Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-tfzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-06T00:33:34.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. A. Wright  and
A. J. F. Russel
I. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organisation, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PY
A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organisation, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PY
Get access

Abstract

Body condition score, assessed subjectively on the live animal, was related to the directly determined body composition of 73 mature, non-pregnant, non-lactating cows of Hereford × Friesian, Blue-Grey, Galloway, Luing and British Friesian genotypes. Relationships between condition score and chemically determined body fat were all very highly significant, and considered to be of value for predictive purposes. Differences between genotypes in the proportion of fat stored in the main depots of the body resulted in differences in the relationship between condition score and body fat. British Friesian cows had a higher proportion of their fat in the intra-abdominal depots and the lowest proportion of subcutaneous fat, resulting in their being fatter at any given condition score. Hereford × Friesian cows had the highest proportion of subcutaneous fat and were thus the least fat at any condition score. One unit change in condition score was associated with a change of 2242 (s.e. 103) MJ of body tissue energy in Hereford × Friesian, Blue-Grey, Galloway and Luing cows and 3478 (s.e. 392) MJ in British Friesian cows. These figures may be used to bring a greater degree of precision to the nutritional management of beef and dairy cows.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 23 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. 1968. A comparison between beef-bred and dairy-bred steers for growth and carcass characteristics. Trial IV. Sheepfmg A., pp. 103–109.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. 1971. Growth and carcass characteristics of Angus, Beef Shorthorn, Milking Shorthorn, and Friesian steers. Trial V. Sheepfmg A., pp. 97–104.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. 1972. Beef steer breed comparisons. Trial VI. Growth and carcass differences between Angus, Hereford, Beef Shorthorn, Galloway, Milking Shorthorn and Friesian steers, and a comparison of the carcass components of the various export beef carcass grades. Sheepfmg A., pp. 57–98.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1948. Comparative studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening, and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1961. Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56: 265–282.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. 1978. The interpretation and analysis of subjective body condition scores. Anim. Prod. 26: 119–125.Google Scholar
Guerra, J. C., Thwaites, C. J. and Edey, T. N. 1972. Assessment of the proportion of chemical fat in the bodies of live sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78: 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferies, B. C. 1961. Body condition scoring and its use in management. Tasm. J. Agric. 32: 19–21.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1981. Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: a review. Meat Sci. 5: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Revised ed. Bull. E. Scotl. Coll. Agric, No. 6.Google Scholar
Mulvany, P. 1977. Dairy cow condition scoring. Pap. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy. 4468.Google Scholar
Murray, J. A. 1919. Meat production. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 9: 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoll, G. B. 1981. Sources of variation in the condition scoring of cows. Ir. J. agric. Res. 20: 27–33.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1971. The distribution of chemical fat in the bodies of. Scottish Blackface ewes. Anim. Prod. 13: 503–509.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G. 1980. A study of relationships between fat partition and metabolism in Hereford and Friesian steers. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Bristol.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Smith, J. S. and Dewey, P. J. S. 1975. The nutritive value for sheep of ruminant Diet AA6, complete cobbed diet containing 30% barley straw. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1977. Selection for leanness and the energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984. Estimation in vivo the chemical composition of the bodies of mature cows. Anim. Prod. 38: 33–44.Google Scholar