4.1 Article

Effects of production system and slaughter weight endpoint on growth performance, carcass traits, and beef quality from conventionally and naturally produced beef cattle

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Volume 95, Issue 1, Pages 37-47

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.4141/CJAS-2014-084

Keywords

Beef; growth rate; shear force; natural; endpoint; evaluation (consumer)

Funding

  1. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Beef Farmers of Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effects of production system and slaughter endpoint on performance, carcass traits, and beef quality were investigated in 64 Simmental cross steers (minimum 75% Continental breeding). Cattle were allocated to: (1) conventional production system based on use of implants and dietary ionophores or (2) natural production system in which no implants or ionophores were used. Within each production system, cattle were allocated for slaughter at 545 or 636 kg liveweight. Steers were fed an 85.5% concentrate diet based on high-moisture corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa silage. Average daily gain tended to be greater (P<0.06) in conventional production system cattle, while there was a trend (P<0.08) for production system by endpoint interactions for dry matter intake and gain to feed. Natural production system cattle tended to have greater (P<0.08) marbling and percent intramuscular fat (% IMF) with lower (P<0.09) longissimus shear force, while production system by endpoint interactions were present (P <= 0.03) for %IMF and carcass lean composition via rib dissection. At-home consumer evaluation of longissimus muscle steaks found tenderness, juiciness, flavour, and overall acceptability rankings were greater (P<0.01) for steaks slaughtered from heavier cattle (636 vs. 545 kg liveweight). Marketing cattle at lighter slaughter weights may have benefits for performance at the expense of eating quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available