High feed grain prices, a growing worldwide demand for animal protein,  and increasing demand for lean, high quality beef make it imperative that beef volume and production efficiency increase. Because of high feed costs it is important to know how concentrate level in the ration and market weight influence production efficiency and carcass composition of different sex groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of market weight and ration concentrate level on the quant itative and qualitative carcass traits of yearling bulls, bull calves, heifers and steers 

Costello, W.J.

Embry, L.B.

Smith, Peter B.

Thiex, Peter J.

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeSouth Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedingsand Research Reports, 1973 Animal Science Reports1973Carcass Characteristics of Bulls, Heifers and Steersas Influenced by Ration and Market WeightPeter B. SmithSouth Dakota State UniversityW.J. CostelloSouth Dakota State UniversityPeter J. ThiexSouth Dakota State UniversityL.B. EmbrySouth Dakota State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1973Part of the Animal Sciences CommonsThis Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Reports at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports,1973 by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For moreinformation, please contact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationSmith, Peter B.; Costello, W.J.; Thiex, Peter J.; and Embry, L.B., "Carcass Characteristics of Bulls, Heifers and Steers as Influenced byRation and Market Weight" (1973). South Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports, 1973. Paper 9.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1973/9South Dakota State University Brookings , South Dakota Department of Animal S cience Agricultural Experiment Station A. S .  Series 73-37 Carcass Characteristics of Bulls , Heifers and Steers as Influenced by Ration and Market Weight Peter B .  Smith ,  W. J .  Costello , Peter J .  Thiex and L .  B .  Embry High feed grain prices , a growing worldwide demand for animal protein, and increasing demand for lean , high quality beef make it imperative that beef volume and production efficiency increase . Because of high feed costs it is important to know how concentrate level in the ration and market weight influence production efficiency and carcass composition of different sex groups .  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of market weight and ration concentrate level on the quantitative and qualitative carcass traits of yearling bulls , bull calves , heifers and steers . Procedures The carcasses used in this study were those obtained from a feedlot performance trial (A. S .  Series 73-34) . The following table shows the experimental design : Heifers Steers Bull calves Yearling bulls Weight group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Concentrate leve l ,  % 50 90 50 9 0  50 90  50 90  50  9 0  50 90 50 90 50 9 0  Number of carcasses 14 14 14 14 6 6 7 7 14 14 1 3  1 3  5 7 7 7 The experiment was designed so that weight group 1 cattle would b e  fed until the heifers reached approximately 950 lb . ;  steers , 1050 lb . ;  bull calves , 1 100 lb . and the yearling bulls , 1350 lb . Weight group 2 heifers were fed up to 1 100 lb . ;  steers , 1200 lb . ;  bull calves , 1 250 lb . and yearling bulls , 1 500 lb . The primary obj ectives were to study differences in the weight groups and effects of the concentrate level used in arriving at the final weights . The cattle were slaughtered at a commercial packing company and the following data were obtained after a 72-hour chill : carcass weight , quality grade , conformation, maturity , marbling , firmness score , color score , fat thickness at the 12th rib , rib eye area , percent kidney , pelvic and heart fat , and yield grade . The right sides , or the rib s and rounds from the right sides , were transported to the SDSU meat laboratory for physical separation into semi-boneless retail cuts , fat and Prepared for the Seventeenth Annual Cattle Feeders Day , November 2 ,  19 73 .  3 7  - 2 -bone. S teaks were taken from the rib for proximate analysis , taste panel studies and tenderness determination on the Warner-Bratzler shear machine . Results Heifers Results for the heifer carcasses are shown in tab le 1 .  Within weight group 1 ,  the heifers fed the 9 0% concentrate ration were slaughtered 28 days earlier , possessed a higher dressing percentage , a higher conformation score and a higher percentage of kidney , pelvic and heart fat . This group had lower Warner-Bratzler shear values . However , the taste panel j udged steaks from the 50% concentrate group more tender. Chemical analysis indicated higher protein and lower water levels in carcasses from heifers fed the 90% concentrate ration. Concentrate level , however , appeared to have no effect on carcass maturity ,  color , firmness and rib eye area . In weight group 2 heifers , there was a greater difference in dressing percent between concentrate levels than was evident in group 1 ,  1 . 9% vs . 3 . 2% ,  respectively . The 90% concentrate group had higher quality grades and higher-percentages of ether extract and water . All other differences between animals fed the 50 and 90% concentrate rations were small . Compared with weight group 1 ,  weight group 2 heifers were fed 63 days longer and had greater carcass weights , dressing percent and carcass grades but less desirable yield grades . Chemical analysis of the 10th rib section detected a lower percent of p rotein , higher percent of fat and lower percent of water in weight group 2 heifers . Weight group l heifers had lower Warner-Bratzler shear values , indicating more tenderness . The taste panel , however, could not detect any differences between weight groups for tenderness ,  j uiciness or flavor .  S teers Table 2 shows results from the steer carcasses . Within weight group 1 ,  although possessing lighter slaughter and carcass weights , the 90% concentrate group had higher dressing percents , larger rib eye areas , more outside fat cover and higher but less desirable yield grades . Physical separation of the carcasses , however , revealed that the 90% concentrate group had a higher percentage of edible p ortion , less trimmable fat and a lower percentage of bone . Moreover , steers fed the 90% level of  concentrates were more tender . Within weight group 2 ,  the 90% concentrate level resulted in steers that averaged 45 lb . heavier with 70 less days on feed . As contrasted with weight group 1 ,  the 50% concentrate level resulted in slightly higher dressing percents , higher percentages of edible portion and bone and lower percentages of trimmable fat . Moreover, the 50% concentrate level resulted in less marbling , lower quality grades , less desirable yield grades and smaller rib eye areas . Weight group 1 steers had a higher level of protein and less fat but more water in the 10th rib steak as determined by chemical analysis than the heavy weight steers . In addition, weight group l s teers averaged 4 . 9% more edible portion and 6 . 2% less trimmable fat . 3 8  - 3 -Bull Calves Results for the bull calves are presented in table 3 .  Within weight group 1 ,  although the bulls on the 50% concentrate level weighed 7 lb . more after b eing fed 68 days longer ,  those fed the higher level of concentrates had higher dressing percentages and heavier ,  higher grading carcasses containing larger rib eyes . Moreover, the lean color s core was much higher for the 90% concentrate ration, although this advantage was considerably less in weight group 1 .  The 50% concentrate level in both weight groups produced carcasses with less fat thickness ,  a lower chemical determination of intramuscular fat , a higher percentage of edible portion and less fat trim. The Warner-Bratzler shear and tas te panel rated the s teaks from bulls fed the higher level of concentrates more tender in both weigh t  groups . Weight group 1 ,  however ,  appeared to be the mos t  tender . The 90% concentrate level in weight group 2 produced heavier,  higher grading carcasses . Moreover ,  the lean in the 9 0% concentrate group was much firmer and brighter colored , moderately firm vs . s of t  and cherry red vs . dark red ,  respectively . The 50% concentrate group , however-:-possessed less fat thickness , more desirab le yield grades , a higher percentage of edible portion and bone and less fat trim. Weight group 1 bulls had less marbling and fat but much firmer , brighter colored lean and a higher percentage of edible portion . Yearling Bulls Data from the yearling bulls are presented in table 4 .  The yearling bulls in weight group 1 fed the 50% concentrate ration were fed 4 1  days longer and weighed 36 lb . more at slaughter . The bulls on the 50% level of concentrates had more external finish , larger rib eyes and less protein and fat in the 10th rib sample as determined by chemical analysis . I t  appeared that energy level in the ration had no appreciab le effect on conformation , maturity , firmness , color s core , percent kidney fat and Warner-Bratzler shear value in weight group 1 .  In weight group 2 ,  the bulls on the 50% concentrate ration had lower dressing percents and carcass weights , more youthful maturi ty scores , and smaller rib eye areas . Level of concentrate did not appear to affect conformation , color,  firmness ,  fat thickness , kidney fat or taste panel evaluation . Comparing weight groups , group 1 had a lower dressing percent and the difference was largest at the 90% concentrate leve l .  Bulls in weight group 1 fed the lower level of concentrates had more youthful carcasses , less fat thickness and more favorable tas te panel evaluation . The group 1 bulls appeared more tender by the shear test with the 90% weight group 1 bulls the most tender.  Summary Carcass characteristics from yearling bulls , bull calves , heifers and steers fed either a 50 or 90% concentrate ration to two slaughter weight groups were studied . In all sex groups , the final slaughter weight affected carcass composition more than concentrate level. 39  - 4 -The cattle in weight group 2 had higher dressing percents , higher quality grades , more marb ling , larger rib eye areas , more outside fat cover , lower percent­ages of pro tein and water ,  higher percentages of fat as determined by chemical analys is and yielded lower percentages of edible portion . The Warner-Bratzler shear test indicated that the cattle in weight group 1 were more tender than weight group 2 regardless of sex group . Although comparisons between sex groups may not be valid because of non-random assortment of the males , it appears that the bulls had heavier carcasses , were trimmer , had more desirab le yield grades and a higher percentage of edible portion. The heifers had higher quality grades , smaller rib eye areas , and more outs ide fat cover than the steers and bulls , respectively . Tenderness as determined by both the Warner-Bratzler shear and tas te panel was more desirable in the steers and heifers than in the bulls . 40 - 5 -Table 1 .  Carcass Characteristics of Heifers Weisht grouE 1 Weight arouE Number of animals Live weight , lb . Dressing percent Carcass weight , lb . Days on feed Quality grade a Conf ormafiiona Maturity Marblingc Firmness scored Color score e Yield grade Fat thickness , in . Rib eye area, sq.  % kidney fat Shear force f Panel tenderness Juicinessg Flavorh Proximate analysis , Protein Fat Water 50% 14 952 62 . 4  594 238 18 .6  2 1 . 0  22 . 9  5 . 1 5. 8 4 . 5  4 . 0  0 . 69 in . 9 . 6  3 . 5  16. 3 2 . 7  3 . 5  3 . 0  % 2 1 . 64 6. 12  7 1 . 43 90% Avg. 50% 14 14 970 961 1 109 64 . 3  63 . 4  62 . 9  633 613 699 2 10 224 301 19 . 0  18 . 8  19 . 6  22 . 5  2 1 . 7 2 1 . 3  23 . 0  23 . 0  2 3 . 0  5 . 3  5 . 2 6. 1 5 . 8  5 . 8  6 . 0  4 . 9  4. 7 5 . 1 4 . 5  4 . 2  5 . 0  0 . 8 1  0 . 75 1 . 04 9 . 9  9 . 7  10 . 6  3 . 9  3 . 7 3 . 2  15 . 8  15 . 9  1 8 . 0  3 . 9  3 . 3  3 . 2  3 . 6  3 . 6  3 . 3  2 . 8  2 . 9  2 . 8  23 . 06 22 . 35 2 1 . 74 6. 74 6 . 43 7 . 1 1 70 . 09 70. 76 70. 36 aGood- • 16;  Good+ = 1 8 ;  Choice- = 1 9 ;  Prime- = 2 2 .  bA- = 24 ; A = 2 3 ;  A+ = 22 ; B = 20 ; C - = 1 8 .  90% 14 1 102 66. 1 729 273 2 1 . 1  22 . 6  2 3 . 1 7 . 0  5 . 8 5 . 1 5 . 1 0 . 9 8  10 . 4  3 . 9  16. 7 3 . 0  3 . 7  3 . 1 2 1 .57  8 . 86 68 . 74 2 Avg. 1 105 65. 5  7 14 287 20 . 6  2 2 . 0  23 . 0  6. 5 5 . 9  5 . 1 5 . 1 1 . 0 1  10 . 5  3 . 6  1 7 . 3  3 . 1  3 . 5  2 . 9  2 1 . 66 7 . 9 9  69 . 55 cDevoid = l ;  Small = 5 ;  Moderately abundant = 9 .  dExtremely soft • l ;  Slightly soft = 4 ;  Very firm = 7 .  every dark red = 1 ;  Cherry red = 4 ;  Light cherry red = 5 ;  Dark pink • 7 .  £Extremely tender = 1 ;  Slightly tender • 4 ;  Extremely tough • 8 .  SExtremely desirable = l ;  Extremely undesirable -= 8 .  hExtremely j uicy = 1 ;  Slightly j uicy = 4 ;  Extremely dry a 8 .  41 - 6 -Table 2 .  Carcass Characteristics of Steers Weight grou,e 1 Wei�ht grou2 2 50% 90% Avg. 50% 90% Avg. Number of animals 6 6 7 7 Live weight , lb . 1094 1035 1046 1 159 1204 1 182 Dressing percent 6 1 . 2  6 3 . 4  62 . 3  65 . 0  64 . 5  64 . 8  Carcass weight , lb . 669 65 7 663 753 778 765 Days on feed 245 2 1 7  231  350 280 3 1 5  a 18 . 7  18 . 2  18 . 4  18 . 7  20 . 3  19 . 5  Quality grade Conf ormationa 2 1 . 5  2 1 . 5  2 1 . 5  22 . 1 2 1 . 3  2 1 . 2  Maturityb 23 . 0  2 3 . 0  23 . 0  2 3 . 0  2 3 . 0  2 3 . 0  Marblingc 4 . 7 4 . 8  4 . 8  5 . 1 6 . 4  5 . 8 Firmness scored 6 . 0  5 . 7  5 . 8  6 . 0  5 . 9  5 . 9  Color scoree 4. 8 5 . 2  5 . 0  4 . 7  5 . 3  5 . 0  Yield grade 3 . 8  3 . 9  3 . 8  5 . 0  4 . 4  4 . 7  Fat thickness,  in . 0 . 6 1  0 . 69 0 . 65 0 . 89 0 . 85 0 . 87 Rib eye area, sq.  in. 10 . l 10 . 8  10 . 5  10 . 5 1 1 . 3  10 . 9  % kidney fat 2 . 2 3 . 1 2 . 6  3 . 8  3 . 1 3 . 5  Shear force 15 . 6  1 3 . 4  14 . 5  17 . 8  17 . 8  1 7 . 8  Panel tendernessf 3 . 1 2 . 2  2 . 7  3 . 2  3 . 2  3 . 2  Juicinfissg 3 . 7  3 . 9  3 . 8  3 . 4  3 . 8  3 . 6  Flavor 2 . 9  2 . 8  2 . 8  2 . 9 3 . 1 3 . 0  Proximate analysis , % Protein 22 . 06 23 . 52 22 . 79 2 1 . 6 1  2 1 . 26 2 1 . 43 Fat 4 . 64 4 . 4  4 . 25 5 . 69 7 . 02 6 . 36 Water 72. 24 72 . 39 72 . 31 7 1 . 63 70. 7 7 1 . 16 Physical separation , % Edible portion 56 . 90 58 . 69 57 . 81 53 . 02 52 . 0 7  52 . 86 Trimmable fat 29 . 35 27 . 89 28 . 6 1  33 . 9 1  34 . 77 34 . 34 Bone 13 . 75 13 . 42 13 . 58 1 3 . 0 7  12 . 53 12 . 8  a Good- = 1 6 ; Good+ = 18 ; Choice- • 10 ; Prime- = 22 . bA- = 24 ; A = 2 3 ;  A+ = 22 ; B = 20 ; C- = 1 8 .  cDevoid = l ;  Small � 5 ;  Moderately abundant = 9 .  dExtremely soft = l ;  S lightly soft = 4 ;  Very firm • 7 .  �Very dark red = l ;  Cherry red = 4 ;  Light cherry red = 5 ;  Dark pink • 7 .  Extremely tender = l ;  S lightly tender , =  4 ;  Extremely tough = 8 .  gExtremely desirable = l ;  Extremely undesirable • 8 .  hExtremely j uicy = l ;  Slightly j uicy = 4 ;  Extremely dry = 8 .  42 - 7 -Table 3 .  Carcass Characteristics of Bull Calves Weight group 1 Weight 8rou2 2 50% 90% Avg. 50% 90% Avg. Number of animals 14 14 13  13  Live weight,  lb . 1 107 1 100 1 103 1242 1281  1262  Dressing percent 6 1 . 0  63. 4  62 . 2  62 . 3  63 . 4  62 . 9  Carcass weight , lb . 676 698 687 781  8 1 3  7 9 7  Days on feed 295 227 243 357 3 1 1  334 Quality gradea 1 7 . 5  18 . 3  1 7 . 9  18 . 4  2 0 . 1 19 . 3  Conf ormationa 2 1 . 9  22 . 0  2 1 . 9  22 . 6  22 . 5  22 . 6  Maturityb 2 3 . 0  2 3 . 0  23 . 0  2 1 . 9  23 . 2  22 . 5  MarblingC 4 . 8  4 . 9  4 . 7  5 . 9  6 . 3  6 . 1 Firmness scored 6 . 0  6 . 0  6 . 0  3 . 4  5 . 7  4 . 5  Color scoree 2 . 7 4 . 3 3 . 6  1 . 8  4 . 4  3 . 1 Yield grade 3 . 2  3 . 6  3 . 4  4 . 0  4 . 6  4 . 3  Fat thickness , in . 0 . 47 0 . 62 0 . 55 o;64 0 . 88 0 . 76 Rib eye area ,  s q .  in . 1 1 . 3  1 1 . 5  1 1 . 4  1 1 .  7 1 1 . 9  1 1 . 8  % kidney fat 2 . 6  3 . 3  2 . 9  3 . 2  3 . 1 3 . 2  Shear force 18 . 7  14 . 4  16 . 5  19 . 3  1 8 . 8  19 . 0  Panel tenderness£ 3 . 8 3 . 3  3 . 6  4 . 3  3 . 9  4 . 0  Juicinessg 3 . 9  3 . 8  3 . 9  3 . 6 3 . 9  3 . 6  Flavorh 2 . 9  3 . 0  3 . 0  3 . 4  3 . 1  3 . 3  Proximate analysis , % Protein 2 1 . 82 23 . 08 22 . 45 2 1 . 89 19 . 04 2 0 . 46 Fat 2 . 95 5 . 19 4 . 0 7  4 . 42 6 . 2 7  5 . 35 Water 74. 27 7 1 . 79 7 3 . 0 3  73 . 08 7 1 . 35 72 . 2  Physical separation, % Edible portion 62 . 11 6 0 . 1 9  6 1 . 30 62 . 29 5 7 . 52 59 . 9  Trimmable fat 23 . 24 27 . 23 25 . 23 2 3 . 42 30 . 80 2 6 . 1 7  Bone 14 . 35 12 . 58 13 . 47 14 . 29 1 2 . 4  13 . 4  8Good- = 1 6 ; Good+ = 1 8 ;  Choice- • 19 ; Prime- = 22 . bA- = 2 4 ;  A = 2 3 ;  A+ = 22 ; B = 2 0 ;  C- = 1 8 .  cDevoid = l ;  Small = 5 ;  Moderately abundant = 9 .  dExtremely soft = l ;  Slightly soft =  4 ;  Very firm = 7 .  �Very dark red = 1 ;  Cherry red • 4 ;  Light cherry red = 5 ;  Dark pink = 7 .  Extremely tender = l ;  Slightly tender = 4 ;  Extremely tough • 8 .  gExtremely desirable = l ;  Extremely undesirable = 8 .  hExtremely j uicy = 1 ;  Slightly j uicy = 4 ;  Extremely dry = 8 .  43 - 8 -Table 4 .  Carcass Characteristics of Yearling Bulls Weisht grou2 1 Wei�ht srouE Number of animals Live weigh t ,  lb . Dressing percent Carcass weight , lb . Days on feed Quality gradea Conformation a Maturityb Marblingc Firmness scored Color scoree Yield grade Fat thickness , in . Rib eye area, s q .  % kidney fat Shear force f Panel tenderness Juicinfissg Flavor Proximate analysis , Protein Fat Water 50% 5 1371  62 . 8  862 145 2 1 . 0  22 . 0  3 . 2  4 . 6  3 . 8  2 . 8  0 . 52 in . 14 . 5  1 . 9  1 7 . 4  4 . 5 3 . 4 3 . 1 % 22 . 87 1 . 84 74 . 41 90% Avg. 50% 7 7 1 335 1353 1542 6 2 . 2  6 2 . 5  63 . 0  831  846 980 104 124 2 17 2 1 . 0  2 1 . 0  2 1 . 0  22 . 0  22 . 0  18 . 9  4 . 0  3 . 6  3 . 1 4 . 6 4 . 6  4 . 6  4 . 0  3 . 9  3 . 7  2 . 6  2 . 7  3 . 9  0 . 44 0 . 48 0 . 7  14 . 3  14 . 4  13 . 7 2 . 0  1 . 9  1 . 9  1 7 . 1  17 . 3  17 . 8  4 . 7  4 . 6  5 . 2  4 . 0  3 . 7 3 . 9 3 . 3 3 . 2  3 . 0  24 . 06 2 3 . 59 23 . 08 2 . 9  2 . 37 2 .  77  73 . 42 7 3 . 9 1  73 . 85 aGood- = 16 ; Good+ = 18 ; Choice- • 19 ; Prime- • 22 . bA- = 24 ; A = 2 3 ;  A+ = 22 ; B = 20 ; C- = 18 . CDevoid = l ;  Small = 5 ;  Moderately abundant = 9 .  dExtremely soft = 1 ;  Slightly s oft = 4 ;  Very firm = 7 .  90% 7 15 30 64 . 6  989 168 2 1 . 0  2 2 . l 3 . 7 4 . 7 3 . 6  3 . 7  o .  71  14 . 8  2 . 0 18 . 5  5 . 1  4 . 0  3 . 3 2 3 . 26 3 . 15 72 . 99 2 Avg. 1536 64 . l 984 192 2 1 . 0  20 . 4  3 . 4  4 . 6  3 . 6  3 . 8  0 . 10 14 . 2 1 . 9  1 8 . 1 5 . 2  4 . 0  3 . 2  2 3 . 17 2 . 96 7 3 . 42 every dark red = l ;  Cherry red = 4 ;  Light cherry red = 5 ;  Dark pink = 7 .  £Extremely tender = l ;  Slightly tender = 4 ;  Extremely tough = 8 .  &Extremely desirable = l ;  Extremely undesirable = 8 .  hExtremely j uicy = 1 ;  S lightly j uicy • 4 ;  Extremely dry = 8 .  44 

Carcass Characteristics of Bulls, Heifers and Steers as Influenced by Ration and Market Weight

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=sd_cattlefeed_1973

Carcass Characteristics of Bulls, Heifers and Steers as Influenced by Ration and Market Weight

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange