Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:21:40.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Kempster ,
A. Cuthbertson  and
R. J. Smith
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF.
A. Cuthbertson
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF.
R. J. Smith
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Dissection data for 753 steer carcasses comprising 17 breed-type × feeding system groups were used to examine the distribution of lean between 14 standardized commercial joints. Breed types included Ayrshire, Friesian, Friesian × Ayrshire and crosses out of Friesians by Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Limousin, Simmental and South Devon sires. Most cattle were grown on cereal or grass/cereal systems of feeding. Group means for weight of lean in the side (half carcass) ranged from 60·0 to 85·2 kg with a pooled within-group S.D. of 7·81 kg.

The increase in lean weight in each joint relative to that in the side was examined using the allometric equation. Pooled within-group growth coefficients (b values) indicated that relative lean tissue growth was lowest in the leg (hind shin) and rump (b = 0·84 ± 0·03 and 0·85 ± 0·03 respectively) and highest in the clod and sticking (b = 1·19 ±0·03). The result for the combined higher-priced joints was 0·95 ±0·01.

The pooled growth coefficients were used to adjust the weight of lean in each joint to equal total lean weight in the side where this was legitimate. Statistically significant (P < 0·001) but relatively small differences were recorded between groups in the adjusted means for all joints tested. At equal total lean weight, Charolais × Friesian, Limousin × Friesian and Simmental ×; Friesian groups had the highest weight of lean in the combined higher-priced joints and the Ayrshire and Friesian × Ayrshire groups the lowest. The difference between the two extreme groups was 2·1 kg (for one side).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , December 1976 , pp. 533 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Bergström, P. L. (1968). Methods of carcass assessment in research on carcass quality in the Netherlands. II. Preliminary results of carcass dissections. EAAP Symposium on Methods of Carcass Evaluation, Dublin, 1968. (Mimeograph.)Google Scholar
Brännäng, E. (1971). Studies on monozygous cattle twins. XXIII. The effect of castration and age of castration on the development of single muscles, bones and special sex characters. Part II. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 1, 69–78.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963). Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.). Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1966). The effect of nutritional stress and recovery on the body composition of cattle. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 168–79.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Berg, R. T. (1966). A classification of bovine muscles, based on their relative growth patterns. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 326–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Tissue separation – to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 1, 113–22.Google Scholar
Hanset, R. & Ansay, M. (1972). Regions privilegies d'hypertrophie musculaire chez le bovin culard. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire 116, 17–25.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1973). Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution in cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 317–26.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M., Tulloh, N. M. & Winter, W. H. (1974). Effects of three different growth rates on empty body weight and dissected carcass composition of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. (1955). In Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, vol. 2 (ed. Hammond, J.), chap. 10. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. & Williams, D. R. (1962). Muscular hypertrophy in cattle. Animal Production 4, 302 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1973). The effect of body weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R M. & Tulloh, N. M. (1968a). Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. II. Dissected components of the commercially dressed and jointed carcass. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 477–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. & Tulloh, N. M. (1968b). Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. III. Dissected components of the commercially dressed carcass, following anatomical boundaries. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 673–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vissac, B. (1968). Etude du caractère culard. II. Incidence du caractere culard sur la morphologie générate des bovins. Annales de Zootechnie 17, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, M. B. & Preston, T. R. (1970). Carcass characteristics of various breeds of beef cattle in Cuba. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agricola 4, 85–90.Google Scholar