Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:42:37.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parity-associated changes in slaughter weight and carcass characteristics of 3⁄4 Charolais crossbred cows kept on a lowland grass/grass silage feeding and management system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

D. C. Patterson ,
C. A. Moore ,
B. W. Moss  and
D. J. Kilpatrick
D. C. Patterson*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
C. A. Moore
Affiliation:
Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture, 22 Greenmount Road, Antrim, Co. Antrim BT41 4PU, UK
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Food and Microbiology Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
D. J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
E-mail:desmond.patterson@dardni.gov.uk
Get access

Abstract

A total of 77 heifers (3⁄4 Charolais crossbred) completed a study which examined the effects of parity number on growth, changes in size of the carcass, carcass composition and meat quality. The experiment had a factorial design based on the factors: parity and level of finish. The parities were: 0 (maiden), 1, 3 and 5. At each parity animals were slaughtered at medium (EU fat class 3) and high (EU fat class 4H) levels of finish. All data were analysed by analysis of variance using individual animal observations, and linear, quadratic and asymptotic trends were explored. Where appropriate, regression equations were derived using individual animal values to describe the relationships between key parameters and the parity status of the finished animal. Animals calved at turn-out to grass in spring (April/May) and the cows were housed at weaning in mid October (mean lactation length of 163 days) and all pregnant animals were given a diet of grass silage without concentrate supplementation during the winter period. The medium level of finish animals were slaughtered 24 days after commencement of the breeding programme for parity 0 or at the end of lactation for the remaining parities, except for parity 1 animals which had a short finishing period. For the high level of finish treatment, parity 0 heifers had a longer finishing period, while all bred animals had a post-weaning finishing period. The high finish animals were finished on a diet of grass silage and concentrates. Birth weights of calves increased until the fourth parity, while weaning weights increased linearly until the fifth parity. Mean daily milk yield increased until the third lactation. Live weight, carcass weight and weights of saleable beef, separable lean and separable fat all followed asymptotic patterns of rapid initial increase and then tended to plateau with increase in parity. The asymptote values for live weight and carcass weight were 723·0 and 383·2 kg respectively. Statistically significant asymptotic relationships with parity number were obtained for live weight and various tissue weights. Nominal mature weight was assumed to be 0·99 of the asymptote and nominal mature weights for live weight, carcass weight, saleable beef, separable lean and separable fat were attained at parity (age, years) 4/5 (6·1), 3/4 (5·3), 4/5 (6·2), 3/4 (4·7) and 1/2 (2·7) respectively. The proportion of high-priced joints declined with increase in parity (linear trend P 0·01) thus indicating a reduction in relative growth of the main muscle groups of the hind limb. Shear value measurements on cooked muscle from the maiden and first parity animals indicated very tender meat, but tenderness declined with increase in parity (asymptotic trend P 0·001). Taking animals to the higher level of finish effected increases in carcass weight and separable fat in the carcass of 55·1 kg (P 0·001) and 72 g/kg (P 0·001) respectively, while separable lean declined by 53 g/kg (P 0·001). Cooked muscle from the high finish animals was less tender than from the medium finish animals (P 0·05). It was concluded that slaughtering cows at the third parity would enable a self replacing closed herd to be operated, while obtaining 0·97 of the potential maximum output of saleable beef from the cow, but there may be some compromise in the tenderness of the meat for some consumers by the third parity.

Keywords

beef cowscarcassgrowthparity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , October 2002 , pp. 221 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. Recommended procedures for use in the measurement of beef cattle and carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Boucque, C. K., Fiems, L. O., Cottyn, B. G. and Buysee, F. X. 1980. Beef production with maiden and once-calved heifers. Livestock Production Science 7: 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Rheinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Chestnutt, D. M.B. 1988. Effect of multiple suckling in early lactation on the performance of May-born calves. Animal Production 47: 345–349.Google Scholar
Dryden, F. D., Marchello, J. A., Tinsley, A., Martins, C. B., Wooten, R. A., Roubicek, C. B. and Swingle, R. S. 1979. Acceptability of selected muscles from poor condition and realimented cull cows. Journal of Food Science 44: 1058–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1984. Relationships amongst various body components of mature cows. Journal of Animal Science 58: 222–233.Google Scholar
Hammond, J., Bowman, J. C. and Robinson, T. J. 1983. Hammond’s farm animals (fifth edition). Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Hawrysh, Z. J. and Price, M. A. 1981. The effect of grain feeding on the eating quality of beef from culled cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 581–592.Google Scholar
Huffman, K. L., Miller, M. F., Hoover, L. C., Wu, C. K., Brittin, H. C. and Ramsey, C. B. 1996. Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction in the home or restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74: 91–97.Google Scholar
Joseph, R. L. and Crowley, J. P. 1971. Meat quality of once calved heifers. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 281–285.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcass grading and classification. In Carcase evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing, pp. 163–201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Khadem, A. A., Purchas, R. W., Morris, S. T., McCutcheon, S. N. and Parker, W. J. 1994. Carcass and meat quality characteristics of pasture-fed unbred and once-bred Hereford ✕ Friesian heifers. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 38: 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Du, Y. L. P., Baker, R. D. and Barker, J. M. 1978. The use of short-term secretion rate measurements for estimating the milk production of suckler cows. Journal of Dairy Research 45: 1–4.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Sommerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, revised edition. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, bulletin no. 6.Google Scholar
Malterre, C. and Jones, S. D. M. 1992. Meat production from heifers and cull cows. In World animal science. C. Production system approach. 5. Beef cattle production (ed. Jarrige, R. and Beranger, C.), pp. 357–375. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1971. Comparative beef performance of the large cattle breeds of Western Europe. Animal Breeding Abstracts 39: 1–29.Google Scholar
Moss, B. W., Gault, N. F. S., McCaughey, W. J., McLauchlan, W. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1993. Effect of surgical and immunocastration of beef cattle on carcass quality. In Safety and quality of food from animals (ed. Wood, J. D. and T. Lawrence, L. J.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 17, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
Numerical Algorithms Group. 1993. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Moore, C. A. and Steen, R. W. J. 1994. The effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on the performance and carcass composition of continental bulls given high forage diets. Animal Production 58: 41–47.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Moore, C. A. 1999. The effects of physiological state on the carcass composition of continental heifers. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, M., Jarrige, R., Russel, A. J. F. and Wright, I. A. 1992. Feeding and nutrition of the suckler cow. In World animal science. C. Production system approach. 5. Beef cattle production (ed. Jarrige, R. and Beranger, C.), pp. 195–210. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Robelin, J., Agabriel, J., Malterre, C. and Bonnemaire, J. 1990. Changes in body composition of mature dry cows of Holstein, Limousin and Charolais breeds during fattening. 1. Skeleton, muscles, fatty tissues and offal. Livestock Production Science 25: 199–215.Google Scholar
Robelin, J. and Tulloh, N. M. 1992. Patterns of growth of cattle. In World animal science. C. Production system approach. 5. Beef cattle production (ed. Jarrige, R. and Beranger, C.) pp. 111–129. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Romita, A., Gegli, S., Borghese, A., Digiacomo, A., Mormile, M. and Esposito, C. 1981. Early calving of crossbred heifers. 1. Comparison between animals slaughtered just after and seven months after first calving. In Beef production from different dairy breeds and dairy beef crosses (ed. More, G. J. O’Ferrall), pp. 201–219. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Roux, M., Theissier, J. H., Bonnemaire, J. and Dumont, R. 1987. Early calving heifers versus maiden heifers for beef production from dairy herds. 1. The effects of genotype (Friesian and Charolais ✕ Friesian) and two feeding levels in the rearing period on growth and carcass quality. Livestock Production Science 16: 1–19.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Yildiz, S., Quintans, G. and Broadbent, P. J. 1998. Animal energy intake and the performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential. Animal Science 66: 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. C., Dutsch, T. R., Hosletler, R. L. and Carpenter, Z. L. 1976. Fatness, rate of chilling and tenderness of lambs. Journal of Food Science 41: 748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38: 171–179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1995. The effect of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on growth and food efficiency in bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 42: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Murray, J. I. 1991. Effect of feeding level, breed and milking potential on body tissues and organs of mature, non-lactating cows. Animal Production 53: 27–38.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. and Battra, T. R. 1976. Body weight changes in lactating purebred and crossbred dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 59: 733–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waggoner, A. W., Dikeman, M. E., Brethour, J. R. and Kemp, K. E. 1990. Performance, carcass, cartilage calcium, sensory and collagen traits of longissimus muscles of open versus 30 month-old heifers that produced one calf. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2380–2386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed