Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:49:32.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The yields of wholesale cuts from carcasses of Aberdeen-Angus crosses fattened on grass and in yards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Harrington  and
R. W. Pomeroy
G. Harrington
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
A.R.C, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Both sides of sixty-eight carcasses of Aberdeen-Angus cross steers and heifers were broken down into wholesale joints by the same butcher using a modification of the London and Home Counties style of cutting. Thirty-four of the cattle were fattened on grass in the summer of 1955 and the other thirty-four in yards during the following winter.

2. Sides of steer carcasses averaged some 50–60 lb. heavier than those of heifers both in summer and winter, and the yard-fattened cattle gave sides averaging 10–20 lb. heavier than those from grassfattened cattle.

3. The cuts along the underline of the animals (brisket and flanks) were increasing in weight at proportionally the greatest rate and the shin and hind-leg cuts at about half this rate, with those along the top of the back intermediate.

4. At a side weight of 300 lb., steers were significantly lighter than heifers in the weight of kidney knob, cod fat, thin flank, forequarter flank, loin and rump, whereas they were significantly heavier than heifers in weight of leg, shin, topside, top rump and the neck cuts (clod and sticking). These differences suggested that at this weight of side, heifers were at a more advanced stage of development than steers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , August 1959 , pp. 64 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Brookes, A. J. & Latham, J. O. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 339.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D., Garber, M. J. & Smith, B. L. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlet, P. & Février, B. (1952). Ann. Nutr., Paris, 6, C133.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1953). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Gerrard, F. (1951). Meat Technology, 2nd edition. London: Leonard Hill.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1956). Hereford Breed J. 3 (1), 118.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. (1958). Tech. Commun. Bur. Anim. Br., Edinb., no. 12, 107 pp.Google Scholar
Jones, E. L. & Rennie, G. K. (1956). Experimental Husbandry, no. 1, 48.Google Scholar
Lasley, E. L. & Kline, E. A. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, A. M. & Charlet, P. (1953). Publ. Europ. Ass. Anim. Prod. (Rome), no. 4, 69.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, B. W. (1958). Paper read to the Commission on Cattle Production, European Association for Animal Production, Brussels, 07 1958.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. (1958). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 65.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1934). J. Amer. Statist. Ass. 29, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1953). Sampling Methods for Censuses and Surveys, 2nd edition. London: Charles Griffin and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar