Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:25:39.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beef production potential of Norwegian Red and Holstein-Friesian bulls slaughtered at two ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

R. M. Kirkland ,
D. C. Patterson ,
T. W. J. Keady ,
B. W. Moss  and
R. W. J. Steen
R. M. Kirkland*
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
D. C. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
T. W. J. Keady
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland, Newforge, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There is a paucity of data on the beef production potential of Norwegian Red (NOR) compared with ‘modern’ Holstein-Friesian (HF) cattle. The present study used a total of 64 bulls in a 2 × 2 factorial design study encompassing two breeds (HF and NOR) and two slaughter ages (485; E, and 610; L, days). The mean initial age and live weight of the HF bulls were 179 (s.d. 47.1) days and 203 (s.d. 64.0) kg, while the corresponding data for the NOR bulls were 176 (s.d. 39.7) days and 185 (s.d. 63.6) kg, respectively. Bulls were offered a 50 : 50 mixture (dry matter (DM) basis) of grass silage and concentrates. No breed × slaughter group interactions were recorded for any parameters evaluated (P > 0.05). HF bulls had higher (P < 0.001) DM intake and poorer (P < 0.01) efficiency of conversion of food to carcass gain than NOR bulls. HF bulls tended (P = 0.07) to have a higher rate of live-weight gain and were heavier (P < 0.001) at slaughter than NOR bulls, though both carcass weight and rate of carcass gain did not differ between the breeds (P > 0.05). NOR bulls had higher (P < 0.001) dressing proportion and carcass conformation score than HF bulls, while breed of bull had no influence (P > 0.05) on carcass fat classification, depth of subcutaneous fat, marbling score or on the weight of fat in the internal depots. Daily food intakes did not differ (P > 0.05) across the two slaughter age groups, though efficiency of conversion of food to carcass gain was poorer (P < 0.05) in the L compared with E bulls. Rate of live-weight gain was lower (P < 0.01) for L bulls, although rate of carcass gain did not differ (P > 0.05) between the E and L bulls. Increasing age at slaughter increased (P < 0.01 or greater) dressing proportion, carcass fat class, depth of subcutaneous fat, marbling score and internal fat depots, but had no effect (P > 0.05) on the carcass conformation score. Instrumental measures of meat quality indicated that meat from NOR bulls was tougher (P < 0.01) than meat from HF bulls, while delaying slaughter increased (P < 0.001) a* and C*ab, and decreased (P < 0.01) h0, indicating improved redness. It is concluded that NOR bulls have higher food efficiency and produce more highly conformed carcasses than HF bulls, but HF bulls produce more tender meat.

Keywords

bullsHolstein-Friesianmeat qualityNorwegian Redslaughter weight
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 1 , Issue 10 , November 2007 , pp. 1506 - 1514
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2007

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, UK.Google Scholar
Allen, MS 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.Google Scholar
Andersen, HR, Ingvartsen, KL 1984a. The influence of energy level, weight at slaughter and castration on growth and feed efficiency in cattle. Livestock Production Science 11, 559–569.Google Scholar
Andersen, HR, Ingvartsen, KL 1984b. Influence of energy level, weight at slaughter and castration on carcass quality in cattle. Livestock Production Science 11, 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, CM, Liboriussen, T, Andersen, HR, Andersen, BB 1985. Producing beef from intact male progeny of Holstein sires: feed efficiency and compositional characters. Journal of Animal Science 61, 27–35.Google Scholar
Brody, S 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Rheinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Carpenter, CE, Cornforth, DP, Whittier, D 2001. Consumer preferences for beef colour and packaging did not affect eating satisfaction. Meat Science 57, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambaz, A, Scheeder, MRL, Kreuzer, M, Dufey, PA 2003. Meat quality of Angus, Simmental, Charolais and Limousin steers compared at the same intramuscular fat content. Meat Science 63, 491–500.Google Scholar
Cuvelier, C, Clinquart, A, Hocquette, JF, Cabaraux, JF, Dufrasne, I, Istasse, L, Hornick, JL 2006. Comparison of composition and quality traits of meat from young finishing bulls from Belgian Blue, Limousin and Aberdeen Angus breeds. Meat Science 74, 522–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, LER, Steen, RWJ 1998. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements of beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131, 477–485.Google Scholar
Huntington, GB, Reynolds, CK 1987. Oxygen consumption and metabolite flux of bovine portal-drained viscera and liver. Journal of Nutrition 117, 1167–1173.Google Scholar
Kauffman, RG 1978. Bovine compositional interrelationships. In Patterns of growth and development in cattle (ed. H de Boer and J Martin), pp. 13–24. Nijhoff, Hague.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, 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, TWJ, Mayne, CS, McConaghy, DA, Marsden, M 1999. The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 68, 763–778.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BM 2007. Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole-crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrates. Animal 1, 613–623.Google Scholar
Keane, MG 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.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Drennan, MJ 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 MG, Neilan R, Moloney AP 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, AJ, Cook, GL, Smith, RJ 1980. The evaluation of a standardised cutting technique for determining breed differences in carcass composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 431–440.Google Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cuthbertson, A, Harrington, G 1982. Beef carcass grading and classification. In Carcase evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing (ed. AJ Kempster, A Cuthbertson and G Harrington), pp. 163–201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cook, GL, Southgate, JR 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. Animal Production 46, 365–378.Google Scholar
Kirkland RM, Keady TWJ, Patterson DC, Kilpatrick DJ and Steen RWJ 2005. The effect of slaughter weight on meat quality characteristics of Holstein-Friesian male cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 176 (abstract).Google Scholar
Kirkland, RM, Keady, TWJ, Patterson, DC, Kilpatrick, DJ, Steen, RWJ 2006. The effect of slaughter weight and sexual status on performance characteristics of male Holstein-Friesian cattle offered a cereal-based diet. Animal Science 82, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1998. Genstat 5 for Windows, version 4.1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lawrie, RA 1998. Lawrie’s meat science, 6th edition. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Lieber, R 1992. Skeletal muscle structure and function: implications for physical therapy and sports medicine. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Lively FO, Moss BW, Keady TWJ, Patterson DC and Gordon A 2005. The effect of genotype and carcass hanging method on meat quality. Proceedings of the 51st International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, August 7–12, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 1808–1814.Google Scholar
MacDougall, DB 1983. Measurement of food appearance. In Sensory quality in foods and beverages: definition, measurement and control McLellan, MR (ed. MR McLellan), pp. 121–139. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Maher, SC, Mullen, AM, Keane, MG, Buckley, DJ, Kerry, JP, Moloney, AP 2004. Variation in the eating quality of m-longissimus dorsi 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 90, 271–277.Google Scholar
Maltin, CA, Lobley, GE, Grant, CM, Miller, LA, Kyle, DJ, Horgan, GW, Matthews, KR, Sinclair, KD 2001. Factors affecting beef eating quality. 2. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on muscle fibre characteristics. Animal Science 72, 279–287.Google Scholar
Miller, MF, Carr, MA, Ramsey, CB, Crockett, KL, Hoover, LC 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 79, 3062–3068.Google Scholar
Mohan Raj, AB, Moss, BW, Rice, DA, Kilpatrick, DJ, McCaughey, WJ, McLauchlan, W 1992. Effects of mixing male sex types of cattle on their meat quality and stress-related parameters. Meat Science 32, 367–386.Google Scholar
Monsón, F, Sañudo, C, Sierra, I 2004. Influence of cattle breed and ageing time on textural meat quality. Meat Science 68, 595–602.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1987. Predicting feed intake of food producing animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Patterson, DC, Moore, CA, Steen, RWJ 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
Peachey, BM, Purchas, RW, Duizer, LM 2002. Relationships between sensory and objective measures of meat tenderness of beef m. longissimus thoracis from bulls and steers. Meat Science 60, 211–218.Google Scholar
Platter, WJ, Tatum, JD, Belk, KE, Chapman, PL, Scanga, JA, Smith, GC 2003. Relationships of consumer sensory ratings, marbling score, and shear force value to consumer acceptance of beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2741–2750.Google Scholar
Pringle, TD, Williams, SE, Lamb, BS, Johnson, DD, West, RL 1997. Carcass characteristics, the calpain proteinase system, and aged tenderness of Angus and Brahman crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2955–2961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purchas, RW, Aungsupakorn, R 1993. Further investigations into the relationship between ultimate pH and tenderness for beef samples from bulls and steers. Meat Science 34, 163–178.Google Scholar
Shackelford, SD, Wheeler, TL, Koohmaraie, M 1995. Relationships between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos-indicus and Bos-taurus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3333–3340.Google Scholar
Silva, JA, Patarata, L, Martins, C 1999. Influence of ultimate pH on bovine meat tenderness during ageing. Meat Science 52, 453–459.Google Scholar
Simm, G 1998. Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep. Farming Press, Miller Freeman, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
Sinclair, KD, Cuthbertson, A, Rutter, A, Franklin, MF 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.Google Scholar
Sinclair, KD, Lobley, GE, Horgan, GW, Kyle, DJ, Porter, AD, Matthews, KR, Warkup, CC, Maltin, CA 2001. Factors influencing beef eating quality. 1. Effects of nutritional regimen and genotype on organoleptic properties and instrumental textures. Animal Science 72, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ 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.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Robson, AE 1995. Effects of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet and protein intake on the performance and carcass composition of beef heifers. Journal of Agricultural Science 125, 125–135.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, Perry, D, Daly, B, Gardner, GE, Johnston, DJ, Pethick, DW 2006. Genetic and environmental effects on the muscle structure response post-mortem. Meat Science 74, 59–65.Google Scholar
Wulf, DM, Wise, JW 1999. Measuring muscle colour on beef carcasses using the L*, a*, b* color space. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2418–2427.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Mayne, CS, Keady, TWJ, Agnew, RE 2006. Effects of dairy cow genotype (Holstein-Friesian Versus Norwegian) with two planes of nutrition on energy partitioning between milk and body tissue. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1031–1042.Google Scholar