| Literature DB >> 25049516 |
Sang Moo Lee, Jae Yeon Kim, Eun Joong Kim.
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the effects of stocking density or group size on feed intake, daily gain, and carcass characteristics of Hanwoo (Korean indigenous breed) steers reared from 7 months to 31 months of age. Thirty Hanwoo steers were divided into four groups with three replicates each (a total of 12 pens). In each group, one (G1), two (G2), three (G3), and four steers (G4) per pen were allocated as treatments. Pen size was 32.0 m(2), and therefore Hanwoo steers in G1, G2, G3, and G4 were reared under different space allowances, i.e. 32.0, 16.0, 10.6, and 8.0 m(2)/steer, respectively. Steers were reared following a conventional beef cattle management method in Korea, and were offered a fixed amount of commercial concentrate with ad libitum forages. Results were subjected to analysis of variance with stocking density as the main effect, and significance was declared at p<0.05. Although total feed intake was not significantly altered, it numerically increased in animals of low stocking density (G1) compared to those subjected to high stocking density treatment (i.e. G4). Feed conversion ratio was higher (p<0.05) in G3 compared to G1 and G2. Animals in G1 (low stocking density) grew faster (p<0.05) than those of high stocking density (G3 and G4). Back fat thickness, meat yield index, and meat yield grade were similar among all levels of stocking density. However, longissimus muscle area was larger in G1 and G2 (p<0.01) compared to G3 and G4, and animals in G3 produced smaller carcasses (p<0.05). Carcass quality traits, including marbling score, meat color, fat color, texture, maturity and meat quality grade, as determined by a group of experts, were not significantly different among the treatments. In conclusion, lower stocking density resulted in increased feed efficiency, daily gain, and carcass weight in Hanwoo steers. However it remains unclear whether such differences are the results of stocking density or group size, or a combination of both. Nonetheless, these results confirm previous studies reporting a negative effect of increased stocking density on animal productivity. Further, animal welfare under an intensive farming system in relation to economical return is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Animal Welfare; Growth; Hanwoo; Meat Quality; Stocking Density
Year: 2012 PMID: 25049516 PMCID: PMC4093035 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Animal allocation and experimental design of the study
| Items | Treatments
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | |
| Pen sizes | 4×8 m | 4×8 m | 4×8 m | 4×8 m |
| Number of animals per pen | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Area per animal | 32.0 m2 | 16.0 m2 | 10.6 m2 | 8.0 m2 |
| Number of replication | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Total number of animals | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 |
Chemical composition (%) and feed ingredients (%) of concentrates used in this experiment (dry matter basis unless otherwise stated)
| Item | Growing | Early | Late |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical composition | |||
| Crude protein | 15.97 | 14.83 | 13.10 |
| Ether extract | 3.87 | 4.20 | 5.58 |
| Crude fiber | 9.15 | 7.62 | 8.60 |
| Crude ash | 8.42 | 6.67 | 6.78 |
| Nitrogen free extract | 62.59 | 66.50 | 66.31 |
| Calcium | 1.39 | 0.91 | 0.92 |
| Phosphorus | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.40 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 33.87 | 30.91 | 28.76 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 16.36 | 13.74 | 13.79 |
| Total digestible nutrients | 78.27 | 81.89 | 82.74 |
| Ingredients | |||
| Corn grain | 24.0 | 25.5 | 30.0 |
| Wheat grain | 8.5 | 18.0 | 16.5 |
| Soybean meal | 3.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 |
| Wheat bran | 9.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 |
| Corn gluten feed | 11.5 | 16.0 | 15.0 |
| Rapeseed meal | 7.0 | - | - |
| Cane molasses | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Coconut meal | 14.0 | 9.5 | - |
| Cottonseed hull pellet | - | - | 4.0 |
| Palm meal | 15.0 | 13.0 | 10.0 |
| Distillers grain | - | - | 2.5 |
| Salt dehydrated | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Limestone | 2.5 | 1.7 | 1.5 |
| Vitamin premix | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Mineral premix | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Others | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Chemical composition of forages used in this experiment (dry matter basis unless otherwise stated)
| Item | Alfalfa | Timothy | Tall fescue | Rice straw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic matter (%) | 91.0 | 93.0 | 93.8 | 88.4 |
| Crude protein (%) | 18.8 | 14.6 | 9.9 | 4.0 |
| Ether extract (%) | 3.14 | 4.94 | 3.31 | 1.61 |
| Crude fiber (%) | 36.1 | 29.3 | 31.7 | 43.2 |
| Nitrogen free extract (%) | 32.9 | 44.2 | 48.0 | 39.6 |
| Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 49.9 | 66.3 | 63.2 | 74.8 |
Effect of stocking density on feed intake, daily gain, and feed conversion ratio (dry matter basis unless otherwise stated)
| Item | Treatments
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | |
| Growing period | ||||
| Concentrates (kg/d) | 4.0±0.00 | 4.0±0.00 | 4.0±0.00 | 4.0±0.00 |
| Alfalfa | 0.5±0.00 | 0.5±0.00 | 0.5±0.00 | 0.5±0.00 |
| Timothy | 1.2±0.00 | 1.2±0.00 | 1.2±0.00 | 1.2±0.00 |
| Tall fescue | 2.4±0.42 | 2.1±0.10 | 2.3±0.15 | 2.2±0.18 |
| Total intake (kg/d) | 8.1±0.42 | 7.8±0.10 | 8.0±0.15 | 7.9±0.18 |
| Early fattening period | ||||
| Concentrates (kg/d) | 7.7±0.00 | 7.7±0.00 | 7.7±0.00 | 7.7±0.00 |
| Rice straw (kg/d) | 4.6±1.07 | 3.8±0.26 | 3.5±0.24 | 3.4±0.22 |
| Total intake (kg/d) | 12.6±1.07 | 11.5±0.26 | 11.2±0.24 | 11.1±0.22 |
| Late fattening period | ||||
| Concentrates (kg/d) | 8.7±0.11 | 8.3±0.36 | 8.3±0.31 | 8.1±0.10 |
| Rice straw (kg/d) | 0.8±0.00 | 0.8±0.00 | 0.8±0.00 | 0.8±0.00 |
| Total intake (kg/d) | 9.5±0.11 | 9.1±0.36 | 9.1±0.31 | 8.9±0.10 |
| Daily gain | ||||
| Initial BW (kg) | 247±15.5 | 210±14.7 | 238±15.0 | 231±12.3 |
| Final BW (kg) | 809±24.8 | 7,338±14.6 | 730±68.3 | 733±10.6 |
| BW gain (kg) | 561±21.7 | 522±17.4 | 492±65.3 | 502±14.0 |
| Daily gain (kg/d) | 0.76±0.03 | 0.71±0.03 | 0.67±0.04 | 0.68±0.02 |
| Feed conversion ratio (kg/kg) | 13.2±0.18 | 13.3±0.23 | 14.1±0.50 | 13.7±0.16 |
= Not significant.
Means in a row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).
Effects of stocking density on carcass characteristics and meat quality
| Item | Treatments
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | |
| Carcass weight (kg) | 459±10.5 | 425±8.5 | 407±33.7 | 424±9.0 |
| Quantity traits | ||||
| Back fat thickness (mm) | 15±1.2 | 14±0.3 | 13±1.9 | 13±1.1 |
| 99±5.1 | 104±4.4 | 91±0.5c | 93±2.7 | |
| Meat yield index | 63.7±0.8 | 66.2±0.6 | 64.4±1.4 | 65.0±1.9 |
| Yield grade (A, B, C) | 1.7±0.58 | 2.3±0.29 | 2.0±0.34 | 2.3±0.25 |
| Quality traits | ||||
| Marbling score | 4.3±2.08 | 5.2±0.29 | 4.1±1.68 | 3.6±0.75 |
| Meat color | 5.0±0.00 | 4.8±0.29 | 5.1±0.19 | 4.7±0.14 |
| Fat color | 3.0±0.00 | 3.0±0.00 | 3.0±0.00 | 3.0±0.00 |
| Texture | 1.3±0.58 | 1.2±0.29 | 1.3±0.58 | 1.4±0.14 |
| Maturity | 2.3±0.58 | 2.5±0.00 | 2.0±0.00 | 2.0±0.00 |
| Meat quality grade | 3.0±0.00 | 3.3±0.29 | 2.8±0.84 | 2.8±0.25 |
A = 3, B = 2, C = 1.
1devoid, 9 = abundant.
1 = white, 7 = yellow.
1 = dark red, 7 = bright.
1 = good, 3 = bad.
1 = fine, 3 = coarse.
1++ grade = 5, 1+ grade = 4, 1st grade = 3, 2nd grade = 2, 3rd grade = 1.
= Not significant.
Means in a row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).