Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in northern Queensland. 2. Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality

Fordyce, Geoffry; Wythes, JR; Shorthose, W. R.; Underwood, DW; Shepherd, RK

doi:10.1071/ea9880689

Cited by 58 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Highly agitated or flighty animals yield tougher meat (Voisinet et al, 1997b;King et al, 2006;Kadel et al, 2006) and present higher losses of meat due to bruising (Fordyce et al, 1988b). However, Kabuga & Appiah (1992) and Barbosa-Silveira et al (2008a) did not verify differences for weight gain between genetic groups of Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred steers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Relationship between temperament with performance and meat quality of feedlot steers with predominantly Charolais or Nellore breed

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The relation between temperament with performance and meat quality was determined in 79 Charolais × Nellore steers kept in feedlot. Temperament was evaluated according to exit velocity, scale composite score and flight distance four times in the finishing phase, along with body weight, intake and feed conversion measures. Cattle were classified as calm, intermediate and excited according to exit velocity measures at the beginning of the trial. Excited cattle presented larger values for composite score and flight distance. Irrespective of genotype, excited cattle presented lower average daily gain, dry matter intake and worse feed conversion. Temperament categories did not affect most of beef quality traits, except for calm Bos indicus steers, which presented greater pH measured 1 hour post mortem compared with more reactive steers.However, moderate but negative correlations were detected between exit velocity, flight distance and composite score and beef quality as well as Warner-Bratzler shear value, luminosity, pH measured 24 hours post mortem, although they were not consistent between genotypes raised under the same conditions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Relationship between temperament with performance and meat quality of feedlot steers with predominantly Charolais or Nellore breed

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect was even more pronounced when the animals had been reared together (Mounier et al, 2006). Other studies found that cattle differ consistently in their reactivity to various aversive situations and that this reactivity was correlated to reactions to slaughter procedures, indicated by differences in bruising score and tenderness (Fordyce et al, 1988;Voisinet et al, 1997).…”

Section: Veal Calves and Adult Cattlementioning

confidence: 90%

“…Studies that compare reactivity profiles of animals determined during tests with their reactions to the slaughter procedure help to identify the basic aspects of slaughter procedures that cause stress responses, such as human presence or novelty (Fordyce et al, 1988;Lensink et al, 2001;Terlouw and Rybarczyk, 2008). These studies allow to further predict which individuals are likely to be more reactive to slaughter procedures and pave the way to study the role of genetic background and history in the construction of the reactivity profile.…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Possible Aims For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research

Terlouw

Arnould

Aupérin³

et al. 2008

Animal

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper describes the main procedures used to slaughter fowl, pigs, calves and adult cattle, sheep, and farmed fish, starting on the farm and ending with the death of the animal at the abattoir. It reviews the currently known causes of stress, indicated by behavioural and physiological measurements on the animal level, and by post-mortem muscle metabolism. During the pre-slaughter period, psychological stress is due to changes of environment, social disturbances and handling, and physical stress is due to food deprivation, climatic conditions, fatigue, and sometimes pain. The exact causes of stress depend, however, on the characteristics of each species, including the rearing system. For fowl, bird catching and crating, duration and climatic conditions of transport and of lairage and shackling are the main known pre-slaughter stress factors. For pigs, stress is caused by fighting during mixing of pens, loading and unloading conditions, and introduction in the restrainer. Handling and novelty of the situation contribute to the stress reactions. For veal calves and adult cattle, disruption of the social group, handling, loading and sometimes unloading conditions, fatigue, novelty of the situation and for calves mixing with unfamiliar animals are known stress factors. Gathering and yarding of extensively reared lambs and sheep causes stress, particularly when shepherd dogs are used. Subsequent transport may induce fatigue, especially if sheep are commercialised through auctions or markets. In farmed fish, stress is predominantly related to environmental aspects such as temperature, oxygen, cleanliness of the water and, to a certain extent, stocking density and removal of the fish from the water. If transport and lairage conditions are good and their durations not too long, they may allow pigs, calves and adult cattle, sheep, and fish to rest. For certain species, it was shown that genetic origin and earlier experience influence reactions to the slaughter procedure. Stunning techniques used depend on the species. Pigs and fowl are mostly electrically or gas-stunned, while most adult cattle are stunned with a captive bolt pistol. Calves and sheep may be electrically stunned or with a captive bolt pistol. Various stunning methods exist for the different farmed fish species. Potential causes of stress associated with the different stunning procedures are discussed. The paper addresses further consequences for meat quality and possible itineraries for future research. For all species, and most urgently for fish, more knowledge is needed on stunning and killing techniques, including gas-stunning techniques, to protect welfare.

show abstract

“…We had expected differences between treatments in view of the findings by Fordyce et al (1988b) that temperament affected the amount of bruising to carcasses. Also, the differences in liveweights between the treatment groups may have been expected to translate into heavier carcasses in the good-temperament groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, temperament is a significant factor in cattle production. There is evidence that temperament influences ease of handling (Fordyce et al 1988a;Matthews et al 1997), liveweight gains in feedlots (Voisinet et al 1997a;Fell et al 1999) and at pasture (Fordyce et al 1985(Fordyce et al , 1988a, carcass damage (Fordyce et al 1988b) and aspects of beef quality (Fordyce et al 1988b;Voisinet et al 1997b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity, carcass and meat quality of lot-fed Bos indicus cross steers grouped according to temperament

Petherick¹,

Holroyd²,

Doogan³

et al. 2002

Aust. J. Exp. Agric.

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. One hundred and twenty Bos indicus cross steers were allocated to 3 treatments (good, mixed and poor) on the basis of flight speed, as a measure of cattle temperament. The cattle were lot-fed for 100 days and data collected at intervals on their temperament (flight speeds) and productivity (liveweight changes, body condition, pen feed intakes) during this time. After slaughter, data were collected on carcass traits and meat quality. Eating-quality attributes were measured in meat samples from 22 carcasses from each treatment.Flight speeds were highly correlated across animals and within treatments, showed little change in variability over time and were highly repeatable. Flight speed indicated a slight deterioration in temperament with time in the feedlot until day 70, suggesting an increasing fearfulness in the steers. Differences in flight speeds between treatments were maintained throughout the feedlotting period; poor-temperament animals retained poor temperaments and good retained good.Flight speed was correlated with measures of production, and flight speed measured at feedlot induction was a predictor of performance. Correlations and treatment effects showed that cattle with poor temperaments had poorer average daily gains, feed conversion efficiencies, body conditions and dressing percentages compared with those with good temperaments. Reduced performance in the poor-temperament animals may have resulted from their fearfulness and state of high arousal.Treatment (temperament grouping) did not influence carcass traits, but there was evidence of lower initial pH levels and indicators of 'heat-shortening' in the meat of steers with poor temperament compared with those with good temperament. These findings suggest that the poor temperament steers were more susceptible to pre-slaughter stressors than the good temperament animals. However, the meat quality differences were not detected in eating-quality measurements.

show abstract

Cattle temperaments in extensive beef herds in northern Queensland. 2. Effect of temperament on carcass and meat quality

Cited by 58 publications

References 0 publications

Relationship between temperament with performance and meat quality of feedlot steers with predominantly Charolais or Nellore breed

Relationship between temperament with performance and meat quality of feedlot steers with predominantly Charolais or Nellore breed

Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research

Productivity, carcass and meat quality of lot-fed Bos indicus cross steers grouped according to temperament

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About