Assessment of Equations to Predict Body Weight and Chemical Composition in Growing/Finishing Cattle and Effects of Publication Year, Sex, and Breed Type on the Deviation from Observed Values

Abstract

Body weight and chemical composition are important aspects of beef cattle nutrition and management; however, existing equations estimating relationships among empty body and carcass chemical components were developed over 40 years ago using different cattle genetics and production systems. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate existing equations in predicting empty body and carcass chemical composition and determine the effect of sex, breed type, and publication year. A dataset was developed from published literature that contained 388 treatment means from 46 studies published between 1970 and 2020. Two equations relating shrunk body weight (SBW) to empty body weight (EBW), and 8 equations relating EBW and hot carcass weight (HCW) were found in the literature and evaluated using the developed dataset. Three sets of equations relating empty body chemical components, 4 sets of equations relating carcass chemical components, and 2 sets of equations relating carcass with empty body chemical components were found in the literature and evaluated using the dataset. Precision and accuracy of the equations were evaluated by simple linear regression of observed on predicted values, mean bias (MB), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Additionally, the fixed effects of publication year, sex, and breed type on the deviation from observed values were evaluated using a general linear model. Both equations relating SBW to EBW and all equations relating EBW to HCW had high precision, but accuracy varied from −3.22 to −0.11% and −9.35 to −3.73% MB, respectively, and all the equations were affected by sex and breed type with 8 out of the 10 equations affected by publication year. For prediction of empty body chemical composition assuming empty body water is known, the 3 sets of equations varied in precision for protein (0.18 to 0.46), but not for fat (0.88 to 0.96) or ash (0.06 to 0.13) based on CCC, although the precision of prediction of protein and ash were poor. Accuracy of the 3 sets of equations varied for predicting empty body fat, protein, and ash with MB of −19.73 to −3.81, 1.67 to 15.91, and −0.16 to 15.75%, respectively. All 3 sets of equations were affected by publication year and breed type for predicting empty body fat, protein, and ash, and by sex for ash. For prediction of carcass chemical components assuming carcass water is known, the precision was similar among the 4 sets of equations for predicting fat (0.92 to 0.95), protein (0.34 to 0.40), and ash (−0.02 to −0.01) based on CCC, although precision was poor for protein and ash, but accuracy varied for prediction of carcass fat, protein and ash with MB of −11.20 to −2.52, 2.72 to 8.92, and −4.66 to 20.12%, respectively. Publication year and breed type affected the prediction of carcass fat and protein, and publication year, sex, and breed type affected the prediction of carcass ash for all 4 sets of equations. The precision of predicting empty body chemical components assuming carcass chemical components are known was high for water (0.96 and 0.98), fat (0.97 and 0.98), protein (0.97 and 0.97), and ash (0.98 and 0.96) and similar between the 2 sets of equations based on CCC. The accuracy of predicting empty body water (−1.68 and −0.33%), fat (6.38 and 2.70%), protein (0.85 and −0.54%), and ash (−0.65 and −4.54%) was moderate to high, but differed between sets of equations for fat and ash. Publication year influenced the prediction of empty body water for both sets of equations and ash for one of the equations, whereas, breed type influenced the prediction of water, protein, and ash, but not fat for both equations. Overall, existing equations may have major limitations to predicting empty body protein and ash unless carcass protein and ash are known. Additionally, all the equations were affected by some combination of publication year, sex, and breed type for one or more chemical components. Thus, a more robust set of equations should be developed to account for sex, breed type, and more recent cattle genetics and management systems.

Evaluation and Development of a Nutrition Model to Predict Intake and Growth of Suckling Calves

“…Extensive research has been performed in the postweaning growing and finishing phases of cattle production systems to determine their feed intake, growth, and chemical body composition [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], but few studies have evaluated the feed intake and growth of preweaned calves [22][23][24]. The available equations from the literature to predict the forage intake and/or growth of suckling calves are inaccurate and imprecise [25]; however, this analysis used data accumulated over the 240-day suckling period that was compiled over three decades with calves fed a mixed diet in drylot, which may not accurately represent forage grazing and nutritive value dynamics experienced by suckling calves on pasture.…”

Equations for Body Weight Adjustments in Black Belly Ewe Lambs

“…Shrunk BW (SBW) is defined as 96% of full BW (FBW, kg) of animals (Cannas et al (2004;Tedeschi et al (2010). Also, SBW is defined as live body weight following overnight feed withdrawal (Lancaster, 2022). While the empty BW (EBW) can represent 10 to 20% of the BW of cattle and is obtained from the difference between BW at slaughter or SBW and the weight of the content of the gastrointestinal tract (Chay-Canul et al, 2014;Gionbelli et al, 2015;Salazar-Cuytun et al, 2022).…”