Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:16:34.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The estimation of killing out in cattle from knowledge of breed, and visual appraisal of external fat cover and conformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. J. Bailey ,
G. L. Cook ,
A. J. Kempster  and
A. G. Sains
P. J. Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Victoria, PO Box 4041, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
G. L. Cook
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. G. Sains
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

Data for a total of 3715 cattle from four sources were used to examine the relative importance of live weight at slaughter, and visual assessments of carcass conformation and subcutaneous fat cover, as predictors of killing out. The sources were the Meat and Livestock Commission's beef breed evaluation programme (1689 steers of different breeds and crosses), the beef demonstration unit at the National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh (814 commercial dairy-bred cattle), an East Anglian abattoir (405 commercial cattle) and the Milk Marketing Board's Warren Farm (807 dairy-bred steers by different sire breeds). An assessment of live body conformation was also examined as a predictor in the Warren Farm data.

Carcass conformation provided a more precise prediction of killing out than did either live weight or subcutaneous fat score. Regression coefficients in the different groups ranged from 5·4 to 12·0 g/kg for each increase in conformation class (six-point scale). The live conformation assessment was a less precise predictor (within sire breed residual s.d. = 17·7 g/kg) than the carcass assessment (15·6 g/kg).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 391 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

Adams, N. J., Garreit, W. N. and Elings, J. T. 1973. Performance and carcass characteristics of crosses from imported breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 623–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. Sydney University Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Kauffman, R. G. 1978. Bovine compositional interrelationships. In Patterns of Growth and Developmenl in Cattle. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 (ed. Boer, H. De and Martin, J.), pp. 13–34. Nijhoff, The Hague.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. Anim. Prod. 34: 167–178.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. Granada Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Owen, M. G. 1981. A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Anim. Prod. 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Allen, D. M., May, M., Crouse, J. D. and Campion, D. R. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, B. L. and Ryan, W. J. 1982. Estimating carcass weight in live cattle. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim.Prod. 14: 353–356.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974. Standard Conditions of Deadweight Purchase for Cattle, Sheep, Pork and Cutter Pigs. Meat and LivestockCommission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1984. Handbook to the UK Weekly Market Survey. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes. In press.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. and Tulloh, N. M. 1966. The representationof yield of dressed carcass. Anim. Prod. 8: 281–288.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982a. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization. Anim. Prod. 34: 155–166.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982b. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. 1. Live-weight growth and efficiency of food utilization. Anim. Prod. 35: 87–98.Google Scholar