HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lipsey, R. J. Articles by Schalles, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lipsey, R. J. Articles by Schalles, R. R.

Carcass Composition of Different Cattle Types Related to Energy Efficiency^{1 ,2,}

Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506

Abstract

Sixteen Maine-Anjou (MA) and 14 Gelbvieh (Gelb) steers from Angus or Hereford crossbred dams, and 16 Hereford x Angus (Hx A-AxH) reciprocal crossbred steers were fed the same ration in individual pens until they reached an energy coefficiency endpoint of 8.0 Meal of NEp per kilogram gain. Gelb and MA crosses were fed an average of 70 days longer, averaged more than 94 kg heavier at slaughter, and gained an average of .21 kg more per day than Hx A-Ax H. On a gross basis, Hx A-Ax H were more than 1.4 kg DM per kilogram gain less efficient than MA and Gelb, ADG and gross efficiency were significantly related by both pooled and within-breed analyses. Faster gaining cattle were more efficient when fed to the same NEp efficiency endpoint, Hx A-Ax H carcasses showed no advantage in quality grade over MA and Gelb, although HxA-AxH averaged .48 cm more external fat at the 12th rib and .68 poorer yield grade than MA and Gelb, The left round of each carcass was physically separated into lean, fat and bone to estimate carcass composition; MA and Gelb had a higher percentage of carcass lean (P<.06) than Hx A-Ax H. Although predicted percentage of carcass lean differed by 3% between large and small cattle types, that difference is probably less than would have occurred using any other slaughter endpoint. Perhaps the calculations of NEm and NEp are not perfectly accurate for different cattle types and/or differences in environment, and possibly account for the 3% difference in estimated carcass lean.

¹ Contribution No. 518-J, Department of Animal Science and Industry, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan 66506.

² The authors are grateful to the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska, Agricultural Research Service for providing the cattle used in this research.

³ Present address: Animal Husbandry Department, University of Missouri, Columbia 65201.