Strategies to improve specification attainment for beef production

Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to digital@library.tamu.edu, referencing the URI of the item.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 80-81).Issued also on microfiche from Lange Micrographics.The effects of a treatment, weight, average frame size x weight, average muscle thickness x weight and average frame size x average muscle thickness x weight versus corresponding carcass characteristics were experimentally evaluated. A total of 525 feeder steers were sorted to create individual data sets for analysis. Animals were stratified according to treatment and were assigned to either weight (±11.5kg), average frame size (visually estimated based on average frame size of cattle within ±11.5kg), average muscle thickness (visually estimated based on average muscle thickness of cattle within ±11.5kg) or average frame size x average muscle thickness. Results indicated that treatments did significantly affect (P < .01) carcass traits. However, R squared values differed greatly between the response variables, ribeye area (.23), hot carcass weight (.02), yield grade (.05), backfat thickness (.08), marbling score (.03) and percentage kidney pelvic and heart fat (.23). It was determined that ribeye area was the only critical response variable that could be affected using the implemented treatments. Of the treatments, the frame size group was most effective in reducing ribeye area variation, (COV 8.64) while the frame size x muscle thickness was most effective in reducing ribeye area size, (91.72cm²). Differences in variation existed between other response variables but due to their relatively low R squared values it was determined that treatments had little effect on the resulting carcass traits