Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:46:53.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2008

M. J. Drennan ,
M. McGee  and
M. G. Keane
M. J. Drennan*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. McGee
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. G. Keane
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective was to determine the relationship of muscular and skeletal scores taken on the live animal and carcass conformation and fat scores with carcass composition and value. Bulls (n = 48) and heifers (n = 37) of 0.75 to 1.0 late-maturing breed genotypes slaughtered at 16 and 20 months of age, respectively, were used. At 8 months of age (weaning) and immediately pre-slaughter, visual muscular scores were recorded for each animal and additionally skeletal scores were recorded pre-slaughter. Carcass weight, kidney and channel fat weight, carcass conformation and fat scores, fat depth over the longissimus dorsi muscle at the 12th (bulls) or 10th (heifers) rib and carcass length were recorded post-slaughter. Each carcass was subsequently dissected into meat, fat and bone using a commercial dissection procedure. Muscular scores taken pre-slaughter showed positive correlations with killing-out rate (r ≈ 0.65), carcass meat proportion (r ≈ 0.60), value (r ≈ 0.55) and conformation score (r ≈ 0.70), and negative correlations with carcass bone (r ≈ −0.60) and fat (r ≈ −0.4) proportions. Corresponding correlations with muscular scores at weaning were lower. Correlations of skeletal scores taken pre-slaughter, carcass length and carcass weight with killing-out rate and the various carcass traits were mainly not significant. Carcass fat depth and kidney and channel fat weight were negatively correlated with carcass meat proportion and value, and positively correlated with fat proportion. Correlations of carcass conformation score were positive (r = 0.50 to 0.68) with killing-out rate, carcass meat proportion and carcass value and negative with bone (r ≈ −0.56) and fat (r ≈ −0.40) proportions. Corresponding correlations with carcass fat score were mainly negative except for carcass fat proportion (r ≈ 0.79). A one-unit (scale 1 to 15) increase in carcass conformation score increased carcass meat proportion by 8.9 and 8.1 g/kg, decreased fat proportion by 4.0 and 2.9 g/kg and decreased bone proportion by 4.9 and 5.2 g/kg in bulls and heifers, respectively. Corresponding values per unit increase in carcass fat score were −11.9 and −9.7 g/kg, 12.4 and 9.9 g/kg, and −0.5 and −0.2 g/kg. Carcass conformation and fat scores explained 0.70 and 0.55 of the total variation in meat yield for bulls and heifers, respectively. It is concluded that live animal muscular scores, and carcass conformation and fat scores, are useful indicators of carcass meat proportion and value.

Keywords

beefcarcass conformation scorecarcass classificationmuscular scores
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 5 , May 2008 , pp. 752 - 760
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Afolayan, RA, Deland, MPB, Rutley, DL, Bottema, CDK, Ewers, AL, Ponzoni, RW, Pitchford, WS 2002. Prediction of carcass meat, fat and bone yield across diverse cattle genotype using live-animal measurements. Animal Production in Australia 24, 13–16.Google Scholar
Afolayan, RA, Pitchford, WS, Deland, MPB, McKiernan, WA 2007. Breed variation and genetic parameters for growth and body development in diverse beef cattle genotypes. Animal 1, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen P and Finnerty N 2000. Objective beef carcass classification. A report of a trial of three VIA classification systems. Teagasc and Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Publication, 34pp.Google Scholar
Bailey, CM, Jensen, J, Bech Andersen, B 1986. Ultrasonic scanning and body measurements for predicting composition and muscle distribution in young Holstein × Friesian bulls. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1337–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohuslávek, Z 2002. Analysis of the commercial grades of beef carcases. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47, 112–118.Google Scholar
CMMS Statistics Report 2006. Publications by the Department of Agriculture and Food, June 2007, 60pp.Google Scholar
Collins JME 1998. Genetic evaluation and selection of pedigree beef cattle in the UK. Signet Base Paper, 26pp.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1982. Commission of the European Communities (Beef Carcass Classification) Regulations. Council Regulations 1358/80, 1208/81, 1202/82. Commission Regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, MacAodháin, C, Murphy, B, Doorley, S 2004. Relationship between visual muscle scores of different animal types taken at 9 months of age and pre-slaughter with carcass conformation. In Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum. Published by Teagasc, Carlow, Ireland, p. 101 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ 2006. Relationship between beef carcass classification grades with meat yield and value. In Irish Grassland Association Journal (ed. D McGilloway), pp. 35–43. Walsh Printer, Roscrea.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, Keane, MG, McGee, M 2007. Relationship of live animal scores/measurements and carcass grades with carcass composition and carcass value of steers. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep, EAAP publication No. 123 (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabina), pp. 159–169. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Greiner, SP, Rouse, GH, Wilson, DE, Cundiff, LV, Wheeler, TL 2003. Prediction of retail product weight and percentage using ultrasound and carcass measurements in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1736–1742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, DB, Savell, JW, Recio, HA, Garrett, RP, Cross, HR 1999. Predicting carcass composition of beef cattle using ultrasound technology. Journal of Animal Science 77, 889–892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, WO, Williams, SE, Bertrand, JK, Benyshek, LL, Miller, DC 1994. Comparison of live and carcass equations predicting percentage of cutability, retail product weight and trimmable fat in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1107–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) linear scoring reference guide 2002. ICBF Society Ltd., Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland, 17pp.Google Scholar
Jones, SDM, Tong, AKW, Robertson, WM 1989. The prediction of beef carcass lean content by an electronic probe, a visual scoring system and carcass measurements. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69, 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, RG, Grummer, RH, Smith, RE, Long, RA, Shook, G 1973. Does live-animal and carcass shape influence gross composition? Journal of Animal Science 37, 1112–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ 1986. Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from conformation assessments adjusted for fatness. Journal of Agricultural Science 106, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Harrington, G 1980. The value of “fat corrected” conformation as an indicator of beef carcass composition within and between breeds. Livestock Production Science 7, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, SG, Mies, WL, Edwards, JW, Harris, JJ, Morgan, JB, Garrett, RP, Williams, FL, Wise, JW, Cross, HR, Savell, JW 2000. Using live estimates and ultrasound measurements to predict beef carcass cutability. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1255–1261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, D, McKiernan, WA 1994. Growth and dressing percentage of well and average muscled Angus steers. Proceedings of Australian Society Animal Production 20, 349–350.Google Scholar
Perry, D, McKiernan, WA, Yeates, AP 1993a. Muscle score: its usefulness in describing the potential yield of saleable meat from live steers and their carcasses. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D, Yeates, AP, McKiernan, WA 1993b. Meat yield and subjective muscle scores in medium weight steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2003. SAS/STAT. SAS Systems for Windows. Release 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., USA.Google Scholar
Tatum, JD, Dolezal, HG, JrWilliams, FL, Bowling, RA, Taylor, RE 1986. Effects of feeder cattle frame size and muscle thickness on subsequent growth and carcass development. II. Absolute growth and associated changes in carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 62, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar