Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-jtg5s Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-09-18T05:30:38.343Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. G. Truscott
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
C. P. Lang
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
N. M. Tulloh
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia

Summary

Fourteen Friesian and 13 Angus steers, grown at pasture, were selected so that their carcass weights fell evenly throughout the range 200–300 kg. The right half of each carcass was dissected into muscle, fat, bone and fascia and tendon, and the left half boned-out and fat trimmed into retail cuts. A step-wise multiple regression procedure, including a pseudovariable for breeds, was used to compare compositional components on a common weight basis.

Angus, at the lower end of the live-weight range, had heavier empty bodies than Friesians; at the heavier end of the live-weight range, this was reversed. This relationship between live weight and empty body weight was due to variation between breeds in the weight of contents in the fore stomachs but not the intestines.

When compared at either the same live weight or the same empty body weight, Angus had more hot carcass than the Friesians (8·0 and 8·4 kg, respectively). There was no difference between breeds in loss of carcass weight in the 24 h post-slaughter.

There was no breed difference in weight of blood, head, kidney and channel fat, kidneys, liver, diaphragm, heart, lungs, tail or fore-stomachs, when compared at the same offal weight. The feet and intestines were, respectively, 0·55 and 2·43 kg heavier for Friesians than for Angus at the same offal weight, but the pizzle was 0·11 kg lighter. Hide weight was greater in the Angus at all offal weights, with the difference between breeds being 0·016% of (offal weight).

There was no difference between breeds in the weight of muscle or the weight of fascia and tendon when compared at the same dissected side weight; however, the Angus had 4·8 kg more fat and 3·0 kg less bone than the Friesians at the same dissected side weight.

When compared at the same muscle weight the Friesians had 1·04 kg more proximal hind-limb muscles, 0·30 kg more proximal fore limb muscles, but 0·74 kg less abdominal muscles than the Angus. At all dissected muscle weights the Angus had a greater weight of muscles of the neck and thorax, and this difference increased with increasing weight of dissected muscle. The Friesians also had 1·52% more of their muscle as ‘expensive muscle’. There were no breed differences in the distribution of any other muscle groups.

There was no breed difference in the distribution of dissected fat between subcutaneous and intermuscular depots when these were the only fat depots considered. However, when kidney and channel fat was included in the total dissectable fat of the carcass, Friesians had 22·4 % more kidney and channel fat, the same weight of intermuscular fat and less subcutaneous fat than the Angus at the same total dissected fat weight.

Friesians tended to have more of their bone weight in their legs (humerus, femur, tibiar–tarsus, radius–ulnar–carpus) and Angus more in their thoracic region (thoracic vertebrae and ribs, scapular and sternum-costal cartilages).

At the same retail side weights there was no difference between breeds in the weight of fat-trimmed, boned-out, retail cuts; however, the Friesians had 3·3 kg more retail bone than Angus, but 2·3 kg less fat trim and 0·46 kg less sausage mince.

There was no difference between breeds in the distribution of retail bone or of fattrimmed, boned-out cuts between the forequarter and hindquarter. However, the Friesians had 13·2 % more fat trim in the hindquarter. Friesians had 0·27 kg more retail cuts located in the rump but 0·80 kg less in the loin, when compared at the same weight of retail cuts. Also, the Friesians had more of their retail cuts as topside, thick flank and foreshin. There were no other differences between breeds in the distribution of retail cuts.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Anon. (1966). A comparison of the growth of different types of cattle for beef production. Report of major beef research project, Royal Smithfield Club, London.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1966). Comparison between Aberdeen Angus, Hereford and Friesian steers. Proceedings of the Ruakura Farmers' Conference Week, Hamilton, New Zealand, 1966, pp. 50–63.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1968). A comparison between beef-bred and dairy bred steers for growth and carcass characteristics – Trial IV. Sheepfarming Annual, 1968 (Massey University), pp. 103–9.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1971). Growth and carcass characteristics of Angus, Beef Shorthorn, Milking Shorthorn, and Friesian steers. Trial V. Sheepfarming Annual, 1971 (Massey University), pp. 97104.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1972). Beef steer breed comparison – Trial VI. Growth and carcass differences between Angus, Hereford, Beef Shorthorn, Galloway, Milking Shorthorn and Friesian steers, and a comparison of the carcass components of the various export beef carcass grades. Sheepfarming Annual, 1972 (Massey University), pp. 5773.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1958). Carcass weight as an index of carcass components with particular reference to fat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 50, 331–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J. H. & Reid, J. T. (1969). Interrelationships among energy input, body size, age and body composition of sheep. Journal of Nutrition 97, 517—24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. (1963 a). A study of the musculature of the steer carcass. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963 b). Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), section 7, pp. 114. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & May, N. D. S. (1966). Muscles of the Ox. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1961). Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, D. C. & Everitt, G. C. (1972). Meat production from Friesian and Angus bulls. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 32, 1118.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Martin, A. H. & Weiss, G. M. (1971). Characteristics of youthful beef carcasses in relation to weight, age and sex. I. Organ weights, slaughter loss and cooler shrink in production of the dressed carcass. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51, 279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilbert, H. R., Hart, G. H., Wagnon, K. A. & Goss, H. (1944). The importance of continuous growth in beef cattle. University of California Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin No. 688.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. & Conniffe, D. (1967 a). Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. 1. Growth rate, feed conversion efficiency, carcass yield and offals. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 137–52.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. & Conniffe, D. (1967b). Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of ‘lean meat’, fat and bone. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 153–70.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. R., Butterfield, R. M. & Pryor, W. J. (1972). Studies of fat distribution in the bovine carcass. I. The partition of fatty tissues between depots. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 381–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R., Pryor, W. J. & Butterfield, R. M. (1973). Studies of fat distribution in the bovine carcass. II. Relationship of intramuscular fat to the quantitative analysis of the skeletal musculature. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, J. F. & McCormick, J. A. (1956). The influence of size and type on growth and development of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 15, 109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1973). Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle.Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D. M., Tulloh, N. M. & Winter, W. H. (1974). Effects of three different growth rates on empty body weight, carcass weight and dissected carcass composition of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, U. G. & Anderson, D. W. (1958). Variation of skin thickness in dairy cattle. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 26, 1824.Google Scholar
Prescott, J. H. D. (1965). The influence of different systems of beef production on carcass characteristics and meat quality. British Grasslands Society Occasional Symposium, no. 2, 99109.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. & Willis, M. B. (1970). Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Searle, T. W. & Graham, N. Mc. (1970). Body composition of growing sheep and its relevance to pasture evaluation. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 8, 472–5.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1973). The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. & Tulloh, N. M. (1968). Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. II. Dissected components of the commercially dressed and jointed carcass. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 477–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. (1961). Variations in the skin and skin fold thickness of cattle. Australian Journal Agricultural Research 12, 9921004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. (1963). The carcass composition of sheep, cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), section 5, pp. 116.Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
34
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *