Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T11:22:51.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. H. Jackson  and
Y. A. Mansour
T. H. Jackson
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Y. A. Mansour
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Summary

Ninety-six lamb carcasses drawn from six batches of lambs commercially consigned to an abattoir were analysed for characteristics which may affect their economic value. From each batch carcasses were selected in equal numbers into two classes of ‘good’ or ‘poor’ conformation according to traditional standards. Carcasses selected for ‘good’ conformation were heavier (P<0·05) and fatter (P<0·05), slightly shorter in carcass length and hind leg length (P<0·05), greater in circumference (P<0·001) and width (P<0·001) of the hind leg, slightly greater in muscle weight (P<0·05) but no greater in bone weight than those of poor conformation. The yield of prime retail joints was similar in the two conformation classes but the ‘good’ conformation class had a higher proportion of loin and rib joints and lower proportion of hind leg joint (P < 0·01) although these differences were not considered to be of commercial importance. There was a lower proportion of the carcass fatty tissue in the hind leg joint of the ‘good’ conformation class (P < 0·05). Muscle-to-bone ratio and area of ‘eye muscle’ (M. longissimus thoracis) appeared to be little affected by selecting for conformation differences. Depth of fleshing as indicated by the weight of muscle in the hind leg per 10 cm length, was 40 g (6%) heavier in the carcasses of the ‘good’ conformation class. This contrasted with the much greater differences, between batches, of 290 g (40 to 50%). Between batches there were significant differences for all the measures taken except the yield of preferred retail cuts. In the main the batch differences were greater and commercially more important than the conformation class differences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , August 1974 , pp. 93 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1974

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

Barton, R. A. 1965. Quality in cattle and beef—a changed concept. Sheep Farming Annual (NZ) 1965, 93–106.Google Scholar
Boccard, R., Dumont, B. L., Le Guelte, P. and Arnoux, J. 1961. Ètude de la production de la viande chez les ovins. Annls Zootech. 10: 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, J. C. and Hendy, C. R. C. 1972. A study of retail requirements and genetic parameters of carcass quality in polled Dorset Horn sheep. Anim. Prod. 14: 189–198.Google Scholar
Branaman, G. A., Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T., Geiswold, R. M. and Brown, G. A. 1962. Comparison of the cutability and eatability of beef and dairy type cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, R.M. 1963. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 7–1 to 7–14. C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D. 1957. The relation of conformation to carcass traits. J. Anim. Sci. 16: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, O. D., Warwick, B. C. and Cartwright, J. C. 1956. Slaughter and carcass characteristics of short fed yearling Hereford, and Brahman × Hereford steers. J. Anim. Sci. 15: 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrard, F. 1964. Meat Technology. 352 pp. Leonard Hill, London.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1971. The shape of beef cattle and their carcasses in relation to carcass meat. Inst. Meat, Bull. No. 73: 6–20.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. H. 1967. The procedure for evaluating carcasses in growth studies. Edinburgh School of Agriculture. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Jackson, T. H. 1969. Relative weight changes in the tissues of the gigot joint as Scottish Blackface castrated male lambs develop from weaning to maturity and an analysis of the observed individual variation. Anim. Prod. 11: 409–417.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. 1964. Breeding dual purpose sheep—How important is conformation? Proc. Ruakura Fmrs' Conf. Week, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. 1966. Meat grading standards and market requirements. Proc. Ruakura Fmrs' Conf. Week, pp. 6–18.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. and Pickering, P. S. 1967. Factors associated with differences in carcass conformation in lamb. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 10: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, A. M. 1966. Desirability of beef—its characteristics and their measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 843–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. C. 1959. Quality and retail cutability. Proc. 12th Reciprocal Meat Conf., p. 39.Google Scholar
Timon, V. M. and Bichard, M. 1965. Quantitative estimates of lamb carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 7: 173–201.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. 1958. Meat Judging Handbook. Nat. Live Stk Meat Bd, Chicago, USA, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar