Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Can the body composition of crossbred dairy cattle be predicted by equations for beef cattle?

  • Received : 2017.12.01
  • Accepted : 2018.03.14
  • Published : 2018.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of the Hankins and Howe (HH46), Valadares Filho (V06), and Marcondes (M12) equations for predicting the physical and chemical composition of dairy crossbred bulls carcasses, as well as the chemical composition of their empty bodies. Methods: This study was conducted using 30 dairy crossbred bulls. One group of five animals was slaughtered at the beginning of the experiment, and the remaining were slaughtered 112 days later. Animals were distributed in a completely randomized design into treatments consisting different levels of concentrate (0%, 17%, 34%, 51%, and 68%). The physical and chemical compositions of the cattle were obtained from the right half of the carcass and using samples taken between the 9th and 11th ribs of the left half of the carcass. The estimated and experimentally determined values were compared using the correlation and concordance coefficient, as well as the mean square error of prediction (MSEP) and its components. Results: The HH46 equations were better at estimating the amount of muscle plus fat in the carcass. The amount of bone in the carcasses could not be well estimated by the HH46 and M12 models. The M12, HH46, and V06 equations were worst at estimating the amounts of protein, ether extract, and water in the carcass, respectively. In the empty body, the amounts of protein and water were well estimated by the HH46 equations. Protein, ether extract, and water were accurately estimated by the V06 equations, and ether extract by the M12 equations. Conclusion: The physical and chemical composition of dairy crossbred bull carcasses, as well as the chemical composition of their empty bodies, can be predicted using the equations tested here. The amount of bone in these carcasses could not be accurately predicted.

Keywords

References

  1. Hankins OG, Howe PE. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. Washington, DC, USA: Technical bulletin (United States Department of Agriculture); 1946. 926 p.
  2. Costa e Silva LF, Valadares Filho SC, Rotta PP, et al. Prediction of body and carcass composition of beef cattle. In: Valadares Filho SC, Costa e Silva LF, Gionbelli MP, et al. Nutrient requirements of zebu and crossbred cattle. 3th ed. Vicosa, MG, Brazil: UFV; 2016. p. 125-49.
  3. Al-Jammas M, Agabriel J, Vernet J, Ortigues-Marty I. The chemical composition of carcasses can be predicted from proxy traits in finishing male beef cattle: a meta-analysis. Meat Sci 2016;119:174-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.029
  4. Marcondes MI, Valadares Filho SC, Paulino PVR, et al. Predicting body and carcass composition using the section between 9th and 11th ribs in Nellore cattle. R Bras Zootec 2009;38:1597-604. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000800026
  5. Paulino PVR, Costa MIL, Valadares Filho SC, et al. Validation of the equations proposed by Hankins and Howe for estimating the carcass composition of zebu cattle and development of equations to predict the body composition. R Bras Zootec 2005;34:327-39. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000100037
  6. Silva FF, Valadares Filho SC, Itavo LCV, et al. Intake, performance, carcass characteristics and biometric of gastrointestinal tract and internal organs of Nellore bulls receiving diets with different concentrate and protein levels. R Bras Zootec 2002;31:1849-64. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982002000700029
  7. Marcondes MI, Tedeschi LO, Valadares Filho SC, Chizzotti ML. Prediction of physical and chemical body compositions of purebred and crossbred Nellore cattle using the composition of a rib section. J Anim Sci 2012;90:1280-90. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-3839
  8. Valadares Filho SC, Paulino PVR, Magalhaes KA. Nutritional requirement of zebu cattle and feed composition tables BR - CORTE. Vicosa, MG, Brazil: UFV; 2006.
  9. Costa e Silva LF, Valadares Filho SC, Detmann E, et al. Evaluation of equations to predict body composition in Nelore bulls. Livest Sci 2013;151:46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.09.014
  10. Andrade DKB, Veras ASC, Ferreira MA, et al. Body composition and net requirements of macrominerals for gain of 5/8 crossbreed bulls under grazing in coastal area of Pernambuco state. R Bras Zootec 2008;37:913-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982008000500020
  11. Andrade DKB, Veras ASC, Ferreira MA, et al. Body composition and net protein and energy requirements for weight gain of crossbred dairy cattle in grazing. R Bras Zootec 2009;38:746-51. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000400022
  12. Backes AA, Paulino MF, Alves DD, et al. Body composition and energy and protein requirements of dairy crossbreeds and zebu bovines, castrated, in the growing and fattening phases. R Bras Zootec 2005;34:257-67. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000100030
  13. Neves MLMW, Veras ASC, Souza EJO, et al. Energy and protein requirements of crossbred cattle in feedlot. Semin Cienc Agrar (Online) 2016;37:1029-44. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n2p1029
  14. Prados LF, Valadares Filho SC, Detmann E, et al. Energy and protein requirements of 3/4 Zebu $\times$ 1/4 Holstein crossbreds fed different calcium and phosphorus levels in the diet. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 2015;67:555-563. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6905
  15. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.
  16. BRASIL, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply. Normative Instruction Nunber 3 of January 17th, 2000 [Internet]. Technical regulation on methods of desensitization for humanitarian slaughtering of animals. Official Journal of the Union, Brasilia, January 24th, 2000, section 1. p. 14 [cited 2016 Mar 4]. Available from: http://sistemasweb.agricultura.gov.br/sislegis/action/detalhaAto.do?method=consultarLegislacaoFederal
  17. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, USA: AOAC International; 1984.
  18. Kobayashi K, Salam MU. Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agron J 2000;92:345-52. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.922345x
  19. Tedeschi LO. Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agric Syst 2006;89:225-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004
  20. Backes AA, Paulino MF, Alves DD, Valadares Filho SC. Relative size of the internal organs and gastrointestinal tract of dairy crossbreeds and zebu steers in fattening. Cienc Rural 2010;40:1160-5. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782010005000071
  21. Goulart RS, Alencar MM, Pott EB, et al. Body composition and protein and energy net requeriments of steers of four genetic groups finished in feedlot. R Bras Zootec 2008;37:926-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982008000500022
  22. Prados LF. Performance and nutritional requirements of cattle fed diets containing different levels of calcium and phosphorus [Dissertation]. Vicosa, MG, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Vicosa; 2012.
  23. Silva GS, Veras ASC, Ferreira MA, et al. Performance and carcass yield of crossbred dairy steers fed diets with different levels of concentrate. Trop Anim Health Prod 2015;47:1307-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-015-0864-x