Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T00:31:47.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of Canadian Holstein and British Friesian steers for the production of beef from an 18-month grass/cereal system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

K. N. Cook  and
Jennifer M. Newton
K. N. Cook
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 OEL
Jennifer M. Newton
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 OEL
Get access

Abstract

The trial compared 50 purebred Canadian Holstein and 46 British Friesian steers. The cattle were reared on a grass/cereal system designed to achieve an overall target live-weight gain of 0·82 kg per day from weaning to slaughter at 18 months of age. The cattle, born i n September 1973, grazed during the summer of 1974 and were slaughtered out of yards from January to July 1975. Equal numbers of each breed were allocated at random to three slaughter weights (477, 500 and 523 kg live weight). The Meat and Livestock Commission measured and classified all carcasses. In addition, a sample was cut according to commercial specifications. There were no significant differences in slaughter age or live-weight gain between the breeds. A significant difference (P < 0·05) in killing-out percentage was found in favour of the British Friesian as was a small (4%) but highly significant difference (P < 0·001) in carcass gain.

The Canadian Holstein carcasses were considerably longer (P < 0·001) with less eye-muscle area (P < 0·001). The British Friesian carcasses contained 0·7% more saleable meat (P < 0·001) and 1% less bone (P < 0·01). There were no significant differences in fat trim. There were large differences in live appearance and carcass classifications, the British Friesians being of superior beef conformation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 41 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Craven, J. A. and Kilkenny, J. B. 1976. The structure of the British cattle industry. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), chap. 1. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. 1974a. The economic consequences of beef crossing in dual purpose or dairy cattle populations. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. 1974b. Comparisons of North American Holstein and European Friesian cattle for dairy and beef production. An Foras Taluntais, Dublin. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1977. Bone growth and development with particular reference to breed differences in carcass shape and lean to bone ratio. Proc. EEC Seminar on Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle, Ghent.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974. Instructions for assessment, photography, jointing, retail cutting and tissue separation of beef carcasses. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Progress in Beef Carcass Classification. Marketing and Meat Trade Tech. Bull., No. 22. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1965. Progeny testing dairy beef. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. MMB 15: 50–53.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1970. Canadian Holstein × British Friesian beef comparison. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. MMB 20: 96–97.Google Scholar
O'Connor, L. K. 1978. Testing Friesians for both milk and beef. Proc. British Cattle Breeders Club, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1970. Factors affecting accuracy in the evaluation of progeny tests of growth rate in cattle. Anim. Prod. 12: 585–590.Google Scholar