1989
DOI: 10.1071/ea9890483
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of breed and sex on saleable beef yield

Abstract: Saleable beef yields from the carcasses of 38 Brahman crossbred bullocks, 42 Brahman crossbred females, 75 Hereford bullocks and 35 Hereford females were recorded in the boning room of an export abattoir. Regressions of saleable beef yield on 12th rib fat thickness and on rump P8 fat thickness were examined for breed and sex effects. Linear regression analysis showed that rump P8 fat thickness and 12th rib fat thickness predicted percentage yield of saleable beef with prediction errors at the mean (of the pred… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EMA would be expected to improve the accuracy of predicting the weight of these cuts as this measurement is measured on the LL muscle from which the short loin is derived. However, in comparison to sheep and beef models (Ball & Johnson, 1989;Hopkins, 2008) EMA did not improve the accuracy of other models including those for the prediction of SMY (kg) from alpaca carcases. These differences may be due to the high proportion of variability being accounted for in the alpaca carcass models by HCW and in some cases gender, but suggests that the measurement of EMA is not useful for prediction models for alpaca cuts or SMY.…”
Section: Regression Analysis Of Primal Sub-primal and Smy Combinationsmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…EMA would be expected to improve the accuracy of predicting the weight of these cuts as this measurement is measured on the LL muscle from which the short loin is derived. However, in comparison to sheep and beef models (Ball & Johnson, 1989;Hopkins, 2008) EMA did not improve the accuracy of other models including those for the prediction of SMY (kg) from alpaca carcases. These differences may be due to the high proportion of variability being accounted for in the alpaca carcass models by HCW and in some cases gender, but suggests that the measurement of EMA is not useful for prediction models for alpaca cuts or SMY.…”
Section: Regression Analysis Of Primal Sub-primal and Smy Combinationsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…These are the first regression models created for alpaca carcasses and have been created using predictors and traits that are routinely (HCW and EMA) and non-routinely (carcass length) measured in abattoirs throughout Australia as predictors of specifically beef cut weights (Annonymous, 2005;Ball & Johnson, 1989). Routine measurements including HCW, EMA, and fat depth are commonly used to improve the accuracy in predicting SMY in beef and lamb carcases (Ball & Johnson, 1989;Hopkins, 2008). However, given the lack of fat on the alpaca carcasses, this measure was not a suitable predictor.…”
Section: Regression Analysis Of Primal Sub-primal and Smy Combinationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Influences of breed on saleable meat yield (Ball & Johnson, 1989) and on fat partitioning within the subcutaneous depot between rib and rump sites in cattle have been reported (Hopkins et al, 1993;Walmsley et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their studies concluded that many position of beef carcass in which measurement of fat thick can be conducted and given accurately carcass fat prediction. Johnson and Ball (1988), and Ball and Johnson (1989) found that there was a correlation between fat thick on the 12 th rib or rump position P8 and carcass production from a few various cattle. Hopkins et al (1993) reported that effect of a relationship cattle species among measurement of fat thick using the 12 th rib and rump P8.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%