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

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

Meta-analysis of factors affecting carcass characteristics of feedlot steers

M. J. McPhee^*,,1, J. W. Oltjen^*, T. R. Famula^* and R. D. Sainz^*,2

^* Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; and and NSW Department of Primary Industries, Armidale, NSW, 2350 Australia

² Corresponding author: rdsainz{at}ucdavis.edu

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of biological type (early-moderate or late maturity) and implant status (estrogenic, combination, or nonimplanted; repeats included) on HCW (kg); LM area (cm²); 12th-rib fat thickness (fat thickness, cm); KPH (%), and intramuscular fat (%) at harvest, to provide inputs to an ongoing program for modeling beef cattle growth and carcass quality. Forty-three publications from 1982 to 2004 with consistent intramuscular fat data were evaluated. Two studies were undertaken: 1) with fat thickness as a covariate and 2) with BW as a covariate. The intercept-slope covariance estimate was not statistically different from 0 for LM area (P = 0.11), KPH (P = 0.19), and intramuscular fat (P = 0.74) in study 1, and for LM area (P = 0.44), fat thickness (P = 0.11), KPH (P = 0.19), and intramuscular fat (P = 0.74) in study 2; therefore, a reduced model without a covariance component was fitted for these carcass characteristics. A covariance component was fitted for HCW (P = 0.01, study 1 and P = 0.05, study 2) and for intramuscular fat (P = 0.05, study 2). In study 1, the results for maturity indicated differences between early-moderate and late maturity for HCW (P < 0.01) and LM area (P < 0.01) but no differences for KPH (P = 0.26) and intramuscular fat (P = 0.50); for implant status, an estrogenic or combination implant increased HCW by 2.9% (P = 0.27) or 4.8% (P < 0.01), increased LM area by 3.2% (P = 0.23) or 6.3% (P < 0.01), decreased intramuscular fat by 8.1% (P < 0.01) or 5.4% (P < 0.01), respectively, and decreased KPH by 7.6% (P = 0.34) for estrogenic implants but increased KPH by 1.1% (P = 0.36) for combination implants, compared with nonimplanted steers. In study 2, the results at 600 kg of BW for implant status (implant or nonimplant) indicated no differences for HCW (P = 0.63) and LM area (P = 0.73), but there were differences for fat thickness (P < 0.01), KPH (P < 0.01), and intramuscular fat (P < 0.01); the results for maturity (early-moderate or late maturity) indicated no differences for HCW (P = 0.94), but there were differences for LM area (P < 0.01), fat thickness (P < 0.01), KPH (P < 0.01), and intramuscular fat (P < 0.01). The difference between early-moderate and late maturity (studies 1 and 2) confirmed that frame size accounts for a substantial portion of the variation in carcass composition. Studies 1 and 2 also indicate that implant status had significant effects on carcass quality.

Key Words: beef cattle • carcass characteristic • implant • maturity