Dairy and beef breed effects on beef yield, beef quality and profitability: a review

ABSTRACT

Despite the heavy reliance of the New Zealand beef industry on animals produced from the dairy industry (predominantly Friesian and Friesian cross), there is a widespread belief that beef of dairy origin is inferior to beef produced from traditional ‘British’ breeds. This belief is not supported by the scientific literature. There is a large body of work that suggests there is no difference between dairy and traditional British beef breeds in growth potential, lean meat yield, yield of prime cuts, and the quality of meat produced when grazed under similar conditions and slaughtered at the same chronological age or the same level of maturity (fatness). The current New Zealand payment schedule based on carcass weight, fatness and muscularity, undervalues dairy carcasses for having a different pattern of fat distribution (i.e. less subcutaneous fat) and a different muscle shape (poorer conformation score). In New Zealand, the key commercial driver for using traditional beef-bred cattle appears to be their ability to achieve the 3 mm minimum fat depth and therefore a prime-graded carcass at a lighter carcass weight and with a younger animal compared to dairy-bred cattle.

KEYWORDS:

• Beef breed
• dairy breed
• meat quality
• profitability
• tenderness
• fat colour
• marbling

Introduction

New Zealand’s beef output is increasingly reliant on animals produced from the dairy industry with an estimated 400,000 New Zealand Friesian type bulls, 2 million vealers/bobby calves and a large proportion of the 900,000 cull cows contributing to New Zealand beef production (MPI 2015). Beef + Lamb New Zealand (2015) reported that, in June 2014, New Zealand had 3.6 million beef cattle, of which 1 million were beef breeding cows and heifers. The beef population was made up 54% ‘British’ beef breeds (e.g. Angus, Hereford or Angus cross Hereford), 17% Friesian type or Hereford cross Friesian type, 21% crossbred and 7% others such as the European late maturing beef breeds (e.g. Simmental and Limousin) and specialist breeds such as Wagyu. Despite this high dairy influence in New Zealand’s beef production, there is widespread belief across the supply chain that yield and quality of prime beef from carcasses of dairy origin (e.g. Friesian, Friesian cross Jersey) is inferior to that produced from traditional British beef breeds (e.g. Angus, Hereford). However, there is great variability in yield and quality between individual carcasses of both dairy and traditional beef breeds as a result of genetic selection, growth profiles, pre-slaughter animal handling and post slaughter carcass handling (Irshad et al. 2013).

This review examines the evidence for perceived differences in yield and quality of beef from New Zealand’s predominant beef (e.g. Angus, Hereford) and dairy cattle breeds (e.g. New Zealand Friesian, Jersey and their crosses). It also compares yield and profitability of these breeds under the current New Zealand payment schedule but does not attempt to review the factors affecting beef yield and quality as these have been comprehensively reviewed by a number of authors (e.g. Preston & Willis 1974; Kempster et al. 1982; Muir et al. 1998; Purchas 2003).

Factors affecting meat value

The value of beef to the producer is dictated by carcass weight and grade, less the value of any faults such as damage and bruising. On the other hand, the value of the beef carcass to the processor is determined by the yield of saleable meat, the quality of that beef and the value of co-products (Purchas 2003). Unfortunately there is little information flow from the processor to the producer, so farmers do not get direct information about the value components of a beef carcass.

Dressing out percentage

At the same live weight, dairy breeds typically have lower dressing out percentages (DO%) because of higher proportions of non-carcass tissues and therefore lower carcass weights than traditional New Zealand beef breeds (Preston & Willis 1974; Kempster et al. 1982; Purchas 2003). These non-carcass tissues are largely gut and liver tissues and non-carcass fat (e.g. mesenteric and omental fat) which are removed at slaughter prior to weighing the carcass (Henderson 1969; Garret 1971; Taylor 1982; Nour et al. 1983a; Kirton & Morris 1989; Taylor & Murray 1991; Dolezal et al. 1993; Barton & Pleasants 1997; Muir et al. 2000; Wheeler et al. 2004; Keane 2011; Irshad et al. 2013).

Saleable meat yield

Saleable meat yield percentage (SMY%) is defined as the proportion of boneless product derived from a carcass (Purchas 2003). Differences in SMY% between dairy and beef breeds is often affected by the amount of fat that is trimmed in beef animals (Wheeler et al. 2004) and by the amount of bone in dairy animals, so the overall difference between the two types of animals is reduced (Purchas 2003).

Branaman et al. (1962) slaughtered Holstein and Hereford steers at approximately the same age and found no significant difference in the percentage of separable lean. Bass et al. (1981) found no differences in lean meat between dairy and British beef crosses when finished on pasture, but both were different to the heavy, late maturing European breeds (e.g. Charolais and Simmental). These authors concluded, like Berg & Butterfield (1976), that breed had little effect on muscle weight distribution. On the other hand, Nour et al. (1983b) and Thonney et al. (1984) found that Holstein carcasses contained a slightly higher SMY% and trimmed primal cuts than small framed Angus steers at the same weight or age. However, it is worth noting that these North American Holstein carcasses are likely to be much heavier (mature live weight 680 kg; NRC 2001) than the Friesian-type dairy cows typically farmed in New Zealand (mature live weight 525 kg; DairyNZ 2012). The smaller New Zealand ‘Friesians’ will, at least partially, be as a result of some Jersey genetics and selection criteria used in the New Zealand dairy industry.

Carcass fatness

Whilst there are a number of fat depots (e.g. intermuscular, intramuscular, abdominal and subcutaneous) it is generally the subcutaneous fat that affects how much trimming is needed and, therefore, impacts on SMY%. When compared at the same slaughter live weight, carcasses from beef animals typically have more subcutaneous fat and are therefore more likely to exceed the 10 mm threshold which may necessitate trimming. In comparison, carcasses from dairy breeds typically have less fat cover (Schaefer 2005; Irshad et al. 2013) and are likely to need less trimming. Cole et al. (1964b) observed that dairy-type steer carcasses had the highest percentage of separable muscle but the lowest percentage of separable fat. Wheeler et al. (2004) also found that the Friesian steers had less subcutaneous fat than the Hereford and Angus-sired steers when corrected to 471 days of age and Marshall (1994) found that, at a standard age or time on feedlot, Holsteins were leaner than many of the traditional British breeds. Keane (2011) also reported that Holstein–Friesian-sired animals had less fat than Hereford-sired animals.

Muscle:bone ratio

Schaefer (2005) reported that, in the US, Holstein steers are often criticised for having poor muscularity and low muscle:bone (M:B) ratios compared to beef steers. Regardless of whether they were slaughtered at a constant age or fatness, Holstein-sired animals tended to have the highest percentage of bone relative to other breeds and Angus-sired steers tended to have the lowest (Wheeler et al. 2004). Barton & Pleasants (1997) and Keane (2011) also found increased bone weights in dairy animals when compared at the same carcass weight. It is clear that the results are also affected by the ‘type’ of dairy animal, as Kempster et al. (1988) found as big a difference between Canadian Holstein and British Friesian cattle as between dairy and beef breeds in terms of carcass lean, lean to bone ratio, eye muscle area and the amount of lean in high priced cuts. Bass et al. (1981) found that, whilst New Zealand Friesians tended to have a greater proportion of bone than Hereford or Angus animals, Jersey animals were similar to the beef animals. This suggests that the increasing Jersey influence in recent decades will mean the typical New Zealand dairy animal is now likely to be closer to a traditional beef animal in terms of the proportion of bone in the carcass.

Muscle shape

Eye muscle cross-sectional area has sometimes been used as an indicator of carcass quality and studies have observed smaller eye muscle areas in Holstein when compared to Hereford (Garcia-de-Siles et al. 1977) and Angus cattle (Bertrand et al. 1983). Wheeler et al. (2004) found that the breed differences in area of longissimus thoracis were relatively small, although the Friesian-sired animals tended to be at the lower end and the Hereford-sired animals tended to be at the top, with the Angus and crossbred animals being intermediate. A review by Keane (2011) concluded that differences in eye muscle areas between early maturing traditional beef breeds and Holstein Friesians were small. The longissmus thoracis muscle, as a percentage of total muscle, does not differ between breeds (Berg & Butterfield 1976), suggesting that the ribeye area of Holsteins is smaller simply because the muscle is longer (Schaefer 2005). Given these results, it seems inappropriate to use ribeye area as a proxy of carcass lean.

Yield of high value cuts

The specialist European breeds (e.g. Charolais, Belgian Blue, Limousin, Piedmontese) are recognised for their higher carcass yields and increased proportions of ‘primal’ cuts compared to either dairy or traditional beef animals because they originated from ‘draught’ animals (Kempster et al. 1982) or from the presence of muscular hypertrophy (MH) or ‘double-muscling’ genes (Purchas 2003). Since these breeds form a very small proportion of New Zealand’s current beef herd (less than 7% across all specialist breeds; Beef + Lamb New Zealand 2015), these specialist cattle are not considered further in this review.

Within the New Zealand beef industry there is a common belief that traditional beef breeds yield proportionately more of the high priced loin and hindquarter ‘primal’ cuts than dairy breeds. However, comprehensive reviews by Preston & Willis (1974) and Kempster et al. (1982) found little evidence for differences between British beef breeds and dairy breeds in total edible meat yield or the proportion of meat found in higher priced ‘primal’ cuts. In a New Zealand study, Muir et al. (2000) found that despite differences in size, conformation and fatness between Hereford, Friesian and Hereford cross Friesian steers, overall yield of saleable high value cuts (cube roll, striploin and tenderloin expressed as a percentage of total carcass weight) was similar between breeds when slaughtered at the same weight or level of maturity. Similar results were reported by Barton (1971, 1972), Truscott et al. (1976), Everitt et al. (1980), Bass et al. (1981), Nour et al. (1981, 1983b), Bertrand et al. 1983, Patterson et al. (1985), Stiffler et al. (1985) and Butler-Hogg et al. (1988).

Branaman et al. (1962) found no significant difference in the total percentage of rib, round and loin cuts in Holstein and Hereford steer carcasses. Cole et al. (1964b) observed similar percentages of rib, round and loin in Holsteins and Herefords, but both were significantly higher than Angus. Cole et al. (1964b) concluded that, in Angus cattle, carcass fat had a depressing effect on the yield of major wholesale cuts and separable muscle.

Keane (2011) found the differences in the proportion of high value cuts were highest for later maturing beef genotypes but that differences between the early maturing traditional beef genotypes and dairy breeds were small when killed at a constant fat level.

Furthermore, Muir et al. (2000) found that there were no significant differences in the weight of individual high value meat cuts between Friesian, Hereford cross Friesian and Hereford steers when expressed as a percentage of carcass weight. This agrees with Kempster et al. (1988) who reported that sire breed differences in lean distribution in higher priced ‘primal’ meat cuts did not vary significantly between Hereford, Simmental, British Friesian and Canadian Holsteins, though there was a slightly higher primal meat yield from Charolais and Limousin cattle. Nevertheless, overall variation in primal cut yield between all breeds was less than 1% of the carcass retail value. There is substantial evidence that, at the same carcass weight, there is little or no difference between dairy-bred and traditional beef-bred animals in the proportion of high value cuts in the carcass.

Meat quality

For consumers, meat quality is a function of appearance (presentation at point of sale, cut size, lean and fat colour, and fat distribution) and palatability (tenderness, texture, aroma, juiciness and flavour).

Branaman et al. (1962) found no difference in shear-force values, sensory panel ratings for tenderness, aroma, flavour of fat and texture of lean between beef and dairy-type cattle. Purchas & Barton (1976) reported Warner-Bratzler shear force measurements of tenderness of meat from three experiments involving 171 steers of six breeds (including Angus, Friesian and Jersey) raised under New Zealand pastoral conditions. Differences in tenderness were only recorded in one experiment where beef from Jersey steers had a significantly lower shear force than beef from the Angus and New Zealand Friesian steers. Cole et al. (1964a) also found that Jersey loin and round steaks and rib roasts were the most tender of several British, Zebu and dairy breeds, although differences between Jerseys and Herefords were not always significant. Purchas & Barton (1976) summarised the results of a number of studies by Husaini et al. (1950), Cole et al. (1964b), Judge et al. (1965), Zeigler et al. (1971), Everitt (1972) and Fredeen et al. (1972), all of whom found no differences in taste panel tenderness scores of beef from Friesian and/or Hereford cattle. Schaefer et al. (1986) compared Holstein, Charolais and Charolais cross steers slaughtered at the same live weight and observed no difference in juiciness, flavour or acceptability of beef from these breeds. Similarly, Thonney et al. (1991) reported that ribeye steaks from Holstein steers were at least as palatable as those from Simmental cross Angus and that there was no justification for price discrimination.

Muir et al. (2000) compared the quality of ribeye steaks from Hereford (H), Friesian (F) and Hereford cross Friesian (H×F) steers which had been farmed together and slaughtered at the same age/weight and at the same level of maturity (finish). There were no differences between breeds in meat colour. Friesians had significantly yellower fat than H and H×F at both the same age and same level of maturity. There were no breed differences in shear force measures of meat tenderness when slaughtered at the same age, but F had higher shear force measurements than H or H×F when slaughtered at the same maturity (level of finish), probably because they were 8 and 6 months older, respectively, than the H and H×F steers. After 32 days ageing, tenderness was similar in all breeds. Sensory evaluation of longissimus thoracis muscle by panellists showed a preference trend for F > H×F > H for some individual organoleptic components when compared at the same age, although there was no difference in overall acceptability between breeds. When compared at the same finish, there was no preference between breeds.

Dairy and beef breeds are often compared on the basis of marbling because there is evidence that marbling at moderate levels has an effect on juiciness and eating quality (Preston & Willis 1974; Shorthose & Harris 1991; Marshall 1994; Muir et al. 1998). There is evidence that dairy breeds (Friesian, Friesian cross and Jersey) are at least as good as or better in terms of marbling than British beef breeds and this was an explanation given for the high taste panel preference rankings for Jersey beef (Cole et al. 1964a). Marshall (1994) reviewed body composition traits in US cattle and found that in Angus and Holstein steers at similar average carcass weights (288 kg and 292 kg, respectively) subcutaneous fat depth was significantly different (13.2 mm and 8.6 mm, respectively) but marbling score was similar (564 vs. 512). Similarly, when Muir et al. (2000), compared H, H×F and F steers slaughtered at the same age, they found significant breed differences in subcutaneous fat levels but no significant difference in marbling (measured as chemical fat %). Schreurs et al. (2014) also found no difference in intramuscular fat in striploins from beef-bred steers and those with 25% dairy genetics. Purchas (2003) noted that the differences in meat quality between the main cattle breeds used in New Zealand were rare and smaller than the effects of age, nutrition and degree of finish.

Growth rate and feed efficiency

In New Zealand, growth rate comparisons of pasture finished dairy and beef steers have shown little difference between breeds (Everitt et al. 1980; Muir et al. 2000). Rust & Abney (2005) summarised results from 13 feedlot trials, comparing growth rates and feed efficiency of Holstein and beef steers, and found similar average feedlot growth rates.

Energy requirements for live weight gain increase with live weight and age (maturity) because of changes in the relative proportions of fat, protein and water per unit tissue gain (NRC 2000, CSIRO 2007). The energy required to deposit fat is almost twice that required to deposit protein (ARC 1980). Therefore, as carcass fatness increases with age, relatively more energy is required per unit tissue gain.

Dairy breeds have been estimated to have at least 15% higher maintenance energy requirements than British beef breeds (NRC 2000). This is because dairy breeds have larger, more metabolically active internal organs (e.g. liver) and fat depots (e.g. omental and mesenteric fat) in order to support their greater lactation requirements (Segert et al. 1996; Baldwin et al. 2004; Pfuhl et al. 2007). This helps explain why Rust & Abney (2005) reported little difference in average feed conversion efficiency (FCE) in feedlot reared Holsteins and beef steers at low weights (140 kg), but as weights increased (up to 400 kg) beef steers became progressively more efficient than Holstein steers. Using the equations for cattle metabolisable energy (ME) requirements published by Nicol & Brookes (2007) it can be calculated that an Angus and a Friesian steer, both starting with a birth weight of 40 kg and growing at 0.7 kg/d until slaughter at 27 months and 600 kg live weight (after Muir et al. 2000; Table 1), would require total ME requirements of 30.76 and 35.49 GJ, respectively; a difference of 4.73 GJ. Assuming an average pasture ME of 10.5 MJ/kg dry matter (DM) (Nicol & Brookes 2007) this would equate to an additional 450 kg of pasture DM to meet the higher maintenance requirements of the Friesian steer. Using a typical feed cost of $0.15/kg DM consumed, this would equate to an additional cost of approximately $67.50 over the lifetime of the Friesian steer. This is equivalent to approximately 5.5% of the total Friesian carcass value (mean $1218; Muir et al. 2000).

Table 1. Mean live weights, carcass characteristics, meat yields and estimated carcass value for Hereford, Hereford × Friesian and Friesian steers after slaughter at the same age (27 months, H, HF1, F1, respectively) and at the same level of maturity (H, HF2, F2, respectively; Muir et al. 2000).

	H	HF1	F1	HF2	F2
Age at slaughter (months)	27	27	27	29	35
Slaughter live weight (kg)	610	601	609	629	753
Carcass weight (kg)	318	310	306	329	367
DO%	53.3	52.9	51.5	54.3	51.3
Fat depth over 12th rib (mm)	9.19	7.93	3.87	7.93	7.87
Marbling (chemical fat %)	18.6	22.2	19.8	20.6	27.0
Percentage of carcass in high value cuts	14.0	14.3	14.0	14.9	14.9
Conformation grade (no. of carcasses)	1 (4)	1 (1)
	2 (10)	2 (11)	2 (1)	2(15)	2 (13)
	3 (1)	3 (2)	3 (14)		3 (2)

Practical implications

Over 60 years of research has consistently shown that, under similar management, there is no difference between dairy and traditional British beef breeds in the percentage yield of saleable lean meat in a carcass when slaughtered at the same age or weight. Dairy breeds have more non-carcass fat which results in lower DO% and lighter carcasses than beef breeds at the same live weight. Dairy carcasses are also leaner as they have a different pattern of fat deposition with less subcutaneous fat relative to non-carcass fat and intermuscular fat. However, as a proportion of carcass weight, overall SMY% is similar between dairy and beef carcasses. This is because, in dairy animals, the fat is removed at slaughter whereas, in the beef carcasses, more subcutaneous fat is trimmed in the boning room. Furthermore, research has consistently shown that there is no difference between dairy and British beef-bred animals in the yield of higher value primal cuts as a proportion of carcass weight. In spite of this, the muscularity grades within the New Zealand beef payment system penalise dairy carcasses compared to beef carcasses. For example, Muir et al. (2000) reported carcass data from H, F and H×F steers which had been farmed together from 6 months of age (Table 1). At slaughter at 27 months of age, H and F cattle were the same live weight (≈610 kg) but H carcasses were 12 kg heavier than F carcasses. Under the New Zealand grading system, carcasses receive a 1–3 conformation (musculature) score with a score of 1 receiving a premium of +5 cents/kg and a score of 3 being penalised by up to −10 cents/kg depending on the season and the meat company involved. At 27 months of age, only 1/15 H carcasses was given a conformation score of 3 whereas 14/15 F carcasses received a conformation score of 3. Subcutaneous fat depth also declined with increasing dairy influence because of the differences in fat distribution between depots and, whilst H carcasses averaged 9.2 mm fat over the 12th rib, F carcasses at the same age averaged only 3.9 mm. There is typically a penalty of 10 cents/kg when carcasses fall into an L grade (< 3 mm). This means that in lean cattle there is little room for error when subjectively assessing subcutaneous fat depth and many dairy-bred cattle will be kept to heavier weights to avoid penalties associated with leanness and conformation.

Farming cattle which are too lean through a third winter is difficult and expensive under a pasture-based system where winter grass is in short supply and dairy-bred cattle may be discounted. Moreover, on many soil types heavy cattle can cause significant winter treading damage with its associated pasture loss (Wall et al. 2012).

Breed differences in fat distribution also have an impact on feed requirements. Dairy breeds have higher maintenance energy requirements than British beef breeds because they have larger metabolically active internal organs (e.g. liver) and fat depots (e.g. omental and mesenteric fat) which have evolved to support their greater lactation requirements. A typical 600 kg steer will have consumed an extra 450 kg of feed DM (approximately $67 in feed value) over its lifetime. Because fat deposition increases with weight and age, the extra energy (feed) requirements will be weighted towards the latter part of the animal’s life.

The higher maintenance energy costs of dairy animals mean that it will be more difficult to achieve adequate winter growth rates when there is less surplus energy (i.e. energy above maintenance) for growth. The combination of higher maintenance requirements and reduced flexibility for early slaughter seems to be a key reason why dairy cross animals could justifiably be penalised in the store market. It is perhaps ironic that European cattle breeds also have a large mature size and the same lack of flexibility at slaughter, yet command a store market premium.

Conclusions

The belief that beef of dairy origin is inferior to that from traditional British beef breeds is not supported by the scientific literature. In fact there is a large body of work that confirms there is no difference between the main New Zealand dairy breeds and the traditional British beef breeds in growth potential, saleable meat yield, yield in prime cuts, and the quality of meat produced when grazed under similar conditions whether slaughtered at the same chronological age or the same level of maturity (fatness).

The current beef payment system undervalues dairy animals for having a different pattern of fat distribution (i.e. less subcutaneous fat) and a different muscle shape (poorer conformation score). This means that farmers of dairy-bred steers and heifers have less flexibility in meeting the requirements of the current grading system. Furthermore, dairy animals also have higher maintenance energy requirements and greater lifetime feed requirements due to longer finishing times, which will affect overall profitability. Given the high contribution of dairy beef to total beef output, it may be appropriate to have a different classification system for dairy beef carcasses or even move to an objective system such as video image analysis for measuring saleable meat yield.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This review was supported by a grant from Beef + Lamb New Zealand (Contract 12OFR01).