Comparison of supplementary concentrate levels with grass silage, separate or total mixed ration feeding, and duration of finishing in beef steers

Keane, M. G.; Drennan, M. J.; Moloney, A.P.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.008

Cited by 59 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this would be expected at constant carcass weight, it is of interest to compare the effects of an increase in carcass weight attributable to higher EPD CWT with that due to later slaughter. Within breed type, carcass conformation class normally increases with increasing carcass weight (Steen and Kilpatrick, 1995;Keane et al, 2006). Although in this study the increase (0.16 class) in carcass conformation class from the light to the heavy slaughter weight was not statistically significant, the numerical increase for a fixed increment of carcass weight was greater for the slaughter weight effect than for the genetic merit effect (0.041 v. 0.028 class per 10 kg carcass weight).…”

Section: Slaughter Traitscontrasting

confidence: 68%

“…However, while the latter observed no significant effect of genetic merit on DM intake, in this study, H had a lower DM intake per kg LW than L. The decrease in DM intake per kg LW with increasing slaughter weight has been reported previously (Keane et al, 2006;Campion et al, 2009a) as has the decrease in efficiency of net energy utilisation for LW gain (Andersen, 1975;Bailey et al, 1985). Measured mean daily DM intake did not closely reflect the mean EPD DMI value for the breed effect but did for the genetic merit effect.…”

Section: Feed Intakesupporting

confidence: 60%

“…As the H animals in this study had heavier carcasses, a difference in carcass composition would be expected due to its association with carcass weight (Keane et al, 2006). Compared with L, the H carcasses were 18 kg heavier, and compared with the light slaughter weight, the heavy slaughter weight carcasses were 39 kg heavier.…”

Section: Carcass Traitsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The lower LW gain during finishing for the heavy than for the light slaughter weight group reflects the decline in LW gain that occurs with increasing length of finishing period (Keane et al, 2006). Campion et al (2009a) also reported a lower finishing LW gain for animals taken to a heavier slaughter weight.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of genetic merit for carcass weight, breed type and slaughter weight on performance and carcass traits of beef × dairy steers

Keane

Dunne

Kenny

et al. 2011

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crossbreeding of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows with both early maturing (e.g. Aberdeen Angus (AA)) and late maturing (e.g. Belgian Blue (BB)) beef breeds is commonly practised. In Ireland, genetic merit for growth rate of beef sires is expressed as expected progeny difference for carcass weight (EPD CWT ). The objective of this study was to compare the progeny of Holstein-Friesian cows, sired by AA and BB bulls of low (L) and high (H) EPD CWT for performance and carcass traits. A total of 118 spring-born male progeny from 20 (9 AA and 11 BB) sires (8 L and 12 H) were managed together from shortly after birth to about 19 months of age. They were then assigned to one of two mean slaughter weights (560 kg (light) or 620 kg (heavy)). Following slaughter, carcasses were graded for conformation class and fat class, the 6th to 10th ribs joint was dissected as an indicator of carcass composition, and samples of subcutaneous fat and musculus longissimus were subjected to Hunterlab colour measurements. A sample of m. longissimus was also chemically analysed. Slaughter and carcass weights per day of age for AAL, AAH, BBL and BBH were 747, 789, 790 and 805 (s.e. 10.5) g, and 385, 411, 427 and 443 (s.e. 4.4) g, respectively. Corresponding carcass weight, kill-out proportion, carcass conformation class (scale 1 to 5) and carcass fat class (scale 1 to 5) values were 289, 312, 320 and 333 (s.e. 4.0) kg, 516, 522, 542 and 553 (s.e. 3.5) g/kg, 2.5, 2.4, 3.0 and 3.1 (s.e. 0.10), and 3.4, 3.5, 2.9 and 2.8 (s.e. 0.11). There were few breed type 3 genetic merit interactions. Delaying slaughter date increased slaughter weight, carcass weight and all measures of fatness. It also reduced the proportion of carcass weight in the hind quarter and the proportions of bone and muscle in the ribs joint. None of these effects accompanied the increase in carcass weight due to higher EPD CWT . It is concluded that BB have superior production traits to AA. Selection of sires for higher EPD CWT increases growth rate, kill-out proportion and carcass weight of progeny with little effect on carcass or muscle traits. The extra carcass weight due to higher EPD CWT is more valuable commercially than a comparable carcass weight increment from a delay in slaughter date because it comprises a higher proportion of muscle.

show abstract

Section: Slaughter Traitscontrasting

confidence: 68%

Section: Feed Intakesupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Carcass Traitsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of genetic merit for carcass weight, breed type and slaughter weight on performance and carcass traits of beef × dairy steers

Keane

Dunne

Kenny

et al. 2011

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This response is considerably higher than the response of 21 to 27 g carcass gain per 1 kg increase in concentrate DM intake reported by Keane et al (2006) and Keady et al (2007 and2008b), but is similar to the response reported by Steen et al (2002). The higher response in the current study was probably because of the lower substitution rate (0.53 kg/kg for silage DM by concentrate), which reflects the low intake characteristics of the grass silage.…”

supporting

confidence: 60%

Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages differing in inclusion level and maturity on the performance, meat quality and concentrate-sparing effect of beef cattle

Keady

Gordon

Moss

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of maturity of maize at harvest, level of inclusion and potential interactions on the performance, carcass composition, meat quality and potential concentrate-sparing effect when offered to finishing beef cattle were studied. Two maize silages were ensiled that had dry matter (DM) concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg and starch concentrations of 55 and 258 g/kg DM, respectively. Grass silage was offered as the sole forage supplemented with either 4 or 8 kg concentrate/steer daily or in addition with one of the two maize silages at a ratio 0.5 : 0.5, on a DM basis, maize silage : grass silage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate daily. The two maize silages were also offered as the sole forage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate/steer daily. The forages were offered ad libitum. The six diets were offered to 72 steers (initial live weight 522 s.d. 23.5 kg) for 146 days. There were significant interactions (P , 0.05) between maize maturity and inclusion level for food intake, fibre digestibility and daily gain. For the grass silage supplemented with 4 or 8 kg concentrate, and the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 or 1.0 of the forage component of the diet, total DM intakes were 8.3, 9.8, 8.9, 8.2, 9.2 and 9.8 kg DM/day (s.e. 0.27); live-weight gains were 0.74, 1.17, 0.86, 0.71, 0.88 and 1.03 kg/day (s.e. 0.057); and carcass gains were 0.48, 0.73, 0.56, 0.46, 0.56 and 0.63 kg/day (s.e. 0.037), respectively. Increasing the level of concentrate (offered with grass silage), maize maturity and level of maize inclusion reduced (P , 0.05) fat b* (yellowness). The potential daily concentrate-sparing effect, as determined by carcass gain, for the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 and 1.0 of the forage component of the diet were 1.3, 20.3, 1.3 and 2.4 kg fresh weight, respectively. It is concluded that the response, in animal performance, including maize silage is dependent on the stage of maturity and level of inclusion in the diet. Maize silage with a DM of 304 g/kg offered ad libitum increased carcass gain by 31%, because of a combination of increased metabolizable energy (ME) intake and improved efficiency of utilization of ME, and produced carcasses with whiter fat.Keywords: beef cattle, maize silage maturity, maize inclusion level, meat quality, concentrate feed level ImplicationsThe response to maize silage inclusion in grass silage-based diets of beef cattle depends on maturity at harvest and level of inclusion in the diet. Maize silage with a dry matter concentration of 304 g/kg offered as the sole forage resulted in the highest level of performance because of a combination of increased forage intake and improved efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy. Maturity of maize silage had no impact on animal performance when offered as 0.5 of the forage. Maize silage has a daily concentrate-sparing effect per steer of up to 2.4 kg. Therefore, increasing the inclusion of maize, harvested at the optimum stage of maturity, in the diet...

show abstract

Decision tree, a learning tool for the prediction of beef tenderness using rearing factors and carcass characteristics

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of supplementary concentrate levels with grass silage, separate or total mixed ration feeding, and duration of finishing in beef steers

Cited by 59 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of genetic merit for carcass weight, breed type and slaughter weight on performance and carcass traits of beef × dairy steers

Effects of genetic merit for carcass weight, breed type and slaughter weight on performance and carcass traits of beef × dairy steers

Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages differing in inclusion level and maturity on the performance, meat quality and concentrate-sparing effect of beef cattle

Decision tree, a learning tool for the prediction of beef tenderness using rearing factors and carcass characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About