Meta-analysis of factors affecting carcass characteristics of feedlot steers

A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of biological type (early-moderate or late maturity) and implant status (estrogenic, combination, or nonimplanted; repeats included) on HCW (kg); LM area (cm2); 12th-rib fat thickness (fat thickness, cm); KPH (%), and intramuscular fat (%) at harvest, to provide inputs to an ongoing program for modeling beef cattle growth and carcass quality. Forty-three publications from 1982 to 2004 with consistent intramuscular fat data were evaluated. Two studies were undertaken: 1) with fat thickness as a covariate and 2) with BW as a covariate. The intercept-slope covariance estimate was not statistically different from 0 for LM area (P = 0.11), KPH (P = 0.19), and intramuscular fat (P = 0.74) in study 1, and for LM area (P = 0.44), fat thickness (P = 0.11), KPH (P = 0.19), and intramuscular fat (P = 0.74) in study 2; therefore, a reduced model without a covariance component was fitted for these carcass characteristics. A covariance component was fitted for HCW (P = 0.01, study 1 and P = 0.05, study 2) and for intramuscular fat (P = 0.05, study 2). In study 1, the results for maturity indicated differences between early-moderate and late maturity for HCW (P < 0.01) and LM area (P < 0.01) but no differences for KPH (P = 0.26) and intramuscular fat (P = 0.50); for implant status, an estrogenic or combination implant increased HCW by 2.9% (P = 0.27) or 4.8% (P < 0.01), increased LM area by 3.2% (P = 0.23) or 6.3% (P < 0.01), decreased intramuscular fat by 8.1% (P < 0.01) or 5.4% (P < 0.01), respectively, and decreased KPH by 7.6% (P = 0.34) for estrogenic implants but increased KPH by 1.1% (P = 0.36) for combination implants, compared with nonimplanted steers. In study 2, the results at 600 kg of BW for implant status (implant or nonimplant) indicated no differences for HCW (P = 0.63) and LM area (P = 0.73), but there were differences for fat thickness (P < 0.01), KPH (P < 0.01), and intramuscular fat (P < 0.01); the results for maturity (early-moderate or late maturity) indicated no differences for HCW (P = 0.94), but there were differences for LM area (P < 0.01), fat thickness (P < 0.01), KPH (P < 0.01), and intramuscular fat (P < 0.01). The difference between early-moderate and late maturity (studies 1 and 2) confirmed that frame size accounts for a substantial portion of the variation in carcass composition. Studies 1 and 2 also indicate that implant status had significant effects on carcass quality.