Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T02:28:55.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meat qualities in the sheep with special reference to Scottish breeds and crosses. II: Part III. Comparative development of selected individuals of different breeds and crosses as lambs and hoggets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Pálsson
H. Pálsson
Affiliation:
Edinburgh University and School of Agriculture, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not intended to present a detailed summary of the many points arising out of this investigation. The following represents merely a brief statement of the field covered and the major features emerging.

1. Complete anatomical dissection of eleven wether lambs at approximately 4·5 months old and 40 lb. carcass weight and five wether hoggets at approximately 13 months and 60 lb. carcass weight provided material for a comparative study of the anatomical composition and characters of different breeds and crosses of which the individuals concerned were selected as representative.

2. In both lambs and hoggets this study confirms the picture presented by the statistical comparison based on carcass measurements of the same breeds and crosses at constant weight described and discussed in Part II.

3. The breed differences in the relative development of the different regions of the body and the relative development of the major tissues, bone, muscle and fat in different joints and the total carcass have been studied in relation to carcass quality.

4. From the differential development of the different parts and tissues of the body in the various breeds and crosses, the concept of early and late development as a fundamental factor in meat production is demonstrated.

5. The proportional development of the various parts of the body and its major tissues in lambs and hoggets is compared. Regions of an intermediate rate of development are relatively best developed in the hoggets. In the total carcass, bone has increased least, muscle only slightly more and fat most, with an increase in age from 4·5 to 13 months and body weight from 40 to 60 lb. This is in line with the order of the development of the tissues.

6. The differential effect upon differentially developing tissues of the plane of nutrition is advanced as a major factor influencing the relative differences between lambs and hoggets.

7. Variations, affecting the value of the animal for meat production, in the number of vertebrae in the different anatomical regions have been described.

8. The bearing of the many factors discussed and principles elucidated upon practical problems of lamb and mutton production has been considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1940 , pp. 1 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

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

Berge, S. (1936). Meld. Norg. LandbrHøisk. 16, 547.Google Scholar
Berger, J. (1920). Inaug. Diss. Vet. med. Fak., Univ. Bern.Google Scholar
Chirvinsky, N. P. (1909). Politeknich. Inst. II, Kiev.Google Scholar
Diffloth, N. P. (1908). Zootechnie spéciale. Paris.Google Scholar
Edinger, A. T. (1925). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 83.Google Scholar
Ewart, J. (1878). Meat Production. London.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1936). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 6th ed.Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hall, A. D. (1936). Ernle's English Farming, Past and Present, 5th ed.London.Google Scholar
Hall, L. D. (1910). Bull. Ill. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 147.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1921). J. agric. Sci. 11, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1936). Neue Forschungen in Tierzucht. u. Abstammungslehre. Festschrift Prof. U. Duerst, Bern.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1937 a). Nord. Jordbr Forskn. Hefte 1–2, pp. 24–37.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1937 b). Rep. 36 th Int. Conf. Nat. Sheep Breed. Ass. pp. 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1937 c). Growth in the Sheep (in the Press).Google Scholar
Hammond, J. & Murray, G. N. (1934). J. agric. Sci. 24, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, O. G. & Ellis, N. R. (1934). J. agric. Res. 48, 257.Google Scholar
Harris, H. A. (1938). Personal communications.Google Scholar
Hirzel, R. (1936). Factors affecting quality in mutton with special reference to the proportions of muscle, fat and bone. Diss. Pretoria University; and (1940) Onderstepoort J. vet. Sci. 12, No. 2.Google Scholar
Kronacher, C. & Hogreve, F. (1936). Z. Zucht. B, 35, 161.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. A. (1858). Proc. roy. Soc. 9, 348.Google Scholar
Leighton, G. R. & Douglas, L. M. (1910). The Meat Industry and Meat Inspection, 3. London.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1938). Growth and development in the pig. Ph.D. Thesis Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Meek, A. (1901). Veterinarian, Lond., 74, 171.Google Scholar
Millikan, G. A. (1936). J. Physiol. 87, 38P.Google Scholar
Nathustos, H. von (1880). Vorträge über Viehzucht und Rassenkenntniss. II. Schafzucht. Berlin.Google Scholar
Needham, J. (1926). Physiol. Rev. 6, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, G. C. A. (1932). Royal Institute of International Affairs. World Agriculture. Oxford.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. C. A. (1936). Rep. Leeds Coun. agric. Educ. no. 183.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. M. (1929–1930). Sci. Agric. 10, 23, 690.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1934). Calculations and Interpretation of Analysis of Variance and Covariance. Ames, Iowa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowbridge, P. F., Moulton, C. R. & Haig, L. D. (1918–1923). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta., Nos. 28, 30, 43, 54, 55, 61.Google Scholar
Waters, H. J. (1909). Proc. Soc. Prom. Agric. Res. 13th meeting, p. 70.Google Scholar