Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:52:58.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differences in the Relation between Carcass Visual Scores and Composition in Heifers and Steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

A.V. Fisher
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research - Bristol, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DY
J.S. Broadbent
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research - Bristol, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DY
C. Coutts
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research - Bristol, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DY
R.M. Kay
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research - Bristol, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DY
I. Rigby
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research - Bristol, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DY
Get access

Extract

It is well recognised that heifers, which are the source of approximately 0.35 of all clean cattle slaughtered for beef in Britain, yield carcasses that are different from those of steers in several commercially important aspects: they are lighter, are scored fatter than steers and have poorer conformation. Live and carcass wholesale prices for heifers are, on average, lower than for steers.

In the USA, studies have shown that yield grade equations, deveoped to predict the ‘cutability’ of carcasses, overestimate this in heifers compared with steers, ie. heifers yield less of the defined primal cuts than steers at the same levels of fat thickness over the rib, rib eye area, kidney + pelvic + heart fat proportion, and carcass weight (predictor variables). However, it has recently been shown that this bias is apparently the result of differences between the sexes in the relation between the fat depth measurement and the total amount of fat trim. In Britain, estimates of yield are based on visual scores of fatness and conformation, but there Is little information on the relations between carcass morphology and composition in the two sexes, differences in which may have important commercial implications.

Type
Meat Composition
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

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.)