Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:42:59.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analysis of the variation in the lean tissue distribution of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. T. Wolf
B. T. Wolf
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

The distribution of lean tissue between eight standard joints was examined in 956 crossbred lambs slaughtered at constant live weights of either 35 or 40 kg. The sire breeds used were the Dorset Down, Ile-de-France, Oldenburg, Oxford, Suffolk and Texel. Sire breed did not have a significant effect on the proportion of total carcass lean found in the higher-priced joints but did show significant differences in the proportion of total carcass lean found in individual joints, with a maximum difference of 7·7 g total lean per kg joint being recorded. Similarly, small but significant effects due to ewe age (1 to 3 years), rearing type (single, twin, triplet), sex (male castrate, female) and weight of total lean were reported for the proportion of total carcass lean found in different joints.

Heritability estimates ranged from 0·07 (s.e. 008) to 0·65 (s.e. 0·16) for the proportion of total lean in the best-end neck and higher-priced joints respectively. Phenotypic standard deviations of 5·8g/kg and 17·9g/kg were reported for the proportion of total lean found in the best-end neck and the higher-priced joints respectively. The genetic correlations between the proportion of total lean in each of the higher-priced joints and the proportion of total lean in the higher-priced joints combined were positive. A genetic correlation of 017 (s.e. 0·20) was found for the relationship between average daily gain from birth to slaughter and the proportion of total lean in the higher-priced joints.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 1982 , pp. 257 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 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

Andersen, B. B. 1977. Genetic investigations on growth, body development and feed utilization in dual purpose cattle. Beretn. St. Husdyrbrugs fors., 448.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B. 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to growth and feed conversion in cattle. Anim. Prod. 27: 381–391.Google Scholar
Becker, W. A. 1975. Manual of Quantitative Genetics. 3rd ed. Washington State University (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues. 2. Genetic influences on muscle growth and distribution in young bulls. Anim. Prod. 27: 51–61.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. University of Sydney Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Bergström, P. L. 1978. Sources of variation in muscle weight distribution. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle (ed. Boer, H. De and Martin, J.), Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2, pp. 91–131. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boccard, R. and Dumont, B. L. 1973. [Meat production in sheep. IX. Variation in the organization of lamb musculature according to growth rate. Amis Zootech. 22: 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croston, D., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1979. A comparison of the performance and carcass characteristics of lambs by nine sire breeds. Anim. Prod. 28: 456–457 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation—to assess beef and lamb variation. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Ser.) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, T. H. 1969. Relative weight changes in the tissues of the gigot joint as Scottish Blackface castrated male lambs develop from weaning to maturity and an analysis of the observed individual variation. Anim. Prod. 11: 409–417.Google Scholar
Jury, K. E., Fourie, P. D. and Kirton, A. H. 1977. Growth and development of sheep. IV. Growth of the musculature. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 20: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, C. Y. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Cuthbertson, A. 1977. A survey of the carcass characteristics of the main types of British lamb. Anim. Prod. 25: 165–179.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Smith, R. J. 1976. Variation in lean distribution among steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. J. agric. Sci., Comb. 87: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, C. L. 1973. The influence of sex on muscle growth in Merino sheep. Growth 37: 177–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Lohse, C. L., Moss, F. P. and Butterfield, R. M. 1971. Growth patterns of muscles of Merino sheep from birth to 517 days. Anim. Prod. 13: 117–126.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M. and Slezacek, Olga. 1975. The effect of growth rate on muscle distribution in sheep. J. agric. Sci., Comb. 85: 189–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, W. S. 1973. Compreg Users' Guide, IU/RC Series Report, No. 5. Program-Library Unit, Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. H. 1968. A dissection study of the distribution of tissues in lamb carcasses. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 7: 297–302.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Mason, M. A. and McClelland, T. H. 1980. Breed and sex differences in muscle distribution in equally mature sheep. Anim. Prod. 30: 125–133.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. 1968. Hierarchical analysis of variance program. ARC Unit of Statistics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Anim. Prod. 31: 307–313.Google Scholar