Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T12:52:22.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. J. Kempster ,
G. L. Cook  and
J. R. Southgate
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
G. L. Cook
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
J. R. Southgate
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

Carcass characteristics of purebred British Friesian steers and crossbred steers by eight sire breeds out of British Friesian dams, in 16-month and 24-month beef production systems, were compared. Sire breeds included Charolais, Simmental and the main traditional British beef breeds. A total of 579 cattle were involved.

The cattle were slaughtered at a fixed level of fatness and the carcasses evaluated using a standardized commercial cutting technique. Data were adjusted to equal carcass subcutaneous fat concentration.

Sire breed differences were similar in both feeding systems. Charolais crosses killed-out best and Aberdeen- Angus and Devon crosses poorest; the range was 25 g/kg live weight.

Significant differences were recorded between breeds in the proportion of saleable meat in the carcass (P<0·001): Charolais, Sussex and Aberdeen-Angus crosses had the highest values, on average being 15g/kg carcass weight better than purebred Friesians. Breed differences were detected in the proportion of total saleable meat occurring in the higher-priced joints, Simmental and Charolais crosses ranking highest, but the range across sire breeds was only 10 g/kg carcass weight. There were important differences between sire breeds in rate of meat weight gain that were related to mature size.

Purebred Friesians were less efficient than either Charolais or Hereford crosses in converting food into meat in the 24-month system. Friesians also had the lowest efficiency and Hereford crosses the highest efficiency in the 16-month system, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 167 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

Adams, N. J., Garrett, W. N. and Elings, J. T. 1973. Performance and carcass characteristics of crosses from imported breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 623–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech Andersen, B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1977. Crossbreeding experiment with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. III. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively-fed young bulls. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues. 2. Genetic influences on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls. Anim. Prod. 27: 51–61.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1963. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.). CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1961. Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. N. and Newton, Jennifer M. 1979. A comparison of Canadian Holstein and British Friesian steers for the production of beef from an 18-month grass/cereal system. Anim. Prod. 28: 41–47.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Martin, A. H., Weiss, G. M., Slen, S. B. and Sumption, L. J. 1972. Feedlot and carcass performance of young bulls representing several breeds and breed crosses. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frood, I. J. M., 1976. An investigation into the effects of sex and plane of nutrition on the growth performance and carcass quality of British Friesian cattle for beef production. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henningsson, T. and Brannang, E. 1974. Cross-breeding for beef with Swedish Friesian cattle. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 4: 25–32.Google Scholar
Kauffman, R. G. 1978. Bovine compositional interrelationships. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 (ed. Boer, H. De and Martin, J.), pp. 13–34. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1980. Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs. Meat Sci. 5: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Smith, R. J. 1980. Carcass evaluation of beef breeds and crosses using a standardized commercial cutting technique. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 95: 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1976a. Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 1. Distribution between depots. Anim. Prod. 23: 25–34.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976b. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Harrington, G. 1980. The value of ‘fat-corrected’ conformation as an indicator of beef composition within and between breeds. Livest. Prod. Sci. 7: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Owen, M. G. 1981. A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Anim. Prod. 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M. and Dikeman, M. E. 1977. Characterization of biological types of cattle. v. Carcass wholesale cut composition. J. Anim. Sci. 45: 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Allen, D. M., May, M., Crouse, J. D. and Campion, D. R. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Lipsey, R. J., Allen, D. M. and Crouse, J. D. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle – cycle II: III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limousin and Simmental Tests Steering Committee. 1976. Report of the evaluation of the first importation into Great Britain in 1970/71 of Limousin bulls from France and Simmental bulls from Germany and Switzerland. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974. Standard conditions of deadweight purchase for cattle, sheep, pork and cutter pigs. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Progress on beef carcase classification. Mktg Meat Trade Tech. Bull., No. 22. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. and Berg, R. T. 1973. Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81: 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Smithfield Club. 1966. A comparison of the growth of different types of cattle for beef production. Rep. Major Beef Res. Proj. Royal Smithfield Club, London.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982. 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 utilization. Anim. Prod. 34: 155–166.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G. 1980. A study of relationships between fat partition and metabolism in Hereford and Friesian steers. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Bristol.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1980. The energetic efficiency of growth. Livest. Prod. Sci. 7: 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1970. Carcass characteristics of various breeds of beef cattle in Cuba. Revta Cub. Cienc. Agric. 4: 85–90.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, p. 216. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar