Muscle Selection Research Reveals Profit

Edited by:  Peter Speers

Selecting a Herd for Muscling can generate $150 per head higher returns from 

Higher Yielding Carcases

          with the bonuses of:

                                                           *  Lighter Birth Weight Calves

                                                           *  No increase in Calving Difficulty

                                                           *  No change in Weight Gains

                                                           *  Leaner Carcases

                                                           *  Smaller Frame Scores

Importantly, to substantially change a herd’s muscling levels, 
the
female herd must also be selected for muscularity
.

Selection using Live Muscle Scoring (LMS) has been shown in a NSW Agriculture research project to dramatically increase the level of muscling in a beef herd, with potential to boost sale progeny by $150 per head.  The research also demonstrated that heavier muscled cattle are likely to have lighter birth weights with no increase in calving problems. The heavier muscled cattle in this research program also had similar weight gains and at the same age and weight were smaller framed and leaner.

SUMMARY of FINDINGS

*  Increasing muscling via purebreeding will be slow due to moderate heritability and a small variation 
      in the population.

*  For rapid progress, utilize between breed variation in muscling.

*  Using highly muscled bulls does not necessarily increase calving problems or decrease growth rate.

*  The change in the distribution of progeny LMS (e.g. low muscled) is more significant than the actual       
        quantitative change in  muscling.

*  Increase in height will decrease LMS unless selection is applied for muscling.

*  Future selection for maturity pattern should consider both frame score and LMS.

*  Selection for muscling must also be applied to the Female herd for significant improvement 
      to occur
.


Editor's Note:   

Simmental bulls, with their strong muscling attributes, offer crossbreeders the opportunity to boost progeny muscling levels in addition to increasing progeny weight gains.

Also, by retaining Sim-infused females for breeding, their improved muscling will further contribute to improved progeny muscling levels and higher prices. 

Their superior milking ability ensures calves can fully express their superior weight gaining genetics, leading to heavier, well finished, highly muscled calves.

 

Results Outlined at Field Day

The effects of selection for increased muscling on beef herd production and profitability traits were outlined at a field day on 28th June 2002 at NSW Agriculture’s Elizabeth Macarthur Agriculture Institute at Menangle, near Camden. The research project, now in its 10th year and led by The Department’s technical specialist (beef grazing systems), Mr Bill McKiernan, has studied a range of effects in divergent selection lines of Angus cross Angus/Herefords.

The project has used only one selection criteria – live muscle score (LMS) – in a line of cattle selected for high muscle (HM)  and in a line selected for low muscle (LM). Preliminary results were released at the field day.

Mr McKiernan said that the divergence in muscle score in the steers from the two selection lines has so far spread to almost 2 full muscle scores. In economic terms based on recent market reports this equates to a difference of almost $150 per steer at the same age of turnoff. The overall economic effect of this, plus the extra value of the cull females on whole herd profitability is quite extraordinary.

He also said that the research to date on the side effects of selection for increased muscling had dispelled beliefs by some in the industry that higher muscling may lead to reduced reproductive performance.

Indications to date are that the HM cattle are leaner at the same age and weight, and smaller in height or frame score than the LM cattle. The HM line produces lighter birth weight calves with no difference in calving ease between the HM and LM lines.

It appears that use of Frame Scoring alone as a measure of Maturity Pattern may be flawed. Heavier muscled cattle are likely to have a lower Frame Score for the same Maturity Pattern as poorer muscled cattle, with 1 muscle score equivalent to 1 Frame Score.

Thus a 3 frame score animal with “B” muscle score could have a similar maturity pattern to a 5 frame score, “D” muscle score animal.

While selection to improve muscling within a purebreeding program will be slow, it can be hastened by crossbreeding with a better muscled breed.

Importantly, to substantially change a herd’s muscling levels, the female herd must also be selected for muscularity.

(Simmental Australia takes no responsibility for the accuracy of these reported results, and 
indemnifies NSW Agriculture if they are inaccurately reported).

Further Research Details

Measuring Muscling

Maturity Pattern - 
Frame Scores & Muscle Scoring