Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T02:26:43.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some indices of the carcass composition of Dorset Horn Top Cross lambs. I. Measurements on the live body and carcass, the composition of sample joints and their relationship to carcass composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

V. N. Khandekar
Affiliation:
School of Wool Technology, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
C. L. Goldstone
Affiliation:
School of Wool Technology, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
W. R. McManus
Affiliation:
School of Wool Technology, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

Extract

Certain relationships between linear live animal and carcass measurements and the quantitative composition of the half-carcass have been established.

Of the live linear body measurements taken, the length of the fore-cannon bone and length of the hind leg appear to have close relationship with carcass measurements. Live fore-cannon bone is a good index of the total weight of bone in the halfcarcass and therefore has application in the selection of meat sheep.

Of the carcass measurements studied, length of fore-cannon bone and length of tibia + tarsus (T) appear to be satisfactory predictors of the total weight of bone.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Barton, R. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1958a). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 1, 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, E. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1958b) J, Agric. Sci. 50, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Univ. Pretoria Publ. Agric. no. 48.Google Scholar
Botkins, M. P., Stanley, M. & Schoonover, C.O. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1165.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. A. & Mcmeekan, C. P. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 33, 1.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hankins, O.G. (1947). V.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. no. 944.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G. & Howe, P. E. (1946). V.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. no. 926.Google Scholar
Hirzel, R. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 12, 379.Google Scholar
Keys, A. & Brozek, J. (1953). Physiol. Rev. 33, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandekar, V. N., Mcmanus, W. R. & Goldstone, C. L. (1963). Nature, Land., 197, 92.Google Scholar
Knbebone, H., Marks, T., Mcmeekan, C. P. & Walker, D. E. (1950). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 31, 3.Google Scholar
Knight, A. D., Foote, W. C. & Bennett, J. A. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1167.Google Scholar
Lamont, N. (1934). M. Agrie. Sci. Thesis, Massey Agric. Coll., Univ. of N.Z. (cited by Rae, 1946).Google Scholar
Mcmeekan, C. P. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palsson, H. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palsson, H. & Verges, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, A. L. (1946). M. Agric. Sci. Thesis, Massey Agric. Coll., Univ. of N.Z.Google Scholar
Ritzman, E. G. (1917). J. Agric. Ren. 11, 612.Google Scholar
Shorland, F. B., De La Mare, P. I. D., Sorrell, D.M.P. & Barnicoat, C.R. (1947). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 29, 76.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1961). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Tallis, G. M., Turner, H. N. & Brown, G. H. (1964). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 15, 446.Google Scholar
Turner, H. N., Hayman, R. H., Riches, J. H., Roberts, N. F. & Wilson, L. T. (1953). C.S.I.R.O., Division Anim. Health, Prod. Rept. no. 4.Google Scholar
Walker, D. E. & Mcmeekan, C. P. (1944). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 26, 51.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1952). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 3, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar