Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:13:00.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Live animal measurements, carcass composition and plasma hormone and metabolite concentrations in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

A. M. Clarke ,
M. J. Drennan ,
M. McGee ,
D. A. Kenny ,
R. D. Evans  and
D. P. Berry
A. M. Clarke
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, 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
D. A. Kenny
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
R. D. Evans
Affiliation:
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland
D. P. Berry
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: mark.mcgee@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

In genetic improvement programmes for beef cattle, the effect of selecting for a given trait or index on other economically important traits, or their predictors, must be quantified to ensure no deleterious consequential effects go unnoticed. The objective was to compare live animal measurements, carcass composition and plasma hormone and metabolite concentrations of male progeny of sires selected on an economic index in Ireland. This beef carcass index (BCI) is expressed in euros and based on weaning weight, feed intake, carcass weight and carcass conformation and fat scores. The index is used to aid in the genetic comparison of animals for the expected profitability of their progeny at slaughter. A total of 107 progeny from beef sires of high (n = 11) or low (n = 11) genetic merit for the BCI were compared in either a bull (slaughtered at 16 months of age) or steer (slaughtered at 24 months of age) production system, following purchase after weaning (8 months of age) from commercial beef herds. Data were analysed as a 2 × 2 factorial design (two levels of genetic merit by two production systems). Progeny of high BCI sires had heavier carcasses, greater (P < 0.01) muscularity scores after weaning, greater (P < 0.05) skeletal scores and scanned muscle depth pre-slaughter, higher (P < 0.05) plasma insulin concentrations and greater (P < 0.01) animal value (obtained by multiplying carcass weight by carcass value, which was based on the weight of meat in each cut by its commercial value) than progeny of low BCI sires. Regression of progeny performance on sire genetic merit was also undertaken across the entire data set. In steers, the effect of BCI on carcass meat proportion, calculated carcass value (c/kg) and animal value was positive (P < 0.01), while a negative association was observed for scanned fat depth pre-slaughter and carcass fat proportion (P < 0.01), but there was no effect in bulls. The effect of sire expected progeny difference (EPD) for carcass weight followed the same trends as BCI. Muscularity scores, carcass meat proportion and calculated carcass value increased, whereas scanned fat depth, carcass fat and bone proportions decreased with increasing sire EPD for conformation score. The opposite association was observed for sire EPD for fat score. Results from this study show that selection using the BCI had positive effects on live animal muscularity, carcass meat proportion, proportions of high-value cuts and carcass value in steer progeny, which are desirable traits in beef production.

Keywords

beef cattlecarcass compositioneconomic indexgenetic meritmuscularity scores
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 7 , July 2009 , pp. 933 - 945
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, D 1990. Marketing. In Planned beef production and marketing, pp. 134–150. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
Arthur, PF, Herd, RM 2005. Efficiency of feed utilization by livestock – implications and benefits of genetic improvement. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 85, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, JK, Green, RD, Herring, WO, Moser, DW 2001. Genetic evaluation for beef carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 79, 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, AM, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Evans, RD, Berry, DP 2009. Intake, growth and carcass traits in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production. Animal (in press).Google ScholarPubMed
Clinquart, A, Van Eenaeme, C, Mayombo, AP, Gauthier, S, Istasse, L 1995. Plasma hormones and metabolites in cattle in relation to breed (Belgian Blue vs Holstein) and conformation (double-muscled vs dual-purpose type). Veterinary Research Communication 19, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1982. Commission of the European Communities (Beef Carcass Classification) Regulations. Council Regulations 1358/80, 1208/82. Commission Regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA, McGee, M 2009. The relationship of live animal muscular and skeletal scores, ultrasound measurements and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value in steers. Animal (in press).Google Scholar
Crews, DH Jr 2002. The relationship between beef sire carcass EPD and progeny phenotype. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 503–506.Google Scholar
Crews, DH Jr, Pollack, EJ, Weaber, RL, Quaas, RL, Lipsey, RJ 2003. Genetic parameters for carcass traits and their live animal indicators in Simmental cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1427–1433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crews, DH Jr, Pollak, EJ, Quaas, RL 2004. Evaluation of Simmental carcass EPD estimated using live and carcass data. Journal of Animal Science 82, 661–667.Google Scholar
Crews, DH Jr, Enns, RM, Rumoh, JM, Pollak, EJ 2008. Genetic evaluation of retail product percentage in Simmental cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 125, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, ME, Simmen, RCM 1997. Genetic parameter estimates for serum insulin-like growth factor I concentration and performance traits in Angus beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 75, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. EAAP Publication No. 123 (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabina), pp. 171–174. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 2008. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=areasofi/beefprices/quarterlyrpts/nationalclass07/all2007/catA.xml and http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=areasofi/beefprices/quarterlyrpts/nationalclass07/all2007/catC.xmlGoogle Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2005. Post-weaning performance and carcass characteristics of steer progeny from different suckler cow breed types. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 195–204.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, Keane, MG, McGee, M 2007. Relationship of live animal scores/measurements and carcass grades with carcass composition and carcass value of steersEvaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep. EAAP Publication No. 123 (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabina), pp. 159–170. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M 2009. Effect of beef sire expected progeny difference for carcass conformation on live animal muscular scores and ultrasonically scanned measurements and carcass classification and composition of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (in press).Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2008. The value of muscularity and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass grades as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 5, 752–760.Google Scholar
Evans, RD, Pabiou, T, Cromie, A, Kearney, F, Wickham, B 2007. Genetic improvement in the Irish suckler beef herd: Industry expectation and experience so far. In Proceedings of the Interbull Technical Workshop, Paris, France, March 9–10 2007, Bulletin No. 36. http://www-interbull.slu.se/bulletins/framesida-pub.htmGoogle Scholar
Florini, JR, Ewton, DZ, Coolican, SA 1997. Growth hormone and the insulin-like growth factor system in myogenesis. Endocrine Reviews 17, 481–517.Google Scholar
Gregory, KE, Cundiff, LV, Koch, RM 1995. Genetic and phenotypic (co)variances for growth and carcass traits of purebred and composite populations of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1920–1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, KE, Green, RD, Cundiff, LV, Wheeler, TL, Dikeman, ME 1995. Real-time ultrasound 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
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR, Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Ortigues-Marty, I, Pethick, D, Herpin, P, Fernandez, X 1998. Nutritional and hormonal regulation of energy metabolism in skeletal muscles of meat-producing animals. Livestock Production Science 56, 115–143.Google Scholar
ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) 2002. Linear scoring reference guide. ICBF Society Ltd, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland, 17pp.Google Scholar
International Society of Animal Genetics 2008. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www.isag.org.uk/ISAG/all/02_PVpanels_LPCGH.docGoogle Scholar
Istasse, L, Van Eenaeme, C, Evrard, P, Gabriel, A, Baldwin, P, Maghuin-Rogister, G, Bienfait, JM 1990. Animal performance, plasma hormones and metabolites in Holstein and Belgian Blue growing-fattening bulls. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2666–2673.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, MG, Allen, P 1999. Effects of pasture fertilizer N level on herbage composition, animal performance and on carcass and meat quality traits. Livestock Production Science 61, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, MG, More O’Ferrall, GJ, Connolly, J, Allen, P 1990. Carcass composition of serially slaughtered Friesian, Hereford × Friesian and Charolais × Friesian steers finished on two dietary energy levels. Animal Production 50, 231–243.Google Scholar
Kirkland, RM, Keady, TWJ, Patterson, DC, Kilpatrick, DJ, Steen, RWJ 2006. The effect of slaughter weight and sexual status on performance characteristics of male Holstein–Friesian cattle offered a cereal-based diet. Animal Science 82, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, DM 1994. Breed differences and genetic parameters for body composition traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2745–2755.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Keane, MG, Neilan, R, Moloney, AP, Caffrey, PJ 2005. Production and carcass traits of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard dairy genetic merit Friesian and Charolais × Holstein–Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 44, 215–231.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Keane, MG, Neilan, R, Moloney, AP, Caffrey, PJ 2007. Body and carcass measurements, carcass conformation and tissue distribution of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard dairy genetic merit Friesian and Charolais × Holstein–Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 46, 129–147.Google Scholar
Michel, A, McCutcheon, SN, Mackenzie, DDS, Tait, RM, Wickham, BW 1991. Metabolic responses to exogenous bovine somatotropin in Friesian cows of low or high genetic merit. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 8, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, KL, Johnston, DJ, Graser, H-U, Herd, R 2005. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1) and net feed intake, fat and growth traits in Angus beef cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D, McKiernan, WA, Yeats, AP 1993. 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.Google Scholar
Schenkel, FS, Miller, SP, Wilton, JW 2004. Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency, growth and body composition traits of young beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 177–185.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) Institute 2008. User’s guide version 9.1: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Stick, DA, Davis, ME, Loerch, SC, Simmen, RC 1998. Relationship between blood serum insulin-like growth factor I concentration and postweaning feed efficiency of crossbred cattle at three levels of dietary intake. Journal of Animal Science 76, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, JE, Frahm, RR, Willham, RL, Whiteman, JV 1970. Sire × sex interaction and sex differences in growth and carcass traits of Angus bulls, steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science 31, 1058–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Groningen, C, Devitt, CJB, Wilton, JW, Cranfield, JAL 2006. Economic evaluations of beef bulls in an integrated supply chain. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3219–3227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K, O’Kiely, P, Moloney, AP, Boland, TM 2008. Intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and performance of beef cattle fed diets based on whole-crop wheat or barley harvested at two cutting heights relative to maize silage or ad libitum concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 257–278.Google Scholar