Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:45:08.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herefords and 1/4 Brahman–3/4 Hereford cross-breds: comparison of carcasses and meat palatability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. D. Carroll ,
W. C. Rollins  and
Marion Simone Kunze
F. D. Carroll
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California
W. C. Rollins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California
Marion Simone Kunze
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A comparison of eighty-eight steers and heifers, representing equal numbers of Herefords and 3/4 Hereford–1/4 Brahman cross-breds, showed that the cross-bred dressed higher (60·3 % against 58·7 %) and that the cross-bred carcasses had more flank (6·9 % against 5·6 %).

In two out of three palatability experiments, Hereford meat was more tender and, in one experiment, juicier than cross-bred meat. When breeds were compared as to colour of meat, cross-bred was judged darker. Also, heifer meat was judged darker than steer meat.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 263 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Alsmeyer, R. H., Palmer, A. Z., Koger, M. & Kirk, W. G. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 1137 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Black, W. H., Semple, A. T. & Lush, J. L. (1934). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 417.Google Scholar
Branaman, C. A., Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T., Griswald, R. M. & Brown, G. A. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, O. D., Warwick, B. L. & Cartwrioht, T. C. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 93.Google Scholar
Butler, O. D. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. W., Palmer, A. Z., Kirk, W. G., Peacock, F. M. & Koger, M. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 336.Google Scholar
Carroll, F. D., Rollins, W. C. & Ittner, N. R. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, T. C., Butler, O. D. & Cover, S. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 540.Google Scholar
Cover, S. & Smith, W. H. Jr, (1956). Food Res. 21, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, S., Butler, O. D. & Cartwright, T. C. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, S., Cartwright, T. C. & Butler, O. D. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 946.Google Scholar
Damon, R. A. Jr, Crown, R. M., Singletary, C. B. & McCraine, S. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunsing, M. (1959). Food Tech. 13, 451.Google Scholar
Miyada, D.S. & Tappel, A.L. (1956). Food Tech. 10, 142.Google Scholar
Paul, P., Bean, M. & Bratzler, L. J. (1956). Tech. Bull. Mich. St. Univ. no. 256.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, J. M. & Strandine, E. J. (1948). Food Res. 13, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollins, W. C., Carroll, F. D. & Ittner, N. R. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Sperring, D. D., Platt, W. T. & Hiner, R. L. (1959). Food Technology, 13, 155.Google Scholar
Wierbicki, E., Cahill, V. R., Kunkle, L. E., Klosterman, E. W. & Deatherage, F. E. (1955). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 3, 244.Google Scholar