HI99163, Hanna instruments, Eboli, Salerno, Italy). The electrode was calibrated and inserted into the muscle between the 12th and 13th ribs 24 h after slaughter. The measurement was performed in triplicate, and the average of the measurements was the pH24h value.
The thickness subcutaneous fat (SFT) was measured with an electronic digital caliper (hardened stainless-steel, model LT-4237-000, Allparts, Salerno, Italy) at a point three-quarters of the length of the Longissimus dorsi (LD) muscle from the bone end between the 12th and 13th ribs and was performed in triplicate, with the average of the measurements being the value of the SFT, in millimeters.
The degree of carcass finishing was visually evaluated by a trained professional from the Maria Macia company, assigned a scale from1 to 3. Being 1 (slight fat cover), 2 (average fat cover), 3 (high fat cover), according to the importers’ requirements.
The marbling of the meat was visually evaluated at the 13th rib by a panel of five experts on meat quality. The evaluation was based on a visual comparison with the AUS-MEAT marbling system used for Wagyu, although the higher Australian marbling scores were excluded from the adapted scale. The adapted scale ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated little marbling, 2 (reasonable marbling), 3 (good marbling), 4 (very good marbling) and 5 (excessive marbling). The final score represents the average of the five experts ‘evaluation. The degree of marbling was expressed as a frequency distribution (%).
Rib eye area or Longissimus dorsi area (LDA) was measured on the Longissimus dorsi between the 12th and 13th ribs. The LDA was copied on greaseproof paper and later calculated using a planimeter. The area was expressed in cm2. The ratio is the calculated ratio between the width and length of the sample taken from the 13th rib, using a tape measure. The division between the width and length is then made and expressed in cm.
To assess tissue composition, the percentage of muscle, bone, adipose and other tissues was evaluated in the sixth rib. The portions of these tissues were dissected with the aid of sharp knives and scalpels in the sixth ribs and weighed separately. The tissues were weighed individually and the respective percentages calculated.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The meat attributes were assessed by analysis of variance using the general linear model (GLM) with SPSS (v. 29.0.2.0) (IBM SPSS Statistics, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for Windows. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each variable. The treatments (PASTU, FELOT and PRIME) were considered fixed factors in a randomized design, with ten replicates per treatment for each analysis. When differences were statistically significant, a Tukey test was performed with statistical significance set at p = 0.05.

3. Results

The initial age of bulls from the three production systems was similar, and close to seven months of age, immediately after weaning (Table 2). The initial weight was similar (p > 0.050) since these animals had a similar rearing system without undergoing any management that interfered with the weaning weight, such as the use of creep-feeding.
The rearing period that bulls spent on conventional pastures (without soil correction and fertilization) was longer in the PASTU system (11.27 months), intermediate in the PRIME system (8.22 months) in improved and corrected pastures, and shorter in the FELOT system (only during the rearing period—6.82 months) (Table 2). The period in feedlot was shorter for animals in the PASTU system (4 months), intermediate for bulls in the PRIME system (5 months) and longer for bulls in the FELOT system (11.3 months) (Table 2).
The age at slaughter was shorter for bulls in the FELOT system (18.0 months), intermediate for bulls in the PRIME system (20.0 months) and longer for bulls in the PASTU system (22.0 months) (Table 2). This was due to the type of feeding adopted. Bulls in the last two production systems received a higher energy and protein intake in the diet during the rearing and finishing phases.
The average daily gain depends on the energy and protein density of the diet available to the animals [11,12]. Thus, the average daily gain observed was higher (p < 0.016) for bulls in the FELOT system (1.11 kg), intermediate for bulls in the PRIME system (0.97 kg) and lower for bulls in the PASTU system (0.82 kg).
The body weight at slaughter was higher (p < 0.001) for bulls from the FELOT system (559.5 kg), intermediate for bulls from the PRIME system (580.00 kg) and lower for bulls from the PASTU system (542.3 kg) (Table 3). The slaughter weight is determined by the energy and protein density of the diet. The slaughter weight was high for bulls from all production systems (above 540.0 kg of body weight).
The hot carcass weight obtained immediately after slaughter was in the same order of magnitude as the slaughter weight: highest for bulls from the FELOT system (340.0 kg), intermediate for bulls from the PRIME system (323.3 kg) and lowest for bulls from the PASTU system (295.5 kg) (Table 3). The cold carcass weight followed the same order as the hot carcass dressing, but slightly lower in relation to the hot carcass weight (Table 3).
The cold carcass dressing was similar (p > 0.05) for bulls from the three production systems (Table 3). The cold carcass dressing was close to 57.0%, therefore above the dressing of bulls normally finished on PASTU. The losses that occur in the first twenty-four hours after slaughter were similar (p > 0.05) for the three production systems (Table 3).
The drip losses occurring in 24 h (+4 °C) were similar (p > 0.05) for meat from the 3 different production systems, below 1.0% (Table 3).
Twenty-four hours after slaughter, the pH value at 24 h in the meat from bulls in the PASTU system was higher (5.84; p < 0.05), compared to the pH value (5.64) of the meat from bulls in the FELOT system and bulls in the PRIME system (5.67) (Table 4). Furthermore, the pH24h of the meat from bulls in the PASTU and FELOT systems did not differ between them (p > 0.05).
The degree of carcass finishing was similar (p > 0.05) for bulls from the three production systems (Table 4). The finishing degree attributed by trained professional from Maria Macia’s company was 1.37 on a scale of 1 to 3. This score meets the requirements of the domestic and foreign markets.
The subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT) for bulls from the (FELOT) (7.5 mm) and PRIME (7.9 mm) systems, and for these two systems no difference was observed (p > 0.05). The greater cover fat thickness observed in bulls finished in the FELOT and PRIME systems may be related to the energy input during the rearing and finishing period of the bulls. It is worth noting that for all systems, the EGC was above the recommended level to classify a carcass as well finished by the Brazilian system (between 3.0 and 6.0 mm).
The Longissimus dorsi area (LDA) was similar (p > 0.05) for bulls from the 3 systems: PASTU (113.5 cm2) and PRIME (115.9 cm2) systems compared to the LDA of bulls from the FELOT system (114.9 cm2). In fact, the size of LDA is directly correlated with carcass weight.
The highest frequency of little marbling was observed in meat from PASTU bulls (16.0%). The frequency of little marbling was intermediate for bulls from the FELOT system (10.0%) and the lowest frequency for bulls from the PRIME system (4.0%). No animal with excessive marbling was observed (Table 4). The degree of marbling classified as very good was similar for the three treatments (32.0%—PASTU, 34.0% FELOT and 32.0%—PRIME). The sum of marbling classified as good and very good was 70.0%—PASTU, 62.0%—FELOT and 80.0%—PRIME (Table 4). The differences in the degree of marbling frequency can be attributed to the higher or lower nutrient density of the diets. (Table 4).
Related to tissue composition, there was no effect (p > 0,5) on the percentage of muscles among systems, being the average 62.35% (Table 4). However, the percentage of fat was lower (p < 0.05) in bulls reared on Brachiaria pasture and finished in feedlot (PASTU) (18.50%) compared to FELOT (21.39%) and PRIME (20.18%) systems. No (p > 0.05) difference was observed for the FELOT and PRIME systems. The percentage of bone tissue was higher (p < 0.05) observed in bulls from the PASTU system (18.34%) compared to the percentage of bulls from the FELOT (15.85%) and PRIME (16.92%) systems. The percentages of bone tissue in these last two systems were similar (p > 0.05). The higher percentage of bone tissue in bulls in the PASTU system can be explained by the long period of time spent on extensive Brachiaria pastures.

4. Discussion

Weaning weight was similar for the three production systems (6.7 months). Weaning weight is similar because the farms adopt the same animal rearing system. This is the Brazilian weaning standard for beef cattle [1,2,30,31].
Slaughter age, as well as average daily gain and, consequently, slaughter weight are determined by genetics and energy and protein density of the diets. Thus, bulls fed for a longer period in feedlot had a shorter slaughter time and higher slaughter weight. However, slaughter weight determined hot and cold carcass weight, but did not change carcass dressing. The carcass dressings observed in this study are slightly higher than the dressings observed in the production system in Brazil [2,5,9,25,32]. This high carcass dressing may be correlated with the fattening state and slaughter weight of bulls with subcutaneous fat thickness above 6.0 mm.
The pH24h value in the meat of bulls from the FELOT system was above 5.80, considered the limiting pH value and can be explained by the stress caused by the grouping of animals at the time of transport and in the waiting pen for slaughter. In addition, the pH measured 24 h after slaughter is an important measurement because it can influence several attributes of meat quality [33,34]. Furthermore, meat pH seems to be much more related to pre- and post-slaughter management than to genetic and nutritional characteristics [35]. Anaerobic glycolysis converts the glycogen present in the muscles into lactic acid, releasing hydrogen (H+ ions). Enzymatic actions, mainly of calpain, are favored at lower pH, breaking down the proteins of the myofibrils and making the meat more tender and juicier. The production of lactic acid and nitrogen compounds during maturation contributes to the characteristic flavor and aroma of matured meat. The low pH promotes the conversion of myoglobin into oxyhemoglobin, intensifying the red color of the meat [36]. The pH of the meat from animals in the PASTU and FELOT systems were within the range standards found in the literature [34,37]. Fruet et al. [38] and Lima et al. [7] did not observe differences in the pH of the meat between animals finished on pasture or on feedlot 24 h after slaughter. Stressed animals with zebu genetics have higher pH due to the release of stress hormones such as corticosteroids. The pH measured 24 h after slaughter is an important measurement because it can influence several attributes of meat quality [33,34]. Meat pH can vary depending on many factors [34,39].
The greater SFT observed in bulls finished in the FELOT and PRIME systems may be related to the energy supply during the rearing and finishing period of the bulls. It is worth noting that for all systems, the SFT was above the recommended level to classify a carcass as well finished by the Brazilian system (from 3.0 to 6.0 mm). The SFT is higher in bulls finished with high-energy density rations compared to animals finished on pasture [8]. SFT is highly correlated with dietary energy levels and is an indicator of good finishing. SFT plays a fundamental role in the post-slaughter period by protecting the carcass during chilling and preventing shortening due to cold [40].
In general, crossbred bulls finished in feedlot with a carcass weight of 250 to 270 kg have an LYA close to 85 cm2 [15,25,32]. In any case, on average, the Longissimus dorsi area was above 100 cm2 in all treatments; considered optimal for crossbred animals finished in feedlot.
The degree of marbling classified as very good was similar for the three treatments (32.0%—PASTU, 34.0% FELOT and 32.0%—PRIME). The sum of marbling classified as good and very good was 70.0%—PASTU, 62.0%—FELOT and 80.0%—PRIME. Differences in the degree of marbling frequency can be attributed to the higher or lower nutrient density of the diets [11,12].
The three rearing and finishing systems had no effect (p > 0.05) on the percentage of muscle tissue measured in the sixth rib of bulls. The percentage of muscle tissue, on average across the three systems, was 62.35%. Crossbred bulls between Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus finished in a feedlot system have, on average, a percentage of muscle tissue in the sixth rib between 60 and 65% [10,15,25,31,41].
The percentage of fat on the sixth rib was lower in bulls from the PASTU system (18.5%) compared to the FELOT (21.4%) and PRIME (20.2%) systems. On the other hand, no difference was observed for animals from the FELOT and PRIME systems. The lower percentage of fat found in bulls from the PASTU system may be related to the lower energy intake during the pasture period because these do not provide the same energy content when compared to the feedlot. However, the percentages found in the PASTU system are close to the percentages of bulls slaughtered at close to 550 kg of body weight [10,25,32].
Unlike the percentage of adipose tissue, the percentage of bone tissue was higher in bulls from the PASTU system (18.3%) compared to the percentage of bulls from the FELOT (15.8%) and PRIME (16.9%) systems. The percentages of bone tissue in these last two systems were similar. The higher percentage of bone tissue in bulls in the PASTU system can be explained by the long period of time spent on extensive Brachiaria pastures.
The objective of this study was to evaluate a beef production system taking into account better sustainability of the system both from the point of view of production efficiency and respect for environmental adversities, such as avoiding burning of degraded pastures, aiding in the recovery of degraded systems, rationalizing deforestation, protecting groundwater, reducing the greenhouse effect, improving pasture quality with soil correction and precision fertilization techniques, among other current techniques [1,42,43,44,45].
Currently, beef bulls’ production systems in Brazil face major challenges, so citizens of different stripes should be aware of the responsibilities of relevant policies, goals, and new strategies for beef production in tropical and subtropical regions [1,2,18,43]. The greatest respect for the aforementioned aspects can be achieved through economic and social understandings, better understanding and respecting the economic sustainability policies of the production integration system [1,6,31,45,46]. The studies carried out on the sustainability of production systems as a main has been as evidence with some clarity and consideration of their respective advantages [47,48]. The development of global triple bottom line (TBL) policies shows that the practice of sustainability includes economic (profit), environmental (planet) and social (citizens) advantages [18,31,42].
Thus, the activities that would be considered sustainable were studied respecting these three aspects: economic, environmental and social. The general knowledge of these aspects should be encompassed in a broader front considering several aspects such as, for example, a more synthetic, analytical, descriptive, exploratory, cultural, and educational analysis of the social development of all citizens of the globe [43,44,49]. Thus, the concept of sustainability must consider all economic systems and their consequences that could interact positively or negatively with nature and society [31,42,48].

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to demonstrate that it is possible to establish the concept of sustainability in tropical beef bull production systems through the rational use of existing technical knowledge.
Although animal performance and slaughter weight were higher for bulls reared directly in feedlots after weaning (at 7 months), this system involves greater use of grains and, consequently, higher methane emissions and production costs. The most interesting and widely accepted system would be one that includes part of the rearing period on improved pastures, followed by finishing in a feedlot (PRIME).
On the other hand, the pasture-based production system is the least expensive; however, it reduces animal performance and requires large areas of pasture. This, in turn, leads to deforestation of new frontiers, increased soil degradation, and pollution of water sources.
Therefore, it is possible to produce more beef at a lower cost and in a shorter time, while respecting the environment and avoiding the need to exploit new areas of the tropical biome.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.N.d.P. and J.F.P.; methodology, I.N.d.P. and J.F.P.; software, I.N.d.P. and A.G.; validation, I.N.d.P. and R.M.d.P.; formal analysis I.N.d.P. and A.G.; investigation J.F.P., J.G.F., H.R.F., B.R.S. and M.V.V.; resources, I.N.d.P. and J.F.P.; data curation, J.F.P., I.N.d.P. and R.M.d.P. writing—original draft preparation, B.R.S., J.F.P. and H.R.F. writing—review and editing, J.F.P., A.G., R.M.d.P. and I.N.d.P.; visualization, A.G.; supervision, I.N.d.P.; project administration, I.N.d.P.; funding acquisition, J.F.P. and I.N.d.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of department Animal Science of Universidade Estadual de Maringá (protocol code 44460020.3.000.0104).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Prime do Brasil Agricolas LTDA (Toledo city, Parana State, Brazil) to technical support. The mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely to provide specific information and does not imply recommendations or endorsement by the Department of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Paraná state, Brazil.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Del Campo, M.; Montossi, F.; Lima, J.M.S.; Brito, G. Future cattle production: Animal welfare as a critical component of sustainability and beef quality, a South American perspective. Meat Sci. 2025, 219, 109672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agethen, K.; Maurício, R.R.; Deblitz, C.; Izquierdo, M.D.; Chará, L. Future perspectives of Brazilian beef production: What in the role of Silvopastoril systems. Agroforest Syst. 2024, 98, 2179–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Batistelli, I.J.C.; Batistelli, J.C.O.R.; Bess, B.L.; Menezes, F.L.; Moraes, K.A.K.; Moraes, E.H.B.K. Intensive rearing in confinement as a management strategy in beef cattle—Literature review. Res. Soc. Devel. 2022, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ferraz, J.B.S.; Felício, P.E. Production systems—An example from Brazil. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Greenwood, P.L. Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal 2021, 15, 100295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pasquini Neto, R.; Furtado, A.J.; Silva, G.V.; Lobo, A.A.G.; Abdalla Filho, A.L.; Perna Junior, F.; Berndt, A.; de Medeiros, S.R.; Pedroso, A.d.F.; de Oliveira, P.P.A.; et al. Performance and feed intake of Nellore steers in extensive, intensive, and integrated pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Livest Sci. 2025, 294, 105667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lima, H.L.; Santin Júnior, I.A.; Zampar, A.; Soldá, N.M.; Bottin, F.L.; Tomasi, T.; Cucco, D.C. Diferentes sistemas de terminação e seus efeitos na carcaça e carne de novilhos angus superprecoces. Med. Veter. (UFRPE) 2021, 15, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Maciel, I.C.F.; Schweihofer, J.P.; Fenton, J.I.; Hodbod, J.; McKendree, M.G.S.; Cassida, K.; Rowntree, E. Influence of beef genotypes on animal performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and sensory characteristics in grazing or feedlot-finished steers. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2021, 5, txab214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ferracini, J.G.; Lelis, A.L.J.; Polli, D.; Gasparim, M.B.; Feba, L.T.; Prado, I.N.; Millen, D.D. Feedlot performance of Nellore bulls fed high-concentrate diets containing the association of tannins and saponins with sodium monensin. Rev. Bras. Zoot. 2024, 53, e20230104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivaroli, D.C.; Ornaghi, M.G.; Mottin, C.; Prado, R.M.; Ramos, T.R.; Guerrero, A.; Jorge, A.M.; Prado, I.N. Essential oils in the diet of crossbred (½ Angus vs. ½ Nellore) bulls finished in feedlot on animal performance, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics. J. Agri. Sci. 2017, 9, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: 8th Revised Edition; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Valadares Filho, S.C.; Costa e Silva, L.F.; Gionbelli, M.P.; Rotta, P.P.; Marcondes, M.I.; Chizzotti, M.L.; Prados, L.F. Exigências Nutricionais de Zebuínos Puros e Cruzado—BR—Corte, 3rd ed.; Universidade Federal de Viçosa: Viçosa, Brazil, 2016; p. 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carvalho, V.M.; Ávila, V.A.D.; Bonin, E.; Matos, A.M.; Prado, R.M.D.; Castilho, R.A.; Silva, R.R.; Filho, B.A.d.A.; Prado, I.N.D. Effect of extract from baccharis, tamarind, cashew nut shell liquid and clove on animal performance, feed efficiency, digestibility, rumen fermentation and feeding behavior of bulls finished in feedlot. Livest Sci. 2021, 244, 104361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carvalho, V.M.; Silva, R.R.; Lins, T.O.J.A.; Barroso, D.S.; Rocha, T.R.; Silva, J.W.D.; Santos, M.C.; Almeida, K.V.; Prado, I.N.D. Supplementation strategies for crossbred steers on Brachia brizantha pasture the dry season: Effects on performance, intake, digestibility and ingestive behavior. Acta Scientiarum Anim. Sci. 2024, 46, e69224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ornaghi, M.G.; Passetti, R.A.C.; Torrecilhas, J.A.; Mottin, C.; Vital, A.P.; Guerrero, A.; Sañudo, C.; Campo, M.M.; Prado, I. Essential oils in the diet of young bulls: Effect on animal performance, digestibility, temperament, feeding behaviour and carcass characteristics. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 234, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duckett, S.K.; Neel, J.P.S.; Lewis, R.M.; Fontenot, J.P.; Clapham, W.M. Effects of forage species or concentrate finishing on animal performance, carcass and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 1454–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carvalho, J.R.R.; Chizzotti, M.L.; Schoonmaker, J.P.; Teixeira, P.D.; Lopes, R.C.; Oliveira, C.V.R.; Ladeira, M.M. Performance, carcass characteristics, and ruminal pH of Nellore and Angus young bulls fed a whole shelled corn diet. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 2451–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kamali, F.P.; van der Linden, A.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Malafaia, G.C.; Lansink, A.G.J.M.O.; Boer, I.J.M. Environmental and economic performance of beef farming systems with different feeding strategies in southern Brazil. Agric. Syst. 2016, 146, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci 2017, 128, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hocquette, J.F.; Chatellier, V. Prospects for the European beef sector over the next 30 years. Anim. Front. 2011, 1, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Maggioni, D.; Marques, J.A.; Rotta, P.P.; Perotto, D.; Ducatti, T.; Visentainer, J.V.; Prado, I.N.D. Animal performance and meat quality of crossbred young bulls. Livest Sci. 2010, 127, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lozano, M.S.R.; Ngapo, T.M.; Huerta-Leidenz, N. Tropical beef: Is there an axiomatic basis to define the concept? Foods 2021, 10, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jones, F.M.; Phillips, F.A.; Naylor, T.; Mercer, N.B. Methane emissions from grazing Angus beef cows selected for divergent residual feed intake. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ludtke, C.B.; Costa, O.A.D.; Roça R de, O.; Silveira, E.T.F.; Athayde, N.B.; de Araújo, A.P.; Mello Junior, A.; Azambuja, N.C. Bem-estar animal no manejo pré-abate e a influência na qualidade da carne suína e nos parâmetros fisiológicos do estresse. Ciência Rural 2012, 42, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ornaghi, M.G.; Guerrero, A.; Vital, A.C.P.; Souza, K.A.; Passetti, R.A.C.; Mottin, C.; Castilho, R.C.; Sañudo, C.; Prado, I. Improvements in the quality of meat from beef cattle fed natural additives. Meat Sci. 2020, 163, 108059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wesley, R.L.; Cibils, A.F.; Mulliniks, J.T.; Pollak, E.R.; Petersen, M.K.; Fredrickson, E.L. An assessment of behavioural syndromes in rangeland-raised beef cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 139, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aurélio Neto, O. O Brasil no mercado mundial de carne bovina: Análise da competitividade da produção e da logística de exportação brasileira. Ateliê Geográfico 2018, 12, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mota, R.G.; Marçal, W.S. Comportamento e bem-estar animal de bovinos confinados: Alternativas para uma produção eficiente, rentável e de qualidade: Revisão bibliográfica. Rev. Brasil. Hig. E Sanid. Anim. 2019, 13, 125–141. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6997432 (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  29. Brasil. Decreto nº 9.013, de 29 de Março de 2017. Regulamenta a Lei nº 1.283, de 18 de Dezembro de 1950, e a Lei nº 7.889, de 23 de Novembro de 1989, que DISPÕEM Sobre a Inspeção Industrial e Sanitária de Produtos de Origem Animal. 2017. Diário Oficial da União, 30 de março de 2017. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2017/Decreto/D9013.htm (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  30. Steele, M.A.; Greenwood, S.L.; Croom, J.; McBride, B.W. An increase in dietary non-structural carbohydrates alters the structure and metabolism of the rumen epithelium in lambs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 92, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Casagranda, Y.G.; Wiśniewska-Paluszak, J.; Paluszak, G.; Mores, G.V.; Moro, L.D.; Malafaia, G.C.; de Azevedo, D.B.; Zhang, D. Emergent research themes on sustainability in the beef cattle industry in Brazil: An integrative literature review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mottin, C.; Ornaghi, M.G.; Carvalho, V.M.; Guerrero, A.; Vital, A.C.P.; Ramos, T.R.; Bonin, E.; Araujo, F.L.; Castilho, R.A.; Prado, I.N. Carcass characteristics and meat evaluation of cattle finished in temperate pasture and supplemented with natural additive containing clove, cashew oil, castor oils, and a microencapsulated blend of eugenol, thymol, and vanillin. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 1271–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Abril, M.; Campo, M.M.; Önenç, A.; Sañudo, C.; Albertí, P.; Negueruela, A.I. Beef colour evolution as a function of ultimate pH. Meat Sci. 2001, 58, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Page, J.K.; Wulf, D.M.; Schwotzer, T.R. A survey of beef muscle color and pH. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 678–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mach, N.; Bach, A.; Velarde, A.; Devant, M. Association between animal, transportation, slaughterhouse practices, and meat pH in beef. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mancini, R.A.; Hunt, M.C. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 100–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bureš, D.; Bartoň, L. Performance, carcass traits and meat quality of Aberdeen Angus, Gascon, Holstein and Fleckvieh finishing bulls. Livest Sci. 2018, 214, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fruet, A.P.B.; Mello, A.; Trombetta, F.; Stefanello, F.S.; Speroni, C.S.; Vargas, D.P.; Souza, A.N.M.; Rosado Junior, A.G.; Tonetto, C.J.; Nornberg, J.L. Oxidative stability of beef from steers finished exclusively with concentrate, supplemented, or on legume-grass pasture. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pulford, D.J.; Dobbie, P.; Fraga Vazquez, S.; Fraser-Smith, E.; Frost, D.A.; Morris, C.A. Variation in bull beef quality due to ultimate muscle pH is correlated to endopeptidase and small heat shock protein levels. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Costa, M.A.L.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Paulino, M.F.; Valadares, R.F.D.; Cecon, P.R.; Paulino, P.V.R.; Moraes, E.H.B.K.; Magalhaes, K.A. Desempenho, digestibilidade e características de carcaça de novilhos zebuínos alimentados com dietas contendo diferentes níveis de concentrado. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2005, 34, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Prado, I.N.; Eiras, C.E.; Fugita, C.A.; Passetti, R.A.C.; Ornaghi, M.G.; Rivaroli, D.C.; Pinto, A.A.; Moleta, J.L. Animal performance and carcass characteristics of bulls (1/2 Purunã vs 1/2 Canchim) slaughtered at 16 and 22 months old, and three different weights. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Malafaia, G.C.; Mores, G.V.; Casagranda, Y.G.; Barcellos, J.O.J.; Costa, F.P. The Brazilian beef cattle supply chain in the next decades. Livest Sci. 2021, 253, 104704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Galyean, M.L.; Hales, K.E. Feeding management strategies to mitigate methane and improve production efficiency in feedlot cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Morais, H.B.; Chardulo, L.A.L.; Baldassini, W.A.; Lippi, I.C.C.; Orsi, G.B.; Ruviaro, C.F. Environmental impacts of high-quality brazilian beef production: A comparative life cycle assessment of premium and super-premium beef. Animals 2023, 13, 3578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Agostinho, F.; Giannetti, B.F.; Huisingh, D. Integrating cleaner production into sustainability strategies: An introduction to this special volume. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smith, A.P.; Metcalf, A.; Meltcalf, E.C.; Yung, L.; Swinger, B.; Cummins, T.M.; Chaffin, B.C.; Shuver, A.; Slattery, D. US beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Caniglia, G.; Schäpke, N.; Lang, D.J.; Abson, D.J.; Luederitz, C.; Wiek, A.; Laubichler, M.D.; Gralla, F.; Von Wehrden, H. Experiments and evidence in sustainability science: A typology. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 169, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dick, M.; Silva, M.A.; Dewes, H. Mitigation of environmental impacts of beef cattle production in southern Brazil—Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nguyen, T.L.T.; Hermansen, J.E.; Mogensen, L. Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 756–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Chemical composition of experimental diets.
Table 1. Chemical composition of experimental diets.
NutrimentsPasture 1Pasture 2Feedlot
Dry matter, %14.1057.3886.18
Crude protein, %/DM10.8712.5214.57
Organic matter, %/DM85.1386.7291.06
Ashes, %/DM14.8713.288.94
Ether extract, %/DM2.882.264.42
Crude fiber, %/DM32.0020.5711.89
Neutral detergent fiber, %/DM63.0538.6525.23
Acid detergent fiber, %/DM42.5624.5315.01
Lignin, %/DM12.684.223.00
Starch, %/DM4.5821.513.60
Carbohydrates non fibers, %/DM11.2534.4248.56
Total digestible nutrients, %/DM45.6168.6577.77
Metabolizable energy, Kcal/kg2.1502.6103.000
1 Low Quality Pasture (Brachiaria ruziziencies). 2 Good Quality Pasture (Brachiaria pasture, fertilized and corrected).
Table 2. Effect of production system on productive parameters of crossbred bulls.
Table 2. Effect of production system on productive parameters of crossbred bulls.
