177 Determining the Body Weight to Body Fat Conversion Factor for Angus, Charolais, and Brahman Growing Steers

Abstract

Abstract The profitability of beef feedlot operations depends on accurately predicting the energy and nutrient requirements of the animal to optimize animal growth and carcass quality to meet market specifications. The composition of the gain (i.e., fat and protein) dictates the growth of the animal, and it is highly correlated with the body composition of the mature animal, assuming that the composition of body gain is constant for animals at the same maturity degree. Once the mature weight for a given body composition (i.e., fat) is known, the maturity degree can be estimated, and the equivalent body weight (EqBW) can be used to calculate energy requirements for growth. Several standard feeding systems and nutrition models use the adjusted final body weight (AFBW) at a known fat composition to estimate EqBW. The AFBW is the body weight (BW) at, usually, 28% empty body fat (EBF). Thus, AFBW can be estimated if a given empty BW (EBW) and composition are known, and an EBW-to-EBF factor is used to calculate AFBW from the current BW. Several nutrition models, including the Cattle Value Discovery System, have adopted the 14.26 kg of EBW for each % of EBF. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the amount of body mass deposited per change in body fat content of different breeds commonly used in Australia. We randomly allocated 30 Angus, 30 Brahman, and 29 Charolais into six slaughter groups (6 animals per breed per slaughter group) fed for up to 200 days. Internal organs and carcasses were dissected into physically separable fat, lean, and bones. When we regressed EBW on EBF, the overall regression yielded a slope of 11.2 ± 0.69 kg/%EBF [n = 89, r2 = 0.75, and root of the mean square error (RMSE) = 55.7 kg], likely not different from the 14.26 kg/% EBF. However, slopes were different among breeds (P < 0.001), i.e., there was an interaction between breeds and EBF when the breed was added to the ordinary least-square mean regression as a classificatory variable. The slopes were 16.5 ± 0.84 kg/% for Charolais (n = 29, r2 = 0.933, RMSE = 33.2 kg), 13.2 ± 0.73 kg /% for Angus (n = 30, r2 = 0.921, RMSE = 34.4 kg), and 10.1 ± 1.06 kg/% for Brahman (n = 30, r2 = 0.765, RMSE = 38.3 kg). When we regressed the amount of EBF on EBW, we obtained 0.40, 0.58, and 0.52 kg EBF/kg EBW for Charolais, Angus and Brahman, respectively. This confirms that Charolais deposited less EBF per unit of gain compared with Angus and Brahman. Given the similarity between the 14.26 kg/% to the overall value of 11.2 kg/%, we recommend using the 14.26 EBW-to-EBF factor to estimate AFBW when the genetic group is unknown.