Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:40:07.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between bone dimensions and conformation in beef carcasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. Colomer-Rocher ,
D. M. Duganzich  and
J. J. Bass
F. Colomer-Rocher
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
D. M. Duganzich
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. J. Bass
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

From a mixed group of cross-bred steers slaughtered at the same age, up to 12 carcasses of similar weight from each of the five conformation classes were chosen using the European Economic Community (EEC) scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. In the hindquarter of carcasses with better conformation the ratio of muscle to bone was higher with less internal fat and more subcutaneous fat, muscles were heavier and blockier, both the carcass and leg length were shorter. Short-thick muscles were associated with short-thick bones. The results indicate that the EEC scale is a useful method to discriminate between carcasses differing in composition. It is suggested that differences in muscle: bone ratio in cattle could reflect differences in the structure and shape of bones. The conclusions remain tentative until they are confirmed on a larger number of carcasses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 393 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Bass, J. J., Johnson, D. L., Colomer-Rocher, F. & Binks, G. (1981). Prediction of carcass composition from carcass conformation in cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. T. & Butterfield, R. M. (1966). Muscle: bone ratio and fat percentage as measures of beef carcass composition. Animal Production 8, 1–11.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D. (1957). The relation of conformation to carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 16, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, F. D., Clegg, M. T. & Kroger, D. (1964). Carcass characteristics of Holstein and Hereford steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer-Rocher, F., Bass, J. J. & Johnson, D. L. (1980). Beef carcass conformation and some relationships with carcass composition and muscle dimensions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, H., Dumont, B. L., Pomeroy, R. W. & Weniger, T. H. (1974). Manual on EAAP reference methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B. L. (1978). Variation and impact of muscle thickness. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle (ed. De Boer, H. and Martin, J.), A Seminar in the EEC Programme of Co-ordination of Research on Beef Production. Ghent, 10 1977. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2, pp. 133–147. The Hague, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L. & Boccard, R. (1967). Critères modernes d'amélioration génétique des populations bovines dans le monde. Le rapport Muscle/os, critère de sélection des bovines de boucherie. lie Simposio Internazionale di Zootechnia, Milano, 1967, pp. 149–155.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G., Knapp, B. Jr, Phillips, R. W. (1943). The muscle–bone ratio aa an index of merit in beef and dual purpose cattle. Journal of Animal Science 2, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. (1978). Bone growth and development with particular reference to breed differences in carcass shape and lean to bone ratio. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle (ed. De Boer, H. and Martin, J.). A Seminar in the EEC Programme of Co-ordination of Research on Beef Production. Ghent, October 1977. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2, pp. 149–166. The Hague, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. (1980). Fat partition and distribution in the carcasses of cattle, sheep and pigs: a review. Meat Science 5, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1982 a). The relationship between conformation and the yield and distribution of lean meat in the carcasses of British pigs, cattle and sheep: a review. Meat Science 6, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1982 b). Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. London, Toronto, Sydney, New York: Granada Publishing.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Harrington, G. (1980). The value of ‘fat-corrected’ conformation as an indicator of beef carcass composition within and between breeds. Livestock Production Science 7, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Woods, E. G. & Duganzich, D. M. (1983). Comparison of well and poorly muscled lamb carcasses as selected by experienced meat industry personnel. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 43, 111–113.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1956). Beef carcass judging by measurement. Pastoral Review and Graziers' Record 66, 1273–1274.Google Scholar
Martin, E. L., Walters, L. E. & Whiteman, J. V. (1966). Association of beef carcass conformation with thick and thin muscle yields. Journal of Animal Science 25, 682–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wythe, L. D., Orts, F. A. Jr & King, G. T. (1961). Bone–muscle relationships in beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 20, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar