Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:07:04.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of indigenous African cattle breeds in relation to carcass characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

P.E. Strydom ,
R.T. Naudé ,
M.F. Smith ,
M.M. Scholtz  and
J.B. van Wyk
P.E. Strydom
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Animal Products Institute, ARC, Private Bag X2, Irene, 0062, South Africa
R.T. Naudé
Affiliation:
ARC-Head Office, PO Box 8783, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa
M.F. Smith
Affiliation:
ARC-Head Office, PO Box 8783, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa
M.M. Scholtz
Affiliation:
Animal Improvement Institute, ARC, Private Bag x2, Irene, 0062, South Africa
J.B. van Wyk
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of the Orange Free State, P. O. Box 339, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

Carcass traits of two indigenous African (Sanga) breeds (Afrikaner and Nguni), one indigenous African composite breed (Bonsmara), one foreign composite breed (Santa Gertrudis) and two continental European breeds (Brown Swiss and Pinzgauer) were compared. Treatment means were adjusted to the mean overall subcutaneous fat proportion (47 g/kg). Despite differences in maturity type, only the Afrikaner dressed out significantly (P < 0·05) lower than the foreign breeds. Both Sanga breeds and the Bonsmara had significantly higher muscle yields than the Santa Gertrudis and Pinzgauer, mainly due to the high intermuscular fat of the latter two breeds. When muscle yield was expressed per unit of bone, the Afrikaner and Bonsmara compared favourably with the larger breeds, due to their low bone and intermuscular fat yield, while the Nguni had a relatively high bone yield. The Santa Gertrudis had the lowest muscle yield due to its high bone and intermuscular fat yields, especially when compared with the smaller Bonsmara composite. Both Sanga breeds had significantly higher (P < 0·05) proportions of total weight, meat and bone (Afrikaner P > 0·05) in the high-priced cuts compared with the other breeds at the same subcutaneous fat level. Despite the statistical significance, differences were small in magnitude and probably of little commercial value. At the same time mean subcutaneous fat proportion, tissue yield and distribution patterns expected of late maturing breeds were observed for smaller indigenous breeds, suggesting that it was specific breed effects rather than maturity type effects, which were evident.

