Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:32:06.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in muscularity with growth and its relationship with other carcass traits in three terminal sire breeds of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

H. E. Jones ,
R. M. Lewis ,
M. J. Young ,
B. T. Wolf  and
C. C. Warkup
H. E. Jones*
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
R. M. Lewis
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
M. J. Young
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B. T. Wolf
Affiliation:
Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Llanbadarn Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3AL, UK
C. C. Warkup
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX, UK
*
† E-mail: h.jones@ed.sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Data were available for 160 sheep (50 Suffolk males, 50 Suffolk females, 40 Texel males and 20 Charollais males). One-fifth of animals within each breed and sex were slaughtered at each of 14, 18 or 22 weeks of age and two-fifths slaughtered at 26 weeks. After slaughter linear measurements were taken on the carcass. The left side of each carcass was then separated into eight joints and each joint dissected into lean, bone and fat. Five muscularity measures (three for the longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) muscle, one for the hind leg and one for the whole carcass) and one of the shape of the LTL cross-section (depth: width) were calculated. With the exception of one measure for the LTL, muscularity increased with growth. Rates of increase in most measures were higher in Texels than in each of the other breeds, but were not different between the male and female Suffolks or between the Suffolk and Charollais lambs. Increases in most muscularity measures at a constant live weight were associated with increases in lean to bone ratio and carcass lean content. Associations with fat content were either non-significant or negative. Relationships with lean distribution were non-significant or weak. Correlations between the three measures of muscularity for the LTL were high. Correlations between the whole carcass measure and those within different regions were moderate to high in the Texels but lower in the Suffolk and Charollais breeds. The same was true for correlations between the LTL measures and hind leg muscularity. If muscularity throughout the carcass is to be described effectively, measures in more than one region may be required, particularly in the Suffolk and Charollais breeds.

Keywords

carcass compositionmuscle weightsheep
Type
Growth, development and meat science
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 265 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Abdullah, A. Y., Purchas, R. W. and Davies, A. S. 1998. Patterns of change with growth for muscularity and other composition characteristics of Southdown rams selected for high and low backfat depth. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 41: 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdullah, A. Y., Purchas, R. W., Davies, A. S. and Kirton, A. H. 1993. Relationships between objective and subjective measurements of carcass muscularity. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 53: 397–402.Google Scholar
Boer, H. de, Dumont, B. L., Pomeroy, R. W. and Weniger, J. H. 1974. Manual on EAAP reference methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1: 151–164.Google Scholar
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), vol. 1 pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
Ellis, M., Webster, G. M., Merrell, B. G. and Brown, I. 1997. The influence of terminal sire breed on carcass composition and eating quality of crossbred lambs. Animal Science 64: 77–86.Google Scholar
Genstat, . 1994. Genstat 5.3. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. and Kempster, A. J. 1989. Improving lamb carcass composition to meet modern consumer demand. In Reproduction, growth and nutrition in sheep (ed. Dyrmundsson, O. R. and Thorgeirsson, S.), pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
Holloway, I. J., Purchas, R. W., Power, M. T. and Thomson, N. A. 1994. A comparison of the carcass and meat quality of Awassi-cross and Texel-cross ram lambs. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 54: 209–213.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. L. 1996. The relationship between muscularity, muscle:bone ratio and cut dimensions in male and female lamb carcasses and the measurement of muscularity using image analysis. Meat Science 44: 307–317.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. L., Fogarty, N. M. and Menzies, D. J. 1997. Differences in composition, muscularity, muscle to bone ratio and cut dimensions between six lamb genotypes. Meat Science 45: 439–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, D. L., Pirlot, K. L., Roberts, A. H. K. and Beattie, A. S. 1993. Changes in fat depths and muscle dimensions in growing lambs as measured by real-time ultrasound. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33: 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. H. and Mansour, Y. A. 1974. Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation. Animal Production 19: 93–105.Google Scholar
Jones, H. E., Simm, G., Dingwall, W. S. and Lewis, R. M. 1999. Genetic relationships between visual and objective measures of carcass composition in crossbred lambs. Animal Science 69: 553–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D., Guy, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 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., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1981. Value of conformation as an indicator of sheep carcass composition within and between breeds. Animal Production 33: 39–49.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Woods, E.G. and Dunganzich, D. M. 1983. Comparison of well and poorly muscled lamb carcasses as selected by experienced meat industry personnel. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 43: 111–113.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. M., Simm, G., Dingwall, W. S. and Murphy, S. V. 1996. Selection for lean growth in terminal sire sheep to produce leaner crossbred progeny. Animal Science 63: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leymaster, K. A. and Jenkins, T. G. 1993. Comparison of Texel-sired and Suffolk-sired crossbred lambs for survival, growth and compositional traits. Journal of Animal Science 71: 859–869.Google Scholar
McEwan, J. C., Hanrahan, J. P. and Fitzsimons, J. M. 1988. Growth and carcass traits of pure bred Texel and Suffolk sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 48: 41–48.Google Scholar
Maniatis, N. and Pollott, G. E. 1998. The dynamics of genetic resources at national level — the British sheep industry as a case study. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 27, pp. 219–222.Google Scholar
Palsson, H. 1939. Meat qualities in the sheep with particular reference to Scottish breeds and crosses. I. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 29: 544–626.Google Scholar
Purchas, R. W., Davies, A. S. and Abdullah, A. Y. 1991. An objective measure of muscularity: changes with animal growth and differences between genetic lines of Southdown sheep. Meat Science 30: 81–94.Google Scholar
Purchas, R. W. and Wilkin, G. H. 1995. Characteristics of lamb carcasses of contrasting subjective muscularity. Meat Science 41: 357–368.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Lewis, R. M., Grundy, B. and Dingwall, W. S. 2002. Responses to selection for lean growth in sheep. Animal Science 74: 39–50.Google Scholar
Simm, G. and Murphy, S. V. 1996. The effects of selection for lean growth in Suffolk sires on the saleable meat yield of their crossbred progeny. Animal Science 62: 255–263.Google Scholar
Waldron, D. F., Clarke, J. N., Rae, A. L. and Woods, E.G. 1992. Expected responses in carcass composition to selection for muscularity in sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 52: 29–31.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Jones, D. A. and Owen, M. G. 2001. Carcass composition, conformation and muscularity in Texel lambs of different breeding history, sex and leg shape score. Animal Science 72: 465–475.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
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall International Inc., Simon and Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar