TY - JOUR
AU - Sawyer, Jason T
AB - Abstract Effects of using ground woody plants in Rambouillet wether lamb (n = 48) feedlot diets on carcass characteristics, adipose tissue fatty acid composition, and sensory panel traits were evaluated. In a randomized design study with two feeding periods (period 1 = fed a 70% concentrate diet from days 0 to 27; period 2 = fed an 86% concentrate diet from days 28 to 57), lambs were individually fed six diets that differed only by roughage source (n = 8 animals/treatment; initial BW = 32.9 ± 3.2 kg): cottonseed hulls (CSH; control) or ground wood consisting of either redberry (RED), blueberry (BLUE), one-seed (ONE), or eastern red cedar (ERC) Juniperus spp., or Prosopis glandulosa (MESQ). After 57 d, the lambs were humanely harvested and after chilling (2 ± 1 oC) 24 h, carcasses were evaluated for carcass traits. At 48 h postmortem, the longissimus thoracis (LT) was removed from the left side of the carcass, and after freezing for no more than 3 mo, were thawed for 24 h, cooked, and evaluated by a trained sensory panel. Additionally, volatile aroma chemicals on the LT were determined by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer/olfactory (GC/MS/OF, respectively) analyses. Lamb HCW was greater (P = 0.01) for lambs fed CSH compared with all other diets, but lambs had similar (P > 0.08) LM area, back fat thickness, leg circumference, and body wall. Neither adipose tissue fatty acid composition (P > 0.08) nor trained sensory panel evaluation (P > 0.18) was affected by finishing diet roughage source. Of the 81 volatile aroma compounds found in the grilled lamb chops, only seven were affected (P < 0.05) by dietary roughage source and included 1-pentanol (a sweet, pleasant aroma), heptenal (a fishy aroma), pentanal (fermented, bready aroma description), 1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone (caramel-like), 2-heptanone (cheesy, banana, fruity aromatic), 6,7-dodecanedione (unknown aroma), and butanoic acid (a sweaty, rancid aroma). The addition of any of four species of juniper or mesquite may be substituted for CSH without negatively affecting carcass fat and muscling, fatty acid, or sensory traits. INTRODUCTION Widely fluctuating costs of feed ingredients has made finding alternatives to traditional sources of feedstuffs a priority for animal producers today. Utilizing plant material that is otherwise thought a nuisance could be a good method to reduce feed costs. Juniperus and Prosopis spp. fit this description as it is invasive in pastures and can effectively be incorporated into sheep (Stewart et al., 2015; Whitney et al., 2014, 2017a), goat (Glasscock et al., 2015), and cattle (Marion, et al., 1957; Whitney et al., 2017b) feed. Furthermore, the juniper genus is widely distributed and covers more than 50 million ha in the western United States (Van Auken and Smeins, 2008). Whitney et al. (2011) reported that substituting redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) for cottonseed hulls (CSH) resulted in no impact on carcass characteristics, but a linear increase in myristic, palmitoleic, and arachidonic acids and a linear decrease in stearic acid as the amount of juniper in the diet increased. Additionally, off-flavor scores increased linearly with increasing amounts of juniper in the diet, but only a 0.2 sensory unit difference was detected. This increase in off-flavor was likely attributed to the presence of secondary compounds in the leaves of the juniper such as monoterpenoids (Bailey et al., 1994). Nevertheless, Whitney and Smith (2015) replaced up to 100% of the hay in lamb feedlot diets and found no difference in sensory off-flavor. In fact, feeding increased levels of redberry juniper in the place of hay linearly increased the juiciness, tenderness, and flavor intensity of lamb chops. To this point, no known literature exists that evaluates the influence of different species of juniper or mesquite in lamb feedlot finishing diets on carcass traits, fatty acids, or sensory properties of lamb meat. Thus, we hypothesized that feeding any of four different species of juniper or mesquite to replace CSH would not affect lamb carcass traits, fatty acids, or sensory traits. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experimental protocol was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Detailed descriptions of animals, management, woody plant harvesting and processing, nutrient analysis and composition, lamb growth performance, blood serum chemistry, and rumen fluid characteristics were reported in a companion paper (Whitney et al., 2017a). Animals and Management Rambouillet wether lambs (48 total lambs; approximate age = 4 mo; initial BW = 32.9 ± 3.2 kg) had previously been on pasture; thus, a 19 d feedyard adaptation period was used. Unshorn lambs received an ear tag, subcutaneous clostridial vaccine (Vision 7 with SPUR, Intervet, Inc., Omaha, NE), and an oral dose of levamisole (Prohibit, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO). During the first 12 d of the adaptation period, lambs were group-fed and had ad libitum access to oat hay, which was supplemented with a 60% concentrate diet. Seven days before study initiation, lambs were weighed, stratified by BW, and randomly assigned to an individual, completely covered dirt pen (2.44 × 2.97 m) with automatic watering system and feed bunk. Each lamb was also randomly assigned to a treatment diet (n = 8 lambs/diet) that differed only by roughage source: either CSH or a ground woody product consisting of either J. pinchotii (redberry juniper; RED), Juniperus ashei (blueberry juniper; BLUE), Juniperus monosperma (one-seeded juniper; ONE), Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar; ERC), or Prosopis glandulosa (honey mesquite; MESQ). During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed their respective 70% concentrate treatment diet. All mixed diets were nonagglomerated, contained 22 g of monensin/metric ton of feed (Rumensin 90, Elanco, Indianapolis, IN), and fed once daily at 0900 h with an approximate allowance of 10% refusal. Lambs were then transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57), onto their respective 86% concentrate treatment diet by gradually replacing the period 1 diet with the period 2 diet. Sample Collection and Measurements Woody plant harvesting, feed collection, and analysis. The entire above-ground biomass from mature Juniperus spp. (juniper; including leaves) and mature P. glandulosa (mesquite; excluding leaves) trees was harvested separately by species, chipped, and mechanically dried to approximately 93% DM in a drying trailer. Chipped material was hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve (Sentry, model 100; Mix-Mill Feed Processing Systems, Bluffton, IN), bagged, and stored under cover. Subsamples were dried to constant weight in a forced-air oven at 103 °C to determine DM concentration. Nutritive characteristics of woody plants were evaluated using random subsamples of mechanically dried and hammermilled (4.76 mm screen) woody plants. Subsamples of CSH, sorghum grain, and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) were collected six times throughout the trial; the first three and last three subsamples were combined separately by period for analysis (Table 1). Three random subsamples of treatment diets were collected during both periods, combined by period, and analyzed separately (Table 2). These samples were dried at 55 °C in a forced-air oven (model 630, NAPCO, Portland, OR) for 48 h, ground through a 1 mm screen (Wiley mill, Arthur H. Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA), and stored at −20 °C. Nitrogen was analyzed by a standard method (Method 990.03; AOAC, 2006) and CP calculated as 6.25 × N. The NDF and ADF were analyzed according to the procedures of Van Soest et al. (1991), which were modified for an Ankom 2000 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technol. Corp., Fairport, NY) using α-amylase and Na sulfite. In addition, N was analyzed in residue remaining after the ADF procedure and multiplied by 6.25 to determine acid detergent insoluble CP (ADICP). Standard methods were used to analyze lignin (AOAC 973.18; AOAC, 2006), crude fat (Method 2003.05; AOAC., 2006) and ash (Method 942.05; AOAC, 2006). For individual mineral analysis, samples were first digested with a Microwave Accelerated Reaction System (MARS6) and then analyzed by a Thermo Jarrell Ash IRIS Advantage HX Inductively Coupled Plasma Radial Spectrometer (Thermo Instrument Systems, Inc., Waltham, MA). Condensed tannins in the juniper, mesquite, CSH, and sorghum grain were assayed for soluble, protein-bound, and fiber-bound fractions by methods described by Terrill et al. (1992); samples were oven dried and standards prepared for each individual ingredient as recommended by Wolfe et al. (2008). Table 1. Chemical composition (% DM basis) of cottonseed hulls, sorghum grain, and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), and ground Juniperus spp. and P. glandulosa used in the treatment diets Itema  Ingredientb  Cottonseed hulls  Sorghum grain  DDGS  J.pin  J.ash  J.mon  J.vir  P.glan  Nutrient composition   DM, %  92.3  92.6  91.8  93.9  93.8  95.4  93.8  91.9   CP, %  3.5  11.9  30.4  2.9  2.8  2.5  3.8  5.7   ADICP, %  3.2  1.5  1.3  1.5  1.6  1.4  1.8  2.5   aNDF, %  85.2  7.0  30.4  62.1  65.0  71.0  68.0  74.7   ADF, %  62.1  5.3  12.9  49.4  52.1  57.9  55.8  57.8   Lignin, %  16.4  0.9  2.9  19.4  21.2  23.2  21.7  17.9   Crude fat, %  0.6  3.1  8.7  3.2  3.2  4.5  4.1  6.2   Ash, %  3.6  3.6  4.7  4.9  4.8  3.4  4.4  4.3   Ca, %  0.12  0.04  0.07  1.31  1.53  1.27  1.37  1.42   P, %  0.04  0.21  0.88  0.04  0.04  0.03  0.06  0.03   S, %  0.06  0.14  0.93  0.07  0.04  0.04  0.05  0.06   K, %  0.99  0.34  1.33  0.33  0.16  0.11  0.24  0.35   Mg, %  0.14  0.12  0.38  0.06  0.04  0.03  0.1  0.02   Na, %  0.01  0.01  0.31  1.25  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  CT, %  31.1  –  –             Extractable  1.4  0  –  2.8  3.2  1.8  2.4  0.9   Protein-bound  1.8  0  –  2.1  2.3  1.9  2.3  3.8   Fiber-bound  0.2  0  –  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.1   Total  3.2  0  –  4.9  5.5  3.7  4.7  4.7  Itema  Ingredientb  Cottonseed hulls  Sorghum grain  DDGS  J.pin  J.ash  J.mon  J.vir  P.glan  Nutrient composition   DM, %  92.3  92.6  91.8  93.9  93.8  95.4  93.8  91.9   CP, %  3.5  11.9  30.4  2.9  2.8  2.5  3.8  5.7   ADICP, %  3.2  1.5  1.3  1.5  1.6  1.4  1.8  2.5   aNDF, %  85.2  7.0  30.4  62.1  65.0  71.0  68.0  74.7   ADF, %  62.1  5.3  12.9  49.4  52.1  57.9  55.8  57.8   Lignin, %  16.4  0.9  2.9  19.4  21.2  23.2  21.7  17.9   Crude fat, %  0.6  3.1  8.7  3.2  3.2  4.5  4.1  6.2   Ash, %  3.6  3.6  4.7  4.9  4.8  3.4  4.4  4.3   Ca, %  0.12  0.04  0.07  1.31  1.53  1.27  1.37  1.42   P, %  0.04  0.21  0.88  0.04  0.04  0.03  0.06  0.03   S, %  0.06  0.14  0.93  0.07  0.04  0.04  0.05  0.06   K, %  0.99  0.34  1.33  0.33  0.16  0.11  0.24  0.35   Mg, %  0.14  0.12  0.38  0.06  0.04  0.03  0.1  0.02   Na, %  0.01  0.01  0.31  1.25  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  CT, %  31.1  –  –             Extractable  1.4  0  –  2.8  3.2  1.8  2.4  0.9   Protein-bound  1.8  0  –  2.1  2.3  1.9  2.3  3.8   Fiber-bound  0.2  0  –  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.1   Total  3.2  0  –  4.9  5.5  3.7  4.7  4.7  These data have previously been reported in a companion paper (Whitney et al., 2017a). aADICP = acid detergent insoluble CP; CT = condensed tannins. bJ.pin = Juniperus pinchotii; J.ash = J. ashei; J.mon = J. monosperma; and J.vir = J. virginiana (entire above-ground biomass); P.glan = Prosopis glandulosa (entire above-ground biomass excluding leaves); DDGS = corn–dried distillers grains with solubles produced from corn ethanol production (POET, Sioux Falls, SD). View Large Table 1. Chemical composition (% DM basis) of cottonseed hulls, sorghum grain, and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), and ground Juniperus spp. and P. glandulosa used in the treatment diets Itema  Ingredientb  Cottonseed hulls  Sorghum grain  DDGS  J.pin  J.ash  J.mon  J.vir  P.glan  Nutrient composition   DM, %  92.3  92.6  91.8  93.9  93.8  95.4  93.8  91.9   CP, %  3.5  11.9  30.4  2.9  2.8  2.5  3.8  5.7   ADICP, %  3.2  1.5  1.3  1.5  1.6  1.4  1.8  2.5   aNDF, %  85.2  7.0  30.4  62.1  65.0  71.0  68.0  74.7   ADF, %  62.1  5.3  12.9  49.4  52.1  57.9  55.8  57.8   Lignin, %  16.4  0.9  2.9  19.4  21.2  23.2  21.7  17.9   Crude fat, %  0.6  3.1  8.7  3.2  3.2  4.5  4.1  6.2   Ash, %  3.6  3.6  4.7  4.9  4.8  3.4  4.4  4.3   Ca, %  0.12  0.04  0.07  1.31  1.53  1.27  1.37  1.42   P, %  0.04  0.21  0.88  0.04  0.04  0.03  0.06  0.03   S, %  0.06  0.14  0.93  0.07  0.04  0.04  0.05  0.06   K, %  0.99  0.34  1.33  0.33  0.16  0.11  0.24  0.35   Mg, %  0.14  0.12  0.38  0.06  0.04  0.03  0.1  0.02   Na, %  0.01  0.01  0.31  1.25  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  CT, %  31.1  –  –             Extractable  1.4  0  –  2.8  3.2  1.8  2.4  0.9   Protein-bound  1.8  0  –  2.1  2.3  1.9  2.3  3.8   Fiber-bound  0.2  0  –  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.1   Total  3.2  0  –  4.9  5.5  3.7  4.7  4.7  Itema  Ingredientb  Cottonseed hulls  Sorghum grain  DDGS  J.pin  J.ash  J.mon  J.vir  P.glan  Nutrient composition   DM, %  92.3  92.6  91.8  93.9  93.8  95.4  93.8  91.9   CP, %  3.5  11.9  30.4  2.9  2.8  2.5  3.8  5.7   ADICP, %  3.2  1.5  1.3  1.5  1.6  1.4  1.8  2.5   aNDF, %  85.2  7.0  30.4  62.1  65.0  71.0  68.0  74.7   ADF, %  62.1  5.3  12.9  49.4  52.1  57.9  55.8  57.8   Lignin, %  16.4  0.9  2.9  19.4  21.2  23.2  21.7  17.9   Crude fat, %  0.6  3.1  8.7  3.2  3.2  4.5  4.1  6.2   Ash, %  3.6  3.6  4.7  4.9  4.8  3.4  4.4  4.3   Ca, %  0.12  0.04  0.07  1.31  1.53  1.27  1.37  1.42   P, %  0.04  0.21  0.88  0.04  0.04  0.03  0.06  0.03   S, %  0.06  0.14  0.93  0.07  0.04  0.04  0.05  0.06   K, %  0.99  0.34  1.33  0.33  0.16  0.11  0.24  0.35   Mg, %  0.14  0.12  0.38  0.06  0.04  0.03  0.1  0.02   Na, %  0.01  0.01  0.31  1.25  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  CT, %  31.1  –  –             Extractable  1.4  0  –  2.8  3.2  1.8  2.4  0.9   Protein-bound  1.8  0  –  2.1  2.3  1.9  2.3  3.8   Fiber-bound  0.2  0  –  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.1   Total  3.2  0  –  4.9  5.5  3.7  4.7  4.7  These data have previously been reported in a companion paper (Whitney et al., 2017a). aADICP = acid detergent insoluble CP; CT = condensed tannins. bJ.pin = Juniperus pinchotii; J.ash = J. ashei; J.mon = J. monosperma; and J.vir = J. virginiana (entire above-ground biomass); P.glan = Prosopis glandulosa (entire above-ground biomass excluding leaves); DDGS = corn–dried distillers grains with solubles produced from corn ethanol production (POET, Sioux Falls, SD). View Large Table 2. Ingredient and chemical composition (% DM basis) of treatment diets Itema  Dietb  Period 1  Period 2  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  Cottonseed hulls  30.0  –  –  –  –  –  14.0  –  –  –  –  –  Ground woody product  –  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  –  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  DDGS  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  Ground sorghum grain  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  Molasses, cane  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  Limestone  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  Mineral premix  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  Nutrient composition, %   DM  91.9  90.8  90.6  91.6  91.4  91.2  90.6  89.6  89.9  90.1  90.0  89.7   CP  18.2  18.5  18.6  17.3  18.5  18.8  19.1  19.8  19.1  18.5  19.3  19.7   aNDF  32.6  34.8  33.2  37.9  34.6  36.6  25.4  25.7  23.1  26.3  25.6  26.6   ADF  16.4  19.9  19.0  22.7  20.4  19.7  13.5  13.6  12.9  14.7  13.3  12.1   Ca  1.2  1.4  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.4  1.2  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.2  1.4   P  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5   Ca:P  2.3  2.7  2.9  2.8  2.9  3.0  2.4  2.7  2.8  2.7  2.5  2.9   Ash  8.1  8.0  8.5  7.7  8.5  8.4  7.8  9.1  8.3  8.0  8.1  8.5  Itema  Dietb  Period 1  Period 2  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  Cottonseed hulls  30.0  –  –  –  –  –  14.0  –  –  –  –  –  Ground woody product  –  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  –  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  DDGS  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  Ground sorghum grain  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  Molasses, cane  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  Limestone  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  Mineral premix  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  Nutrient composition, %   DM  91.9  90.8  90.6  91.6  91.4  91.2  90.6  89.6  89.9  90.1  90.0  89.7   CP  18.2  18.5  18.6  17.3  18.5  18.8  19.1  19.8  19.1  18.5  19.3  19.7   aNDF  32.6  34.8  33.2  37.9  34.6  36.6  25.4  25.7  23.1  26.3  25.6  26.6   ADF  16.4  19.9  19.0  22.7  20.4  19.7  13.5  13.6  12.9  14.7  13.3  12.1   Ca  1.2  1.4  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.4  1.2  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.2  1.4   P  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5   Ca:P  2.3  2.7  2.9  2.8  2.9  3.0  2.4  2.7  2.8  2.7  2.5  2.9   Ash  8.1  8.0  8.5  7.7  8.5  8.4  7.8  9.1  8.3  8.0  8.1  8.5  These data have previously been reported in a companion paper Whitney et al., 2017a). aDDGS = dried distillers grains with solubles were a byproduct of corn ethanol production (POET, Sioux Falls, SD); Mineral premix = NaCl, KCl, S, MnO, ZnO, vitamins A, D, and E, CaCO3, cottonseed meal, cane molasses, and animal fat. bDuring period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Treatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass excluding leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. Monensin (Rumensin 90, Elanco, Indianapolis, IN) was added to each diet at 22 g/t of feed. View Large Table 2. Ingredient and chemical composition (% DM basis) of treatment diets Itema  Dietb  Period 1  Period 2  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  Cottonseed hulls  30.0  –  –  –  –  –  14.0  –  –  –  –  –  Ground woody product  –  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  –  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  DDGS  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  Ground sorghum grain  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  Molasses, cane  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  Limestone  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  Mineral premix  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  Nutrient composition, %   DM  91.9  90.8  90.6  91.6  91.4  91.2  90.6  89.6  89.9  90.1  90.0  89.7   CP  18.2  18.5  18.6  17.3  18.5  18.8  19.1  19.8  19.1  18.5  19.3  19.7   aNDF  32.6  34.8  33.2  37.9  34.6  36.6  25.4  25.7  23.1  26.3  25.6  26.6   ADF  16.4  19.9  19.0  22.7  20.4  19.7  13.5  13.6  12.9  14.7  13.3  12.1   Ca  1.2  1.4  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.4  1.2  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.2  1.4   P  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5   Ca:P  2.3  2.7  2.9  2.8  2.9  3.0  2.4  2.7  2.8  2.7  2.5  2.9   Ash  8.1  8.0  8.5  7.7  8.5  8.4  7.8  9.1  8.3  8.0  8.1  8.5  Itema  Dietb  Period 1  Period 2  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  CSH  RED  BLU  ONE  ERC  MESQ  Cottonseed hulls  30.0  –  –  –  –  –  14.0  –  –  –  –  –  Ground woody product  –  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  30.0  –  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  14.0  DDGS  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  Ground sorghum grain  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  21.7  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  37.6  Molasses, cane  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  Limestone  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.2  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  2.3  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  0.6  Mineral premix  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  Nutrient composition, %   DM  91.9  90.8  90.6  91.6  91.4  91.2  90.6  89.6  89.9  90.1  90.0  89.7   CP  18.2  18.5  18.6  17.3  18.5  18.8  19.1  19.8  19.1  18.5  19.3  19.7   aNDF  32.6  34.8  33.2  37.9  34.6  36.6  25.4  25.7  23.1  26.3  25.6  26.6   ADF  16.4  19.9  19.0  22.7  20.4  19.7  13.5  13.6  12.9  14.7  13.3  12.1   Ca  1.2  1.4  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.4  1.2  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.2  1.4   P  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5   Ca:P  2.3  2.7  2.9  2.8  2.9  3.0  2.4  2.7  2.8  2.7  2.5  2.9   Ash  8.1  8.0  8.5  7.7  8.5  8.4  7.8  9.1  8.3  8.0  8.1  8.5  These data have previously been reported in a companion paper Whitney et al., 2017a). aDDGS = dried distillers grains with solubles were a byproduct of corn ethanol production (POET, Sioux Falls, SD); Mineral premix = NaCl, KCl, S, MnO, ZnO, vitamins A, D, and E, CaCO3, cottonseed meal, cane molasses, and animal fat. bDuring period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Treatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass excluding leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. Monensin (Rumensin 90, Elanco, Indianapolis, IN) was added to each diet at 22 g/t of feed. View Large Carcass characteristics and feed and adipose tissue fatty acid composition. Lambs were harvested after a 24 h fast, shrunk BW and HCW recorded, and carcasses chilled at 2 ± 1 °C. At 48 h postmortem, each carcass was cut through the vertebrae and longissimus thoracis (LT) between the 12th and 13th ribs for carcass evaluation. Carcasses were analyzed to determine LM area, backfat thickness at the 12th rib (BF), dressing percent (HCW/shrunk BW just prior to harvest × 100), yield grade (0.4 + (10 × BF in/2.54)), body wall thickness, and circumference of both legs across the femur-acetabulum joints on the intact carcass (USDA, 1997). At 48 h postmortem, the LM was removed from the left side of each carcass by deboning the LM from the thoracic vertebrae according to procedures of the North American Meat Processors (NAMP, 1997). Five chops, 2.54 cm thick, were cut starting from the posterior end; the first chop was designated for fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis, cut to straighten the LM face, vacuum-packaged separately, and stored at −80 °C until analyzed. Subsequently, four 2.54-cm-thick chops were serially cut for sensory analysis, labeled, vacuum packaged separately, and stored at −10 °C until analyzed. A subsample was collected from a cross section of the LM, including any residual intermuscular fat, and pulverized in liquid nitrogen. Total lipids were extracted by a modification of the method of Folch et al. (1957). Adipose tissue (100 mg) was extracted in chloroform:methanol (2:1, vol/vol) and FAME prepared as described by Morrison and Smith (1964), modified to include an additional saponification step (Archibeque et al., 2005). The FAMEs were analyzed using a Varian gas chromatograph (GC; model CP-3800 fixed with a CP-8200 autosampler; Varian, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA). Separation of FAME was accomplished on a fused silica capillary column CP-Sil88 (100 m long × 0.25 mm i.d.; Chrompack, Inc., Middleburg, the Netherlands; helium as carrier gas [flow rate = 1.2 mL/min]). After 32 min at 180 °C, oven temperature was increased at 20 °C/min to 225 °C and held for 13.75 min; total run time was 48 min. Injector and detector temperatures were at 270 °C and 300 °C, respectively. Individual fatty acids were identified using genuine external standards (Nu-Chek Prep, Inc., Elysian, MN). Sensory panel evaluation. A trained sensory panel (six members; Cross et al., 1978) evaluated chops cut from the loin section (American Meat Science Association, 1995) and completed within 1 d. Randomly selected chops were allowed to thaw for 24 h at 2 ± 1 °C and cooked on a clam-shell style grill for 7 min, resulting in a final internal temperature of 71 °C (Kerth et al., 2003). Samples were trimmed to less than 0.64 cm of outside fat and connective tissue, cut into 1.3 cm × 1.3 cm chop portions, and placed in warming pans until served to panelist. Chop samples were evaluated for initial and sustained juiciness, initial and sustained tenderness, and flavor intensity on a scale of 1 to 8, where 1 = extremely dry, tough, and bland, and 8 = extremely juicy, tender, and intense, respectively. Chops were also evaluated for off-flavor on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = extreme off-flavor and 4 = no off-flavor. Samples from each chop were evaluated by panelists that were secluded in partitioned booths with controlled levels of red incandescent light. A “warm-up” sample chop was served at initiation of each sensory session, followed by 6 to 8 samples per session. Panelists were instructed to cleanse their palate with a salt-free cracker and water before each sample. Panelists’ sensory scores for each trait were averaged for each animal and the average score was used for statistical analyses. Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. After steaks were cooked, all external fat was removed and each steak was cut into pieces as would be done for sensory (1.3 cm × 1.3 cm × steak thickness cubes). Twelve pieces were placed in a 473 mL glass jar with a Teflon lid and placed in a water bath held at 60 oC to approximate normal holding temperature for sensory analyses. After equilibrating for 20 min, a solid-phase microextraction Portable Field Sampler (Supelco 504831, 75 μm Carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane [PDMS], Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was inserted through the lid and the headspace above each meat sample in the glass jar was collected for 2 h. Upon completion of collection, the solid-phase microextraction apparatus was removed from the jar and injected into the injection port of a GC (Agilent Technologies 7920 series GC, Santa Clara, CA) where the sample was desorbed at 280 °C for 3 min. The sample was then loaded onto the multidimensional GC into the first column (30 m × 0.53 mm ID/BPX5 [5% phenyl polysilphenylene-siloxane] × 0.5 μm, SGE Analytical Sciences, Austin, TX) using helium as the carrier gas. Through the first column, the temperature started at 40 °C and increased at a rate of 7 °C/min until reaching 260 °C. Upon passing through the first column, the compounds passed on to a second column (30 m × 0.53 mm ID [BP20 − polyethylene glycol] × 0.50 μm, SGE Analytical Sciences). The GC column then went to a three-way valve split to two olfactory (OF) ports and a third to a mass spectrometer (MS; Agilent Technologies 5975 series MS, Santa Clara, CA) for quantification and identification, using the Wiley Chemical Library. Only those volatile chemical compounds present during an aroma event detected by the GC-MS and OF operator were retained for analyses. Statistical Analysis Data for all traits were analyzed using JMP version 13.0 (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC, USA) using ANOVA for a completely randomize design with finishing diet (CSH, RED, BLUE, ONE, ERC, or MESQ) as a fixed treatment effect. Least squares means were generated and separated using Student’s t-test when a significant (P < 0.05) F-test was indicated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carcass Characteristics Lamb carcass characteristics are reported in Table 3. Hot carcass weight was greater (P = 0.01) for lambs that were fed CSH compared with all other diets. No other carcass traits were affected (P > 0.08) by finishing diet. These results reflect previous work that has been done using ground juniper as a roughage source. When ground oat hay was replaced by redberry juniper (Whitney and Smith, 2015), a quadratic effect was found in both shrunk BW and HCW and both of these traits were decreased when comparing juniper diets to the control DDGS finishing diet. However, Whitney et al. (2011) reported that substituting CSH with dry juniper leaves had no impact on hot carcass weight, nor any other carcass trait. Collectively, these data indicate that feeding ground juniper or mesquite in finishing diets of lambs does not have a detrimental effect on carcass traits. Additionally, all carcasses had acceptable quality and would be either acceptable or receive a premium based on a quality grid of Yield Grade 1 and 2 carcasses for the Mountain States Lamb Cooperative (Boland et al., 2007). Table 3. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb carcass characteristics Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Shrunk BW, kg  46.7  44.1  44.9  45.0  41.7  43.7  1.30  0.15  HCW, kg  23.4c  20.9d  21.2d  21.0d  20.0d  20.4d  0.65  0.01  LM area, cm2  15.6  16.1  16.5  16.4  14.1  15.9  0.66  0.13  Backfat, cm  0.5  0.4  0.4  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.82  0.58  Yield grade  2.5  2.0  1.8  1.8  1.8  1.7  0.32  0.58  Body wall, cm  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.3  1.1  1.0  0.12  0.45  Leg circumference, cm  44.5  45.0  45.1  43.4  43.0  45.1  0.66  0.08  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Shrunk BW, kg  46.7  44.1  44.9  45.0  41.7  43.7  1.30  0.15  HCW, kg  23.4c  20.9d  21.2d  21.0d  20.0d  20.4d  0.65  0.01  LM area, cm2  15.6  16.1  16.5  16.4  14.1  15.9  0.66  0.13  Backfat, cm  0.5  0.4  0.4  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.82  0.58  Yield grade  2.5  2.0  1.8  1.8  1.8  1.7  0.32  0.58  Body wall, cm  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.3  1.1  1.0  0.12  0.45  Leg circumference, cm  44.5  45.0  45.1  43.4  43.0  45.1  0.66  0.08  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aDressing % = (HCW/shrunk BW just prior to harvest) × 100; Yield grade = 0.4 + (10 × BF, cm/2.54). bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. c,dMeans in the same row lacking a common superscript difference (P < 0.05). View Large Table 3. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb carcass characteristics Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Shrunk BW, kg  46.7  44.1  44.9  45.0  41.7  43.7  1.30  0.15  HCW, kg  23.4c  20.9d  21.2d  21.0d  20.0d  20.4d  0.65  0.01  LM area, cm2  15.6  16.1  16.5  16.4  14.1  15.9  0.66  0.13  Backfat, cm  0.5  0.4  0.4  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.82  0.58  Yield grade  2.5  2.0  1.8  1.8  1.8  1.7  0.32  0.58  Body wall, cm  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.3  1.1  1.0  0.12  0.45  Leg circumference, cm  44.5  45.0  45.1  43.4  43.0  45.1  0.66  0.08  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Shrunk BW, kg  46.7  44.1  44.9  45.0  41.7  43.7  1.30  0.15  HCW, kg  23.4c  20.9d  21.2d  21.0d  20.0d  20.4d  0.65  0.01  LM area, cm2  15.6  16.1  16.5  16.4  14.1  15.9  0.66  0.13  Backfat, cm  0.5  0.4  0.4  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.82  0.58  Yield grade  2.5  2.0  1.8  1.8  1.8  1.7  0.32  0.58  Body wall, cm  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.3  1.1  1.0  0.12  0.45  Leg circumference, cm  44.5  45.0  45.1  43.4  43.0  45.1  0.66  0.08  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aDressing % = (HCW/shrunk BW just prior to harvest) × 100; Yield grade = 0.4 + (10 × BF, cm/2.54). bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. c,dMeans in the same row lacking a common superscript difference (P < 0.05). View Large Adipose tissue fatty acid composition No individual fatty acids, nor classifications of fatty acids measured in LM chops, were affected (P > 0.08) by diet (Table 4). Numerous studies have been published that describe the manipulation of the fatty acid composition of animal meat (Nurnberg et al., 1998; Demeyer and Doreau, 1999; Wood et al., 1999). Data reported in the current study parallel to those of Whitney et al. (2011) who found that, with the exception of CLA and arachidic acid (both of which increased linearly with an increase in the amount of juniper in the diet), no other fatty acid was affected by the addition of juniper to lamb diets. Chaves et al. (2008) fed juniper essential oil to growing lamb and reported no differences in fatty acid profile in either subcutaneous fat or liver. Table 4. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb adipose tissue fatty acid composition Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F   Myristic acid (14:0)  2.2  2.4  2.3  2.5  2.3  2.6  0.28  0.93   Palmitic acid (16:0)  24.0  24.5  23.5  25.4  24.6  21.5  1.03  0.10   Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7)  0.9  1.0  0.9  1.0  1.0  0.8  0.15  0.94   Stearic acid (18:0)  15.7  17.8  15.4  16.6  16.5  15.3  0.98  0.38   18:1trans-11  2.7  2.6  3.0  3.2  2.9  3.6  0.43  0.51   Oleic acid (18:1n-9)  40.5  35.4  38.2  36.7  37.9  37.0  1.67  0.31   Cis-vaccenic acid (18:1n-7)  0.9  0.8  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.8  0.16  0.20   Linoleic (18:2n-6)  7.1  7.5  7.9  7.0  7.4  7.9  0.67  0.85   α-Linolenic (18:3n-3)  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.4  0.03  0.28   Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)  2.1  2.1  2.1  1.7  2.1  2.3  0.22  0.60  SFA, %  43.6  47.3  43.6  46.6  45.4  42.4  1.39  0.08  SFA, no 18:0, %  27.3  28.4  27.3  29.2  28.2  25.8  1.05  0.24  MUFA, %  46.2  42.0  45.2  43.4  44.0  45.7  1.61  0.37  PUFA, %  10.2  10.8  11.2  10.1  10.6  11.9  1.02  0.78  MUFA/(MUFA + SFA), %  51.9  46.9  50.8  48.3  49.2  51.9  1.58  0.15  PUFA/SFA  0.23  0.23  0.26  0.22  0.23  0.28  0.024  0.44  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F   Myristic acid (14:0)  2.2  2.4  2.3  2.5  2.3  2.6  0.28  0.93   Palmitic acid (16:0)  24.0  24.5  23.5  25.4  24.6  21.5  1.03  0.10   Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7)  0.9  1.0  0.9  1.0  1.0  0.8  0.15  0.94   Stearic acid (18:0)  15.7  17.8  15.4  16.6  16.5  15.3  0.98  0.38   18:1trans-11  2.7  2.6  3.0  3.2  2.9  3.6  0.43  0.51   Oleic acid (18:1n-9)  40.5  35.4  38.2  36.7  37.9  37.0  1.67  0.31   Cis-vaccenic acid (18:1n-7)  0.9  0.8  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.8  0.16  0.20   Linoleic (18:2n-6)  7.1  7.5  7.9  7.0  7.4  7.9  0.67  0.85   α-Linolenic (18:3n-3)  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.4  0.03  0.28   Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)  2.1  2.1  2.1  1.7  2.1  2.3  0.22  0.60  SFA, %  43.6  47.3  43.6  46.6  45.4  42.4  1.39  0.08  SFA, no 18:0, %  27.3  28.4  27.3  29.2  28.2  25.8  1.05  0.24  MUFA, %  46.2  42.0  45.2  43.4  44.0  45.7  1.61  0.37  PUFA, %  10.2  10.8  11.2  10.1  10.6  11.9  1.02  0.78  MUFA/(MUFA + SFA), %  51.9  46.9  50.8  48.3  49.2  51.9  1.58  0.15  PUFA/SFA  0.23  0.23  0.26  0.22  0.23  0.28  0.024  0.44  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (d 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aFatty acids were extracted from LM; SFA = saturated fatty acids (C14:0 to C24:0); MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids (C15:1 to C18:1); PUFA = C18:2 to C22:5; SFA, no 18:0 = SFA not including 18:0. bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76-mm sieve. View Large Table 4. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb adipose tissue fatty acid composition Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F   Myristic acid (14:0)  2.2  2.4  2.3  2.5  2.3  2.6  0.28  0.93   Palmitic acid (16:0)  24.0  24.5  23.5  25.4  24.6  21.5  1.03  0.10   Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7)  0.9  1.0  0.9  1.0  1.0  0.8  0.15  0.94   Stearic acid (18:0)  15.7  17.8  15.4  16.6  16.5  15.3  0.98  0.38   18:1trans-11  2.7  2.6  3.0  3.2  2.9  3.6  0.43  0.51   Oleic acid (18:1n-9)  40.5  35.4  38.2  36.7  37.9  37.0  1.67  0.31   Cis-vaccenic acid (18:1n-7)  0.9  0.8  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.8  0.16  0.20   Linoleic (18:2n-6)  7.1  7.5  7.9  7.0  7.4  7.9  0.67  0.85   α-Linolenic (18:3n-3)  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.4  0.03  0.28   Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)  2.1  2.1  2.1  1.7  2.1  2.3  0.22  0.60  SFA, %  43.6  47.3  43.6  46.6  45.4  42.4  1.39  0.08  SFA, no 18:0, %  27.3  28.4  27.3  29.2  28.2  25.8  1.05  0.24  MUFA, %  46.2  42.0  45.2  43.4  44.0  45.7  1.61  0.37  PUFA, %  10.2  10.8  11.2  10.1  10.6  11.9  1.02  0.78  MUFA/(MUFA + SFA), %  51.9  46.9  50.8  48.3  49.2  51.9  1.58  0.15  PUFA/SFA  0.23  0.23  0.26  0.22  0.23  0.28  0.024  0.44  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F   Myristic acid (14:0)  2.2  2.4  2.3  2.5  2.3  2.6  0.28  0.93   Palmitic acid (16:0)  24.0  24.5  23.5  25.4  24.6  21.5  1.03  0.10   Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7)  0.9  1.0  0.9  1.0  1.0  0.8  0.15  0.94   Stearic acid (18:0)  15.7  17.8  15.4  16.6  16.5  15.3  0.98  0.38   18:1trans-11  2.7  2.6  3.0  3.2  2.9  3.6  0.43  0.51   Oleic acid (18:1n-9)  40.5  35.4  38.2  36.7  37.9  37.0  1.67  0.31   Cis-vaccenic acid (18:1n-7)  0.9  0.8  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.8  0.16  0.20   Linoleic (18:2n-6)  7.1  7.5  7.9  7.0  7.4  7.9  0.67  0.85   α-Linolenic (18:3n-3)  0.3  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.4  0.03  0.28   Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6)  2.1  2.1  2.1  1.7  2.1  2.3  0.22  0.60  SFA, %  43.6  47.3  43.6  46.6  45.4  42.4  1.39  0.08  SFA, no 18:0, %  27.3  28.4  27.3  29.2  28.2  25.8  1.05  0.24  MUFA, %  46.2  42.0  45.2  43.4  44.0  45.7  1.61  0.37  PUFA, %  10.2  10.8  11.2  10.1  10.6  11.9  1.02  0.78  MUFA/(MUFA + SFA), %  51.9  46.9  50.8  48.3  49.2  51.9  1.58  0.15  PUFA/SFA  0.23  0.23  0.26  0.22  0.23  0.28  0.024  0.44  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (d 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aFatty acids were extracted from LM; SFA = saturated fatty acids (C14:0 to C24:0); MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids (C15:1 to C18:1); PUFA = C18:2 to C22:5; SFA, no 18:0 = SFA not including 18:0. bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76-mm sieve. View Large Enser et al. (1996) reported the fatty acid content of lamb meat at retail in England. Lamb from the present study had about 2% more palmitic acid and 4.2% to 8.0% more oleic acid, but 0.3% to 2.8% less stearic acid compared with the Enser study. This may be due to United Kingdom prevalence of forage-fed lamb and oleic acid being significantly greater in lambs finished on concentrates, as would be commonplace in the United States (Fisher et al., 2000). Interestingly, Wood et al. (2008) indicated that oleic acid in the muscle tends to increase as a percentage as fat content increases in the beef carcass, indicating that oleic acid content may be an indicator for degree of finish, and that breed has a profound impact on fatty acid profile. Sensory Panel Evaluation Sensory traits measured in LM chops were not affected (P > 0.18) by finishing diet (Table 5). Hornstein and Crowe (1963) proposed that the meaty flavor of meat comes from the water-soluble fraction, but that species-specific flavors are located in the lipid fraction. This lack of an impact of diet on sensory panel traits is likely a reflection of the fact that fatty acids were not affected by diet; fatty acid composition often has been found to affect sensory characteristics of lamb meat (Kemp et al., 1981; Larick and Turner, 1990; Melton, 1990). Additionally, the impact of fatty acids may be due in part to whether the fatty acid differences are found in the polar or nonpolar fraction (Legako et al., 2015), whereas data presented here reflect both fractions in the total fatty acid composition. Sensory results from the current study agree with Whitney et al. (2011) who reported that up to 30% juniper leaves could be included in lamb feedlot diets without affecting sensory traits and, in fact, reported a linear increase (although only 0.2 sensory units) in off-flavor scores in lamb from animals fed juniper leaves. When Chaves et al. (2008) fed juniper essential oil to growing lambs, no differences were found for any sensory traits compared with the control diet, thus indicating that even by attempting to alter the fatty acid composition in muscle and adipose tissue with juniper essential oil was not successful in altering the sensory panel flavor characteristics. Table 5. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on sensory panel traits of lamb LM chops Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Cook-loss  36.3  30.9  34.6  30.6  28.3  39.1  4.13  0.41  Initial juiciness  6.3  6.0  6.0  6.2  5.8  6.0  0.21  0.65  Sustained juiciness  6.2  6.0  5.7  6.0  5.7  5.8  0.20  0.37  Initial tenderness  6.3  5.7  5.5  5.9  5.6  5.8  0.24  0.24  Sustained tenderness  6.3  5.6  5.5  5.8  5.4  5.7  0.24  0.19  Flavor intensity  6.1  5.9  5.8  5.9  5.8  5.8  0.15  0.70  Off-flavor  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  3.8  0.05  0.21  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Cook-loss  36.3  30.9  34.6  30.6  28.3  39.1  4.13  0.41  Initial juiciness  6.3  6.0  6.0  6.2  5.8  6.0  0.21  0.65  Sustained juiciness  6.2  6.0  5.7  6.0  5.7  5.8  0.20  0.37  Initial tenderness  6.3  5.7  5.5  5.9  5.6  5.8  0.24  0.24  Sustained tenderness  6.3  5.6  5.5  5.8  5.4  5.7  0.24  0.19  Flavor intensity  6.1  5.9  5.8  5.9  5.8  5.8  0.15  0.70  Off-flavor  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  3.8  0.05  0.21  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aCook loss expressed as percentage of weight loss from raw weight; initial and final juiciness, initial and final tenderness, and flavor intensity scored on an 8-point scale (1 = extremely dry, tough, and bland, and 8 = extremely juicy, tender, and intense, respectively); off-flavor scored on a 4-point scale (4 = no off-flavor, 1 = extreme off-flavor). bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. View Large Table 5. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on sensory panel traits of lamb LM chops Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Cook-loss  36.3  30.9  34.6  30.6  28.3  39.1  4.13  0.41  Initial juiciness  6.3  6.0  6.0  6.2  5.8  6.0  0.21  0.65  Sustained juiciness  6.2  6.0  5.7  6.0  5.7  5.8  0.20  0.37  Initial tenderness  6.3  5.7  5.5  5.9  5.6  5.8  0.24  0.24  Sustained tenderness  6.3  5.6  5.5  5.8  5.4  5.7  0.24  0.19  Flavor intensity  6.1  5.9  5.8  5.9  5.8  5.8  0.15  0.70  Off-flavor  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  3.8  0.05  0.21  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Cook-loss  36.3  30.9  34.6  30.6  28.3  39.1  4.13  0.41  Initial juiciness  6.3  6.0  6.0  6.2  5.8  6.0  0.21  0.65  Sustained juiciness  6.2  6.0  5.7  6.0  5.7  5.8  0.20  0.37  Initial tenderness  6.3  5.7  5.5  5.9  5.6  5.8  0.24  0.24  Sustained tenderness  6.3  5.6  5.5  5.8  5.4  5.7  0.24  0.19  Flavor intensity  6.1  5.9  5.8  5.9  5.8  5.8  0.15  0.70  Off-flavor  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  4.0  3.8  0.05  0.21  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aCook loss expressed as percentage of weight loss from raw weight; initial and final juiciness, initial and final tenderness, and flavor intensity scored on an 8-point scale (1 = extremely dry, tough, and bland, and 8 = extremely juicy, tender, and intense, respectively); off-flavor scored on a 4-point scale (4 = no off-flavor, 1 = extreme off-flavor). bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. View Large Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectroscopy Eighty-one volatile aroma compounds were detected in the cooked lamb chops (Table 6). These aroma compounds are derivatives of both thermal lipid degradation and products of the Maillard reaction as reviewed by Kerth and Miller (2015). Of those volatile compounds detected, only seven were significantly affected by diet (P < 0.05). Volatile aroma chemical compounds classified as alkanes measured in LM chops were not affected (P > 0.32) by finishing diet. In the classification of alcohol volatiles, the total ion count of 1-pentanol (a lipid-derived, sweet and pleasant aroma; Burdock, 2010) was greater in LM chops from lambs fed CSH compared with BLUE, ERC, or MESQ and chops from lambs fed BLUE had less 1-pentanol than ONE (P = 0.045). No other alcohol volatiles were affected by finishing diet (P > 0.06). Heptenal (a lipid-derived, fishy aroma; Kerth and Miller, 2015), pentanal (fermented, bready; Kerth and Miller, 2015), and 1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone (a Maillard-derived, caramel-like to canned beef aroma as reviewed by Flament, 2002) volatile aroma compounds were greater (P < 0.04) in LM chops from lambs fed CSH compared with all other diets. Lambs fed CSH had greater (P = 0.03) levels of 2-heptanone (cheesy, banana, fruity aroma; Kerth and Miller, 2015) than RED, BLUE, ERC, or MESQ, but CSH chops had less (P = 0.04) 6,7-dodecanedione (unidentified aroma) compared with RED or BLUE chops. Chops from lambs fed BLUE had greater (P < 0.05) levels of the lipid degradation product, butanoic acid (sweaty, rancid aroma; Kerth and Miller, 2015) compared with all other diets. No other volatile aroma compounds were affected by finishing diet (P > 0.05). Table 6. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb volatile aroma compounds Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Alkanes  Decane  1135  0  0  0  0  0  501  0.43  Dodecane  0  0  0  7040  0  8750  4888  0.51  Heptacosane  0  292  920  1347  1831  1360  756  0.47  Hexadecane  0  0  2086  0  1322  0  1171  0.59  Nonacosane  287  385  196  846  427  846  445  0.80  Nonadecane  0  0  2822  0  1967  1783  1851  0.74  Octacosane  1589  1257  1886  1516  1318  2380  835  0.91  Pentadecane  759  0  2849  392  0  383  1102  0.33  Alcohols  1-Decanol  0  0  518  1641  0  0  770  0.52  1-Dodecanol  0  5791  13929  11386  417  2915  7412  0.60  1-Hexanol  7985  7267  2807  17402  6998  8897  4954  0.36  1-Nonanol  2218  0  0  0  1265  4963  2647  0.63  1-Octanol  47986  41608  46236  27593  44049  66315  22146  0.85  1-Pentanol  49293c  17570c,d,e  8103e  39907c,d  11425d,e  12110d,e  11750  0.04  2-Dodecen-1-ol  213  0  0  0  0  2979  1520  0.55  2-Hexen-1-ol  807  0  0  0  0  394  338  0.35  2-Hexyloxy ethanol  1830  11838  0  0  4989  478  3875  0.21  2-Methyl-2-propen-1-ol  4892  1462  2428  0  1784  815  1932  0.49  2-Octen-1-ol  2502  0  531  1731  2345  0  1624  0.72  2-Propyl-1-heptanol  0  0  1403  1459  0  4171  2331  0.70  Heptanol  35492  18798  6031  12596  17126  28458  10846  0.33  Octen-3-ol  75460  40918  20398  76775  32990  38984  16936  0.07  Aldehydes  2-Decenal  50715  25201  31306  17485  43165  50715  16063  0.63  2-Dodecenal  0  0  0  2702  0  0  795  0.07  2-Hexenal  1210  0  0  2287  0  0  1083  0.48  2-Hydroxy-4-methyl- benzaldehyde  147  0  0  0  0  762  394  0.58  2-Octenal  24463  12818  7423  24632  13468  12615  6082  0.18  2,4-Decadienal  2574  1199  755  1016  2642  4536  1565  0.40  3-Dodecen-1-al  6255  6488  7115  5970  3469  0  3606  0.62  3-Ethyl benzaldehyde  0  313  0  0  0  180  149  0.50  3-Methyl butanal  657  1481  907  9724  564  2169  4423  0.59  Acetaldehyde  4661  3948  1944  1312  3236  0  2344  0.65  Benzaldehyde  485742  459135  396131  398340  371926  279666  81404  0.45  Benzene acetaldehyde  628  1634  936  2594  792  1286  1156  0.81  Butanal  212  1902  0  170  743  0  604  0.19  Decanal  36078  37121  57244  26799  66109  47717  15945  0.47  Dodecanal  19553  45802  39094  37596  41301  31655  16275  0.87  Heptanal  431468  200734  113318  283973  154996  138889  87268  0.07  Heptenal  12241c  1761d  1273d  2402d  1271d  3015d  2787  0.04  Hexanal  758983  326469  209579  912653  286455  232763  253539  0.16  Nonanal  694206  620287  614887  498548  682862  444686  162515  0.80  Nonenal  41442  19071  10974  21311  17299  28752  13389  0.58  Octanal  327220  205473  179979  218631  185478  143370  66437  0.39  Octadecanal  0  0  5768  818  4518  2418  3251  0.65  Phenylacetaldehyde  1920  0  554  0  833  682  971  0.70  Pentanal  26518c  7353d  8295d  6783d  6344d  10586d  4809  0.02  Tetradecanal  14442  5600  12021  34579  12298  13135  8064  0.16  Tridecanal  0  0  3216  5825  0  0  3046  0.58  Undecanal  5083  3045  6142  0  10570  19191  6442  0.26  Undecenal  30197  10387  19732  10513  31126  43542  14128  0.42  Ketones  1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone  6227c  1379d  1219d  4049c,d  1201d  1430d  1346  0.03  1-Phenyl ethanone  3040  1676  2056  3262  1663  2698  1488  0.94  2-Butanone  4676  5826  4041  3476  7211  8733  5611  0.98  2-Decanone  5758  1452  2847  0  3594  12169  5015  0.47  2-Dodecanone  1602  913  1735  726  1145  1771  1053  0.95  2-Heptanone  11302c  2136d,e  968e  8590c,d  0e  2543d,e  2926  0.03  2-Heptadecanone  376  654  0  1872  618  189  570  0.18  2-Nonanone  4974  1505  3308  0  3336  12594  5253  0.50  2-Octanone  3025  1319  1379  0  1504  6143  3095  0.69  2-Propanone  1879  0  0  0  0  6701  2395  0.18  2,3-Octanedione  16931  8305  0  35970  7353  4542  10449  0.13  3-Hydroxy-2-butanone  2118  0  0  0  0  6037  3212  0.60  6,7-Dodecanedione  0e  7888c  5919c,d  1493d,e  0e  2163c,d,e  2167  0.04  Acetophenone  0  1487  1438  0  0  0  918  0.57  Tridecanone  602  965  3693  1686  0  2299  1249  0.26  Undecanone  3207  1658  384  0  4013  3550  2211  0.63  Acids  Benzoic acid  6338  8338  2469  1405  0  0  3039  0.24  Butanoic acid  1472d  5174c  0d  336d  1094d  185d  1189  0.03  Decanoic acid  979  0  685  2511  0  0  1238  0.61  Heptanoic acid  1176  0  0  0  1049  0  649  0.50  Hexanoic acid  19362  7771  2027  14692  728  2625  5624  0.08  Nonanoic acid  841  0  0  604  0  0  297  0.12  Petanoic acid  0  0  0  806  0  2213  943  0.35  Sulfur compounds  2-Acetyl-2-thiazoline  12224  13208  9811  10844  5409  8124  3724  0.69  Acetylthiazole  2190  4551  2692  1843  2515  0  1768  0.56  Other  2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl pyrazine  28960  0  1012  0  0  0  1050  0.24  2-Pentyl furan  18595  8621  4966  13406  3579  7153  3917  0.06  2,5-Dimethyl pyrazine  8356  0  900  1643  0  0  2966  0.24  d-Limonene  0  0  1657  0  0  3087  1692  0.60  Dihydro-2(3H)-furanone  809  5455  1278  3198  3785  417  2407  0.59  Methyl benzene  966  51836  1999  1647  0  8716  18808  0.33  Styrene  0  0  0  1205  0  1159  657  0.41  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Alkanes  Decane  1135  0  0  0  0  0  501  0.43  Dodecane  0  0  0  7040  0  8750  4888  0.51  Heptacosane  0  292  920  1347  1831  1360  756  0.47  Hexadecane  0  0  2086  0  1322  0  1171  0.59  Nonacosane  287  385  196  846  427  846  445  0.80  Nonadecane  0  0  2822  0  1967  1783  1851  0.74  Octacosane  1589  1257  1886  1516  1318  2380  835  0.91  Pentadecane  759  0  2849  392  0  383  1102  0.33  Alcohols  1-Decanol  0  0  518  1641  0  0  770  0.52  1-Dodecanol  0  5791  13929  11386  417  2915  7412  0.60  1-Hexanol  7985  7267  2807  17402  6998  8897  4954  0.36  1-Nonanol  2218  0  0  0  1265  4963  2647  0.63  1-Octanol  47986  41608  46236  27593  44049  66315  22146  0.85  1-Pentanol  49293c  17570c,d,e  8103e  39907c,d  11425d,e  12110d,e  11750  0.04  2-Dodecen-1-ol  213  0  0  0  0  2979  1520  0.55  2-Hexen-1-ol  807  0  0  0  0  394  338  0.35  2-Hexyloxy ethanol  1830  11838  0  0  4989  478  3875  0.21  2-Methyl-2-propen-1-ol  4892  1462  2428  0  1784  815  1932  0.49  2-Octen-1-ol  2502  0  531  1731  2345  0  1624  0.72  2-Propyl-1-heptanol  0  0  1403  1459  0  4171  2331  0.70  Heptanol  35492  18798  6031  12596  17126  28458  10846  0.33  Octen-3-ol  75460  40918  20398  76775  32990  38984  16936  0.07  Aldehydes  2-Decenal  50715  25201  31306  17485  43165  50715  16063  0.63  2-Dodecenal  0  0  0  2702  0  0  795  0.07  2-Hexenal  1210  0  0  2287  0  0  1083  0.48  2-Hydroxy-4-methyl- benzaldehyde  147  0  0  0  0  762  394  0.58  2-Octenal  24463  12818  7423  24632  13468  12615  6082  0.18  2,4-Decadienal  2574  1199  755  1016  2642  4536  1565  0.40  3-Dodecen-1-al  6255  6488  7115  5970  3469  0  3606  0.62  3-Ethyl benzaldehyde  0  313  0  0  0  180  149  0.50  3-Methyl butanal  657  1481  907  9724  564  2169  4423  0.59  Acetaldehyde  4661  3948  1944  1312  3236  0  2344  0.65  Benzaldehyde  485742  459135  396131  398340  371926  279666  81404  0.45  Benzene acetaldehyde  628  1634  936  2594  792  1286  1156  0.81  Butanal  212  1902  0  170  743  0  604  0.19  Decanal  36078  37121  57244  26799  66109  47717  15945  0.47  Dodecanal  19553  45802  39094  37596  41301  31655  16275  0.87  Heptanal  431468  200734  113318  283973  154996  138889  87268  0.07  Heptenal  12241c  1761d  1273d  2402d  1271d  3015d  2787  0.04  Hexanal  758983  326469  209579  912653  286455  232763  253539  0.16  Nonanal  694206  620287  614887  498548  682862  444686  162515  0.80  Nonenal  41442  19071  10974  21311  17299  28752  13389  0.58  Octanal  327220  205473  179979  218631  185478  143370  66437  0.39  Octadecanal  0  0  5768  818  4518  2418  3251  0.65  Phenylacetaldehyde  1920  0  554  0  833  682  971  0.70  Pentanal  26518c  7353d  8295d  6783d  6344d  10586d  4809  0.02  Tetradecanal  14442  5600  12021  34579  12298  13135  8064  0.16  Tridecanal  0  0  3216  5825  0  0  3046  0.58  Undecanal  5083  3045  6142  0  10570  19191  6442  0.26  Undecenal  30197  10387  19732  10513  31126  43542  14128  0.42  Ketones  1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone  6227c  1379d  1219d  4049c,d  1201d  1430d  1346  0.03  1-Phenyl ethanone  3040  1676  2056  3262  1663  2698  1488  0.94  2-Butanone  4676  5826  4041  3476  7211  8733  5611  0.98  2-Decanone  5758  1452  2847  0  3594  12169  5015  0.47  2-Dodecanone  1602  913  1735  726  1145  1771  1053  0.95  2-Heptanone  11302c  2136d,e  968e  8590c,d  0e  2543d,e  2926  0.03  2-Heptadecanone  376  654  0  1872  618  189  570  0.18  2-Nonanone  4974  1505  3308  0  3336  12594  5253  0.50  2-Octanone  3025  1319  1379  0  1504  6143  3095  0.69  2-Propanone  1879  0  0  0  0  6701  2395  0.18  2,3-Octanedione  16931  8305  0  35970  7353  4542  10449  0.13  3-Hydroxy-2-butanone  2118  0  0  0  0  6037  3212  0.60  6,7-Dodecanedione  0e  7888c  5919c,d  1493d,e  0e  2163c,d,e  2167  0.04  Acetophenone  0  1487  1438  0  0  0  918  0.57  Tridecanone  602  965  3693  1686  0  2299  1249  0.26  Undecanone  3207  1658  384  0  4013  3550  2211  0.63  Acids  Benzoic acid  6338  8338  2469  1405  0  0  3039  0.24  Butanoic acid  1472d  5174c  0d  336d  1094d  185d  1189  0.03  Decanoic acid  979  0  685  2511  0  0  1238  0.61  Heptanoic acid  1176  0  0  0  1049  0  649  0.50  Hexanoic acid  19362  7771  2027  14692  728  2625  5624  0.08  Nonanoic acid  841  0  0  604  0  0  297  0.12  Petanoic acid  0  0  0  806  0  2213  943  0.35  Sulfur compounds  2-Acetyl-2-thiazoline  12224  13208  9811  10844  5409  8124  3724  0.69  Acetylthiazole  2190  4551  2692  1843  2515  0  1768  0.56  Other  2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl pyrazine  28960  0  1012  0  0  0  1050  0.24  2-Pentyl furan  18595  8621  4966  13406  3579  7153  3917  0.06  2,5-Dimethyl pyrazine  8356  0  900  1643  0  0  2966  0.24  d-Limonene  0  0  1657  0  0  3087  1692  0.60  Dihydro-2(3H)-furanone  809  5455  1278  3198  3785  417  2407  0.59  Methyl benzene  966  51836  1999  1647  0  8716  18808  0.33  Styrene  0  0  0  1205  0  1159  657  0.41  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aVolatile aroma chemical compounds expressed as the total ion count area under the curve for each peak. bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. c,d,eMeans in the same row lacking a common superscript difference (P < 0.05). View Large Table 6. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on lamb volatile aroma compounds Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Alkanes  Decane  1135  0  0  0  0  0  501  0.43  Dodecane  0  0  0  7040  0  8750  4888  0.51  Heptacosane  0  292  920  1347  1831  1360  756  0.47  Hexadecane  0  0  2086  0  1322  0  1171  0.59  Nonacosane  287  385  196  846  427  846  445  0.80  Nonadecane  0  0  2822  0  1967  1783  1851  0.74  Octacosane  1589  1257  1886  1516  1318  2380  835  0.91  Pentadecane  759  0  2849  392  0  383  1102  0.33  Alcohols  1-Decanol  0  0  518  1641  0  0  770  0.52  1-Dodecanol  0  5791  13929  11386  417  2915  7412  0.60  1-Hexanol  7985  7267  2807  17402  6998  8897  4954  0.36  1-Nonanol  2218  0  0  0  1265  4963  2647  0.63  1-Octanol  47986  41608  46236  27593  44049  66315  22146  0.85  1-Pentanol  49293c  17570c,d,e  8103e  39907c,d  11425d,e  12110d,e  11750  0.04  2-Dodecen-1-ol  213  0  0  0  0  2979  1520  0.55  2-Hexen-1-ol  807  0  0  0  0  394  338  0.35  2-Hexyloxy ethanol  1830  11838  0  0  4989  478  3875  0.21  2-Methyl-2-propen-1-ol  4892  1462  2428  0  1784  815  1932  0.49  2-Octen-1-ol  2502  0  531  1731  2345  0  1624  0.72  2-Propyl-1-heptanol  0  0  1403  1459  0  4171  2331  0.70  Heptanol  35492  18798  6031  12596  17126  28458  10846  0.33  Octen-3-ol  75460  40918  20398  76775  32990  38984  16936  0.07  Aldehydes  2-Decenal  50715  25201  31306  17485  43165  50715  16063  0.63  2-Dodecenal  0  0  0  2702  0  0  795  0.07  2-Hexenal  1210  0  0  2287  0  0  1083  0.48  2-Hydroxy-4-methyl- benzaldehyde  147  0  0  0  0  762  394  0.58  2-Octenal  24463  12818  7423  24632  13468  12615  6082  0.18  2,4-Decadienal  2574  1199  755  1016  2642  4536  1565  0.40  3-Dodecen-1-al  6255  6488  7115  5970  3469  0  3606  0.62  3-Ethyl benzaldehyde  0  313  0  0  0  180  149  0.50  3-Methyl butanal  657  1481  907  9724  564  2169  4423  0.59  Acetaldehyde  4661  3948  1944  1312  3236  0  2344  0.65  Benzaldehyde  485742  459135  396131  398340  371926  279666  81404  0.45  Benzene acetaldehyde  628  1634  936  2594  792  1286  1156  0.81  Butanal  212  1902  0  170  743  0  604  0.19  Decanal  36078  37121  57244  26799  66109  47717  15945  0.47  Dodecanal  19553  45802  39094  37596  41301  31655  16275  0.87  Heptanal  431468  200734  113318  283973  154996  138889  87268  0.07  Heptenal  12241c  1761d  1273d  2402d  1271d  3015d  2787  0.04  Hexanal  758983  326469  209579  912653  286455  232763  253539  0.16  Nonanal  694206  620287  614887  498548  682862  444686  162515  0.80  Nonenal  41442  19071  10974  21311  17299  28752  13389  0.58  Octanal  327220  205473  179979  218631  185478  143370  66437  0.39  Octadecanal  0  0  5768  818  4518  2418  3251  0.65  Phenylacetaldehyde  1920  0  554  0  833  682  971  0.70  Pentanal  26518c  7353d  8295d  6783d  6344d  10586d  4809  0.02  Tetradecanal  14442  5600  12021  34579  12298  13135  8064  0.16  Tridecanal  0  0  3216  5825  0  0  3046  0.58  Undecanal  5083  3045  6142  0  10570  19191  6442  0.26  Undecenal  30197  10387  19732  10513  31126  43542  14128  0.42  Ketones  1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone  6227c  1379d  1219d  4049c,d  1201d  1430d  1346  0.03  1-Phenyl ethanone  3040  1676  2056  3262  1663  2698  1488  0.94  2-Butanone  4676  5826  4041  3476  7211  8733  5611  0.98  2-Decanone  5758  1452  2847  0  3594  12169  5015  0.47  2-Dodecanone  1602  913  1735  726  1145  1771  1053  0.95  2-Heptanone  11302c  2136d,e  968e  8590c,d  0e  2543d,e  2926  0.03  2-Heptadecanone  376  654  0  1872  618  189  570  0.18  2-Nonanone  4974  1505  3308  0  3336  12594  5253  0.50  2-Octanone  3025  1319  1379  0  1504  6143  3095  0.69  2-Propanone  1879  0  0  0  0  6701  2395  0.18  2,3-Octanedione  16931  8305  0  35970  7353  4542  10449  0.13  3-Hydroxy-2-butanone  2118  0  0  0  0  6037  3212  0.60  6,7-Dodecanedione  0e  7888c  5919c,d  1493d,e  0e  2163c,d,e  2167  0.04  Acetophenone  0  1487  1438  0  0  0  918  0.57  Tridecanone  602  965  3693  1686  0  2299  1249  0.26  Undecanone  3207  1658  384  0  4013  3550  2211  0.63  Acids  Benzoic acid  6338  8338  2469  1405  0  0  3039  0.24  Butanoic acid  1472d  5174c  0d  336d  1094d  185d  1189  0.03  Decanoic acid  979  0  685  2511  0  0  1238  0.61  Heptanoic acid  1176  0  0  0  1049  0  649  0.50  Hexanoic acid  19362  7771  2027  14692  728  2625  5624  0.08  Nonanoic acid  841  0  0  604  0  0  297  0.12  Petanoic acid  0  0  0  806  0  2213  943  0.35  Sulfur compounds  2-Acetyl-2-thiazoline  12224  13208  9811  10844  5409  8124  3724  0.69  Acetylthiazole  2190  4551  2692  1843  2515  0  1768  0.56  Other  2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl pyrazine  28960  0  1012  0  0  0  1050  0.24  2-Pentyl furan  18595  8621  4966  13406  3579  7153  3917  0.06  2,5-Dimethyl pyrazine  8356  0  900  1643  0  0  2966  0.24  d-Limonene  0  0  1657  0  0  3087  1692  0.60  Dihydro-2(3H)-furanone  809  5455  1278  3198  3785  417  2407  0.59  Methyl benzene  966  51836  1999  1647  0  8716  18808  0.33  Styrene  0  0  0  1205  0  1159  657  0.41  Itema  Dietb  CSH  RED  BLUE  ONE  ERC  MESQ  SEM  P > F  Alkanes  Decane  1135  0  0  0  0  0  501  0.43  Dodecane  0  0  0  7040  0  8750  4888  0.51  Heptacosane  0  292  920  1347  1831  1360  756  0.47  Hexadecane  0  0  2086  0  1322  0  1171  0.59  Nonacosane  287  385  196  846  427  846  445  0.80  Nonadecane  0  0  2822  0  1967  1783  1851  0.74  Octacosane  1589  1257  1886  1516  1318  2380  835  0.91  Pentadecane  759  0  2849  392  0  383  1102  0.33  Alcohols  1-Decanol  0  0  518  1641  0  0  770  0.52  1-Dodecanol  0  5791  13929  11386  417  2915  7412  0.60  1-Hexanol  7985  7267  2807  17402  6998  8897  4954  0.36  1-Nonanol  2218  0  0  0  1265  4963  2647  0.63  1-Octanol  47986  41608  46236  27593  44049  66315  22146  0.85  1-Pentanol  49293c  17570c,d,e  8103e  39907c,d  11425d,e  12110d,e  11750  0.04  2-Dodecen-1-ol  213  0  0  0  0  2979  1520  0.55  2-Hexen-1-ol  807  0  0  0  0  394  338  0.35  2-Hexyloxy ethanol  1830  11838  0  0  4989  478  3875  0.21  2-Methyl-2-propen-1-ol  4892  1462  2428  0  1784  815  1932  0.49  2-Octen-1-ol  2502  0  531  1731  2345  0  1624  0.72  2-Propyl-1-heptanol  0  0  1403  1459  0  4171  2331  0.70  Heptanol  35492  18798  6031  12596  17126  28458  10846  0.33  Octen-3-ol  75460  40918  20398  76775  32990  38984  16936  0.07  Aldehydes  2-Decenal  50715  25201  31306  17485  43165  50715  16063  0.63  2-Dodecenal  0  0  0  2702  0  0  795  0.07  2-Hexenal  1210  0  0  2287  0  0  1083  0.48  2-Hydroxy-4-methyl- benzaldehyde  147  0  0  0  0  762  394  0.58  2-Octenal  24463  12818  7423  24632  13468  12615  6082  0.18  2,4-Decadienal  2574  1199  755  1016  2642  4536  1565  0.40  3-Dodecen-1-al  6255  6488  7115  5970  3469  0  3606  0.62  3-Ethyl benzaldehyde  0  313  0  0  0  180  149  0.50  3-Methyl butanal  657  1481  907  9724  564  2169  4423  0.59  Acetaldehyde  4661  3948  1944  1312  3236  0  2344  0.65  Benzaldehyde  485742  459135  396131  398340  371926  279666  81404  0.45  Benzene acetaldehyde  628  1634  936  2594  792  1286  1156  0.81  Butanal  212  1902  0  170  743  0  604  0.19  Decanal  36078  37121  57244  26799  66109  47717  15945  0.47  Dodecanal  19553  45802  39094  37596  41301  31655  16275  0.87  Heptanal  431468  200734  113318  283973  154996  138889  87268  0.07  Heptenal  12241c  1761d  1273d  2402d  1271d  3015d  2787  0.04  Hexanal  758983  326469  209579  912653  286455  232763  253539  0.16  Nonanal  694206  620287  614887  498548  682862  444686  162515  0.80  Nonenal  41442  19071  10974  21311  17299  28752  13389  0.58  Octanal  327220  205473  179979  218631  185478  143370  66437  0.39  Octadecanal  0  0  5768  818  4518  2418  3251  0.65  Phenylacetaldehyde  1920  0  554  0  833  682  971  0.70  Pentanal  26518c  7353d  8295d  6783d  6344d  10586d  4809  0.02  Tetradecanal  14442  5600  12021  34579  12298  13135  8064  0.16  Tridecanal  0  0  3216  5825  0  0  3046  0.58  Undecanal  5083  3045  6142  0  10570  19191  6442  0.26  Undecenal  30197  10387  19732  10513  31126  43542  14128  0.42  Ketones  1-(1H-pyrol-2yl)-ethanone  6227c  1379d  1219d  4049c,d  1201d  1430d  1346  0.03  1-Phenyl ethanone  3040  1676  2056  3262  1663  2698  1488  0.94  2-Butanone  4676  5826  4041  3476  7211  8733  5611  0.98  2-Decanone  5758  1452  2847  0  3594  12169  5015  0.47  2-Dodecanone  1602  913  1735  726  1145  1771  1053  0.95  2-Heptanone  11302c  2136d,e  968e  8590c,d  0e  2543d,e  2926  0.03  2-Heptadecanone  376  654  0  1872  618  189  570  0.18  2-Nonanone  4974  1505  3308  0  3336  12594  5253  0.50  2-Octanone  3025  1319  1379  0  1504  6143  3095  0.69  2-Propanone  1879  0  0  0  0  6701  2395  0.18  2,3-Octanedione  16931  8305  0  35970  7353  4542  10449  0.13  3-Hydroxy-2-butanone  2118  0  0  0  0  6037  3212  0.60  6,7-Dodecanedione  0e  7888c  5919c,d  1493d,e  0e  2163c,d,e  2167  0.04  Acetophenone  0  1487  1438  0  0  0  918  0.57  Tridecanone  602  965  3693  1686  0  2299  1249  0.26  Undecanone  3207  1658  384  0  4013  3550  2211  0.63  Acids  Benzoic acid  6338  8338  2469  1405  0  0  3039  0.24  Butanoic acid  1472d  5174c  0d  336d  1094d  185d  1189  0.03  Decanoic acid  979  0  685  2511  0  0  1238  0.61  Heptanoic acid  1176  0  0  0  1049  0  649  0.50  Hexanoic acid  19362  7771  2027  14692  728  2625  5624  0.08  Nonanoic acid  841  0  0  604  0  0  297  0.12  Petanoic acid  0  0  0  806  0  2213  943  0.35  Sulfur compounds  2-Acetyl-2-thiazoline  12224  13208  9811  10844  5409  8124  3724  0.69  Acetylthiazole  2190  4551  2692  1843  2515  0  1768  0.56  Other  2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl pyrazine  28960  0  1012  0  0  0  1050  0.24  2-Pentyl furan  18595  8621  4966  13406  3579  7153  3917  0.06  2,5-Dimethyl pyrazine  8356  0  900  1643  0  0  2966  0.24  d-Limonene  0  0  1657  0  0  3087  1692  0.60  Dihydro-2(3H)-furanone  809  5455  1278  3198  3785  417  2407  0.59  Methyl benzene  966  51836  1999  1647  0  8716  18808  0.33  Styrene  0  0  0  1205  0  1159  657  0.41  During period 1 (days 0 to 27), lambs were fed a 70% concentrate diet. Lambs were transitioned over 4 d into period 2 (days 28 to 57) onto an 86% concentrate diet. Within row means with a different superscript than the control diet (CSH) differ (P < 0.05). aVolatile aroma chemical compounds expressed as the total ion count area under the curve for each peak. bTreatment diets were nonagglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CSH) or ground woody products (RED = J. pinchotii, BLUE = J. ashei, ONE = J. monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = P. glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76 mm sieve. c,d,eMeans in the same row lacking a common superscript difference (P < 0.05). View Large Volatile aroma compounds from cooked meat have been studied as indicators of lamb feeding systems (Priolo et al., 2004) as well as their influence on cooked meat flavor characteristics (Young et al., 1997, 2003). Bueno et al. (2011) found eight different aroma compounds with meaty odor, which included 2-heptenal reported in the present study. Elmore et al. (2005) reported 111 volatile compounds that were quantified in lamb, and of those, 78 were significantly affected by the dietary treatment of supplemental PUFA-rich oil. In that study, they reported that many of the volatile compounds were derived in the degradation of lipids and reported that 1-pentanol and 2-heptanone were derived from the decomposition of C18:2 n-6 fatty acids. They concluded that the inclusion of PUFA in diets, while nutritionally desirable, resulted in poor sensory quality. Furthermore, when they conducted a principal component analysis of volatile compounds and trained sensory descriptors with supplemental dietary oils, principal component 1 accounted for more than 87% of the variation in the data. CONCLUSIONS Minimizing input costs associated with feeding livestock is important, and furthermore, utilizing raw materials that might otherwise be thought of as pastoral waste has the potential to provide an opportunity for finishing ruminants. The utilization of ground juniper and mesquite species as roughage sources in finishing diets of lambs is expected to increase, if edible products, and sensory characteristics of these products, are not negatively affected. The research reported here indicated that lambs can be finished on a diet with 30% of the diet as ground juniper or mesquite as a source of roughage without negatively affecting carcass traits, fatty acid composition, or sensory traits. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project 205866 and funded in part by the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. LITERATURE CITED American Meat Science Association. 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurement of fresh meat . Chicago (IL): National Livestock and Meat Board. AOAC. 2006. Official methods of analysis . 18th ed. Arlington (VA): Association of Official Analytical Chemists. PubMed PubMed  Archibeque, S. L., D.K. Lunt, C. D. Gilbert, R. K. Tume, and S. B. Smith. 2005. Fatty acid indices of stearoyl-CoA desaturase do not reflect actual stearoyl-CoA desaturase enzyme activities in adipose tissues of beef steers finished with corn-, flaxseed-, or sorghum-based diets. J. Anim. Sci . 83: 1153– 1166. doi: 10.2527/2005.8351153x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bailey, M. E., J. Suzuki, L. N. Fernando, H. A. Swartz, and R. W. Purchas. 1994. Influence of finishing diets on lamb flavor. In: C. T. Ho and T. G. Hartman, editors. Lipids in food flavors, American Chemical Society Publication . Washington, DC, USA. p. l 170– 185. doi: 10.1021/bk-1994-0558.ch012 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Boland, M. A., A. Bosse, and G. W. Brester. 2007. The mountain states lamb cooperative: can vertical integration keep lamb producers from being fleeced? Rev. Ag. Econ . 29: 157– 169. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00335.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bueno, M., V. C. Resconi, M. Mar Campo, J. Cacho, V. Ferriera, and A. Escudero. 2011. Gas chromatographic-olfactometric characterization of headspace and mouthspace key aroma compounds in fresh and frozen lamb meat. Food Chem . 129: 1909– 1918. doi: 10.3390/s131216759 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Burdock, G. A. 2010. Fernoli’s handbook of flavor ingredients , 6th ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor and Francis. Cross, H. R., R. Moen, and M. S. Stanfield. 1978. Training and testing of judges for sensory analysis of meat quality. Food Tech . 37: 48– 54. Chaves, A. V., K. Stanford, M. E. R. Dugan, L. L. Gibson, T. A. McAllister, F. Van Herk, and C. Benchaar. 2008. Effects of cinnamaldehyde, garlic and juniper berry essential oils on rumen fermentation, blood metabolites, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of growing lambs. Livest. Sci . 117: 215– 224. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.12.013 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Demeyer, D., and M. Doreau. 1999. Targets and procedures for altering ruminant meat and milk lipids. Proc. Nutr. Soc . 58: 593– 607. doi: 10.1017/S0029665199000786 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Elmore, J. S., S. L. Cooper, M. Enser, D. S. Mottram, L. A. Sinclair, R. G. Wilkinson, and J. D. Wood. 2005. Dietary manipulation of fatty acid composition in lamb meat and its effect on the volatile aroma compounds of grilled lamb. Meat Sci . 69: 233– 242. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.002 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Enser, M., K. Hallett, B. Hewitt, G. A. J. Fursey, and J. D. Wood. 1996. Fatty acid content and composition of English beef, lamb and pork at retail. Meat Sci . 42: 443– 456. doi: 10.1016/0309-1740(95)00037-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fisher, A. V., M. Enser, R. I. Richardson, J. D. Wood, G. R. Nute, E. Kurt, L. A. Sinclair, and R. G. Wilkinson. 2000. Fatty acid composition and eating quality of lamb types derived from four diverse breed × production systems. Meat Sci . 55: 141– 147. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00136-9 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Flament, I. 2002. Coffee flavor chemistry . West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Folch, J., M. Lees, and G. H. Sloane-Stanley. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem . 226: 497– 507. Google Scholar PubMed  Glasscock, J. L., T. R. Whitney, J. R. Roper, A. R. Holmes, S. G. Marrs, N. M. Cherry, J. P. Muir, W. C. Stewart, and E. J. Scholljegerdes. 2015. Effects of using ground woody plants in kid goat feedlot diets on growth performance. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci . 66: 204– 208. Hornstein, I., and P. F. Crowe. 1963. Meat flavor: lamb. J. Agric. Food Chem . 11: 147– 149. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kemp, J. D., M. Mahyuddin, D. G. Ely, J. D. Fox, and W. G. Moody. 1981. Effect of feeding systems, slaughter weight and sex on organoleptic properties, and fatty acid composition of lamb. J. Anim. Sci . 51: 321– 330. doi: 10.2527/jas1980.512321x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kerth, C. R., L. K. Blair-Kerth, and W. R. Jones. 2003. Warner-Bratzler shear value repeatability in beef longissimus steaks cooked with a convection oven, broiler, or clam-shell grill. J. Food Sci . 67: 668– 670. doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2621.2003.tb05729.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kerth, C. R., and R. K. Miller. 2015. Beef flavor: a review from chemistry to consumer. J. Sci. Food Agric . doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7204 Larick, D. K., and B. E. Turner. 1990. Flavour characteristics of forage-and grain-fed beef as influenced by phospholipid and fatty acid compositional differences. J. Food Sci . 55: 312– 368. doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2621.1990.tb06751.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Legako, J. F., T. T. N. Dinh, M. F. Miller, and J. C. Brooks. 2015. Effects of USDA beef quality grade and cooking on fatty acid composition of neutral and polar lipid fractions. Meat Sci . 100: 246– 255. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.013 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Marion, P. F., C. E. Fisher, and E. D. Robinson. 1957. Ground mesquite wood as a roughage in rations for yearling steers. Tex. Ag. Exp. Sta. Progress Rep . 1972. College Station: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. McDougal, E. I. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochem J . 43: 99– 109. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Melton, S. L., 1990. Effect of feeds on flavor of red meat: a review. J. Anim. Sci . 68: 4421– 4435. doi: 10.2527/1990.68124421x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Morrison, W. R., and L. M. Smith. 1964. Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters and dimethylacetals from lipids with boron fluoride-methanol. J. Lipid Res . 5: 600– 608. Google Scholar PubMed  NAMP. 1997. The meat buyers’ guide . Reston (VA): North American Meat Processors Association. Nurnberg, K., J. Wegner, and K. Ender. 1998. Factors influencing fat composition in muscle and adipose tissue of farm animals. Livest. Prod. Sci . 56: 145– 156. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00188-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Priolo, A., A. Cornu, S. Prache, M. Krogmann, N. Kondjoyan, D. Micol, and J. L. Berdague. 2004. Fat volatiles tracers of grass feeding in sheep. Meat Sci . 66: 475– 481. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00136-0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Stewart W. C., T. R. Whitney, E. J. Scholljegerdes, D. M. Hallford, S. S. Soto-Navarro, and H. D. Naumann. 2015. Effects of feeding ground juniper to gestating ewes on pre- and postpartum ewe performance, serum metabolites, and progeny preweaning performance. West. Sect. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci . 66: 180– 184. doi: 10.2527/jas2016.1090 Terrill, T. H., G. B. Douglas, A. G. Foote, R. W. Purchas, G. F. Wilson, and T. N. Barry. 1992. Effect of condensed tannins upon body growth, wool growth and rumen metabolism in sheep grazing Sula (Hedysarum coronarium) and perennial pasture. J. Agric. Sci . 119: 265– 273. doi: 10.1017/S0021859600014192 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   USDA. 1997. Official United States standards for grades of lamb carcasses . Washington, DC: AMS, USDA. Van Auken, O. W., and F. Smeins. 2008. Western North American Juniperus communities: patterns and causes for distribution and abundance. In: O. W. Van Auken, editor. Western North American Juniperus communities a dynamic vegetation type . New York (NY): Springer. p. 3– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci . 74: 3583– 3597. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551–2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Whitney, T. R., J. L. Glasscock, J. P. Muir, W. C. Stewart, and E. J. Scholljegerdes. 2017a. Substituting ground woody plants for cottonseed hulls in lamb feedlot diets: growth performance, blood serum chemistry, and rumen fluid parameters. J. Anim. Sci . doi: 10.2527/jas2017.1649 Whitney, T. R., C. J. Lupton, J. P. Muir, R. P. Adams, and W. C. Stewart. 2014. Effects of using ground redberry juniper and dried distillers grains with solubles in lamb feedlot diets: growth, blood serum, fecal, and wool characteristics. J. Anim. Sci . 92: 1119– 1132. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013–7007 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Whitney, T. R., C. J. Lupton, and S. B. Smith. 2011. Redberry juniper as a roughage source in lamb feedlot rations: wool and carcass characteristics, meat fatty acid profiles, and sensory panel traits. Meat Sci . 89: 160– 165. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.010 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Whitney, T. R., J. T. Sawyer, and C. Hartz. 2017b. Substituting ground juniper for ground alfalfa hay in steer feedlot diets: growth and blood serum characteristics. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci . 68: 239− 243. Whitney, T. R., and S. B. Smith. 2015. Substituting redberry juniper for oat hay in lamb feedlot diets: carcass characteristics, adipose tissue fatty acid composition and sensory panel traits. Meat Sci . 104: 1– 7. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.01.010 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wolfe, R. M., T. H. Terrill, and J. P. Muir. 2008. Drying method and origin of standard affect condensed tannin (CT) concentrations in perennial herbaceous legumes using simplified butanol-HCl CT analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric . 88: 1060– 1067. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3188 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wood, J. D., M. Enser, A. V. Fisher, G. R. Nute, R. I. Richardson, and P. R. Sheard. 1999. Manipulating meat quality and composition. Proc. Nutr. Soc . 58: 363– 370. doi: 10.1017/S0029665199000488 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wood, J. D., M. Enser, A. V. Fisher, G. R. Nute, P. R. Sheard, R. I. Richardson, S. I. Hughes, and F. M. Whittington. 2008. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: a review. Meat Sci . 78: 343– 358. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.019 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Young, O. A., J. L. Berdague, C. Viallon, S. Rousset-Akrim, and M. Theriez. 1997. Fat-borne volatiles and sheepmeat odour. Meat Sci . 45: 183– 200. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00100-3 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Young, O. A., G. A. Lane, A. Priolo, and K. Fraser. 2003. Pastoral and species flavor in lambs raised on pasture, Lucerne or maize. J. Sci. Food Agric . 83: 93– 104. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1282 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
TI - Substituting ground woody plants for cottonseed hulls in lamb feedlot diets: carcass characteristics, adipose tissue fatty acid composition, and sensory panel traits
JO - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.1093/jas/sky024
DA - 2018-02-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/substituting-ground-woody-plants-for-cottonseed-hulls-in-lamb-feedlot-euCt5grrC0
SP - 487
EP - 497
VL - 96
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -