Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:13:29.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of comparative retail value of beef carcasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. M. Harries ,
D. R. Williams  and
R. W. Pomeroy
J. M. Harries
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol, BS18 ID
D. R. Williams
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol, BS18 ID
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol, BS18 ID
Get access

Summary

An attempt to evaluate a group of 72 beef carcasses, in retail terms, is described, resulting in a comparative measure of retail value that takes account of saleable fat and of the distribution of lean amongst the different cuts. Changes in the general level of beef prices can be discounted, provided the ratios of the prices of different joints remain the same. It was found that the index of retail value was poorly correlated with the commonly used ratio of high-priced to low-priced parts, but highly correlated with total proportion of lean. The index could best be predicted from a multiple regression on side weight and proportional area of muscle determined from photographs of the cut surface after quartering.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1975 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966a. A nutritional effect on relative growth of muscles. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 6: 298–304.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Berg, R. T. 1966b. A classification of bovine muscles, based on their relative growth patterns. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, M. A. 1967. Problems in beef carcass evaluation. Proc. 9th int. Congr. Anim. Prod., Edin.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. and Jury, K. E. 1964. Implantation of oestrogenic hormones in the beef cattle. IV. Effects of oestradiol benzoate plus progesterone on carcass composition and a comparison of methods of carcass evaluation. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 7: 158–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, G. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1959. The yields of wholesale cuts from carcasses of Aberdeen-Angus crosses fattened on grass and in yards. J. agric. Sci. Camb. 53: 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, G., Pomeroy, R. W. and Williams, D. R. 1961. Variations in the retail value of carcasses of Aberdeen Angus cross steers and heifers and their relation to conformation bone content and finish. VIIth Meeting of European Meat Research Workers, Warsaw, 1961.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., Williams, D. R., Harries, J. M. and Ryan, P. O. 1974. Composition of beef carcasses. I. Material, measurements, jointing and tissue separation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R., Pomeroy, R. W., Harries, J. M. and Ryan, P. O. 1974. Composition of beef carcasses. II. The use of regression equations to estimate total tissue components from observations on intact and quartered sides and partial dissection data. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. 1951. Influence of Statistical Methods for Research Workers on the development of the science of statistics. J. Am. Statist. Ass. 46: 19–34.Google Scholar