Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:45:16.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of slaughter weight and sexual status on performance characteristics of male Holstein-Friesian cattle offered a cereal-based diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. M. Kirkland ,
T. W. J. Keady ,
D. C. Patterson ,
D. J. Kilpatrick  and
R. W. J. Steen
R. M. Kirkland*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR, UK
T. W. J. Keady*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR, UK
D. C. Patterson*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR, UK
D. J. Kilpatrick*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR, UK
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
‡Also members of The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, UK
‡Also members of The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, UK
‡Also members of The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, UK
Get access

Abstract

A total of 180 Holstein-Friesian male calves, mean age and live weight (LW) at start of the study 112 (s.d. 26·0) days and 134 (s.d. 37·6) kg, respectively, were used to evaluate the effect of slaughter weight on food efficiency and animal performance. Animals were offered concentrates ad libitum and a restricted quantity of straw and slaughtered at one of six LWs as bulls: 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 or 550 kg. A further group of cattle were slaughtered as steers at 450 kg LW. Mean age at slaughter was 247 and 434 days for bulls slaughtered at 300 and 550 kg LW respectively. Neither rate of LW or carcass gain was influenced by weight at slaughter ( P>0·05), with mean values of 1·31 and 0·70 kg/day, respectively. Food conversion ratio, killing-out proportion, carcass conformation, fat classification and weight of internal fat depots increased ( P<0·001) as slaughter weight of the bulls increased. In the comparison of steers and bulls slaughtered at 450 kg, steers had lower ( P<0·001) rates of LW and carcass gains and had a higher ( P<0·001) food conversion ratio than comparable bulls. Steers had lower ( P<0·001) estimated carcass lean, and higher ( P<0·01) estimated carcass fat concentrations than bulls slaughtered at the same LW.

Keywords

bullscarcass compositionfood conversionHolstein-Friesianslaughter weight
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , June 2006 , pp. 397 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Agricultural Research Council 1965. Recommended procedures for use in the measurement of beef cattle and carcasses. Agricultural Research Council. London.Google Scholar
Allen, M. S. 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1598–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, H. R. and Ingvartsen, K. L. 1984a. Influence of energy level, weight at slaughter and castration on carcass quality in cattle. Livestock Production Science 11: 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. R. and Ingvartsen, K. L. 1984b. The influence of energy level, weight at slaughter and castration on growth and feed efficiency in cattle. Livestock Production Science 11: 559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. R., Ingvartsen, K. L., Buchter, L., Kousgaard, K. and Klastrup, S. 1983b. Influence of energy level, weight at slaughter and sex on growth, feed conversion, carcass composition and meat quality in cattle. Report 544. National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. T., Hawkins, D. R., Bergen, W. G. and Merkel, R. A. 1988. A note on dry-matter intake and composition of gain of Simmental bulls and steers fed to the same weight or age. Animal Production 47: 493–496.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. M., Liboriussen, T., Andersen, H. R. and Andersen, B. B. 1985. Producing beef from intact male progeny of Holstein sires: feed efficiency and compositional characters. Journal of Animal Science 61: 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Rheinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Coffey, M. 1992. Genetic trends–has progress been made in the last six years? Holstein Friesian Journal 74: 62–63.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation–to assess beef and lamb variation. In Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production(ed.Bichard, M.), pp.113–122. Longman, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Dawson, L. E. R. and Steen, R. W. J. 1998. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements of beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131: 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, R. J. and Drennan, M. 1998. Production of red veal for the EU market. End of project report–beef production series no. 4 Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co., Meath, Eire.Google Scholar
Fox, D. G., Sniffen, C. J. and O'Connor, J. D. 1988. Adjusting nutrient requirements of beef cattle for animal and environmental variations. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1475–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, H., Dempster, D. G. and Miller, T. B. 1978. A note on the effect of castration on the growth performance and concentrations of some blood metabolites and hormones in British Friesian male cattle. Animal Production 26: 339–342.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. W. 1980. The relative efficiency of food utilization of British Friesian entire male and castrate male cattle at two levels of feeding. Animal Production 30: 53–59.Google Scholar
Kalm, E., Preisinger, R., Guhe, M., Schmidt, G., Augustini, C. H. R. and Henning, M. 1991. Carcass composition and meat quality of bulls, steers and heifers in different fattening systems. European Association for Animal Production, annual meeting, 6–7 September, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S. and Marsden, M. 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Kilpatrick, C. M., Cushnahan, A. and Murphy, J. A. 2002. The cost of producing and feeding forages. Proceedings of the XIIIth international silage conference, Auchincruive, Scotland, 11–13 September , pp. 322–323.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. 2003. Beef production from Holstein-Friesian bulls and steers of New Zealand and European/American descent, and Belgian Blue×Holstein-Friesians, slaughtered at two weights. Livestock Production Science 84: 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. G. 1979. Effects of house type, dietary protein level and straw on the performance of concentrate-fed Friesian bulls. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 18: 25–35.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. 1993. Exploitation of beef breed differences. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Journal 27: 78–90.Google Scholar
Keane, 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., 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
Keane, M. G., Neilan, R., Moloney, A. P. and Allen, P. 2001. Comparison of high genetic merit, standard genetic merit, and Charolais×Friesian male cattle for beef production. End of project report–beef production series no. 24. Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Eire.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Smith, R. J. 1980. The evaluation of a standardised cutting technique for determining breed differences in carcass composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcass grading and classification. In Carcase evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing (ed.Kempster, A.J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G.), pp.163–201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. and Tolkamp, B. J. 1992. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants 3: Optimum feed intake: In search of a physiological background. Livestock Production Science 31: 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1998. Genstat 5 for Windows, version 4.1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Moloney, A. P., Fallon, R. J., Mooney, M. T. and Troy, D. J. 2004. The quality of meat and fatness of bulls offered ad libitum concentrates, indoors or at pasture. Livestock Production Science 87: 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Keane, M. G. 1990. A comparison for live weight and carcass production of Charolais, Hereford and Friesian steer progeny from Friesian cows finished on two energy levels and serially slaughtered. Animal Production 50: 19–28.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1987. Predicting feed intake of food producing animals. National Academy Press Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Moore, C. A. and Steen, R. W. J. 1994. The effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on the performance and carcass composition of continental beef bulls given high forage diets. Animal Production 58: 41–47.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1995. Growth and development in beef cattle. 1. Direct and residual effects of plane of nutrition during early life on components of gain and food efficiency. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Cuthbertson, A., Rutter, A. and Franklin, M. F. 1998. The effects of age at slaughter, genotype and finishing system on the organoleptic properties and texture of bull beef from suckled calves. Animal Science 66: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38: 171–179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1995. The effect of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on growth and food efficiency in bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 42: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. 1995. Effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on the carcass composition of serially slaughtered bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 43: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. 1992. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants 2. Costs and benefits of feed consumption: an optimization approach. Livestock Production Science 30: 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1980. The energetic efficiency of growth. Livestock Production Science 7: 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Smith, J. S. and Mollison, G. S. 1977. Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 3. Body weight and heat production in Hereford×British Friesian bulls and steers. Animal Production 24: 237–244.Google Scholar