Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:47:02.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of lean meat production by British Friesian and Jersey steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. Hind
E. Hind
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

1. Eight-one British Friesian and 44 Jersey steers was slaughtered at 1. 12, 24, 48 or 72 weeks of age. Those aged 24 weeks and over were reared on a standard complete diet offered ad libitum, and individual food intakes were recorded until slaughter when carcasses were dissected on an anatomical basis.

2. From 1 to 72 weeks British Friesians were on average 50% heavier than Jerseys and consumed 47% more food. Total lean tissue (L) increased 11-fold to 137 + 6·4 kg in the British Friesians and 16-fold to 84 ± 4·7 kg in the Jersey. L as a percentage of live weight rose to 32% ±0·6 in the British Friesians and to 29% ±0·8 in the Jerseys. Breeds did not differ significantly in average efficiency of growth of lean tissue in any period.

3. From 24 to 72 weeks, an allometric relationship held between L and total food consumed postnatally, F. The two breeds had the same allometric coefficient of 0·61. Current efficiency, 0·61 L/F, was thus proportional to cumulated efficiency, L/F. Allowance was made for the prenatal input, Fo, required to produce the newborn calf. An optimum slaughter point at which overall efficiency, L/(F+F0), reached a maximum occurred in each breed when postnatal input was 58% higher than prenatal input (F = 1·58F0). When the breeds had equal maximum efficiency the British Friesian: Jersey ratios for prenatal input, total food consumed and total lean produced were all 2·6:1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , October 1978 , pp. 181 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

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

Blaxter, K. L. 1971. Efficiency—the nutritional basis. In Breeding for Beef. Proc. Nat. Conf, Peebles, pp. 3–10. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucking- hamshire.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth, p. 51. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M., Pryor, W. J. and Berg, R. T. 1966. A study of carcase growth in calves. Res. vet. Sd. 7: 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callow, E. H. 1948. Comparative studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening, and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haecker, T. L. 1920. Investigations in beef production. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Stn, No. 193.Google Scholar
Hind, E. 1978. Efficiency of lean meat production by dairy steers. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle. Proc. CEC Seminar, Ghent. 1977. (ed. Boer, H. de and Martin, J.). Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Joandet, G. E. and Cartwright, T. C. 1969. Estimation of efficiency of beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 29: 862–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1974. Food efficiency in cattle. Rep. Anim. Breed. Res. Orgn, pp. 40–46.Google Scholar
Roux, C. Z. 1974. The relationship between growth and feed intake. Agroanimalia 6: 49–52.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Smith, J. S. and Dewey, P. J. S. 1975. The nutritive value for a sheep of ruminant Diet AA6, a complete cobbed diet containing 30% barley straw. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar