Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:22:23.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bone weight distribution in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses, and the prediction of carcass bone content from the bone content of joints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Kempster ,
A. Cuthbertson  and
D. W. Jones
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. Cuthbertson
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. W. Jones
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Dissection data for 753 steer carcasses from 17 breed-type × feeding system groups were used to examine the distribution of bone weight between 11 standardized commercial joints, and the prediction of bone content in side (half carcass) from the bone content of individual joints. Breed types included Ayrshire, Friesian, Friesian × Ayrshire and crosses out of Friesians by Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Limousin, Simmental and South Devon sires. Group means for bone weight in the side ranged from 14·9 to 21·0 kg with a pooled within-group S.D. of 1·97 kg.

The increase in bone weight in each joint relative to that in the side was examined using the allometric equation. Pooled within-group growth coefficients (b values) were lowest for the leg (hind shin) and shin (fore shin) joints (b = 0·86 ± 0·02 and 0·94 ± 0·02 respectively) and highest for the sirloin (b = 1·10 ± 0·05).

At equal total bone weight, there were significant (P < 0·001) but relatively small differences between groups in the weight of bone in each of the joints tested.

Bone weights in the top piece, shin and coast joints gave the most precise prediction of bone weight in the side: the pooled within group residual standard deviations were 0·62, 0·67 and 0·71 kg respectively. The limited variation between groups in bone weight distribution was reflected in the robustness of common prediction equations across groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , December 1977 , pp. 675 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Buttekfield, R. M. (1965). Practical implications of anatomical research in beef cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 25, 152–63.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1961). Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1962). The relationship between the weight of a tissue in a single joint and the total weight of tissue in a side of beef. Animal Production 4, 37–46.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Tissue separation – to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 1, 113–22.Google Scholar
Frood, I. J. M. (1976). An investigation into the effect of sex and plane of nutrition on the growth performance and carcass quality of British Friesian cattle for beef production. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. & Conniffe, D. (1967). Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of ‘lean meat’ fat and bone. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 153–70.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. E. & Prescott, J. H. D. (1974). A note on the prediction of carcase composition in beef cattle. Animal Production 19, 115–17.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, 533–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Jones, D. W. (1977). Relationships between the lean content of joints and overall lean content in steer carcasses of different breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledger, H. P., Gilliver, B. & Robb, J. M. (1973). An examination of sample joint dissection and specific gravity techniques for assessing the carcass composition of steers slaughtered in commercial abattoirs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 381—92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D. M., Tulloh, N. M. & Winter, W. H. (1974). Effects of three different growth rates on empty body weight and dissected carcass composition of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1973). The effect of body weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Afrikander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. & Tulloh, N. M. (1968). Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. III. Dissected components of the commercially dressed carcass, following anatomical boundaries. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 673–88.CrossRefGoogle 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
Williams, D. R., Pomeroy, R. W., Harries, J. M. & 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. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar