Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-26T01:54:25.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carcass composition of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds compared at the same carcass subcutaneous fat proportion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Croston ,
A. J. Kempster ,
D. R. Guy  and
D. W. Jones
D. Croston
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. R. Guy
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. W. Jones
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

An evaluation was carried out over a 5-year period in 10 commercial flocks of Scottish Blackface, Scottish Half-bred and Mule ewes to examine the carcass characteristics of 10 sire breeds: Border Leicester, Dorset Down, Hampshire Down, He de France, North Country Cheviot, Oxford Down, Southdown, Suffolk, Texel and Wensleydale. An average of 43 sires was used per sire breed.

The analyses involved tissue separation data for a total of 1402 lambs. Analyses were carried out separately for early and late flocks determined by the time of the year in which lambs were slaughtered. Sire breeds were compared when their progeny were slaughtered at the same carcass subcutaneous fat proportion (125 g/kg, early flocks; 116 g/kg, late flocks).

Texel crosses had the highest carcass lean proportion (P < 005); their advantages over the Suffolk crosses were 19 g/kg (early flocks) and 17 g/kg (late flocks) reflecting both a higher lean:bone ratio and a higher lean:fat ratio. The Suffolk crosses had a similar carcass lean proportion to other breed crosses. Border Leicester, North Country Cheviot, Texel and Wensleydale crosses tended to have less of their total lean distributed in the higher-priced joints than the Down breed crosses. However, the differences were relatively small and not of major commercial significance: the range between sire breeds was 0-01 to 0-02 of average retail value.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 1987 , pp. 99 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Cameron, N. D. and Drury, D. J. 1985. Comparison of terminal sire breeds for growth and carcass traits in crossbred lambs. Animal Production 40: 315–322.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation — to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jury, K. E., Fourie, P. D. and Kirton, A. H. 1977. Growth and development of sheep. IV. Growth of the musculature. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Chadwick, J. P. and Charles, D. D. 1986a. Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from fatness measurements and visual assessments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106: 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Grantley-Smith, M. 1986b. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D., Jones, D. W. and Guy, D. R. 1987. Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds, compared at the same estimated carcass subcutaneous fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 83–98.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Cuthbertson, A. 1977. A survey of the carcass characteristics of the main types of British lamb. Animal Production 25: 165–180.Google Scholar
Lohse, C. L., Moss, F. P. and Butterfield, R. M. 1971. Growth patterns of muscles of Merino sheep from birth to 517 days. Animal Production 13: 117–126.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974a. Planned Crossbreeding and Lamb Carcase Weights. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974b. Standard Conditions of Dead-weight Purchase. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1985. Meat Demand Trends 85/3. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.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. Animal Production 30: 125–133.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T. 1982. An analysis of the variation in the lean tissue distribution of sheep. Animal Production 34: 257–264.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. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar