Working chute behavior of feedlot cattle can be an indication of cattle temperament and beef carcass composition and quality

Hall, N.L.; Buchanan, D. S.; Anderson, Vernon L.; Ilse, Breanne; Carlin, K.R. Maddock; Berg, E. P.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.03.020

Cited by 47 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from Kadel et al (2006) suggested that improved temperament, evaluated using crush score and FS, was genetically correlated with improved tenderness in tropically adapted breeds of beef cattle. Shear force, a measure of tenderness, has been genetically associated with temperament by several authors, with the general consensus that more excitable cattle are prone to produce tougher beef and a higher incidence of dark cutters (Voisinet et al, 1997;King et al, 2006;Hall et al, 2011). Although the influence of IMF on beef palatability has been controversial, the visual appearance due to marbling is often associated with favorable meat quality and certainly plays an important role in purchasing decisions and price (Chambaz et al, 2003).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic parameters for docility, weaning weight, yearling weight, and intramuscular fat percentage in Hereford cattle1

Torres‐Vázquez

Spangler

2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic parameters for docility, weaning weight, yearling weight, and intramuscular fat percentage in Hereford cattle1

Torres‐Vázquez

Spangler

2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In beef cattle, negative side effects of temperament on the average daily weight gain, live weight and meat quality were reported in various studies (Voisinet et al, 1997;Gauly et al, 2001;Petherick et al, 2002;King et al, 2006;Nkrumah et al, 2007;Hall et al, 2011;Vetters et al, 2013). In Bos taurus steers, for example, docility resulted in up to 0.19 kg higher average daily weight gains (Voisinet et al, 1997).…”

Section: Cattle Temperament and Production Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition differences in the susceptibility to stress during slaughter were shown to result in variances regarding meat quality. Calm animals were observed to have significantly higher postmortem pH values (King et al, 2006) and more tender meat (Hall et al, 2011). Magolski et al (2013) tried to explain the mechanisms behind the correlation of temperament and beef tenderness by analysing the association between protein degradation, calpain system activity and temperament but no significant explanatory relationship could be identified.…”

Section: Cattle Temperament and Production Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding – a review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Cattle temperament, which describes individual behaviour differences with regard to a stressor or environmental challenge, is known for its impact on working safety, adaptability to new housing conditions, animal productivity and for evaluation of animal welfare. However, successful use of temperament in animal breeding and husbandry to improve keeping conditions in general or animal welfare in particular, requires the availability of informative and reproducible phenotypes and knowledge about the genetic modulation of these traits. However, the knowledge about genetic influences on cattle temperament is still limited. In this review, an outline is given for the interdependence between production systems and temperament as well as for the phenotyping of cattle temperament based on both behaviour tests and observations of behaviour under production conditions. In addition, the use of temperament as a selection criterion is discussed.

show abstract

“…As such, little is known about the extent to which the commercial SNP panels actually predict the characteristics they purport to predict. The primary exceptions are reports by Van Eenennaam et al (2007) and Hall et al (2009). These researchers found mixed results when evaluating SNP panels for beef cattle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between fed cattle traits and Igenity panel scores1

DeVuyst¹,

Biermacher²,

Lusk³

et al. 2011

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although several previous studies have identified associations between cattle carcass characteristics and various SNP, comparatively little work has sought to validate the marker panels currently sold and marketed by commercial genotyping companies. Panels typically use a handful of SNP, but these range from as few as 2 to more than 100. Data from 764 commercially fed steers and heifers were used to assess the relationships of growth and carcass traits and Igenity panel scores for ADG, marbling (or percentage of USDA Choice), rib-eye area (REA), tenderness, fat thickness, and USDA Yield grade (YG). Results revealed statistically significant, but low, correlations between carcass measurements and corresponding Igenity panel scores. Genetic correlations were computed among the various Igenity panels and demonstrated either that several common markers existed across the panels or that markers across panels were in high linkage disequilibrium. Across all breeds, the genotypic correlations between the Igenity panel scores for ADG, REA, marbling, and YG with observed ADG, REA, USDA Quality grade, and YG at slaughter were 0.51, 0.38, 0.63, and 0.59 (P < 0.01), respectively. The partial effects of the Igenity marbling panel persisted in a multivariate regression model. Net return was significantly affected only by marbling panel score; a 1-unit increase in marbling panel score increased the net return by an estimated $7.53 per animal.

show abstract

Working chute behavior of feedlot cattle can be an indication of cattle temperament and beef carcass composition and quality

Cited by 47 publications

References 16 publications

Genetic parameters for docility, weaning weight, yearling weight, and intramuscular fat percentage in Hereford cattle1

Genetic parameters for docility, weaning weight, yearling weight, and intramuscular fat percentage in Hereford cattle1

Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding – a review

Relationships between fed cattle traits and Igenity panel scores1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About