Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:43:00.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beef carcass conformation and some relationships with carcass composition and muscle dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. Colomer-Rocher ,
J. J. Bass  and
D. L. Johnson
F. Colomer-Rocher
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. J. Bass
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
D. L. Johnson
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Carcasses of 129 steers from ten different sire breeds including dairy breeds, traditional British beef breeds and continental breeds were classified according to the shape of the tuber ischii-tuber calcis profiles of their hindquarter using a 7·point conformation scale. Conformation class was found to be related to both commercial and dissected carcass composition as well as the dimensions of seven hindquarter muscles. At the same carcass weight and fatness the muscle content of the hindquarter increased by 0·56 kg and the bone decreased by 0·13 kg linearly per unit increase in conformation class; the corresponding increase in the muscle-to-bone ratio was 0·07. The general trend for muscle dimensions was that the convex carcasses had shorter and thicker muscles than concave carcasses. A simple method of assessing carcass conformation based on three fundamental profiles of the hindquarter, from which the seven conformation classes were derived, permitted the grouping of carcasses according to their composition. Nevertheless the accuracy of the method may be improved with further investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 94 , Issue 3 , June 1980 , pp. 697 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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., Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H. & Jones, K. R. (1975). The carcass composition of Angus, Hereford × Angus, Friesian × Angus, Charolais × Angus and South Devon × Angus steers. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 35, 112–118.Google Scholar
Bass, J. J., Colomer-Rocher, F., Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H., Jarnet, M. P. & Woods, E. G. (1976). Carcass composition of purebred and crossbred Angus steers. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 36, 198–203.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. & Liboriussen, T. (1978 a). Growth of bovine tissues. 2. Genetic influences on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27, 51–61.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. & Liboriussen, T. (1978 b). Growth of bovine tissues. 3. Genetic influences on patterns of fat growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27, 63–69.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. & Liboriussen, T. (1978 c). Growth of bovine tissues. 4. Genetic influences on patterns of bone growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27, 71–77.Google 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.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D., Warwick, B. L. & Cartwright, T. C. (1956). Slaughter and carcass characteristics of shortfed yearling, Hereford and Brahman x Hereford steers. Journal of Animal Science 15, 93–96.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & May, N. D. S. (1966). Muscles of the Ox. St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1973). Development of beef classification in Great Britain. World Review of Animal Production 9, 65–75.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Tissue separation – to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings British Society for Animal Production (New Series) 1, 113–122.Google Scholar
De Boer, H., Dumont, B. L., Pomeroy, R. W. & Weniger, T. H. (1974). Manual on E.A.A.P. reference methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1, 151–164.Google Scholar
De Boer, H. & Nijeboer, H. (1973). Stereo diapositives as an aid in carcass assessment. World Review of Animal Production 9, 50–57.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. L. & Boccard, R. (1967). Critères modernes d'amélioration génétique des populations bovines dans le monde. Le rapport Muscle/os, critere de selection des bovines de boucherie. IIs Simposio Internazionale di Zootechnia, Milano, 1967, pp. 149–155.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. & Jury, K. E. (1964). Implantation of oestrogenic hormones in beef cattle. IV. Effects of oestradiol benzoate plus progesterone on carcass composition and a comparison of methods of carcass evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 7, 158–173.Google Scholar
Garcia-De-Siles, J. L., Ziegler, J. H., Wilson, L. L. & Sink, J. D. (1977). Growth, carcass and muscle characters of Hereford and Holstein steers. Journal of Animal Science 44, 973–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, G. (1976). The M.L.C. beef carcass classification scheme. In Proceedings of a symposium on Carcase Classification held in Adelaide, May4, 5, 6, 1976. B2, pp. 1–16. Sydney: Australian Meat Board.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. R., Pryor, W. J. & Butterfield, R. M. (1973). Studies of fat distribution in the bovine carcass. II. Relationship of intramuscular fat to the quantitative analysis of the skeletal musculature. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 287–296.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. & Berg, R. T. (1978). Effects of breed and sex on the relative growth and distribution of bone in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58, 157–165.Google Scholar
Kauffman, R. G., Grummer, R. H., Smith, R. E., Long, R. A. & Shook, G. (1973). Does live-animal and carcass shape influence gross composition? Journal of Animal Science 37, 1112–1119.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. (1978). Bone growth and development. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle. Current topics in veterinary medicine, vol. 2 (ed. De Boer, H. and Martin, J.), pp. 149–166. The Hague, Boston, London: Martinees Nytioff.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Avis, P. R. D. & Smith, R. J. (1976). Fat distribution in steers' carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 2. Distribution between joints. Animal Production 23, 223–232.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1976). Fat distribution in steers' carcasses of different breeds and crosses. 1. Distribution between depots. Animal Production 23, 25–34.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Smith, R. J. (1976). Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 533–542.Google Scholar
Kidwell, J. F., Hunter, J. E., Ternan, P. R., Harper, J. E., Shelby, C. E. & Clark, R. T. (1959). Relation of production factors to conformation scores and body measurements, associations among production factors and the relation of carcass grade and fatness to consumer preferences in yearling steers. Journal of Animal Science 18, 894–908.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Barton, R. A. & Rae, A. L. (1962). The efficiency of determining the chemioal composition of lamb carcasses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 381–386.Google Scholar
Locking, G. L. (1976). Canada's beef carcass grading system. In Proceedings of a symposium on Carcase Classification held in Adelaide, May 4, 5, 6, 1976. B3, pp. 1–16. Sydney: Australian Meat Board.Google Scholar
Luckock, C. R. (1976). The development of an objective beef carcase classification scheme for Australia. In Proceedings of a symposium on Carcase Classification held in Adelaide, May 4, 5, 6, 1976. B7, pp. 1–18. Sydney: Australian Meat Board.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, D. (1974). Report to the New Zealand Meat Producers Board of the Meat Export Grades Investigation Committee (Hon. D. MacIntyre, Chairman). Box 121, Wellington: New Zealand Meat Producer Board.Google Scholar
Martin, E. L., Walters, L. E. & Whitemak, J. V. (1966). Association of beef carcase conformation with thick and thin muscle yields. Journal of Animal Science 25, 682–687.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1977). Carcass classification. A.B.C. Meat Research Institute. Biennial Report 1975–1977, pp. 34–41. Langford, Bristol.Google Scholar
Ryan, P. O. (1976). Beef carcase classification in Ireland. In Proceedings of a symposium on Carcase Classification held in Adelaide, May 4, 5, 6, 1976. B5, pp. 1–5. Sydney: Australian Meat Board.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Lang, C. P. & Tulloh, N. M. (1976). A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 1–14.Google Scholar