Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:37:30.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of Charbray and Hereford cattle and crosses between them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. D. Carroll  and
W. C. Rollins
F. D. Carroll
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.
W. C. Rollins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.
Get access

Summary

This experiment was designed to compare the average performance of Charollais-Hereford and Hereford-Charbray calves with the average performance of purebred Hereford and Charbray calves as a measure of hybrid vigour in various traits of economic importance.

The ratio of lumbar length to carcass length was larger in the crossbreds. With this exception there was no significant difference between purebreds and crossbreds in any of the measurements that characterise performance of the live animal or the carcass. However, the trend of the carcass measurements possibly indicated that the purebreds were fatter and higher in carcass grade than the crossbreds.

Studies on three cuts of meat from each carcass indicated larger cooking losses (percentage drip loss) in steaks from purebreds and larger ‘shear’ values for steaks from crossbreds. The panel of judges found no significant differences in tenderness, flavour or juiciness. There were no significant differences in colour of lean meat from crossbred and purebred animals.

Meat from the purebred Herefords appeared fatter and more tender than that from the Charbray cattle, but this comparison may be biased due to sire differences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1965 , pp. 119 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Asselbergs, E. A., & Whitaker, J. R., 1961. Determination of water-holding capacity of ground cooked lean meat. Fd Technol., champaign, 15: 392.Google Scholar
Calaja, A., 1963. The extensive use of the Charollais and Limousin beef breeds for commercial crossing. Mol. mjasn Skotovod., 8 (1): 21.Google Scholar
Damon, R. A. Jr., Crown, R. M., Singletary, C. B., & McCraine, S. E., 1960. Carcass characteristics of purebred and crossbred steers in the Gulf Coast Region. J. Anim. Sci., 19: 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damon, R. A. Jr., McCraine, S. E., Crown, R. M., & Singletary, C. B., 1959. Gains and grades of beef steers in the Gulf Coast Region. J. Anim. Sci., 18: 1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B. L., Auriol, P., & Duplan, J. M., 1959. Etudes des performances de la race Charollaise. I. Croissance des veaux. C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Agric. Fr., 45: 111.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. A., Slen, S. B., & Hargrave, H. J., 1959. A comparison of feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of Charbray × Hereford with Hereford steers. Canad. J. Anim. Set, 39: 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Lofgreen, G. P., & Garrett, W. N., 1960. A proposed method for removing sources of error in beef cattle feeding experiments. J. Anim. Sci., 19: 1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumann, H. D., 1951. A recommended procedure for measuring and grading beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Fourth Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, p. 89.Google Scholar
U.S.D.A., 1962. Certain beef carcasses. Notice of proposed standards for determinations of quality and meat yield. Fedl Reg., 27: 1 (no. 72).Google Scholar