Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:47:29.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objective appraisal of intact lamb and mutton carcasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. Thwaites ,
N. T. M. Yeates  and
R. F. Pogue
C. J. Thwaites
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Husbandry, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
N. T. M. Yeates
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Husbandry, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
R. F. Pogue
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Husbandry, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An objective appraisal system for intact lamb and mutton carcasses utilizing a fleshing index to relate carcass weight and length is presented. Gross fleshing index is defined as the number of pounds by which any carcass is heavier or lighter than the average carcass of its particular length. Penalty for overfatness is made when necessary by an estimation technique involving measurement of fat status at the level of the first lumbar vertebra on the intact carcass with the aid of a steel probe. The net fleshing index, a simple numerical expression of carcass fleshing, is arrived at by deducting the penalty for overfatness (when necessary) from the gross fleshing index. The greater the net fleshing index the greater the relative merit of the carcass.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , November 1964 , pp. 415 - 420
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Australian Meat Board (1952). Seventeenth Ann. Rep., year ending June 30, 1952, p. 79.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1958). N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1, 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrard, F. (1951). Meat Technology, 2nd ed.London: Leonard Hill.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1952). Ann. Nutr., Paris, 6, 119.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G. & Howe, P. E. (1946). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. No. 926.Google Scholar
Hirzel, R. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 12, 379.Google Scholar
Palsson, H. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J., Binet, F. E. & Doig, , Alison, G. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 345.Google Scholar
Smith-Pilling, S. H. & Barton, R. A. (1954). N.Z. J. Agric. 88, 98.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S. & Joubert, D. M. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 319.Google Scholar
Thompson, , D'Arcy, W. (1952). Growth and Form, 2nd ed. (reprinted). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1952). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 3, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1959). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 25, 301.Google Scholar