Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:21:19.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the comparison of two dissection methods used routinely in britain for beef carcass evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. D. Wood ,
J. A. Bayntun  and
A. J. Kempster
J. D. Wood
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
J. A. Bayntun
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

The dissection methods used at the ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford (MRI) and by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) for beef carcass evaluation were compared.

When account was taken of small differences in the way tissues are defined in the two methods, they gave essentially the same results for the important aspects of carcass composition. Twenty carcasses with 60 to 120 g subcutaneous fat per kg side weight were selected from those in the serial slaughter phase of the MLC's beef breed evaluation programme. The cattle had been slaughtered and dressed at a commercial abattoir on the same site as the MLC's Central Carcass Evaluation Unit, Blisworth. The left sides were dissected by the MLC and the right sides at the MRI after being taken there as quarters (which resulted in a greater evaporative weight loss). Mean values for lean, bone, intermuscular fat and subcutaneous fat (as g/kg in the side) did not differ significantly between the methods and the slopes of the regressions of MRI on MLC proportionate composition values were not significantly different from 1·0.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 309 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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

Carroll, M. A. and O'carroll, F. M. 1964. Differences between left and right sides of lamb carcasses. Ir. J. agric. Res. 3: 223–237.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 Series) 1: 113–122.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. V. and Bayntun, J. A. 1983. Weight loss from beef sides during storage post-mortem and its effects on carcass composition. Meal Sci. 8: In press.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. V., Wood, J. D. and Tas, M. 1982. Utilization of bulls for meat. Anim. Prod. 34: 397 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Smith, R. J. 1980. The evaluation of a standardized commercial cutting technique for determining breed differences in carcass composition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 95: 431–440.CrossRefGoogle 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.. Camb. 87: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, E., Hocking, P. M. and Wood, J. D. 1982. Grass-based beef from Jersey steers: effect of finishing diet and slaughter weight on growth rate and slaughter performance. Anim. Prod. 34: 401 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Wood, J. D. and Macfie, H. J. H. 1983. Fat deposition in Hereford and Friesian steers. 1. Body composition and partitioning of fat between depots. J. agric. Sci.. Camb. 100: 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. R. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1980. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording. EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities EUR 6878 EN (Mimeograph).Google Scholar