Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T22:21:35.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of live animal measurements for selecting lean beef sires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. Simm ,
J. C. Alxiston  and
R. A. Sutherland
G. Simm
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. C. Alxiston
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
R. A. Sutherland
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

The value of several live animal measurements for predicting carcass lean content was assessed on 97 Hereford bulls. The bulls were from a series of performance tests extending over a period of 4 years. The measurements made were live weight, ‘Weighband’ estimate of live weight, skin-fold thickness at the 13th rib, anal-fold thickness and Danscanner and Scanogram ultrasonic fat area. All measurements, except anal-fold thickness, showed satisfactory repeatability from one day to the next (0·45 to 1·00). Ultrasonic measurements showed the highest correlations with carcass lean content (0·22 to 0·66; corresponding residual s.d.'s, 13·87 and 26·46 g/kg). The most precise prediction of lean content was achieved with live weight and ultrasonic measurements in a multiple regression. The precision achieved and best anatomical sites for ultrasonic measurement varied with the group of bulls (highest R2 values 0·61 to 0·77; corresponding residual s.d. 's, 25·75 and 22·47 g/kg). The Scanogram machine produced more repeatable results than the Danscanner. When compared on the same animals Scanogram measurements gave slightly more precise prediction of carcass lean content than Danscanner measurements. Over all groups of bulls the two machines produced results of similar accuracy. Accounting for precision of estimating carcass lean content, response to selection for leanness was estimated to be 0·0034 to 0·0049 of the mean per annum for bulls of about 400 or 500 days of age.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 211 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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

Alliston, J. C. 1982. The use of a Danscanner ultrasonic machine to predict the body composition of Hereford bulls. Anim. Prod. 35: 361–365.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Busk, H., Chadwick, J. P., Cuthbertson, A., Fursey, G. A. J., Jones, D. W., Lewin, P., Miles, C. A. and Owen, M. G. 1982. Ultrasonic techniques for describing carcass characteristics in live cattle. Commission of the European Community, Beef Research Programme. EUR. 7640 EN (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B., Lykke, TH., Kousgaard, K. R., Buchter, L. and Pedersen, J. W. 1977. Growth, feed utilisation, carcass quality and meat quality in Danish dual-purpose cattle. Genetic analysis concerning 5 years data from the progeny tests for beef production at Egtved. Beretn. St. Husdyrbrugs Fors., No. 453.Google Scholar
Charles, D. D. 1974. A method of estimating carcase components in cattle. Res. vet. Sci 16: 89–94.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. Users Guide for LSML76. Ohio State University, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Smith, R. J. 1980. The evaluation of a standardized commercial cutting technique for determining breed differences in carcass composition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 95: 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. and Owen, M. G. 1981. Prediction of body composition of live cattle using two ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: a report of four separate trials. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 96: 301–307.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Harrington, G. 1979. Variation in the carcass characteristics of commercial British cattle. Meat Sci. 3: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J. W. B. 1982. Potential use of in vivo techniques for breeding purposes. In In Vivo Estimation of Body Composition in Beef (ed. Andersen, B. B.). Beretn. St. Husdyrbrugs Fors., No. 524, pp. 86–93.Google Scholar
Land, R. B. and Hill, W. G. 1975. The possible use of superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle to increase response to selection. Anim. Prod. 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
Lykke, TH. and Andersen, B. B. 1977. Use of ultrasonic measurements to predict carcase fatness in cattle. Rep. Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University and National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Tulloh, N. M. and Whitfield, D. E. 1980. A seriatim study, using ultrasonic measurements, of fat depth and m. longissimus area in Hereford bulls, steers and heifers under grazing conditions. Anim. Prod. 30: 199–209.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1961. Skin and skinfold thickness in relation to the depth of subcutaneous fat in beef cattle. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 1: 27–28.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. and Lang, C. P. 1973. An evaluation of the “Scanogram” for predicting the carcass composition of live cattle. (A report submitted to the Australian Meat Board.) School of Agriculture and Forestry, Univ. Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1980. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording: EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Community, EUR. 6878 EN (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. 1982. Studies on the body composition of beef cows. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar