A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers

Abstract

Fourteen Friesian and 13 Angus steers, grown at pasture, were selected so that their carcass weights fell evenly throughout the range 200-300 kg. The right half of each carcass was dissected into muscle, fat, bone and fascia and tendon, and the left half boned-out and fat trimmed into retail cuts. A step-wise multiple regression procedure, including a pseudovariable for breeds, was used to compare compositional components on a common weight basis.Angus, at the lower end of the live-weight range, had heavier empty bodies than Friesians; at the heavier end of the live-weight range, this was reversed. This relationship between live weight and empty body weight was due to variation between breeds in the weight of contents in the fore stomachs but not the intestines.When compared at either the same live weight or the same empty body weight, Angus had more hot carcass than the Friesians (8-0 and 8-4 kg, respectively). There was no difference between breeds in loss of carcass weight in the 24 h post-slaughter.There was no breed difference in weight of blood, head, kidney and channel fat, kidneys, liver, diaphragm, heart, lungs, tail or fore-stomachs, when compared at the same offal weight. The feet and intestines were, respectively, 0-55 and 2-43 kg heavier for Friesians than for Angus at the same offal weight, but the pizzle was 0-11 kg lighter. Hide weight was greater in the Angus at all offal weights, with the difference between breeds being 0-016% of (offal weight) 2 .There was no difference between breeds in the weight of muscle or the weight of fascia and tendon when compared at the same dissected side weight; however, the Angus had 4-8 kg more fat and 3-0 kg less bone than the Friesians at the same dissected side weight.When compared at the same muscle weight the Friesians had 1-04 kg more proximal hind-limb muscles, 0-30 kg more proximal fore limb muscles, but 0-74 kg less abdominal muscles than the Angus. At all dissected muscle weights the Angus had a greater weight of muscles of the neck and thorax, and this difference increased with increasing weight of dissected muscle. The Friesians also had 1-52% more of their muscle as 'expensive muscle'. There were no breed differences in the distribution of any other muscle groups.There was no breed difference in the distribution of dissected fat between subcutaneous and intermuscular depots when these were the only fat depots considered. However, when kidney and channel fat was included in the total dissectable fat of the carcass, Friesians had 22-4 % more kidney and channel fat, the same weight of intermuscular fat and less subcutaneous fat than the Angus at the same total dissected fat weight.Friesians tended to have more of their bone weight in their legs (humerus, femur, tibiar-tarsus, radius-ulnar-carpus) and Angus more in their thoracic region (thoracic vertebra© and ribs, scapular and sternum-costal cartilages).At the same retail side weights there was no difference between breeds in the weight of fat-trimmed, boned-out, retail cuts; however, the Friesians had ...

A comparison of Friesian, Aberdeen Angus×Friesian and Belgian Blue×Friesian steers finished at pasture or indoors

“…Both the present study and that of Truscott et al (1976) agree that there was little difference in muscle weight between the breeds and that Aberdeen Angus had less bone than Friesians. However, whereas there was little difference in lean distribution between FR and AA in the present study, Truscott et al (1976) observed that Friesians had more proximal hind limb muscle, more proximal fore limb muscle, less abdominal muscle and ultimately more "expensive muscle" than Aberdeen Angus. The absence of such differences in the present study may have been because the AA were crossbred out of Holstein-Friesian cows rather than pure bred as used by Truscott et al (1976) and they were slaughtered at a relatively earlier stage of maturity.…”

“…Truscott et al (1976) also found that Angus steers had a higher dressing proportion than Friesians due largely to the Friesians having a greater weight of feet and intestines, though they had a lower weight of hide. Both the present study and that of Truscott et al (1976) agree that there was little difference in muscle weight between the breeds and that Aberdeen Angus had less bone than Friesians.…”

“…Truscott et al (1976) also found that Angus steers had a higher dressing proportion than Friesians due largely to the Friesians having a greater weight of feet and intestines, though they had a lower weight of hide. Both the present study and that of Truscott et al (1976) agree that there was little difference in muscle weight between the breeds and that Aberdeen Angus had less bone than Friesians. However, whereas there was little difference in lean distribution between FR and AA in the present study, Truscott et al (1976) observed that Friesians had more proximal hind limb muscle, more proximal fore limb muscle, less abdominal muscle and ultimately more "expensive muscle" than Aberdeen Angus.…”

Kinematic study of the locomotion of two crossbreds of lambs

“…(Herling and Drevemo, 1996), or to modifications of body conformation principally resulting from selective breeding for meat production (Abourachid, 1993;Abourachid and Renous, 1993 (Hammond, 1932;Marlowe, 1964;Gilbert et al, 1993). The proportions between muscle mass and supporting bone framework may also be modified (Truscott et al, 1976 …”

The Growth and Distribution of Muscle in Bulls and Heifers of Two Breeds

“…Sci. 60: 669-675 (September 1980) There have been several recent reports concerning genetic effects on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls (Berg et al 1978), and in steers (Kempster et al 1976;Truscott et al 1976 …”