Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:33:30.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of lean 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, and the rate and efficiency of lean gain of purebred British Friesian and Canadian Holstein steers and of crossbred steers out of British Friesian dams by Charolais, Hereford, Limousin, Lincoln Red, Simmental, South Devon and Sussex sires were examined in two beef production systems. One was similar to the commercial 18-month grass/cereal system (16-month) and the other to a commercial 2-year system (24-month). The cattle were serially slaughtered at three pre-determined fatness levels, estimated by the Scanogram ultrasonic machine. The trial extended over 4 years and involved a total of 650 cattle, 398 of which had their left sides separated into tissues. Breeds were compared at equal carcass subcutaneous fat proportion determined by visual carcass assessment (SFe). Data for the two production systems were analysed separately.

Sire breed differences were not detected in the regression on SFe for most characteristics (P > 0·05). Sire breeds differed in killing out and visual conformation score in both production systems (P < 0·001): Charolais and Limousin crosses had the highest values and purebred Canadian Holsteins the lowest. The overall range between sire breeds was 30 g carcass weight per kg live weight and five points on a 15-point conformation scale.

Breeds with the higher conformation scores generally had higher carcass lean proportions and higher lean: bone ratios. Canadian Holsteins had a 20 g/kg lower carcass lean proportion than the British Friesians (P < 0·05).

Breed crosses with larger adult body size tended to have higher lean tissue growth rates: the difference between mean values for Charolais crosses and Hereford crosses was 49 g/day (16-month) and 38 g/day (24-month). The lean tissue growth rates of the British Friesians and especially the Canadian Holsteins were low in relation to their adult body size.

Limousin and Charolais crosses had the highest efficiency of lean gain (g lean per kg digestible organic matter intake). These and the other crosses were significantly more efficient than the purebred Canadian Holsteins (P < 0·05). The overall range between breeds was 20 g/kg.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 365 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Baber, P. L., Rowlinson, P., Willis, M. B. and Chalmers, A. J. 1984. A comparison of Canadian Holstein × British Friesian and British Friesian steers for beef production. 2. Carcass characteristics. Animal Production 38: 407–415.Google Scholar
Bailey, P. J., Cook, G. L., Kempster, A. J. and Sains, A. G. 1984. The estimation of killing out in cattle from knowledge of breed, and visual appraisal of external fat cover and conformation. Animal Production 38: 391–398.Google Scholar
Bech Andersen, B., Liboriussen, T., Kousgaard, K. and Buchter, L. 1977. Crossbreeding experiments with beef and dual-purpose sire breeds on Danish dairy cows. III. Daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality of intensively fed young bulls. Livestock Production Science 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. Animal Production 27: 51–61.Google Scholar
Blakely, D. K., Wilton, J. W., Usborne, W. R. and Burnside, E. B. 1978. The effect of breed of sire group on beef production and carcass characteristics. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58: 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boothroyd, D. 1979. Holsteins for beef. Annual Review, High Mowthorpe Experimental Husbandry Farm, pp. 47–49.Google Scholar
Conniffe, D. and Moran, M. A. 1972. Double sampling with regression in comparative studies of carcass composition. Biometrics 28: 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. L., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A note on a simple criterion for choosing among sample joints for use in double sampling. Animal Production 36: 493–495.Google Scholar
Cook, K. N. and Newton, J. M. 1979. A comparison of Canadian Holstein and British Friesian steers for the production of beef from an 18-month grass/cereal system. Animal Production 28: 41–47.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security. 1984. Diet and cardiovascular disease. Report on Health and Social Aspects No. 28. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C., Jury, K. E., Dalton, D. C. and Langridge, M. 1980. Beef production from the dairy herd. IV. Growth and carcass composition of straight-bred and beef-cross Friesian steers in several environments. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 23: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. Journal of Animal Science 32: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henningsson, T. and Brannang, E. 1974. Crossbreeding for beef with Swedish Friesian cattle. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 25–32.Google Scholar
Kauffman, R. G. 1978. Bovine compositional interrelationships. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle (ed. Boer, H. De and Martin, J.), pp. 13–24. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. and Grantley-Smith, M. 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and 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. and Southgate, J. R. 1982. 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. and Smith, R. J. 1976. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87: 533–542.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. Animal Production 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M. and Dikeman, M. E. 1977. Characterization of biological types of cattle. V. Carcass wholesale cut composition. Journal of Animal Science 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. Journal of Animal Science 43: 48–62.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
Menissier, F., Sopa, J., Foulley, J. L., Frebling, J. and Bonaitti, B. 1981. Comparison of different sire breeds crossed with Friesian cows: preliminary results. Proceedings of the European Economic Community Seminar on Beef Production from Dairy Herds, Dublin (ed. O'Ferrall, G. J. More), pp. 94–136. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1987. Report of the Breeding and Production Organisation, No. 37. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. and Berg, R. T. 1973. Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81: 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J. 1986. Composition corporelle des bovins: evolution au cours du developpement et differences entre races. These de Doctoral d'Etat à l'Université de Clermont-Ferrand II.Google Scholar
Solly, K. J., Kempster, A. J. and Southgate, J. R. 1987. Fat growth and its partition between depots in crossbred steers by different sire breeds. Animal Production 44: 474 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 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. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilization. Animal Production 46: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tas, M. V. and Scott, B. M. 1982. Evaluation of Holstein steers for beef production. Experimental Husbandry 38: 184–196.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G. 1980. A study of relationships between fat partition and metabolism in Hereford and Friesian steers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1980. The energetic efficiency of growth. Livestock Production Science 7: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1970. Carcass characteristics of various breeds of beef cattle in Cuba. Revista Cubana Cienca Agriculture 4: 85–90.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, p. 216. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar