Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T09:00:54.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of beef production in terms of carcass-weight increase as influenced by the ration concentration and the age of steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. C. Luitingh
H. C. Luitingh
Affiliation:
Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board, Pretoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The carcass-weight increase of beef steers of various ages receiving fattening rations of different roughage: concentrate ratios was calculated by making use of the average dressing percentage of a control group slaughtered at the beginning of the experiment.

It is shown that, in terms of t.d.n./100 lb. carcass-weight increase, which is probably the more accurate measure of efficiency, the 2-year-olds were better feed converters than the calves. When the criterion was t.d.n./100 lb. live-weight increase the calves were superior. Ration B (1 concentrates: 1 roughage) was utilized most efficiently in terms of calculated carcass-weight increase, followed in a descending order by the high-concentrate ration C and the high-roughage ration (ration A).

The relationship of live-weight increase to carcass- weight increase as calculated is discussed. The proportion of live-weight gain laid down as carcass varied with age, growth rate and type of ration. This percentage variation ranged from 57% in slow-growing calves to 81% in fast-growing 3-year-olds. On the average, calves converted 61% of their live-weight gain into saleable carcass, the 2-year-olds 70·8% and the 3-year-olds 75·9%. The steers on the A (high roughage) ration converted 65·7% of live-weight gain into carcass, those on the C (high concentrate) ration 71·5% and those on the B (1 concentrate: 1 roughage) 69·2%. Reasons for these differences are discussed in terms of so-called differential growth.

The live weights and carcass weights of steers were plotted and the regression equation

where Yis carcass weight and X is live weight, was derived. The correlation coefficient r = 0·98 and the slope of the curve indicated that for an increase of 1% in the live weight of the steers, the carcass weight increased by 1·13%.

Several methods of expressing ‘efficiency of the fattening’ were applied to the data and the results are discussed. The methods were unanimous in selecting the steers on the B ration as the most efficient followed by those on ration C and the poorest were those on the A ration. Methods based on live-weight increase showed the calves, but those based on carcass-weight increase the 2-yearolds, as the most efficient. Results obtained by applying the Efficiency Quotient and Efficiency Index suggested that the older animals wero the more efficient. They differed from all other methods since these indicated that efficiency declined with age.

Efficiency values calculated by different formulae vary and no efficiency index has yet been evolved that will embrace all the variable factors which may have an influence on the efficiency of growth and fattening.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1963 , pp. 127 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Armsby, H. P. (1930). Nutrition of Farm Animals. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinholdt.Google Scholar
Committee on Animal Nutrition (1950). Rep. Nat. Res. Coun. no. IV.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W., Lloyd, L. E. & McKay, V. G. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G. & Titus, H. W. (1939). Yearb. Agric. U.S.D.A. p. 450.Google Scholar
Hogan, , Weaver, , Edinger & Trowbridge as quoted by Armsby (1930). Original not seen.Google Scholar
Kidwell, J. F. & McCormick, J. A. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 109.Google Scholar
Knapp, B. Jnr. & Baker, A. L. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. V., Ellis, N. R., Black, W. H. & Titus, H. W. (1936). 29th Proc. Amer. Soc.Anim. Prod. p. 236.Google Scholar
Leitch, I. & Godden, W. (1953). Tech. Commun. Bur. Anim. Nutr., Aberd., no. 14.Google Scholar
Luitingh, H. C. (1961 a). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luitingh, H. C. (1961 b). S.A. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 237.Google Scholar
Luitingh, H. C. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 58, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. A. & Bogart, R. (1955). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 36, 460.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276, 387 and 511.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, L. S. & Kennedy, C. (1931). J. Biol. Chem. 90, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, R. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. M. S. (1943). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 11, 191.Google Scholar
Whiting, F. (1957). Canad. J. Anim. Sci. 37, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winchester, C. F. (1953). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1071.Google Scholar
Winters, L. M. & McMahon, H. (1933). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 94.Google Scholar
Woodward, R. P., Clark, R. T. & Cummngs, J. N. (1942). Bull. Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 401.Google Scholar