Reference Library

Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Hereford
and Texas Longhorn and X Hereford Steers

T.Holbert1, L.M. Schak2, J.W. Savel1
J.Brenni1, J.Caldwell 4 and W.E. McCoy1,5

Summary

Performance and carcass data from 80 Hereford and 80 Texas Longhorn x Hereford F1

steers were compared in a growth trial. Hereford steers gained more rapidly (P<.05) up to 155 days after which the Texas Longhorn x Herefords gained slightly more (P>.05) weight per day. Conversion of feed dry matter to weight gain indicated that Herefords were more efficient than Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers. Herefords increased more in percentage units of 9-10-11 rib fat and therefore decreased more in lean and bone percentage during finishing than Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers. Muscle to bone ratio at terminal slaughter was greater for Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers (3.02:l~ than for Herefords (2.77:1). Carcasses from Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers had less (P<.05) youthful lean scores, higher marbling scores and U.S.D.A. quality grades than Herefords. Texas Longhorn cross steers also deposited less (P<.05) external carcass fat, had lighter carcasses and lower (higher yield U.S.D.A. yield grades. Steaks from Texas Long-horn x Hereford carcasses were more desirable (P<.05) in flavor but the two breed types were nearly equal in all other palatability characteristics.

1,2,3,4

Graduate students, Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, respectively, Department of Animal Science.

This research was sponsored in part by the Texas Longhorn Breeders Association of America of San Antonio.

These data indicate the Texas Longhorn x Hereford cross steers differed in some carcass and palatability traits and in rate and composition of growth from Herefords. Obviously these conclusions apply to the breed sample represented in this experiment which may not fully characterize all Herefords or Longhorn x Hereford crosses.

Introduction

Cattlemen must continuously strive to identify types of cattle that offer potential in contributing to the efficient production of beef. Numerous combinations of production environments and types of cattle allow for many successful production alternatives to evolve. To assist cattlemen in developing beef production systems, certain fundamental data must be available. While it may be assumed that the Texas Longhorn was the earliest type of cattle to evolve in Texas, almost no published data on breed characterizations are available. Limited reports (9,9) on documented performance of Texas Longhorn cross cattle are available. Some authors (5, 12, 15) have discussed Texas Longhorn origin but not until recently have cattlemen expressed concern for data to assist in characterizing the breed. The histocompatibility complex of Texas Longhorns and other breeds of cattle is understudy (3) to determine their potential relationships to disease resistance. Data from 1974 (1) report on the performance, carcass and palatability characteristics of pure Longhorn, Hereford, Angus, Zebu, Holstein, crossbreeds of British beef breeding and crossbreeds of + dairy, + British beef and + European beef breeds. They concluded that, in comparison to Longhorns, the other cattle 1) differed in physical form, 2) generally gained more rapidly and obtained desired finish and slaughter weights and grades at younger ages, 3) converted feed to weight gain more efficiently, 4) deposited more subcutaneous fat and less internal fat and S) were not more muscular but 6) produced carcasses of similar quality grades and palatability. A 1981 California (2) field trial evaluated crossbred Jersey x Hereford, Longhorn x Hereford and Hereford x Hereford calves on feed-lot performance and carcass merit. Daily gain was similar for the three breed-types although carcass quality and yield grade favored crossbreds. The Hereford steers had almost twice the rib fat thickness as crossbreds at slaughter. Fewer than 23 steers per breed type were available in both of the previous reports (1,2) underscoring the need for more research on Texas Longhorn and Texas Longhorn cross cattle. In contrast, the Hereford breed has undoubtedly served as the experimental subject in more of the published U.S. literature than any other breed.

Therefore a field trial was established to obtain data on rate and efficiency of growth plus carcass and palatability characteristics of Hereford and Texas Longhorn x Hereford cattle.

Procedure

Hereford and Texas Longhorn x Hereford first cross steers were obtained from the 1979 calf crop of the Mashed 0 Ranch, Council Grove, Kansas on March 5, 1980. Eighty representative Hereford steers were obtained from the 362 steers from Hereford cows that had produced two or more calves in the herd. The 80 Texas Longhorn x Hereford F1 steers represented most of the male progeny from first calf heifers mated to Texas Longhorn bulls. Fifteen Texas Longhorn bulls were used from three different herds. The Hereford genetic base was relatively uniform but perhaps limited in scope to represent a breed selection. This same limitation may apply to the 15 Texas Longhorn bulls that served as the sires of these crossbred steers. All calves were born from March through April 1979 and managed under similar ranch conditions prior to and after weaning in October. The entire group of 160 steers were shipped to the Swisher County Cattle Company feedlot at Tulia, Texas on March 5, 1980 where they were fed and managed in the established routine of that commercial feedlot until slaughtered.

From March 5 until May 6 (60 days) the steers were fed a growing ration (table 1) to remove possible differences in management and/or maternal influences due to age of darn which might otherwise bias subsequent performance. Previous research (7,11) has indicated that age of dam had a marked influence upon live weight of Hereford c~1ves under one year of age. It has been reported that rate and efficiency of calf weight gain after one year of age was not strongly influenced by the age of dam-milk production-weaning weight complex (4,7). Upon arrival at the feedlot all steers were processed in a like manner including implantation with one Synovex-S implant and randomly assigned to one of two replicates (pens) per breed type. Each replicate of steers was weighed and visually scored according to U.S.D.A. Feeder Grade standards (14) for frame size and muscling score by a committee of three experienced evaluators. From March S until May 6 (60 days) the steers were fed starter and growing rations (table 1). All cattle were fed the same high energy ration (table 1) throughout the finishing portion of this study. Data on feed intake was recorded by replicates each day. Pen weight of steers was obtained at three intervals during finishing with, health records maintained throughout the experiment.

Four steers from each treatment were slaughtered on May 7 to serve as controls to obtain muscle-to-bone ratios. The 9-10-11th rib section was removed from the left side of each carcass following established procedures (6). Rib sections were transported to Texas A~M University and physically separated into muscle, fat and bone. Lean tissue from the 9-10-11th rib was ground three times and percentage fat was determined using modified Babcock analysis. From these data, percentages of fat, muscle and bone and muscle-to-bone ratios were determined.

The remaining 152 steers were to be fed to establish two different endpoints at slaughter. Half of the steers from each replicate were slaughtered on October 8 and all remaining steers on October 20. They were slaughtered at commercial packing facilities near Amarillo. Carcasses were ribbed at approximately 19-24 hours postmortem. TAES personnel evaluated each carcass for lean maturity; marbling; fat thickness; adjusted fat thickness; longissimus dorsi area; estimated percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat; and U.S.D.A. quality and yield grade (13).

Forty carcasses (20 from each breed type) were randomly selected and the 9-10-11th rib sections were removed from cattle in the last slaughter group in the manner previously described. Ribs were transported to Texas A~1 University and then wrapped in polyethylene-coated paper, frozen and stored at -29 F for approximately two months. Ribs were removed from the freezer, thawed at 34 F and separated into components as previously described. A quarter inch section of each longissimus dorsi muscle was removed and analyzed for fat content.

Also, the soft tissue (lean) portions were ground three times prior to sampling for determination of fat percentage using modified Babcock analysis. Percentages of fat, bone and muscle were determined for the 9-10-11th rib section and used to compute muscle-to-bone ratios.

After the longissimus dorsi of each rib had been separated and weighed, two steaks (1.25 in. thick) from the 11th rib region were removed, wrapped in polyethylene-coated freezer paper, frozen and stored at -4 F. These steaks were subsequently removed from the freezer, thawed at 34 F and broiled on a Farberware Open Hearth Broiler to an internal temperature of 160 F (monitored by use of copper-constantan thermocouples and a recording thermometer).

Samples of one cooked steak from each carcass were evaluated by an eight-member trained sensory panel for juiciness, muscle tenderness, amount of detectable connective tissue, overall tenderness, flavor desirability and overall desirability using eight-point descriptive scales. Cores (.5 inch in diameter) were removed from the second steak (six to ten cores per steak) for shear force determination by use of a Warner-Bratzler shear machine.

Data were subjected to analysis of variance and Duncan's multiple range test (10) to determine significance of differences between comparisons.

A sample of the cattle were blood typed in an attempt to characterize them according to breed purity structure. A total of 16 Hereford steers and 58 Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers and 10 of the 15 Texas Longhorn sires were blood typed. The blood typing test consisted of a hemolytic process with 62 blood typing reagents to determine the presence or absence of the corresponding 62 antigens on the surface of red blood cells. Since these antigens are controlled by genes on 10 pairs of chromosomes (blood type systems) the results were analyzed by phenogroups known to exist in Texas Longhorns and Herefords for each of those 10 systems. With previous data on the differences in blood types between Herefords and Texas Longhorns it was possible to determine, for the crossbred steers, which phenogroups (particularly those in the B and C systems) were contributed by the Hereford parent and which were from the Texas Longhorn parent.

