Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:13:32.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from fatness measurements and visual assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Kempster ,
J. P. Chadwick  and
D. D. Charles
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
J. P. Chadwick
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
D. D. Charles
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4067 Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Carcass data for 1053 steers from the Meat and Livestock Commission's beef breed evaluation programme were used to examine the relative precision of alternative fatness assessments for predicting carcass lean percentage. The data were from four trials and comprised both dairy-bred and suckler-bred cattle by a wide range of sire breeds.

A visual assessment of carcass subcutaneous fat content to the nearest percentage unit (SFe) was the single most precise predictor both overall (residual S.d. = 2·28) and within breed (residual S.d. = 2·05). Precision was improved by the addition in multiple regression of the percentage perinephric and retroperitoneal fat (KKCF) in carcass, a visual score of the degree of marbling in the m. longissimus and selected fat thickness measurements taken by calipers on cut surfaces (residual S.d. = 2·11 (overall) and 1·90 (within breed)).

When the best overall equation was applied to the breed means, there was substantial bias (predicted – actual carcass lean percentage). Biases ranged from +2·5 (purebred Canadian Holstein and Luing) to – 1·3 (Limousin crosses).

Breeds differed significantly in carcass lean content when compared at equal levels of fatness measurements. The differences depended both on the precision with which the measurements predicted carcass lean content and the observed differences in carcass composition that existed before adjustments to equal fatness were made.

The robustness of prediction equations was examined by applying them to independent sets of data (a total of 334 carcasses) from four other trials involving steers, heifers, cows and young bulls. Equations were stable for cattle of the same breed, sex and similar levels of fatness but important bias was found between more extreme types of cattle.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 223 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Abraham, H. C, Murphey, C. E., Cross, H. R., Smith, G. C. & Franks, W. J. (1980). Factors affecting beef carcass cutability: an evaluation of the USD A yield grades for beef. Journal of Animal Science 50, 841–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, J. J., Woods, E. G. & Greville, E. (1982). Prediction of beef carcass composition by tissue depth measurements taken over the 11th rib. Livestock Production Science 9, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, J. P. & Kempster, A. J. (1983). The estimation of beef carcass composition from subcutaneous fat measurements taken on the intact side using different probing instruments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, D. D. & Johnson, E. R. (1976). Breed differences in amount and distribution of bovine carcass dissectible fat. Journal of Animal Science 42, 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. N. & Newton, J. M. (1985). A trial to evaluate the Milk Marketing Board Beef Shape Assessment Scheme for Friesian/Holstein sires. Animal Production 40, 33–37.Google Scholar
Crouse, J. D. & Dikeman, M. E. (1974). Methods of estimating beef carcass chemical composition. Journal of Animal Science 38, 1190–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frood, I. J. M. (1976). An investigation into the effect of sex and plane of nutrition on the growth and carcass quality of British cattle for beef production. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Grantley-Smith, M. & Jones, D. W. (1985). The effect of further feeding and Finaplix implantation on the carcass composition of culled dairy cows. British Society of Animal Production, Winter Meeting, 1985.Google Scholar
Hedrick, H. B. & Krause, G. F. (1975). Comparisons of predicted and actual retail yields from steer and heifer carcasses and equations for estimating retail yield. Journal of Animal Science 41, 508–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, R. G., Van Ess, M. E., Long, R. A. & Schaefer, D. M. (1975). ‘Marbling’: its use in predicting beef carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 40, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. (1981). Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: a review. Meat Science 5, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J. (1986). Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from conformation assessments adjusted for fatness. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. & Smith, R. J. (1980). The evaluation of a standardized commercial cutting technique for determining breed differences in carcass composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. & Southgate, J. R. (1982 a). A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the stickler herd. 2. Carcass characteristics. Animal Production 35, 99–111.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. & Southgate, J. R. (1982 b). 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. Animal Production 34, 167–178.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1976). Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 1. Distribution between depots. Animal Production 23, 25–34.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1982). Carcass Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. St Albans: Granada.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (1974). Standard conditions of deadweight purchase for cattle, sheep, pork and cutter pigs. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Meat and Livestock Commission.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. & Williams, D. R. (1974). The partition of fat in the bovine carcass. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 3, 85 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. & Kemfster, A. J. (1982 a). A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. 1. Live-weight growth and efficiency of food utilisation. Animal Production 35, 87–98.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. & Kempster, A. J. (1982 b). 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 utilisation. Animal Production 34, 155–166.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. & Kempster, A. J. (1983). Growth performance and carcass characteristics of British Friesian and beef breeds × British Friesian steers at different levels of fatness. British Society of Animal Production, Winter Meeting, 1983 (mimeo).Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. & Kempster, A. J. (1984). Carcass development in three breeds of finishing suckled calves fed to grow at different rates of liveweight gain and slaughtered serially. British Society of Animal Production, Winter Meeting 1984 (mimeo).Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (1965). Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef. USDA, C & MS, SRA 99.Google Scholar