Table 4.
Carcass trait responses
| Treatmenta | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | CON | CLO | SEM | P-value |
| Pens, N | 12 | 12 | – | – |
| Steers, N | 119 | 119 | – | – |
| HCW, kg | 411 | 408 | 2.6 | 0.29 |
| Dressing percentageb, % | 63.56 | 64.01 | 0.333 | 0.19 |
| Rib fat, cm | 1.37 | 1.32 | 0.034 | 0.15 |
| Ribeye area, cm2 | 87.10 | 86.77 | 1.078 | 0.79 |
| Marblingc | 442 | 438 | 13.8 | 0.77 |
| KPH, % | 1.71 | 1.71 | 0.019 | 0.97 |
| Calculated YGd | 3.31 | 3.25 | 0.067 | 0.38 |
| Retail yielde, % | 49.92 | 50.04 | 0.145 | 0.41 |
| Estimated EBFf, % | 30.71 | 30.39 | 0.245 | 0.22 |
| Final BW at 28% EBFf, kg | 600 | 601 | 5.4 | 0.88 |
| USDA YG distribution | ||||
| YG 1, % | 0.0 | 0.0 | – | – |
| YG 2, % | 27.4 | 23.0 | 4.03 | 0.46 |
| YG 3, % | 53.8 | 64.4 | 4.46 | 0.12 |
| YG 4, % | 18.8 | 12.6 | 3.39 | 0.22 |
| YG 5, % | 0.0 | 0.0 | – | – |
| USDA quality grade distribution | ||||
| Select, % | 41.9 | 36.0 | 5.51 | 0.43 |
| Low choice, % | 32.3 | 44.9 | 4.68 | 0.08 |
| Average choice, % | 17.0 | 15.5 | 3.77 | 0.75 |
| High choice, % | 7.1 | 3.6 | 2.95 | 0.42 |
| Prime, % | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.79 | 0.17 |
| Liver abscess scoresg | ||||
| Normal, % | 67.4 | 65.1 | 5.62 | 0.77 |
| A−, % | 12.9 | 15.3 | 4.11 | 0.68 |
| A, % | 9.4 | 6.9 | 2.48 | 0.48 |
| A+, % | 10.3 | 12.7 | 2.96 | 0.54 |
aFed no probiotic (CON) or fed 0.5 g/steer/d of B. subtilis PB6 (CLOSTAT 500, Kemin Industries, Des Moines, IA; CLO).
bCalculated as HCW/(final BW pencil shrunk 4%).
c400 = small00 (USDA low choice).
dCalculated according to the USDA regression equation (USDA, 1997).
eAs a percentage of HCW according to Murphey et al. (1960).
fCalculated according the equations described by Guiroy et al. (2002).
gAccording to the Elanco Liver Scoring System: normal (no abscesses), A− (one or two small abscesses or abscess scars), A (two to four well-organized abscesses of less than 2.54 cm diameter), or A+ (one or more large active abscesses of greater than 2.54 cm diameter with inflammation of surrounding tissue).