Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:24:14.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting beef carcass meat, fat and bone proportions from carcass conformation and fat scores or hindquarter dissection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

S. B. Conroy ,
M. J. Drennan ,
M. McGee ,
M. G. Keane ,
D. A. Kenny  and
D. P. Berry
S. B. Conroy
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
M. J. Drennan
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. G. Keane
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
D. A. Kenny
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
D. P. Berry
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Equations for predicting the meat, fat and bone proportions in beef carcasses using the European Union carcass classification scores for conformation and fatness, and hindquarter composition were developed and their accuracy was tested using data from 662 cattle. The animals included bulls, steers and heifers, and comprised of Holstein–Friesian, early- and late-maturing breeds × Holstein–Friesian, early-maturing × early-maturing, late-maturing × early-maturing and genotypes with 0.75 or greater late-maturing ancestry. Bulls, heifers and steers were slaughtered at 15, 20 and 24 months of age, respectively. The diet offered before slaughter includes grass silage only, grass or maize silage plus supplementary concentrates, or concentrates offered ad libitum plus 1 kg of roughage dry matter per head daily. Following the slaughter, carcasses were classified mechanically for conformation and fatness (scale 1 to 15), and the right side of each carcass was dissected into meat, fat and bone. Carcass conformation score ranged from 4.7 to 14.4, 5.4 to 10.9 and 2.0 to 12.0 for bulls, heifers and steers, respectively; the corresponding ranges for fat score were 2.7 to 11.5, 3.2 to 11.3 and 2.8 to 13.3. Prediction equations for carcass meat, fat and bone proportions were developed using multiple regression, with carcass conformation and fat score both included as continuous independent variables. In a separate series of analyses, the independent variable in the model was the proportion of the trait under investigation (meat, fat or bone) in the hindquarter. In both analyses, interactions between the independent variables and gender were tested. The predictive ability of the developed equations was assed using cross-validation on all 662 animals. Carcass classification scores accounted for 0.73, 0.67 and 0.71 of the total variation in carcass meat, fat and bone proportions, respectively, across all 662 animals. The corresponding values using hindquarter meat, fat and bone in the model were 0.93, 0.87 and 0.89, respectively. The bias of the prediction equations when applied across all animals was not different from zero, but bias did exist among some of the genotypes of animals present. In conclusion, carcass classification scores and hindquarter composition are accurate and efficient predictors of carcass meat, fat and bone proportions.

Keywords

beef cattle, carcass classification, prediction equations, carcass dissection
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 2010 , pp. 234 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Allen, P, Finnerty, N 2001. Mechanical grading of beef carcasses. The National Food Centre, Dublinp. 15.Google Scholar
Allen, P 2007. New methods for grading beef and sheep carcasses. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep (ed. C. Lazzaroni, S. Gigli and D. Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 39–48. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Amer, PR, Crump, R, Simm, G 1998. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Animal Science 67, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, L, Rehak, D, Teslik, V, Bures, D, Zahradkova, R 2006. Effect of breed on growth performance and carcass composition of Aberdeen Angus, Charolais, Hereford and Simmental bulls. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1982. Commission of the European Communities (Beef Carcass Classification) Regulations. Council Regulations 1358/80, 1208/81, 1202/82. Commission Regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA, McGee, M 2009a. The relationship of live animal muscular and skeletal scores, ultrasound measurements and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value in steers. Animal 3, 1613–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA, McGee, M 2009b. The relationship of various muscular and skeletal scores and ultrasound measurements in the live animal, and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value of bulls. Livestock Science, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.06.007.Google Scholar
Crouse, JD, Dikeman, ME, Koch, RM, Murphey, CE 1975. Evaluation of traits in the USD. A yield grade equation for predicting beef carcass cutability in breed groups differing in growth and fattening characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 41, 548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfa, R, Ripoll, G, Panea, B, Joy, M, Alberti, P 2007. Use of carcass weight, community scale for carcass classification and carcass ultrasound measurements to predict carcass composition of young beef bulls. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 19–31. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ 2006. Relationship between beef carcass classification grades with meat yield and value. Irish Grassland Association Journal 40, 35–43.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2008. The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 2, 752–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, LQ, Wilton, JW, Usborne, WR, McMillan, I 1992. Prediction of lean content in the carcasses of beef cattle. II. From measurements of specific cuts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, DB, Parrett, DF, McKeith, FK, Berger, LL 1990. Prediction of fat cover and carcass composition from live and carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 68, 604–610.Google Scholar
Fisher, AV 2007. Beef carcasses classification in the EU: an historical perspective. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 19–31. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gardner, TL, Dolezal, HG, Gardner, BA, Nelson, JL, Schutte, BR, Tatum, JD, Smith, JC, Morgan, JB, Wise, JW, Calkins, CR 1997. Estimation of beef carcass cutability using video image analysis, total body electrical conductivity or yield grade. (http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/1997rr/005.htm), downloaded 12 January 2008, retrieved 12 January 2008, from http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/1997rr/005.htm.Google Scholar
Hamlin, KE, Green, RD, Cundiff, LV, Wheeler, TL, Dikeman, ME 1995. Real-time ultrasonic measurement of fat thickness and longissimus muscle area: II. Relationship between real-time ultrasound measures and carcass retail yield. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1725–1734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassen, A, Wilson, DE, Rouse, GH 1999. Evaluation of carcass, live, and real-time ultrasound measures in feedlot cattle: I. Assessment of sex and breed effects. Journal of Animal Science 77, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, WO, Williams, SE, Bertrand, JK, Benyshek, LL, Miller, DC 1994. Comparison of live and carcass equations predicting percentage of cutability, retail product weight and trimmable fat in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1107–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR, Amer, PR, Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, ER, Chant, DC 1998. Use of carcass density for determining carcass composition of beef cattle. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, ER, Charles, DD 1981. The use of carcass cuts to predict beef carcass composition: a research technique. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 987–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, SDM, Tong, AKW, Robertson, WM 1989. The prediction of beef carcass lean content by an electronic probe, a visual scoring system and carcass measurements. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69, 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Chadwick, JP, Charles, DD 1986. Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from fatness measurements and visual assessments. The Journal of Agricultural Science 106, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cuthbertson, A 1977. A survey of the carcass characteristics of the main types of British lamb. Animal Production 25, 165–179.Google Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Harrington, G 1980. The value of ‘fat-corrected’ conformation as an indicator of beef carcass composition within and between breeds. Livestock Production Science 7, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Jones, DW 1977. Relationships between the lean content of joints and overall lean content in steer carcasses of difference breed and crosses. The Journal of Agricultural Science 88, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muldowney, D, Connolly, J, Keane, MG 1997. Carcass fatness and conformation as predictors of carcass characteristics in beef cattle. Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, 3–4 April 1997, pp. 199–200.Google Scholar
Perry, D, McKiernan, WA, Yeates, AP 1993a. Muscle score: its usefulness in describing the potential yield of saleable meat from live steers and their carcasses. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D, Yeates, AP, McKiernan, WA 1993b. Meat yield and subjective muscle scores in medium weight steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purchas, RW, Garrick, DJ, Lopez-Villalobos, N 1999. Effects of estimation accuracy on potential payment premiums for superior beef carcasses. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, SD, Cundiff, LV, Gregory, KE, Koohmaraie, M 1995. Predicting beef carcass cutability. Journal of Animal Science 73, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2008. User’s guide version 9.1.3: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Taylor, DG, Meehan, DP, Johnson, ER, Ferguson, DM 1990. Shape score of beef carcasses as a predictor of saleable beef yield, muscle and fat content. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 18, 392–395.Google Scholar
Zgur, S, Petric, N, Cepon, M 2006. Prediction of carcass composition based on specific carcass cuts in Simmental bulls. Acta Agraria Kaposvariensis 10, 301–307.Google Scholar