The Relation of Conformation to Carcass Traits

Butler, O. D.

doi:10.2527/jas1957.161227x

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In keeping with the findings of other workers (Kirton and Pickering, 1967;Butler, 1957;Bowman and Hendy, 1972;Branaman et al, 1962;Butler et al, 1956) there was little effect of selecting for conformation differences on the yield of high priced cuts. Pierce (1959) has indicated that fatness level was the major factor affecting the yield of high priced cuts and reported differences of up to 15 %.…”

Section: Percentage Of Prime Jointssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…For example, Butler, Warwick and Cartwright, 1956;Butler, 1957;Pierce, 1959;Branaman, Pearson, Magee, Geiswold and Brown, 1962;and Pearson, 1966 (with cattle); Boccard, Dumont, Le Guelte and Arnoux, 1961;and Kirton and Pickering, 1967 (with sheep) have reported only a minor influence of conformation on the yield of meat from the high priced regions as a proportion of carcass weight. For example, Butler, Warwick and Cartwright, 1956;Butler, 1957;Pierce, 1959;Branaman, Pearson, Magee, Geiswold and Brown, 1962;and Pearson, 1966 (with cattle); Boccard, Dumont, Le Guelte and Arnoux, 1961;and Kirton and Pickering, 1967 (with sheep) have reported only a minor influence of conformation on the yield of meat from the high priced regions as a proportion of carcass weight.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation

Jackson

Mansour

1974

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ninety-six lamb carcasses drawn from six batches of lambs commercially consigned to an abattoir were analysed for characteristics which may affect their economic value. From each batch carcasses were selected in equal numbers into two classes of 'good' or 'poor' conformation according to traditional standards. Carcasses selected for 'good' conformation were heavier (P<0-05) and fatter (P<0-05), slightly shorter in carcass length and hind leg length (P<0-05), greater in circumference (P<0-001) and width (P<0-001) of the hind leg, slightly greater in muscle weight (P<0-05) but no greater in bone weight than those of poor conformation. The yield of prime retail joints was similar in the two conformation classes but the 'good' conformation class had a higher proportion of loin and rib joints and lower proportion of hind leg joint (P < 0-01) although these differences were not considered to be of commercial importance. There was a lower proportion of the carcass fatty tissue in the hind leg joint of the 'good' conformation class (P < 0-05). Muscle-to-bone ratio and area of 'eye muscle' (M. longissimus thoracis) appeared to be little affected by selecting for conformation differences. Depth of fleshing as indicated by the weight of muscle in the hind leg per 10 cm length, was 40 g (6 %) heavier in the carcasses of the 'good' conformation class. This contrasted with the much greater differences, between batches, of 290 g (40 to 50 %). Between batches there were significant differences for all the measures taken except the yield of preferred retail cuts. In the main the batch differences were greater and commercially more important than the conformation class differences.

show abstract

Section: Percentage Of Prime Jointssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation

Jackson

Mansour

1974

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that the breed or cross being studied has an influence on the conformation of cattle carcasses (Butler 1957;Branaman. Pearson, Magee, Griswo!d, and Brown 1962;Butterfield 1965).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carcasses that are short in the leg, plump. and blocky are believed to contain more high-priced cuts, more meat, and less bone than carcasses that are longer in the leg (Butler 1957;Barton 1958;Gerrard 1964).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors associated with differences in carcass conformation in lamb

Kirton¹,

Pickering²

1967

New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors associated with differences in carcass conformation were studied in three experiments involving 85 pairs of lambs, half of which had been selected as having blocky conformation and half leggy conformation. Pairs of carcasses were matched for carcass weight and age at slaughter.The blocky carcasses contained more fat and less red meat and bone than the leggy carcasses. They also had a higher proportion of the fatter cuts (loin, ribs, and flap) and a lower proportion of the leaner cuts such as the leg. A taste panel found the palatability characteristics of leg meat from both types of carcasses acceptable and did not differentiate between them. The differences in conformation strongly influenced the export grading of the carcasses, the blocky carcasses grading predominantly Prime Down Cross and the leggy carcasses mainly Prime Crossbred and Y.South down sires produced the blockiest carcasses and the other breeds studied produced the leggiest carcasses. Within-breed variation was also noted in one experiment where conformation differences were less extreme. The leggy carcasses came from animals that had heavier liveweights at slaughter than the blocky animals, although the hot carcass weights of both were the same.The results are discussed in relation to the New Zealand meat industry. The conclusion is reached that the blocky carcasses have no superiority in terms of meat content or proportion of high-priced cuts, and that in future more emphasis should be placed on economic characteristics and less on conformation in breeding and crossbreeding programmes.

show abstract

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) terpolyesters containing isophthalic and 5‐tert‐butylisophthalic units

Kint

Ilarduya

Alla

et al. 2002

J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poly(ethylene terephthalate-co-isophthalate-co-5-tert-butylisophthalate) (PETI t BI) terpolymers were investigated with reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) homopolymer and poly(ethylene terephthalate-co-isophthalate) (PETI) copolymers. Three series of PETI t BI terpolyesters, characterized by terephthalate contents of 90, 80, and 60 mol %, respectively, with different isophthalate/5-tert-butylisophthalate molar ratios, were prepared from ethylene glycol and mixtures of dimethyl terephthalate, dimethyl isophthalate, and 5-tert-butylisophthalic acid. The composition of the terpolymers and the composition of the feed agreed. All terpolymers had a random microstructure and number-average molecular weights ranging from 10,000 to 20,000. The PETI t BI terpolyesters displayed a higher glass-transition temperature and a lower melting temperature than the PETI copolymers having the same content of terephthalic units. Thermal stability appeared essentially unchanged upon the incorporation of the 5-tert-butylisophthalic units. The PETI t BIs were crystalline for terephthalate contents higher than 80 mol %, and they crystallized at lower rates than PETI. The crystal structure of the crystalline terpolymers was the same as that of PET with the 1,3-phenylene units being excluded from the crystalline phase. Incorporation of isophthalate comonomers barely affected the tensile modulus and strength of PET, but the brittleness of the terpolymers decreased for higher contents in 5-tert-butylisophthalic units.

show abstract

The Relation of Conformation to Carcass Traits

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation

Differences between groups of lamb carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation

Factors associated with differences in carcass conformation in lamb

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) terpolyesters containing isophthalic and 5‐tert‐butylisophthalic units

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About