ParametersPASTU 1FELOT 2PRIME 3SEM 4p Value
n101010
Weaning age, months6.736.676.822.5810.038
Brachiaria pasture, months11.27-- -
Improved pasture, months--8.22 -
Feedlot, months4.00 a11.3 a5.00 b2.5820.012
Slaughter age, months22.00 a18.00 c20.00 b0.5020.012
Average daily gain, kg0.82 c1.11 a0.97 b0.3050.016
1 PASTU—Bulls raised on extensive Brachiaria pasture and finished in feedlot, 2 FELOT—Bulls raised on corrected and fertilized pasture and finished in feedlot, 3 PRIME—Bulls raised and fin-ished in feedlot, 4 SEM—Standard Error of the Mean. Means followed by different letters in the same lines are different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Effect of production system on carcass parameters of crossbred bulls.
Table 3. Effect of production system on carcass parameters of crossbred bulls.
ParametersPASTU 1FELOT 2PRIME 3SEM 4p Value
n101010
Slaughter weight, kg542.30 c599.50 a580.00 b8.8450.001
Hot carcass weight, kg295.55 c340.09 a323.23 b5.8910.001
Cold carcass weight, kg291.12 c334.99 a318.38 b4.8880.036
Hot carcass dressing, %54.5056.7355.730.5650.071
Cold carcass dressing, %53.6855.8854.890.5650.068
Dripping losses, %0.820.950.830.0350.775
1 PASTU—Bulls raised on extensive Brachiaria pasture and finished in feedlot, 2 FELOT—Bulls raised on corrected and fertilized pasture and finished in feedlot, 3 PRIME—Bulls raised and finished in feedlot, 4 SEM—Standard Error of the Mean. Means followed by different letters in the same lines are different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Effect of production system on animal performance, carcass characteristics, pH, marbling and tissue composition of crossbred bulls.
Table 4. Effect of production system on animal performance, carcass characteristics, pH, marbling and tissue composition of crossbred bulls.
ParametersPASTU 1FELOT 2PRIME 3SEM 4p Value
n101010
pH5.67 b5.64 b5.84 a0.0230.002
Finishing degree, points1.301.401.400.1500.775
Subcutaneous fat thickness, mm6.76 b7.51 a7.89 a0.7370.021
LDA (Longissimus dorsi area), cm2113.53 a114.19 b115.93 a3.1170.011
Ratio0.470.440.440.010.782
Marbling, frequency, %
Little16.00 a10.00 b4.00 c2.820.001
Reasonable14.00 b28.00 a16.00 b3.550.001
Good38.00 b28.00 c48.00 a4.690.001
Very good32.0034.0032.000.530.305
Excessive0.000.000.000.001.000
Tissue composition, %
Muscle62.6362.1862.241.1200.320
Adipose18.50 b21.39 a20.18 a0.8320.041
Bone18.34 a15.85 b16.92 b0.7130.042
Others0.530.580.660.0630.670
1 PASTU—Bulls raised on extensive Brachiaria pasture and finished in feedlot, 2 FELOT—Bulls raised on corrected and fertilized pasture and finished in feedlot, 3 PRIME—Bulls raised and finished in feedlot, 4 SEM—Standard Error of the Mean. Means followed by different letters in the same lines are different (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pauly, J.F.; Ferracini, J.G.; Freire, H.R.; Saraiva, B.R.; Velandia, M.V.; Guerrero, A.; Prado, R.M.d.; Prado, I.N.d. Animal Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in Different Production Systems in the Tropics. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8497. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158497

AMA Style

Pauly JF, Ferracini JG, Freire HR, Saraiva BR, Velandia MV, Guerrero A, Prado RMd, Prado INd. Animal Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in Different Production Systems in the Tropics. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(15):8497. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158497

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pauly, Jean Fagner, Jéssica Geralda Ferracini, Henrique Rorato Freire, Bianka Rocha Saraiva, Maribel Valero Velandia, Ana Guerrero, Rodolpho Martin do Prado, and Ivanor Nunes do Prado. 2025. "Animal Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in Different Production Systems in the Tropics" Applied Sciences 15, no. 15: 8497. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158497

APA Style

Pauly, J. F., Ferracini, J. G., Freire, H. R., Saraiva, B. R., Velandia, M. V., Guerrero, A., Prado, R. M. d., & Prado, I. N. d. (2025). Animal Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Crossbred Bulls Finished in Different Production Systems in the Tropics. Applied Sciences, 15(15), 8497. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15158497

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop