Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T17:11:50.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical composition of carcass soft tissues of serially slaughtered Hereford × Friesian, Friesian and Charolais × Friesian steers finished on two diets differing in energy concentration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. G. Keane ,
P. Allen ,
J. Connolly  and
G. J. More O'Ferrall
M. G. Keane
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Teagasc, National Food Centre, Dunsinea, Castleknock, Dublin 15, Ireland
J. Connolly
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University College, Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
G. J. More O'Ferrall
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

The chemical composition of the muscle and fatty carcass tissues of Hereford × Friesian (HE), Friesian (FR) and Charolais × Friesian (CH) steers finished on high (H) (12·6 MJ/kg dry matter) and medium (M) (10·4 MJ/kg dry matter) metabolizable energy (ME) concentration diets and slaughtered at low (L), normal (N) and heavy (W) carcass weights was determined in a 3 × 2 × 3 (no. = 9) factorial experiment. There were also pre-finishing slaughter groups of nine animals of each breed type. Target L, N and W carcass weights were 260, 300 and 340 kg, for HE and FR and 260, 320 and 380 kg, for CH, respectively.

Main effect side soft tissue weights of the finished groups were 128, 125 and 134 (s.e.d. 1·3) kg for HE, FR and CH, 133 and 125 (s.e.d. 1·1) kg for H and M and 108, 129 and 150 (s.e.d. 1·3) kg for L, N and W, respectively. Soft tissue chemical composition was 540, 562 and 590 (s.e.d. 5·0) g/kg moisture, 162, 174 and 181 (s.e.d. 1·7) g/kg protein and 288, 254 and 220 (s.e.d. 6·6) g/kg lipid for HE, FR and CH and 558 and 570 (s.e.d. 4·1) g/kg moisture, 170 and 175 (s.e.d. 1·4) g/kg protein and 262 and 246 (s.e.d. 5·4) g/kg lipid for H and M, respectively. The allometric regression coefficients for moisture, protein and lipid weights on soft tissue weight were 0·65, 0·69 and 206, respectively. The coefficients for moisture and protein weights on muscle and fat weights were < 1·0, whereas for lipid, they were >1·0. The breed differences in soft tissue chemical composition paralleled differences in physical composition. Dietary ME concentration had little effect on the chemical composition of individual tissues. For the M diet, HE, FR and CH were calculated to have similar soft tissue lipid concentrations (250 g/kg) at side soft tissue weights of 113, 125 and 157 kg, respectively. Corresponding side muscle weights at similar muscle lipid concentration (70 g/kg) would be 77, 90 and 108 kg.

Keywords

carcass compositioncattle breedsenergy intakesteers
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 93 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. R. 1975. The influence of slaughter weight and level of feeding on growth rate, feed conversion and carcass composition of bulls. Livestock Production Science 2: 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. III. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively fed young bulls. Livestock Production Science 4: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 10th ed Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersln, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues. 1. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle, fat and bone in young bulls. Animal Production 26: 245–258.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1968. Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. Journal of Animal Science 27: 611–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. Changes in the chemical composition of cattle during growth. In New Concepts of Cattle Growth, pp. 44–64. University of Sydney Press. Sydney.Google Scholar
Breidenstein, B. B., Cooper, C. C., Cassens, R. G., Evans, G. and Bray, R. W. 1968. Influence of marbling and maturity on the palatability of beef muscle. 1. Chemical and organoleptic considerations. Journal of Animal Science 27: 1532–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cianzio, D. S., Topel, D. G., Whitehurst, G. B., Beitz, D. C. and Self. H. L. 1982. Adipose tissue growth in cattle representing two frame sizes: distribution among depots. Journal of Animal Science 55: 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, A., Simpfendorfer, S., Reid, J. T., Ayala, H. J., Anrioue, R. and Kertz, A. F. 1980. Effect of level of energy intake and influence of breed and sex on the chemical composition of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 51: 604–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, W. N. and Hinman, N. 1971. Fat content of trimmed beef muscles as influenced by quality grade, yield grade, marbling score and sex. Journal of Animal Science 33: 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geay, Y. and Robelin, J. 1979. Variation of meat production capacity in cattle due to genotype and level of feeding: genotype-nutrition interaction. Livestock Production Science 6: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenther, J. J., Bushman, D. H., Pope, L. S. and Morrison, R. D. 1965. Growth and development of the major carcass tissues in beef calves from weaning t o slaughter weight, with reference to the effect of plane of nutrtion. Journal of Animal Science 24: 1184–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesse, G. W., Thompson, G. B., Clark, J. L., Hendrick, H. B. and Weimer, K. G. 1976. Effects of ration energy and slaughter weight on composition of empty body and carcass gain of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 43: 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1978a. Effects of breed-type and slaughter weight on feedlot performance and carcass composition in bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58: 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1978b. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle and bone in young bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58: 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kean, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1980. Effects of diet type and feeding level on performance, carcass composition and efficiency of Friesian steers serially slaughtered. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 19: 53–66.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Connolly, J. 1989. Growth and carcass composition of Friesian, Limousin × Friesian and Blonde d'Aquitaine × Friesian steers. Animal Production 48: 353–365.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More, O'Ferrall G. J., Connolly, J. and Allen, P. 1990. Carcass composition of serially slaughtered Friesian, Hereford × Friesian and Charolais × Friesian steers finished on two dietary energy levels. Animal Production 50: 231–243.Google Scholar
Liboriussen, T., Andersen, B. B., Buchter, L., Kousoaard, K. and M0Ller, A. J. 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. IV. Physical, chemical and palatability characteristics of longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles from crossbred young bulls. Livestock Production Science 4: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Keane, M. G. 1990. Live-weight and carcass production of Charolais, Hereford and Friesian steer progeny from Friesian cows finished on two dietary energy levels and serially slaughtered. Animal Production 50: 19–28.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M., Tulloh, N. M. and Winter, W. H. 1975. The effect of three different growth rates on the chemical composition of the dressed carcass of cattle and the relationships between chemical and dissected components. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nour, A. Y. M. and Thonney, M. L. 1987. Carcass soft tissue and bone composition of early and late maturing steers fed two diets in two housing types and serially slaughtered over a wide weight range. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, R. L., Kohlmeier, R. H., Cundiff, L. V., Dikeman, M. E. and Crouse, J. D. 1977. Influence of dietary energy and protein on growth and carcass composition in different biological types of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 45: 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J. and Daenicke, R. 1980. Variation of net requirements for cattle growth with liveweight, liveweight gain, breed and sex. Annales de Zootechnie 29: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J., Geay, Y. and Beranger, C. 1977. Evolution de la composition corporelle des jeunes bovins males entiers de race Limousin entre 9 et 14 mois. 1. Composition anantomique. Annales de Zootechnie 26: 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romans, J. R., Tuma, H. J. and Tucker, W. L. 1965. Influence of carcass maturity and marbling on the physical and chemical characteristics of beef. I. Palatability, fibre diameter and proximate analysis. Journal of Animal Science 24: 681–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seebeck, R. M. 1973. The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80: 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, R. C., Tyler, W. J. and Brungardt, V. H. 1971. Changes in the carcass composition of Holstein steers associated with ration energy levels and growth. Journal of Animal Science 32: 611–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D. R. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1977. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording proposed as the E.E.C. standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., Wagner, D. G., Walters, L. E., Horn, G. W., Waller, G. R., Sims, P. L. and Guenther, J. J. 1983. Effect of production systems on performance, body composition and lipid and mineral profiles of soft tissue in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1020–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar