This study compared feed lot finished beef and grazing standing corn beef from young steers for sensory acceptance, sensory quantitative descriptive analysis attributes palatability and Warner–Bratzler shear force values. In comparing both feeding treatments results indicated no differences (P > 0.05) between feeding treatments for all attributes including appearance, aroma (with handheld) and (with sniff bottle), texture, flavor and basic taste. However, there was difference (P < 0.05) in flavor, offlavor for different feeding systems by panelists. Analysis of variance for Warner- Bratzler shear force values revealed no differences (P > .05) between steaks from two treatments. Based on this research, the meat industry may wish to provide the consumer with the option of choosing beef that was traditionally feed lot finished or beef finished by grazing standing corn. Thus, grazing standing corn beef producers could utilize a practicable alternative feeding system with niche market appeal to represent a viable production option.

These studies were conducted to define calf body shape, to test for relationships between calf shape and sire expected progeny differences for birth weight (BWTEPD) and first-calf calving ease (CEEPD) and to evaluate the efficacy of calf shape as a selection criterion for reduction of calving difficulty. Birth weight (BW), head circumference (HC), hip width (HW), shoulder width, body length (BL), cannon circumference (CC), cannon length (CL) and heart girth (HG) were measured at birth on 1,016 calves sired by Angus, Polled Hereford and Simmental bulls. In the Angus- and Polled Hereford-sired calves, sire effects were present for BW-adjusted residuals of CC. Additionally, HW, BL and HG residuals differed among half-sib groups for the Polled Hereford-sired calves. Thus, calf body measure differences independent of BW were in part attributable to sire. Multivariate factor analysis was used to identify underlying skeletal width and frame dimensions of calf shape in both breeds. After adjustment of body measures for differences in BW, a positive relationship of BWTEPD with HC and CC and a negative relationship between CEEPD and CC existed. Further adjustment for BWTEPD removed effects of CEEPD on CC. Thus, BWTEPD influenced calf shape independent of BW, but shape was not related to CEEPD independent of BWTEPD. Simmental bulls were divergently selected on CEEPD relative to BWTEPD so that body measures of calves from sires whose progeny tended to be born with more or with less dystocia than expected from BWTEPD could be obtained. Differences in CL and CC at constant BW were in part attributable to sire. Underlying shape factors were similar to those of the other breeds. Sire BWTEPD was positively related to CC and HC independent of BW. However, a relationship between body measures and CEEPD existed only at constant BW and BWTEPD. Calf shape independent of BW was also not different among calves born unassisted and assisted. Estimates of heritability, repeatability and birth to weaning relationships for each BW-residual body measure were generally not significant. Overall, sire BWTEPD was related to calf shape independent of BW. However, increases in skeletal dimensions were not related to either observed calving difficulty nor sire CEEPD independent of BW. Selection for reduced calving difficulty should not be based on calf body shape. / Ph. D.

California’s approximately 660,000 head of beef cattle are highly dependent on range bulls used to produce offspring that can perform across the state’s diverse ecological regions. While knowledge of bull breeding behavior and the technology used to monitor cattle movement and behavior is critical to maximize conception rates and the overall efficiency in natural service sires on rangelands. Bulls need to be functional on rugged coastal landscapes, rolling foothills, deserts, and in high-elevation terrain. Few data exist that indicate factors related to selection, maintenance, and longevity of bulls used in rangeland landscapes. Objectives herein, were to assess factors influencing bull purchasing, management, and culling decisions of California beef producers. Another objective was to examine the relationship between activity level and the number of offspring born from a breeding season. Surveys were mailed to the California Cattlemen’s Association membership (n = 1,410) with ~ 16% response rate (n = 227). Mean age and years of bull selection experience of respondents was 61 ± 1 years and 27 ± 1 years, respectively. Respondents managed cattle on a total of 694,949 ha of owned, private leased, and leased public rangelands in California and surrounding states. Cow-calf herd size was 333 ± 92 head and bull battery averaged 18 ± 2 head with average bull longevity of 5 ± 1.3 years. The average price paid for bulls in the last 2 years was $5007 ± 163.33, while the highest price paid in the last 5 years was $7291 ± 335.40. Survey responses were used to define current factors driving management after purchase and for subsequent breeding seasons. After bull purchase, 48% of producers turned bulls out directly with females, while 52% held bulls until the following breeding season. Additionally, most producers (70%) did not manage bulls to reduce condition after purchase. Semen quality analysis, a major component of a breeding soundness exam, was evaluated annually by 45% of respondents, while 20% of respondents never evaluated semen quality. Respondents indicated bull age (35%) and structural soundness (29%) as the most common factors for culling bulls. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) units were affixed to bulls prior to the start of the breeding season and distance traveled was determined. Additionally, calf tissue samples for DNA parentage were collected and DNA was processed by Neogen’s SireSeek program. Changes in carcass traits, such as intramuscular fat (IMF), marbling (MARB), ribeye area (REA), and rib fat (RIBFAT), were significant in the ranch*year interaction (P < 0.05). This highlights the fact that carcass traits were the most influenced by the ranch location they had per year. While the survey research shows that despite the variability in operation demographics, there were similarities in beef bull selection and management across the state. Additionally, these data suggest the need for additional research focused on bull selection and management to maximize producer investment in reproduction.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1948 T3 / Master of Science

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1957 F73 / Master of Science

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1959 G37

There were 12.5 million head of cattle in all of Canada as of January 1st, 2012, of which 7.4 million were on cow-calf farms. Of this population, 1.2 million head of cattle were in Manitoba, and within that, 880 thousand were on cow-calf farms. Canadian and Manitoba beef producers have experienced significant volatility in the cattle market. This is partly as a result of loss of exports of cattle to the United States, first due to occurrence of the Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) Crisis, and then through the Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) legislation developed in the United States. While the beef industry has endured market fluctuations, the North American cattle herd has also been responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, through enteric fermentation within their digestive tracks, storage of manure on farms, through the spread of manure on crop fields, and through the production of feed for cattle. Of the total Canadian GHG emissions, agriculture contributed 8 percent in 2013. For the same year, within the total agricultural GHG emissions, cattle and sheep production resulted in 40 percent of methane emissions, and 90 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, both expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent. Regionally, the share of agricultural GHG emissions in Manitoba make up a larger proportion of total provincial GHG emissions, at 31 percent of 21.4 Mt CO2e, as the province has fewer emissions from transportation or stationary combustion.. The confluence of low profitability and larger amounts of GHG emission (relative to other provinces) has led to some discussion on adopting measures to reduce these emissions. This has caused some stress in the beef industry, as some of these proposed solutions could lead to further loss in profits. An European study of the beef sector has investigated the impact of some policy instruments, such as emission taxes, and has suggested that while such measures are effective, they would also be financially restrictive to beef producers, or result in high administrative costs for governments (Neufeldt and Schäfer 2008). However, these measures might be unnecessary, as the Manitoba Beef Producers (2011) have indicated that the Manitoba beef producers are willing to undertake alternate management practices to benefit environmental causes if they do not negatively affect their profitability or livelihoods. Therefore, providing methods that lead to lower GHG emissions while providing high levels of profitability, or maintaining current levels of profitability would be considered a welcome set of information for the Manitoba beef cattle producers (and likely producers in other provinces). In order to understand GHG emissions on beef farms, a Canada-wide survey was undertaken in 2012. Financial support for this survey was provided by a variety of interested parties including the University of Manitoba, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with the support of the Beef Cattle Research Council. Researcher Aklilu Alemu from the University of Manitoba used principle component analysis and cluster analysis to create eight clusters of representative farms across the country. Of the eight Canadian clusters, only four clusters had a population greater than one in Manitoba. The centroid from each cluster was chosen as a representative farm for this study. Estimates of GHG emissions from each farm were then determined using Holos, a GHG emission model developed by the Government of Canada. To compare GHG emissions against profitability on a farm, this study evaluated revenues and costs of four Manitoba farms (One each from the four clusters). The revenues included the sale of weaned calves and cull cows, as well as the sale of unused feed and non-feed grain. The costs for the whole farm included the cost to grow feed for the cattle, while operating costs for each of these farms included veterinary, transportation, manure removal, and utility costs. The fixed costs (related to farm structures and machinery) were comprised of depreciation and interest costs. In order to understand the profitability of the beef enterprise as well as the whole farm, the costs and revenues were estimated at three levels: beef enterprise, the whole farm, and the family level. With regards to the beef enterprise, the farm in Cluster Four had the highest level of profitability, at $0.05 per pound of live animal weight sold [or on a per pound sold (PPS) basis]. At the same time, this farm was also able to achieve the lowest GHG emissions, at 2.20 lbs. PPS basis measured in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e). The farm with the second lowest level of GHG emissions (9.68 lbs. CO2e on a PPS basis) were estimated for the Cluster Six Farm, which also had the second highest profitability ($0.01 on a PPS basis). When measured at the beef enterprise level, several farms had net GHG emissions. Higher farm level profitability was contributed by a high weaning weight, the lower cost to produce feed, and the strategic purchase of machinery to feed each herd. Lower emissions were noted on farms with tame pastureland and greater amounts of forage with alfalfa. Comparing profits and GHG emissions at the whole farm level showed different results. The Cluster Seven farm had the highest level of profitability ($1.53 on a PPS basis) while it was also the largest contributor to GHG emissions (12.16 lbs. CO2e on a PPS basis). Cluster Six farm was the second largest contributor to GHG emissions (7.54 lbs. CO2e on a PPS basis), but also created the least profit on its farm ($0.13 on a PPS basis). The farms with net sequestration (i.e., GHG emissions were negative) were Cluster Four and Cluster One farms. Both of these farms were both able to create profitability. On a PPS basis, Cluster Four farm had the second highest profitability ($0.80 on a PPS Basis) and sequestered second greatest emissions (2.38 lbs CO2e on a PPS basis). Cluster One farm had the second lowest profitability ($0.33 on a PPS basis) and sequestered the most GHGs (30.17 lbs CO2e on a PPS basis). Increases in the level of net sequestration were due to tame pastureland and large amounts of unused hay growth which included legumes such as alfalfa. Increases in profitability were due to the sale of non-feed grains, feed grains or hay, as well as other factors noted above regarding the beef enterprise. These findings suggest that Manitoba beef producers could provide greater profitability and lower GHG emissions if they increased their weaning weights, increased the size of their herds, invested in tame pastureland when possible, and cut their forage several times throughout the growing season. Since this study is based on a single farm from four clusters, additional research is necessary. This may include studying several farms in each cluster in order to determine variability in long-term feed production, as well as in costs and revenues.

The cholesterol content (mg/100 g wet tissue) of the longissimus dorsi muscle and the subcutaneous adipose tissue of "Country Natural Beef" and regularly produced beef was determined by a spectrophotometric method. Proximate analysis (moisture, fat and protein contents) of both types of beef was also determined. Country Natural Beef (natural beef) is produced without the use of hormones or antibiotic feed additives and with a feedlot-finishing period of 50-85 days versus 120-150 days for the regularly produced beef. Samples of natural beef were taken from the 12th rib of the right side of each carcass (N = 20) at 48 hr post mortem. They were vacuum packaged, frozen and stored at -20°C until analyzed. An equal number of regular beef (control) samples were obtained from a local food market. The proximate analysis results show that the mean moisture and protein contents of the natural beef muscle (74.15% and 22.31%, respectively) were significantly (P<0.001 and P<0.01, respectively) higher than those of the control (71.56% and 21.02%, respectively). Conversely, the mean muscle fat content of the natural beef (2.92%) was significantly (P<0.01) lower than that of the control (6.19%). For the adipose tissue, both moisture and fat contents of the natural beef (11.21% and 83.40%, respectively) were lower, but not significantly (P>0.05), than those of the control beef (12.57% and 84.76%, respectively). Data of this study show that the difference between mean muscle cholesterol content of the natural beef (56.91 mg/100 g) and the control beef (56.49 mg/100 g) was not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the cholesterol content of the adipose tissue of the natural beef (106.75 mg/100 g) was significantly (P<0.01) lower than that of the control beef (113.08 mg/100 g). The adipose tissue was found to contain nearly twice as much cholesterol as the muscle tissue (overall mean values of 109.9 and 56.7 mg/100 g, respectively). Even though the natural beef had an average intramuscular fat content of 3% versus 6% for the control beef, the mean cholesterol content of the natural beef muscle was almost identical to that for the control. Although a reduction of feedlot-finishing days reduced the intramuscular fat deposition in the natural beef, it did not influence muscle cholesterol content. / Graduation date: 1988

No description available.