Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:39:47.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and carcass characteristics of purebred and crossbred cattle with special reference to their carcass lean:bone ratios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. J. Broadbent ,
C. Ball  and
T. L. Dodsworth
P. J. Broadbent
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
C. Ball
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
T. L. Dodsworth
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Get access

Summary

1. Three pure breeds, Aberdeen-Angus (AA), Ayrshire (AYR) and British Friesian (FR), and three crossbreds, Aberdeen-Angus × Ayrshire (AA × AYR), Aberdeen-Angus × British Friesian (AA × FR) and British Friesian × Ayrshire (FR × AYR) were studied. Each breed type was represented by 12 male castrates which were the progeny of at least seven sires in each case.

2. The purebred cattle of dairy type (FR and AYR) were faster growing (P < 0·001), heavier at slaughter (P < 0·001) and produced heavier carcasses (P < 0·001) than the pure beef breed. There were no significant differences between the breeds in the lean contents of their carcasses and there was no indication of any systematic breed effect on the distribution of lean within the carcass. The AA had carcasses with a higher fat content (P < 0·05), a lower bone content (P < 0·001) and a higher lean:bone ratio (P < 0·001) than the FR and AYR.

3. In general the values for performance and carcass data of the crosses between the three purebreeds fall mid-way between their parent values or do not differ significantly from this value. The hypothesis that crossbred cattle produce carcasses with higher muscle: bone ratios than purebred cattle is refuted by these data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , December 1976 , pp. 341 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

Anon. 1966. Major Beef Research Project. A Comparison of the Growth of Different Types of Cattle for Beef Production. Underhill, Plymouth.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis. 10th ed. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. 1968. Genetic and environmental influences on growth in beef cattle. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 429–450. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1966. Muscle: bone ratio and fat percentage as measures of beef carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J. 1968. Carcass evaluation techniques at the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Proc. Symp. Meat Research Institute, Bristol, 1968.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J. 1969. The use of dairy-bred cattle for beef production. J. Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne agric. Soc. 23: 17–19.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Ball, C. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1969. The effect of plane of nutrition during calfhood on the subsequent performance of Hereford x Ayrshire steers. Anim. Prod. 11: 155–160.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Ball, C. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1971. The effects of variations in the energy concentration and protein source of complete diets for beef cattle. Anim. Prod. 13: 605–611.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Dodsworth, T. L., Ball, C. and Sampford, M. R. 1967. A comparison of semi-intensively reared Charolais x Ayrshire and Shorthorn x Ayrshire cattle. Anim. Prod. 9: 61–66.Google Scholar
Cole, J. W., Ramsey, C. B., Hobbs, C. S. and Temple, R. S. 1964. Effects of type and breed of British, Zebu and dairy cattle on production, carcass composition, and palatability. J. Dairy Sci. 47: 1138–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. and Boyne, A. W. 1970. The use of automation in determining nitrogen by the Kjeldahl method, with final calculations by computer. Analyst, Lond. 95: 181–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harte, F. J. and Conniffe, D. 1967. Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of ‘lean meat’, fat and bone. Ir. J. agric. Res. 6: 153–170.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1971. Beef Production: An Intensive Grassland System using Autumn-Born Calves. Handbook No. 1. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1972. Beef Production: Suckled Calves. Joint Beef Production Committee, Handbook No. 3. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974. Beef Production: Dairy-Bred Calves using Cereals and Arable Products. Handbook No. 2. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Vial, V. E. 1966. Selection objectives in beef breeding. In Beef Production and Marketing (ed. Cannell, R. Q.), pp. 62–72. Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 2.Google Scholar