Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:28:09.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the priority of access to food and their effects on the carcass traits for Japanese Black (Wagyu) cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

N. Takanishi ,
K. Oishi ,
H. Kumagai ,
M. Uemura  and
H. Hirooka
N. Takanishi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Division of Applied Biosciences, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
K. Oishi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Division of Applied Biosciences, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
H. Kumagai
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Division of Applied Biosciences, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
M. Uemura
Affiliation:
Uemura Farm Ltd, Shiraoi-gun, Hokkaido 059-0921, Japan
H. Hirooka*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Graduate School of Agriculture, Division of Applied Biosciences, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The factors influencing the priority of access to food and the effects of the priority of access to food on their carcass traits were analyzed for Japanese Black (Wagyu) cattle in a semi-intensive fattening production system. The records of 96 clinically healthy steers and heifers were analyzed. The calves at ∼3 to 4 months of age were allocated to pens with four animals per pen; all four animals in the same pen were of the same sex and of similar body size. The ranking of the animals’ priority of access to food (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), which was determined by the farm manager, was used as an indicator of social dominance in the present study. Four models including sire line, maternal grandsire line and the difference in the animals’ birth dates as fixed effects were used to analyze factors influencing the priority of access to food. Ranking was represented by ordinal scores (highest=4, lowest=1) in Model 1, and the binary scores were assigned in Model 2 (highest=1; 2nd, 3rd and 4th=0), Model 3 (1st and 2nd=1; 3rd and 4th=0) and Model 4 (1st, 2nd and 3rd=1; lowest=0). The results showed that the difference in the animals’ birth dates had a significant effect on the establishment of the priority of access to food in Model 3 (P<0.05), suggesting that animals born earlier may become more dominant in the pen. The maternal grandsire line tended to affect the social rank score in Models 2 and 3 (P<0.10). Our results indicated that the maternal grandsire line may affect the temperament of calves through their mothers’ genetic performance and thereby more aggressive calves may be more dominant and have higher priority of access to food. On the other hand, there was a significant effect of the priority of access to food on beef marbling score (BMS; P<0.05), and the priority of access to food also tended to influence the carcass weight (P=0.09). The highest BMS was observed for animals with the first rank of the priority of access to food (P<0.05), and the higher-ranking animals had the tendency to be heavier carcass than the lower-ranking animals. Our findings emphasized the importance of information about the priority of access to food determined by farmers’ own observation on implementing best management practices in small-scaled semi-intensive beef cattle production systems.

Keywords

access to foodcarcass weightJapanese Black cattlemarbling scoresocial dominance
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 2017 - 2023
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Asada, M, Hashiyada, Y and Konishi, K 2004. Effect of paternal line of donor on superovulatory response and embryo quality in Japanese Black heifers. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 16, 287–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH and White, JS 2008. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 127–135.Google Scholar
Bouissou, MF, Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In Social Behaviour Farm Animals (ed. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou), pp. 113–145. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Dickson, DP, Barr, GR and Wieckert, DA 1967. Social relationship of dairy cows in a feedlot. Behaviour 29, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, DP, Barr, GR, Johnson, LP and Wieckert, DA 1970. Social dominance and temperament of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 53, 904–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drews, C 1993. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour 125, 283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordyce, G, Fitzpatrick, LA, Cooper, NJ, Doogan, VJ, De Faveri, J and Holroyd, RG 2002. Bull selection and use in northern Australia. V. Social behaviour and management. Animal Reproduction Science 71, 81–99.Google Scholar
Francis, RC 1988. On the relationship between aggression and social dominance. Ethology 78, 223–237.Google Scholar
Freeman, DH Jr 1987. Applied categorical data analysis. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hafez, ESE and Bouissou, ME 1975. The behaviour of cattle. In The behaviour of domestic animals (ed. ESE Hafez), pp. 247–296. The Williams and Wllkins Co., Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Hart, BL 1985. The behavior of domestic animals. WH Freeman and Company, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hirooka, H, Groen, AF and Matsumoto, M 1996. Genetic parameters for growth and carcass traits in Japanese brown cattle estimated from field records. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2112–2116.Google Scholar
Houpt, KA 2011. Aggression and social structure. In Domestic animal behavior for veterinarians and animal scientists (ed. KA Houpt), pp. 416. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Huzzey, JM, Weary, DM, Tiau, BYF and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2014. Short communication: automatic detection of social competition using an electronic feeding system. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2953–2958.Google Scholar
Ikeda, K and Fujii, S 2006. The effects of bull strains and environment in the development of muscular abnormality in Japanese black cattle. Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association 59, 623–625. in Japanese.Google Scholar
Japan Meat Grading Association 1989. Trading standards for carcass and retail cuts of beef and pork. Japan Meat Grading Association, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Landaeta-Hernández, AJ, Rae, DO, Kaske, M and Archbald, LF 2013. Factors influencing social organization in postpartum Angus cows under confinement. Effect on cow-calf weight change. Livestock Science 152, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landaeta-Hernández, AJ, Chenoweth, PJ, Tran, T, Rae, DO, Randles, R and Chase, CC Jr 2005. Estimating the dominance order in a mixed-breed herd: a practical methodology. Revista Científica FCV-LUZ XV, 148–154.Google Scholar
Langbein, J and Puppe, B 2004. Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods – a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 293–315.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P 1989. Influence of rearing conditions and breed on social behaviour and activity of cattle in novel environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 129–140.Google Scholar
MacKay, JRD, Turner, SP, Hyslop, J, Deag, JM and Haskell, MJ 2013. Short-term temperament tests in beef cattle relate to long-term measures of behavior recorded in the home pen. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4917–4924.Google Scholar
Maeno, H, Oishi, K, Mitsuhashi, T, Kumagai, H and Hirooka, H 2014. Prediction of carcass composition and individual carcass cuts of Japanese Black steers. Meat Science 96, 1365–1370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, CP, McBride, G and James, JW 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. III. Steers in small yards. Animal Production 6, 9–15.Google Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Sepúlveda, WS, Montaldo, HH, María, GA and Galindo, F 2011. Social strategies associated with identity profiles in dairy goats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Pinal, R, Fuchs, K, Montaldo, H, Ducoing, A and Galindo, F 2013a. Environmental enrichment and social rank affects the fear and stress response to regular handling of dairy goats. Journal of Veterinary Behavior; Clinical Applications and Research 8, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Pascual-Alonso, M, Guerrero, A, Alberti, P, Alierta, S, Sans, P, Gajan, JP, Villarroel, M, Dalmau, A, Velarde, A, Campo, MM, Galindo, F, Santolaria, MP, Sañudo, C and María, GA 2013b. Influence of social dominance on production, welfare and the quality of meat from beef bulls. Meat Science 94, 432–437.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Crews, DH, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Wang, Z, Li, C and Moore, SS 2007. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2382–2390.Google Scholar
Partida, JA, Olleta, JL, Campo, MM, Sañudo, C and María, GA 2007. Effect of social dominance on the meat quality of young Friesian bulls. Meat Science 76, 266–273.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Rind, MI 2002. The effects of social dominance on the production and behavior of grazing dairy cows offered forage supplements. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 51–59.Google Scholar
SAS 2008. User’s guide: statistics, version 9.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Solano, J, Galindo, F, Orihuela, A and Galina, CS 2004. The effect of social rank on the physiological response during repeated stressful handling in Zebu cattle (Bos indicus). Physiology & Behavior 82, 679–683.Google Scholar
Stricklin, WR, Graves, HB, Wilson, LL and Singh, RK 1980. Social organization among young beef cattle in confinement. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 211–219.Google Scholar
Val-Laillet, D, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2008. The concept of social dominance and the social distribution of feeding-related displacements between cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 158–172.Google Scholar
Val-Laillet, D, Guesdon, V, Rushen, J, von Keyserlingk, MAG and de Passillé, AM 2009. Allogrooming in cattle: relationships between social preferences, feeding displacements and social dominance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 141–149.Google Scholar