between the breeds in daily DM intake. However, because JE were significantly lighter than the other two breeds, their intake relative to liveweight was higher (P o 0.05). There was no difference between HF and NR in either absolute or relative intake.
Feed intake of the steers during finishing is shown in Table 4. At no time was there a significant difference between the breeds in daily DM intake. In contrast to the bulls, when intake was expressed relative to liveweight at no time was there a significant difference in either absolute or relative intake.
3.3. Body and ultrasonic measurements
All body measurements scaled for slaughter weight, other than pelvic width for which there was no breed type effect, and back length and pelvic width for which there were no gender effects, were significantly affected by breed type and gender (Table 5). All measurements were affected (P o 0.05) by slaughter weight. Measurements other than chest girth did not differ for HF and NR, but all values, other than pelvic width which was not different, differed significantly for JE. Withers height and chest depth were greater (P o 0.05) for steers than bulls, while chest girth was less (P o 0.05) for steers than bulls. All scaled body measurements were lower (P o 0.001) for the Heavy than for the Light slaughter weight group.
At the time of slaughter of the Light slaughter weight groups, ultrasonically scanned fat depth was unaffected by breed type and slaughter weight (at this time live weights were similar for the two slaughter weight groups) but was greater (P o 0.01) for the steers than bulls. Scanned muscle depth at the lighter slaughter weight did not differ for HF and NR but was lower for JE (P o 0.05). It was also lower (P o 0.001) for steers than bulls but was unaffected by slaughter weight. At the time of slaughter of the Heavy slaughter weight groups ultrasonically scanned fat depth was lower (P o 0.05) for JE than for HF and NR which did not differ. There was no difference between the breed types in ultrasonically scanned muscle depth. Bulls had a lower
(P o 0.01) ultrasonically scanned fat depth, and a greater
(P o 0.01) ultrasonically scanned muscle depth, than steers.
3.4. Noncarcass components
Weights of selected non carcass components and these weights relative to slaughter weight are shown in Table 6. There was no significant difference between HF and NR for any of the components. Other than perirenal plus retro- peritoneal fat weight which was greater (P o 0.001) for JE than NR but not HF, all non carcass component weights were lower (P o 0.05) for JE than for the other two breed types. Bulls and steers had similar fore and hind feet weighs, but bulls had greater hide (P o 0.001) and liver weights (P o 0.01), while steers had a greater (P o 0.05) weight of perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat. All measured components were heavier (P o 0.05) for the Heavy than for the Light slaughter weight group. When the non carcass components were scaled for carcass weight, there was no significant breed type effect for hide or liver and there was no significant difference between HF and NR for fore, hind and total feet weights. Otherwise, JE had lower (P o 0.05) feet weights than the other two breed types. Scaled perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat weight dif- fered (P o 0.05) amongst the breed types, being highest for JE and lowest for NR. Scaled hide and liver weights were greater (P o 0.05) for bulls than steers, while scaled feet weights, together with scaled perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat weight were greater (P o 0.05) for steers. Other than perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat which was greater (P o 0.05), all scaled values were lower (P o 0.05) for the Heavy than for the Light slaughter weight group. There was a breed gender interac- tion (P o 0.05) for scaled perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat weight because of a greater difference between bulls and steers for JE than for HF and NR.
3.5. Slaughter traits
Other than carcass conformation class which was higher (P o 0.05) for NR, there was no significant difference in slaughter traits between HF and NR (Table 7). However, all