Keywords

Africacarcass qualitycattle breeds
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 241 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1985. Official methods of analysis, 14th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Adams, N. J., Smith, G. C. and Carpenter, Z.L. 1977. Carcass and palatability characteristics of Hereford and crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 46: 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, N.J., Smith, G.C. and Carpenter, Z.L. 1982. Performance, carcass and palatability characteristics of longhorn and other types of cattle. Meat Science 7: 67–79.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. National beef cattle performance and progeny testing scheme: 1980-1992 results. Compiled by Bosman, D.J.. Livestock Improvement Schemes, Irene, Republic of South Africa.Google Scholar
Berg, R.T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1978. New concepts of cattle growth, second edition. Sydney University Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. 1980. Cross-breeding, breed creation and the genesis of the Bonsmara. In Livestock production. A global approach. pp. 90–110. Tafelberg Publishers Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D. 1957. The relation of conformation to carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 16: 227–233.Google Scholar
Cole, J.W., Ramsey, C.B. and Hobbs, C.S. 1964. Effects of type and breed of British, zebu and dairy cattle on production, palatability and composition. III. Percent wholesale cuts and yield of edible portions as determined by physiological and chemical analysis. Journal of Animal Science 23: 71–83.Google Scholar
Damon, R.A., Crown, R.M., Singletary, C. B. and McCraine, S. E. 1960. Carcass characteristics of pure-bred and crossbred beef steers in the Gulf Coast region. Journal of Animal Science 19: 820–844.Google Scholar
De Bruyn, J. F. 1991. Production and product characteristics of different cattle genotypes under feedlot conditions. D.Sc. thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
GENSTAT 5 Committee. 1993. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Claredon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gerrard, F. and Mallion, F.J. 1977. The complete book of meat. Virtue, London, UK.Google Scholar
Goddard, M. E. 1995. Optimal crossbreeding schemes for beef production. Proceedings of the 11th conference of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics, vol. 11, pp. 434–438.Google Scholar
Jones, S.D.M. 1985. Carcass tissue yield and distribution in three biological types of cattle fed grain or forage based diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 363–374.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1980a. The growth and distribution of muscle in bulls and heifers of two breeds. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 669–675.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1980b. Fattening patterns in cattle. 1. Fat partition among the depots. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 843–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1980c. Fattening patterns in cattle. 2. Fat distribution among the wholesale cuts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 851–856.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Rompala, R. E., Wilton, J. W. and Watson, C. H. 1984. Empty body weights, carcass weights and offal proportions in bulls and steers of different mature size. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64: 53–57.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More O’Ferrall, , G.J., Connolly|J. 1989. Growth and carcass composition of Friesian, Limousin X Friesian and Blonde D’Aquitaine X Friesian steers. Animal Production 48: 353–365.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1978. Bone growth and development with particular reference to breed differences in carcass shape and lean to bone ratio. In Patterns of growth and development in cattle: a seminar in the EEC programme of coordination of research on beef production, Ghent, Belgiu. (ed. de Boer, H. and Martin, J.), pp. 149–165. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Kempster, A.J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982a. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. 2. Carcass characteristics. Animal Production 35: 99–111.Google Scholar
Kempster, A.J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982b. 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., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesians, Canadian Holstein and beef breed X 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. Animal Production 46: 365–378.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1976a. Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Animal Production 23: 25–34.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976b. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87: 533–542.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Davis, P. R. and Smith, R. J. 1976c. Fat distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 2. Distribution between joints. Animal Production 23: 223–237.Google 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., Dikeman, M. E. and Crouse, J. D. 1982a. Characterisation of biological types of cattle (cycle III). III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability Journal of Animal Science 54: 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1981. Characterisation of biological types of cattle (cycle II). V Carcass wholesale cut composition. Journal of Animal Science 53: 992–999.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1982b. Characterisation of biological types of cattle (cycle III). V Carcass wholesale cut composition. Journal of Animal Science 54: 1160–1168.Google Scholar
Maule, J. P. 1973. The role of the indigenous breeds for beef production in southern Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science 3:111–132.Google Scholar
Mead, R. and Curnow, R. N. 1983. Studying linear relationships: covariance analysis. In Statistical methods in agriculture and experimental biology. pp. 145–153. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Miller, M.E., Cross, H.R. and Crouse, J. D. 1987. Effect of feeding regimen, breed and sex condition on carcass composition and feed efficiency. Meat Science 20: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naudé, R. T. 1972. [The determination of muscle, fat and bone in the carcasses of young steers.] South African Journal of Animal Science 2: 35–39.Google Scholar
Naudé, R. T. 1974. Intensiewe vleisbeesproduksie uit melkrasbeeste. D.Sc. thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Rompala, R.E. and Jones, S. D. M. 1982. Growth of carcass and offal components with respect to dietary energy intake and genetic background. Journal of Animal Science 55: (suppl. 1) 227.Google Scholar
Schoeman, S. J. 1989. Review: recent research into the production potential of indigenous cattle with specific reference to Sanga. South African Journal of Animal Science 19(2): 55–61.Google Scholar
Scholtz, M. M. 1988. Selection possibilities of hardy beef breeds in Africa: The Nguni example. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeds, Paris, Prance vol. 2, pp. 303.Google Scholar
South African Government. 1993. Regulations regarding the classification and marking of meat: amendment. Government gazette no. 5092. Republic of South Africa.Google Scholar
Strydom, P. E., Naudé, R. T., Smith, M.E., Kotzé, A., Scholtz, M. M. and Van Wyk, J.B. 2000. Genetic distances and relationships in production and product traits between subpopulations of Bonsmara and Nguni cattle breeds. Meat Science In press.Google Scholar
Swanepoel, J., Casey, N. H., De Bruyn, J.F. and Naudé, R. T. 1990. Meat studies of indigenous southern African cattle. I. Growth performances and carcass characteristics of Afrikaner, Nguni and Pedi bulls fed intensively. South African Journal of Animal Science 20:180–187.Google Scholar
Talamantes, M.A., Long, C. R., Smith, G.C., Jenkins, J. G., Ellis, W. C. and Cartwright, T. C. 1986. Characterisation of cattle of a five-breed diallel. VI. Fat deposition patterns of serially slaughtered bulls. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1259–1266.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Wood, J. D. and Macfie, H. J. H. 1983. Fat deposition in Hereford and Friesian steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100: 257–270.Google Scholar
Venter, J. P. and Luitingh, H. C. 1967. A carcass and meat quality evaluation of eleven beef and dual-purpose breeds in South West Africa. Proceedings of the South African Society of Animal Production 6:165–167.Google Scholar
Von La Chevallerie, M. K. S. L. 1969. Growth and carcass quality of three cattle breeds. Proceedings of the South African Society of Animal Production 8:195–198.Google Scholar