Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:19:18.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass composition of veal calves dependent on genotype and feeding level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. Korver ,
H. Vos ,
P. L. Bergström ,
M. W. A. Verstegen  and
G. Kleinhout
S. Korver
Affiliation:
Agricultural University, Department of Animal Breeding, Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. Vos
Affiliation:
Agricultural University, Department of Animal Breeding, Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. L. Bergström
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry ‘Schoonoord’, Zeist, The Netherlands
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Agricultural University, Department of Animal Husbandry, Wageningen, The Netherlands
G. Kleinhout
Affiliation:
Denkavit-Nederland B V, Voorthuizen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Dutch Friesian purebred and Holstein Friesian-Dutch Friesian crossbred veal calves were used to study effects of genotype and feeding level on carcass composition. Carcass analyses were carried out on a total of 56 calves of two genotypes. Calves were reared for 22 weeks and given food dependent on age. From 1 to 16 weeks calves were given the same amount of milk replacer. At week 16, calves were assigned to either a high or low feeding level. Total energy intakes for the two groups were 5062 MJ metabolizable energy (ME) and 5408 MJ ME, respectively. Carcass weight and carcass composition traits showed no significant interaction between genotype and feeding level. Dutch Friesians had higher lean: bone ratios than Holstein Friesian crossbreds (3·85 v. 3·67). Differences between the two genotypes for fat and lean proportions in the carcass were not significant. Average proportions for lean and fat were 653 and 134 g/kg.

Differences between the two feeding levels for carcass composition were significant. Calves on the low feeding level had 655 g lean and 131 g fat per kg, while calves on the high level had 645 g lean and 143 g fat per kg.

The influence of the dissection technique on the differences in lean and muscle proportion between groups was studied on 18 carcasses using a standardized butcher's method (the Institute of Animal Husbandry (IVO) standard method) and the European Economic Community (EEC) reference method for beef. Average proportion of lean was 640 g/kg by the IVO method and of muscle was 557 g/kg by the EEC method. The difference between the two genotypes for lean proportion was smaller by the' EEC method due to the more complete separation between muscle and fatty tissue. Dutch Friesians had more intermuscular fat than Holstein Friesian crossbreds. Results of the EEC reference method indicate differences between the two feeding levels for fat as well as for protein deposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 415 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Bech Andersen, B., Lykke, Th., Kousgaard, Kr., Buchter, L. and Wismer pedersen, J. 1977. Growth, feed utilization, carcass quality and meat quality in Danish dualpurpose cattle Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugs Forsog No. 453.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Bergströ, M P. L. 1983. Sources of variation of the muscle to bone ratio in the cattle carcass. IVO Report B-213, Zeist.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Ball, C. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1976. Growth and carcass characteristics of purebred and crossbred cattle with special reference to their carcass lean: bone ratios. Animal Production 23: 341–348.Google Scholar
Geay, Y. 1984. Energy and protein utilization in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58: 766–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geay, Y. and Robelin, J. 1979. Variation of meat production capacity in cattle due to genotype and level of feeding: genotype-nutrition interaction. Livestock Production Science 6: 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. Users' guide for LSML 76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus (Mimeograph).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
Korver, S., Vos, H., Leede, C. A. de and Meindertsma, J. 1984a. The difference between dairy and dual purpose breeds for veal production. 1. Production characteristics. Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie 101: 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korver, S., Vos, H., Leede, C. A. de and Meindertsma, J. 1984b. Meat production of veal calves depending on genotype and feeding level. Bedrijfsontwikkeling 15: 867–869.Google Scholar
Larsen, J. B., Kirsgaard, E., Klausen, S. and Konggaard, S. P. 1967. Normal contra staerk fodring i den sidste del af fedningsprioden. Arbog Landokom. Forsogslaboratoriet, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Merkus, G. S. M. 1983. IVO standaard uitsnijmethode voor kalveren. IVO Report C-441, Zeist.Google Scholar
Meulenbroeks, J., Verstegen, M. W. A., Van der hel, W., Korver, S. and Kleinhout, G. 1986. The effect of genotype and metabolizable energy intake on protein and fat gain in veal calves. Animal Production 43: 195–200.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, J. J. and Meijering, A. 1985. Breeding for veal production in Black and White dairy cattle. 36th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Greece.Google Scholar
Refsgaard andersen, H. 1975. The influence of slaughter weight and level of feeding on growth rate, feed conversion and carcass composition of bulls. Livestock Production Science 2: 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohr, K. and Daenicke, R. 1984. Nutritional effects on the distribution of live weight as gastrointestinal tract fill and tissue components in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58: 753–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. 1980. The Calf. 4th ed.Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Toelle, V. D., Tess, M. W., Johnson, T. and Bech andersen, B. 1987. Lean and fat growth patterns of serially slaughtered beef bulls fed different energy levels. Journal of Animal Science In press.Google Scholar
Trusioit, T. G., Wood, J. D. and MacFie, H. J. H. 1983. Fat deposition in Hereford and Friesian steers. 1. Body composition and partitioning of fat between depots. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100: 257–270.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R. and Bhrgstrom, P. L. 1980. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording. EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities, EUR 6878 EN (Mimeograph).Google Scholar