Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:37:01.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and development of water buffalo and Friesian cross-bred cattle, with special reference to growth and distribution of carcass muscle and bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. Y. Abdallah ,
Karima A. Shahin  and
M. G. A. Latif
O. Y. Abdallah
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Shoubra El-Kheima, Cairo, Egypt
Karima A. Shahin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Shoubra El-Kheima, Cairo, Egypt
M. G. A. Latif
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Shoubra El-Kheima, Cairo, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Right sides of carcasses of 12 buffalo, nine ½ Friesian ( Friesian x Egyptian Baladi) and nine ¾ Friesian ( Friesian x ½ Friesian) bulls slaughtered over the body-weight ranges 161–560 kg for buffaloes and 176–448 kg for cattle were cut according to the Chicago style of cutting. Allometric growth pattern and distribution of muscle and bone in the various cuts were examined.

Buffaloes were similar to cattle in that muscle and bone in the limbs showed an increasing distoproximal growth gradient. On the ventral line of the trunk, muscles showed an increase in growth impetus from plate to brisket while bone followed a reverse pattern. In buffaloes, growth coefficients of muscle and bone of all dorsal cuts were similar except in the sirloin and chuck where bone was later maturing. In cattle, there appeared a posterior-anterior increase in growth impetus of muscle from the shortloin towards sticking. Within and between genotype-group results indicated that growth of a fatless cut is governed by the growth of its muscle rather than that of its bone.

Compared with Friesian crosses, buffaloes had significantly greater percentages of their total muscle and muscle-plus-bone in the expensive cuts. As total muscle weight increased, the proportion of muscle in BLRC (see p. 318) decreased in cattle but remained almost constant in buffaloes. It was concluded that the previously reported inferior carcass composition of buffaloes relative to cattle is compensated by better carcass conformation and tissue distribution of buffaloes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 317 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Abdallah, O. Y., Shahin, K. A. & Latif, M. G. A. (1981). Growth and development of water buffalo and Friesian cross-bred cattle, with special reference to body and carcass composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 205–212.Google Scholar
Abdallah, O. Y., Shahin, K. A. & Latif, M. G. A. (1982). Growth and development of water buffalo and Friesian cross-bred cattle, with special reference to the ‘entire’ and ‘boneless’ cuts. Meat Science (in the Press).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. 4. Genetic influences on patterns of bone growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27, 71–77.Google Scholar
Charles, D. D., Johnson, E. R. & Butterfield, R. M. (1970). Some anatomical characteristics of importance in assessing the potential of the water buffalo for beef production in Australia. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 8, 94–99.Google Scholar
Dukes, H. H. (1955). The Physiology of Domestic Animals. London: Baillière, Tindall & Cox.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. (1968). Body development and some problems of its evaluation. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Jones, D. W. (1977). Bone weight distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses, and the prediction of carcass bone content from the bone content of joints. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 675–682.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
Kramer, C. W. (1956). Extension of multiple range test to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics 12, 307–310.Google Scholar
Levie, A. (1963). The Meat Handbook. Connecticut: the Avi Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1973). Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 317–326.Google Scholar
Ragab, M. T., Darwish, M. T. H. & Malek, A. G. A. (1966). Meat production from Egyptian buffaloes. II. Physical and chemical characteristics of buffalo meat. Journal of Animal Production, United Arab Republic 6, 31–50.Google Scholar
Robelin, J. & Geay, Y. (1976). Note: Répartition des masses musculaires chez le jeune bovin mâle entier et son évolution au cours de la périodo d'engraissement entre 8–9 et 16–17 mois. Annales de Zootechnie 25, 273–279.Google Scholar
Robelin, J., Geay, Y. & Béranger, C. (1977). Évolution de la composition corporelle des jeunes bovins males entiers de race limousine entre 9 et 19 mois. I. Composition anatomique. Annales de Zootechnie 26, 533–546.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar