Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:19:02.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship of live animal muscular and skeletal scores, ultrasound measurements and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value in steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. B. Conroy ,
M. J. Drennan ,
D. A. Kenny  and
M. McGee
S. B. Conroy
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
M. J. Drennan
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, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
†E-mail: mark.mcgee@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

This study examined the relationship of muscular and skeletal scores and ultrasound measurements in the live animal, and carcass conformation and fat scores with carcass composition and value using 336 steers, slaughtered at 2 years of age. Live animal scores and measurements were recorded at 8 to 12 months of age and pre-slaughter. Following slaughter, each carcass was classified for conformation and fatness and the right side dissected into meat, fat and bone. Carcass conformation scores and fat scores were both measured on a continuous 15-point scale and ranged from 2.0 to 12.0 and from 2.8 to 13.3, respectively. Pre-slaughter muscular scores showed positive correlations (P < 0.001) ranging from 0.31 to 0.86 with carcass meat proportion, proportion of high-value cuts in the carcass, conformation score and carcass value, significant negative correlations with carcass fat (r = −0.13) and bone (r = −0.81) proportions, and generally low non-significant relationships with the proportion of high-value cuts in meat and carcass fat score. Pre-slaughter ultrasound muscle depth and carcass conformation score showed similar correlations with carcass traits to those using the pre-slaughter muscular scoring procedure. Pre-slaughter ultrasound fat depth showed positive correlations (P < 0.001) with carcass fat proportion (r = 0.59) and fat score (r = 0.63), and significant negative correlations (−0.23 to −0.50) with carcass meat and bone proportions, high-value cuts in the carcass and in meat, and carcass value. Pre-slaughter skeletal scores generally showed poor correlations ranging from −0.38 to 0.52 with the various carcass traits. Corresponding correlations (−0.26 to 0.44) involving records collected at 8 to 12 months of age were lower than those using pre-slaughter records. A one-unit increase in carcass conformation score increased carcass meat proportion and value by 11.2 g/kg and 5.6 cents/kg, respectively. Corresponding values for fat score were −8.2 g/kg and −5.1 cents/kg. In conclusion, both pre-slaughter live animal scores/measurements and carcass classification scores, explained an appreciable amount of the total variation in carcass meat, fat and bone proportions and carcass value, and a moderate amount of the variation in proportion of high-value meat cuts in the carcass.

Keywords

beef carcass compositioncarcass classificationmuscular scoresultrasonic scanning
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 11 , November 2009 , pp. 1613 - 1624
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. 141–144. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
Allen, P 2007. New methods for grading beef and sheep carcasses. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 39–47. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bailey, CM, Jensen, J, Bech Andersen, B 1986. Ultrasonic scanning and body measurements for predicting composition and muscle distribution in young Holstein × Friesian bulls. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1337–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, R, Crews, DH Jr, Miller, SP, McKinnon, JJ 2003. Predicting lean meat yield in beef cattle using ultrasonic muscle depth and width measurements. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjelka, M, Šubrt, J, Polách, P, Krestýnová, M, Uttendorfský, K 2002. Carcass quality in crossbred bulls in relation to SEUROP system grading. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47, 467–475.Google Scholar
Bohuslávek, Z 2002. Analysis of the commercial grades for beef carcasses. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47, 112–118.Google Scholar
Colomer-Rocher, F, Bass, JJ, Johnson, DL 1980. Beef carcass conformation and some relationship with carcass composition and muscle dimensions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 1982. Commission of the European Communities (Beff Carcass Classification) Regulations. Council Regulations 1358/80, 1208/82. Commission Regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
De Boer, H, Dumont, BL, Pomeroy, RW, Weniger, JH 1974. Manual on EAAP reference methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 171–174. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Doorley, J 2001. The usefulness of live animal body measurements, ultrasonic scanning and subjective scores in estimating carcass quality in cattle. Masters Thesis, National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, MJ 2006. Relationship between beef carcass classification grades with meat yield and value. In Irish Grassland Association Journal (ed. D McGilloway), vol. 40, pp. 35–43. Walsh Printer, Roscrea, Ireland.Google Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2008. The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 2, 752–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faulkner, DB, Parrett, DF, McKeith, FK, Berger, LL 1990. Prediction of fat cover and carcass composition from live and carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 68, 604–610.Google Scholar
Fisher, A 2007. Beef carcass classification in the EU: an historical perspective. In Evaluation of carcass and meat quality in cattle and sheep (ed. C Lazzaroni, S Gigli and D Gabiña), EAAP publication no. 123, pp. 19–30. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Greiner, SP, Rouse, GH, Wilson, DE, Cundiff, LV, Wheeler, TL 2003. Prediction of retail product weight and percentage using ultrasound and carcass measurements in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1736–1742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, KE, Green, RD, Cundiff, LV, Wheeler, TL, Dikeman, ME 1995. Real-time ultrasonic 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
Hassen, A, Wilson, DE, Rouse, GH 1999. Evaluation of carcass, live, and real-time ultrasound measures in feedlot cattle: II. Effects of different age end points on the accuracy of predicting the percentage of retail product, retail product weight, and hot carcass weight. Journal of Animal Science 77, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, WO, Williams, SE, Bertrand, JK, Benyshek, LL, Miller, DC 1994. Comparison of live and carcass equations predicting percentage of cutability, retail product weight and trimmable fat in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1107–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) 2002. ICBF Beef linear scoring reference guide. Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society Ltd, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland, 17pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, ER, Taylor, DG, Priyanto, R, Meehan, DP 1992. The value of eye muscle area in predicting carcass muscle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 19, 68–70.Google Scholar
Jones, SDM, Tong, AKW, Robertson, WM 1989. The prediction of beef carcass lean content by an electronic probe, a visual scoring system and carcass measurements. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69, 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Harrington, G 1980. The value of “fat corrected” conformation as an indicator of beef carcass composition within and between breeds. Livestock Production Science 7, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacAodháin, C 2004. The use of live animal assessments in predicting carcass merit in beef cattle. Masters Thesis, National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
May, SG, Mies, WL, Edwards, JW, Harris, JJ, Morgan, JB, Garrett, RP, Williams, FL, Wise, JW, Cross, HR, Savell, JW 2000. Using live estimates and ultrasound measurements to predict beef carcass cutability. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1255–1261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, TL, Green, RD, Hamlin, KE, Shepard, HH, Miller, MF 1992. Ultrasonic prediction of carcass merit in beef cattle: evaluation of technician effects on ultrasonic estimates of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area. Journal of Animal Science 70, 2758–2765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, D, McKiernan, WA, Yeates, AP 1993a. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D, Yeates, AP, McKiernan, WA 1993b. Meat yield and subjective muscle scores in medium weight steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2007. SAS/STAT, SAS systems for windows, release 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Tait, RG Jr, Wilson, DE, Rouse, GH 2005. Prediction of retail product and trimmable fat yields from the four primal cuts in beef cattle using ultrasound or carcass data. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1353–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, DG, Meehan, DP, Johnson, ER, Ferguson, DM 1990. Shape score of beef carcasses as a predictor of saleable beef yield, muscle and fat content. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 18, 392–395.Google Scholar
Wolcott, ML, Thompson, JM, Perry, D 2001. The prediction of retail beef yield form real time ultrasound measurements on live animals at three stages through growout and finishing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 1005–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar