Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:57:26.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Muscle weight distribution in four breeds of cattle with reference to individual muscles, anatomical groups and wholesale cuts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. D. Charles  and
E. R. Johnson
D. D. Charles
Affiliation:
Veterinary School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
E. R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Veterinary School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

One side of each of 51 carcasses of Hereford, Angus, Friesian and Charolais cross-bred steers was dissected and the weights of individual muscles and total carcass muscle were obtained. The percentage distribution of total carcass muscle weight in muscles and in. standard groups of muscles was determined. In addition, the percentage distribution of total carcass muscle weight in wholesale cuts was determined from the weights of whole and part muscles specified as comprising the respective cuts.

Minor breed differences only were found in muscle weight distribution among muscles, groups of muscles and wholesale cuts. Similarity of muscle weight distribution in the different types of carcasses studied shows that carcass shape is not associated with differences in the distribution of muscle weight in wholesale cuts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , June 1976 , pp. 435 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Branaman, G. A., Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T., Griswold, R. M. & Brown, G. A. (1962). Comparison of the cutability and eatability of beef- and dairytype cattle. Journal of Animal Science 21, 321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963 a). Estimation of carcase composition: the anatomical approach. In Symposium on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), paper 4–1. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1963 b). Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), paper 7–1. Melbourne, Australia: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1966). The effect of nutritional stress and recovery on the body composition of cattle. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 168–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, R. M. & May, N. D. S. (1966). Muscles of the Ox. University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Johnson, E. R. (1971). A study of growth in calves. II. Relative growth in muscles. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 76, 457–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1961). Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 56, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. W., Palmer, A. Z., Kirk, W. G., Peacock, F. M. & Koger, M. (1961). Slaughter and carcass characteristics of Brahman and Brahman-Shorthorn crossbred steers. Journal of Animal Science 20, 336–40.Google Scholar
Carroll, F. D., Clegg, M. T. & Kroger, D. (1964) Carcass characteristics of Holstein and Hereford steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. W., Ramsey, C. B., Hobbs, C. S. & Temple, R.S. (1964). Effect of type and breed of British, Zebu, and dairy cattle on production, palatability, and composition. III. Percent wholesale cuts and yield of edible portion as determined by physical and chemical analysis. Journal of Animal Science 23, 71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrick, H. B., Stringer, W. C. & Krause, G. F. (1969). Retail yield comparison of average Good and average Choice conformation beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 28, 187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. R. (1972). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Kauffman, R. G., Grummer, R. H., Smith, R. E., Long, R. A. & Shook, G. (1973). Does live-animal and carcass shape influence gross composition? Journal of Animal Science 37, 1112–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellaway, R. C. (1971). Breeds and breeding of beef cattle. Part 1. Production and fitness characters of straightbred cattle. Australian Meat Research Committee, review no. 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
Martin, E. L., Walters, L. E. & Whiteman, J. V. (1966). Association of beef carcass conformation with thick and thin muscle yields. Journal of Animal Science 25, 682–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhoty, H. & Berg, R. T. (1973). Influence of breed and sex on muscle weight distribution of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomina Anatoomica Veterinaria (N.A.V. 1968). International Committee on Veterinary Anatomical Nomenclature of the World Association of Veterinary Anatomists. Distributed Department of Anatomy, New York State Veterinary College, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Suess, G. G., Tyler, W. J. & Brungardt, V. H. (1969). Influence of weight and nutrition upon muscle growth and intramuscular fat deposition in Holstein steers. Journal of Animal Science 29, 410–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, W. E., Hallett, D. K., Murphey, C. E., Hoke, K. E. & Breidenstein, B. C. (1964). Effects of variation in conformation on cutability and palatability of beef. Journal of Animal Science 23, 864 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Waldman, R. C., Tyler, W. J. & Brungardt, V. H. (1971). Changes in the carcass composition of Holstein steers associated with ration energy levels and growth. Journal of Animal Science 32, 611–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed