Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T19:44:34.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass composition of serially slaughtered Friesian, Hereford × Friesian and Charolais × Friesian steers finished on two dietary energy levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Abstract

The carcass composition of Hereford × Friesian (HE), Friesian (FR) and Charolais × Friesian (CH) steers finished on diets of high (H) and medium (M) dietary metabolizable energy (ME) concentrations and slaughtered at low (L), normal (N) and heavy (W) carcass weights was examined in a 3 × 2 × 3 (no. = 9 per individual treatment) factorial experiment. A pre-finishing slaughter group of nine animals of each breed type was also included, giving a total 189 animals in 21 experimental groups. ME concentrations of the H and M diets which were offered ad libitum were 12·6 and 10·4 MJ/kg dry matter. Target carcass weights for L, N and W were 260, 300 and 340 kg for HE and FR and 260, 320 and 380 kg for CH.

Carcass side weights (before tissue separation) of the HE, FR and CH pre-finishing slaughter groups were 90·8, 970 and 101·0 (s.e.d. 3·9) kg. Corresponding tissue proportions were 188, 199 and 200 (s.e.d. 4·3) g/kg bone, 663, 686 and 690 (s.e.d. 5·3) g/kg muscle and 135, 99 and 96 (s.e.d. 5·7) g/kg fat. Main effect side weights of the finished groups were 152·3, 151·4 and 162·2 (s.e.d. 1·4) kg for HE, FR and CH. 158·5 and 152·2 (s.e.d. 1·1) kg for H and M and 131·2, 155·2 and 179·6 (s.e.d. 1·4) kg for L, N and W, respectively. Tissue proportions in the same order were 146, 160 and 157 (s.e.d. 2·0), 149 and 159 (s.e.d. 1·6) and 163, 154 and 146 (s.e.d. 2·0) g/kg bone, 579, 601 and 635 (s.e.d. 5·5), 600 and 610 (s.e.d. 4·5) and 637, 599 and 574 (s.e.d. 5·5) g/kg muscle and 264, 228 and 195 (s.e.d. 6·4), 240 and 219 (s.e.d. 5·2) and 188, 235 and 264 (s.e.d. 6·4) g/kg fat. CH had more (P < 0·001) of their muscle in the pelvic limb and less (P < 0001) in the thorax than HE and FR. HE had more (P < 0·001) of their carcass fat in the subcutaneous depot and less (P < 0·001) in the intermuscular depot than FR and CH. The allometric regression coefficients for the main joint and tissue weights on side weight were <1·0 for both limbs, loin, bone and muscle. Coefficients were >1·0 for the thorax, ribs, flank and fat. The regression coefficients for the main muscles of the pelvic limb and loin and total thoracic limb muscle on total side muscle were <l·0, while the coefficients for the flank, ribs and thorax muscles were >1·0. Similarly the regression coefficients for the bones of the two limbs on total side bone were <10, while the coefficients for the loin, ribs and thorax bones were >10. It was calculated (for the H diet) that at a carcass weight of 300 kg, HE, FR and CH would have carcass tissue proportions of 576, 600 and 642 g/kg muscle and 261, 227 and 180 g/kg fat. The three breed types would have similar carcass fat contents at carcass weights of 264, 300 and 376 kg for HE, FR and CH, respectively.

Keywords

carcass compositioncattle breedsenergy intakesteers
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 231 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978a. 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., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978b. Growth of bovine tissues. 2. Genetic influences on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27: 51–61.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978c. Growth of bovine tissues. 4. Genetic influences on patterns of bone growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27: 71–77.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966. A nutritional effect on the relative growth of muscles. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 6: 298–304.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1961. Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, D. D. and Johnson, E. R. 1976. Breed differences in amount and distribution of bovine carcass dissectible fat. Journal of Animal Science 42: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, C. L., Kohlmeier, R. H., Crouse, J. D. and Glimp, H. 1978. Influence of dietary energy, protein and biological type of steer upon rate of gain and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 46: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, A., Reid, J. T., Maiga, A. M., Sim, D. W. and Wellington, G. H. 1980a. Effect of energy intake level and influence of breed and sex on the physical composition of the carcass of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 51: 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, A., Reid, J. T., Maiga, A. M., Sim, D. W. and Wellington, G. H. 1980b. Effect of level of energy intake and influence of breed and sex on muscle growth and distribution in the bovine carcass. Journal of Animal Science 51: 1288–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Harte, F. J. and Conniffe, D. 1967. Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of “lean meat”, fat and bone. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 153–170.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1978. Genetic influences on growth patterns of muscle and bone in young bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58: 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Harte, F. J. 1980. Influence of energy and protein levels on growth rate, feed efficiency, carcass and meat quality of steers. Annales de Zootechnie 29: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Avis, P. R. D. and Smith, R. J. 1976b. Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 2. Distribution between joints. Animal Production 23: 223–232.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of meat gain. Animal Production 34: 167–178.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of lean gain. Animal Production 46: 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1976a. Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 1. Distribution between depots. Animal Production 23: 25–34.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Jones, D. W. 1977. Bone weight distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses, and the prediction of carcass bone content from the bone content of joints. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89: 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976c. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1981. Characterization of biological types of cattle (Cycle II). v. Carcass wholesale cut composition. Journal of Animal Science 53: 992–999.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 at two energy levels and serially slaughtered. Animal Production 50: 19–28.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, F. and Berg, R. T. 1971. Influence of breed and sex on the allometric growth patterns of major bovine tissues. Animal Production 13: 219–227.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. L., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1985. Patterns of muscle, bone and fat accretion in three biological types of feedlot bulls fed three dietary energy levels. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 351–361.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
Solly, K. J., Kempster, A. J. and Southgate, J. R. 1987. Fat growth and its partition between depots in crossbred steers by different sire breeds. Animal Production 44: 474 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Smith, G. M., Crouse, J. D., Mandigo, R. W. and Neer, K. L. 1977. Influence of feeding regime and biological type on growth, composition and palatability of steers. Journal of Animal Science 45: 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. R. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1977. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording proposed as the EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar