J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bullock, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lust, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bullock, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lust, D. G.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 69, Issue 10 3908-3916, Copyright © 1991 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Comparison of real-time ultrasound and other live measures to carcass measures as predictors of beef cow energy stores

K. D. Bullock, J. K. Bertrand, L. L. Benyshek, S. E. Williams and D. G. Lust
Anim. and Dairy Sci. Dept. University of Georgia, Athens 30602.

Thirty-nine mature cows were divided into three condition groups on the basis of their subcutaneous fat thickness as determined by real-time ultrasound. A representative animal from each group was measured and slaughtered. The remaining cows with each group were stratified evenly into two groups with one group fed to gain weight and the other to lose weight. Several ultrasound and other live measures were taken every 4 wk and two animals per subgroup were randomly slaughtered. Carcass data were collected and one side of each carcass was boned, ground, mixed, and subsampled for fat and protein determination. Four regression equations were generated to predict percentage of fat (FAT), percentage of protein (PROT), total fat (TOTFAT), total protein (TOTPROT), total calories (CAL), CAL per live weight (CAL/WT), yield grade (YG), and marbling (MARB). The first equation used all live measures (SUB), the second equation used only objective live measures (OBJ), the third equation incorporated traditional live measures (EAS), and the fourth equation used only carcass data (CAR). Adjusted R-squares of the most appropriate equation using the SUB, OBJ, EAS, and CAR measurements were .82, .73, .82, and .82 for FAT; .82, .57, .61, and .66 for PROT; .89, .87, .86, and .85 for TOTFAT; .95, .95, .93, and .74 for TOTPROT; .93, .92, .91, and .90 for CAL; .83, .78, .83, and .82 for CAL/WT; .86, .86, .78, and .93 for YG; and .75, .70, .74, and .74 for MARB, respectively. It seems that condition score or ultrasound with other objective live measures is as accurate in predicting cow composition as carcass measures.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
S. P. Greiner, G. H. Rouse, D. E. Wilson, L. V. Cundiff, and T. L. Wheeler
Prediction of retail product weight and percentage using ultrasound and carcass measurements in beef cattle
J Anim Sci, July 1, 2003; 81(7): 1736 - 1742.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Society of Animal Science.