Results and Discussion

Steers of both breed types were between 13 and 14 months of age and within 14 lb for average body weight (table Z) at initiation of the finishing trial. Steers slaughtered initially (table 3) did not differ (P>.05) in muscle-to-bone ratio, percentage fat or lean in the 9-10-11 rib, although Hereford steers had a higher percentage (P<.05) of bone than Texas Longhorn x Herefords. These data indicate that body composition, weight, and age were relatively similar for both Hereford and Texas Longhorn cross steers when placed on feed for finishing on May 6, 1980.

Growth data (table Z) indicate that Herefords gained more rapidly (P<.05) up to 155 days after which the Texas Longhorn x Herefords gained slightly more (P>.05) per day. The declining rate of gain with advancing days on feed is consistent with a large body of published data for cattle of this description and management. In this study the slower-gaining cattle (Texas Longhorn x Hereford) exhibited a slower rate of decline with advancing time on-feed than Herefords. Feed consumption was similar for both breed types and declined drastically after 155 days, indicating that the cattle were not gaining rapidly at that time. Conversion of feed dry matter to liveweight gain favored the Hereford steers. Earlier researchers (1,2) compared purebred and crossbred Hereford and Longhorn steers by attempting to develop them to the constant endpoint of Low Choice. When pure Longhorn and Herefords were compared (1), Longhorns gained slower (P<.05) and required more feed per pound of gain than Herefords while crossbred Longhorns (2) gained as rapidly but more efficiently than pure Herefords. Cumulative feedlot costs per head (table 2) reflect minor differences since feed intake did not differ among breed type. Health status of all cattle remained excellent throughout the experiment.

The 9-10-11 ribs from Hereford steers exhibited a greater percentage increase in fat and greater decrease in lean and bone (table 3) than Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers from initial to terminal slaughter. Herefords had higher bone percentage (P<.05) at the initial slaughter than Texas Longhorn crosses and higher fat percentage (P<.05) at the terminal slaughter. Muscle-to-bone ratios were more desirable for Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers at terminal slaughter. These data indicate that the Hereford steers changed more in rib section composition than the Texas Longhorn crosses during the finishing program. Carcass data resulting from the pure Hereford and pure Longhorn steers reported earlier (1) tend to support these observations since their Longhorns resulted in a 1.94:1 muscle to fat ratio vs. 1.42:1 for Herefords. California data (2) did not indicate any differences in composition of liveweight gain for Hereford x Hereford vs. Longhorn x Hereford steers.

Data from the current study also (table 4) indicated that Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers were larger framed with near-equal muscling compared to Herefords. These data indicate that larger frame size (table 4) was not a reliable indication of growth rate (table 2) of these steers.

Since carcass traits were similar (P<.05) for both the October 8 and 20 slaughter the mean values are presented in table 5. These data suggest that Texas Longhorn x Hereford crossbred steers, when compared to Herefords of approximately the same chronological age (18 to 19 months at slaughter), had lower dressing percentages and carcasses that were more advanced in U.S.D.A. lean maturity scores (P<.05). Also Texas Longhorn cross steers produced carcasses that were higher in marbling score (P<.05) which resulted in differences (P<.0S) in U.S.D.A. quality grade between the two groups. Texas Longhorn cross steers also deposited less external fat (P<.05) as indicated by the adjusted fat thickness and as a result ha4 a lower (higher yield) yield grade. Differences in ribeye area were small (P>.05) but Hereford steers deposited less fat (P<.05) in the kidney, pelvic and heart areas than crossbreds. Hereford steers were heavier at the terminal slaughter and, as expected, produced heavier carcasses. These data are in general agreement with those of previous researchers (1,2) except for unusually high dressing percentages for both breed types.

Steaks from Texas Longhorn cross steers were more desirable in flavor (P .05) but nearly equal in all other palatability characteristics (juiciness, muscle fiber tenderness, connective tissue amount, overall tenderness, overall desirabilitv and shear force value) compared to Herefords (table 6). Taste panel data indicated that all steaks were above average and very desirable in sensory characteristics.

Listed in table 7 are the phenogroups observed in the B and C system for Hereford and for the Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers. Ten of the 15 Texas Longhorn sires were blood typed and their phenogroups are also reflected in the blood types of the crossbred steers. Since the remaining blood type systems did not yield any additional information concerning differences between Herefords and Texas Longhorns, Those data are not included in this report.

The blood types of the pure Herefords were highly representative of that breed. When these phenogroups were excluded from the crossbred steer data the remaining blood types of the Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers were representative of the Texas Longhorn breed. However, one steer possessed a blood type which had not been observed previously in this breed and was classified as non-typical. It was confirmed by visual appraisal That one animal in the group definitely originated from breeding other than Texas Longhorn. By excluding this individual from the data it appeared that steers represented as Texas Longhorn crossbreds were typical of the r parent breeds as measured by blood typing. Although this sample of steers did not exhibit all of the known blood types which exist in Texas Longhorns, this was not unexpected due to the limited number of sires represented.

TABLE 1. ANALYSIS OF RATIONS FED, %

Nutrient, dry matter basis

Days on Acid

each Dry Crude detergent

Rationa ration matter protein fiber TDN Ca P

Starter 14 85.8 14.0 21.5 72.5 .90 .41

Grower 46 50.8 14.2 24.1 71.2 .71 .18

Finisher 172 77.7 12.9 11.6 80.5 .70 .29

a Numbers of samples represented for starter, grower and finisher rations were 1, 4 and 4, respectively.

TABLE 2. AVERAGE FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE OF STEERS DURING FINISHING

PERIODS

Breed type,

means with standard deviations

Texas

No. of Longhorn

Item Steers Hereford x Hereford

a,b

Live weight, lb.

Initially 80 685.9 t 6.3 699.3 ± 1.6

After 80 days on feed** 76 938.4 i 6.7 920.5 ± 4.0

After 155 days on feed* 76 1137.0 t 13.8 1087.0 ± 3.5

After 172 days on feed** 38 1160.7 + 21.6 1113.7 ± 2.4

Daily gain by periods, lb.

From 0 to 80 days* 76 3.15 2.76

From 81 to 155 days* 76 2.64 2.21

From 156 to 172 days 38 1.39 1.56

Avg. feed dry matter consumption per day by periods, lb.

From 0 to 80 days 76 26.5 ±1.68 26.5 ± .43

From 81 to 155 days 76 25.6 ± .95 25.6 ± .34

From 156 to 172 days 38 17.6 ± .56 16.3 ± .63

Conversion of feed dry matter to live weight gain by periods, lb.

From 0 to 80 days 76 8.4 9.6

From 81 to 155 days** 76 9.7 11.6

From 156 to 172 days 38 12.7 10.5

Cumulative feedlot cost per head, $

From 0 to 80 days 76 179.71 181.28

From 0 to 155 days 76 303.21 300.11

From 0 to 172 days 38 322.50 318.05

*(P<.05)

**(P<.01)

aCalves maintained in feedlot 60 days prior to initiation of finishing period. Off-truck weights upon arrival at the feedlot were 509 and 528 lbs, respectively, for Hereford and Texas Longhorn x Hereford steers.

bAll live weights represent unshrunk weights.

TABLE 3. MEAN VALUES FOR 9-10-11 RIB COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE-TO-BONE RATIOS

Control slaughter Terminal slaughter Percentage units change,

(n=8) (n=40) initial vs. terminal

Texas Texas Texas

Longhorn Longhorn Longhorn

Item Hereford x Hereford Hereford xHIerefor.1 Hereford x Hereford

Fat, %a 23.9 27.1 48.6 x 45.3y +24.7 +18.2

Lean, %a 58.2 56.9 37.7x 41.1y -20.5 -15.8

Bone, %a 17.9b 16.0c 13.7 13.7 - 4.2 - 2.8

Muscle-to-bone

ratios 3.26 3.55 2.75x 3.00y - ..51 - ..55

a Taken as a percentage of 9-10-11 rib.

b, c Means with different superscripts differed (P<.05) for control slaughter, May 7.

x, y Means with different superscripts differed (P<.0S) for terminal slaughter, October 20.

Breed type

Texas

No. of Longhorn

Item Steers Hereford x Hereford

Frame sizea 80 1.96 4.41

Standard deviation .88 1.30

80 6.89 6.00

Muscling scorea

Standard deviation .81 .71

aU.S.D.A. (1979). Standard; coded: frame size, small = 1, 2, 3; medium = 4, 5, 6; large = 7, 8, 9, and muscling score, light = 1, 2, 3; moderate = 4, 5, 6; heavy = 7, 8, 9.

Breed type

Texas

Longhorn

Hereford x Hereford

Item (n-74) (n=76~

Warm carcass weight, lb.* 750.6 ± 54.8 706.6 ± 48.9

Dressing percentage 65.3 64.2

52 59

Lean A ± 18.5 A ± 24.8

96 54

Marbling score a* S1 ± 54.5 Sm ± 85.8

USDA quality grade* Good + ± 34.3 Choice - ± 47.5

Fat thickness, (12th rib) in.* 0.83 ± .19 0.49 ± .15

Adjusted fat thickness, in.* 0.94 ± .20 0.57 ± .16

Kidney, pelvic and heart fat, %* 1.90 ± .41 2.23 ± .33

Ribeye area, sq. in. 12.3 ± 1.05 12.0 ± 1.00

USDA yield grade 4.14 ± .68 3.20 ±. 53

a

USDA (1975~ scores: Lean maturity: A00 = approximately 9 months,

A100 = approximately 30 months. Marbling: S1 = slight, Sm = small.

Slight = all of U.S. Good grade, Small = lower third of U.S. Choice grade.

*(P<.05).

TABLE 6. MEANS WITH STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR CARCASS PALATABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Breed type

Texas

Longhorn

Hereford x Hereford

Item (n=20) (n=20)

Juiciness a 5.5 ± .60 5.6 ± .61

Muscle fiber tendernessb 6.7 ± .51 6.7 ± .84

Connective tissue amountc 7.7 ± .22 7.7 ± .50

Overall tendernessb 6.8 ± .47 6.0 ± .77

Flavor desirabilityd * 6.2 ± .44 6.7 ± .37

Overall desirabilityd 6.3 ± .46 6.6 ± .70

Shear force value, lb. 6.2 ± 1.29 6.0 ± 1.41

aBased on 8 point scale: 8 = extremely juicy, 1 = extremely dry

bBased on 8 point scale: 8 = extremely tender, 1 = . extremely tough

cBased on 8 point scale: 8 = none, 1 = abundant.

dBased on 8 point scale: 8 = extremely desirable, 1 = extremely

undesirable.

*(P<.05)

TABLE 7. BLOOD TYPES OBSERVED IN THE B AND C GENETIC SYSTEMS

Breed type

Hereford Texas Longhorn x Hereford

B System B System

Y1D' I' BG KY D'O'A"

2 2

Y I'1 BG2KA'O'N'W'

1

QI'Q BG KE' F'O'A"

2 2

A' BG2KQ

I' B01TP'A"

Q G201Q'

G3Th'3F'Q'

11QE11

Q

Y I'Y'

1

Y D'E'Q'

2 1

C System C System

C RW C EWX L'

1 1 2

1 1

LITERATURE CITED

1. Adams, N.J. and Frank Fox. 1974. Performance of various types of cattle. Procc. Western Section, Am. Soc. of Anim. Sci. 25:52.
2. Albaugh, R. 1981. A comparison of crossbred Jersey, crossbred Longhorn and straight Hereford weaner steers in feedlot performance and carcass merit. Unpublished data. Univ. of Calif., Davis.
3. Caldwell, J. 1981. Cattle white blood cells - Their contribution to disease resistance. Beef Cattle Research in Texas. p.127.
4. Christian, L.L., E.R. Hauser and A.B. Chapman. 1965. Association of preweaning and postweaning traits with weaning weight in cattle. J. Animal Science. 24:652.
5. Ensminger, M.E. 1976. Beef Cattle Science (Fifth ed.). The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., Danville, Ill. p. 10.
6. Hankins, O.G. and P.E. Howe. 1945. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bul. No. 688.
7. Koch, R.M. and R.T. Clark. 1955. Influence of sex, season of birth and age of dam on economic traits in range beef cattle. J.14:386.
8. Shelby, D.R. and C.S. McCown. 1978. Birthweight and calving ease of calves sired by Angus, Hereford and Longhorn bulls. Amer. Soc. of Animal Science Ann. Meetings. p. 273. (Abstr.).
9. Shelby, D.R. and C.S. McCown. 1980. Brangus, Charswiss and Longhorn Science Ann. Meetings. p. 158. Birthweight of calves sired by bulls. Amer. Soc. of Animal (Abstr.).
10. Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
11. Swiger, L.A. 1961. Genetic and environmental influences on gain of beef cattle during various periods of life. J. Animal Science 20:183.
12. U.S.D.A. 1921. Yearbook. p. 232.
13. U.S.D.A. 1975. Official United States standards for grades of carcass beef. U.S.D.A. Agr. Marketing Service, Washington, D.C.
14. U.S.D.A. 1979. Feeder calf grading standards. Fed. Reg. 44:45320.
15. Wagnon, K.A., R. Albaugh and ~ Hart. 1960. Beef Cattle Production. The MacMillian Co. N(~ York.