Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:45:53.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The profile area of beef carcasses and its relationship to carcass composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. V. Fisher
A. V. Fisher
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Longford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Get access

Summary

The relationship was examined between the composition of carcasses from 30 castrated Hereford male cattle and their profile areas obtained from photographic negatives. The accuracy of this method n i determining fatness was compared with that of other methods including visual assessment.

Photographs were taken of a dorsal view of the intact carcass and lateral and medial views of the left side after splitting the carcass. A planimeter was used to measure the areas which were obtained from photographic negatives. Carcass lengths were recorded from the medial views. A panel of six judges assessed the sides for fatness on a seven-point scale with the aid of photographic standards.

Areas and carcass lengths, adjusted to dimensional parity, were used as independent variables in multiple regression analyses, with the weights of the dissected tissues as dependent variables. Explanation of variation in muscle weight was poor, but dorsal area and length were (very nearly) as good as visual score and side weight in predicting total fat weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , June 1975 , pp. 355 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

Butterfield, R. M. 1963. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, (ed. Tribe, D. E.). C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Harries, J. M., Pomeroy, R. W. and Williams, D. R. 1974. Composition of beef carcasses. III. The reliability and use of visual assessment. J. agric. Set., Camb. 83: 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, H. F. T. 1971. The thermal variation of the density of beef and the determination of its coefficient of cubical expansion. J. Fd Technol. 6: 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L. 1928. Changes in body measurements of steers during intensive fattening. Bull. Tex. agric. Exp. Stn. No. 385, 59 pp.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. and Berg, R. T. 1973. Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81: 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., Williams, D. R., Harries, J. M. and Ryan, P. O. 1974. Composition of beef carcasses. I. Material, measurements, jointing and tissue separation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. R. 1972. Visual assessment of beef and lamb. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 8: 87–96.Google Scholar