Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:47:24.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of sex and gonadectomy on the growth and development of Southdown × Romney cross lambs. Part II. Effects on Carcass grades, Measurements and chemical composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Everitt  and
K. E. Jury
K. E. Jury
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The influence of sex and gonadectomy on carcass grades, measurements and chemical composition is reported from a comparative slaughter experiment involving 100 Romney x Southdown cross lambs.

Grading results, although based on small numbers of carcasses, showed a tendency to down grade entire ram lamb carcasses.

Linear carcass measurements indicated some differences in conformation between the four ‘sexes’, although these were somewhat inconsistent over the two slaughter ages at which measurements were recorded. Relatively larger eye muscle areas were evident for gonadectomized than for entire lambs and for males than for females. Fat cover over the eye muscle was lower for entire rams than for the other ‘sexes’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 15 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

REFERENCES

, A.O.A.C. (1955). Official Methods of Analysis, 8th ed., Ass. Official Agric. Chem., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. Ithaca, New York: Constable.Google Scholar
Babineau, L. & Pagé, E. (1955). Canad. J. Biochem. Physiol. 33, 970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C. B., Kitts, W. D. & Wood, A. J. (1960). Canad. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R. & Shorland, F. B. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 33, 16.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1957). Sheepfarming Annual, pp. 61–73. New Zealand: Massey Agricultural College.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 61, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeston, J. W. U. (1964). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 5, (in the Press).Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Rook, J. A. F. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7,83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 3, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. A. & Mcmeekan, C. P. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci Tech. A, 33, 24.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., Mcdonald, I. & Fowler, V. R. (1964). Anim. Prod. 6, 141.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1961). Bull. Inst. Meat, 31, 2; 32, 2; 33, 3.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1962). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 4, 79.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. (1964). Beef carcass appraisal by jointing. Proc. Aust. C.S.I.R.O. Tech. Conf. on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne, August 1963, section 16, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. & Jury, K. E. (1965). J. Agric. Sci. 66, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Meyer, J. H. & Lofgreen, G. P. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. & Barton, R. A. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Ulyatt, M. J. & Barton, R. A. (1959). Nature, Lond., 184, 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdonald, I. W. (1958). Aust. Agrost. Conf., Univ. of New England, N.S.W. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H. & Clawson, W. J. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1962). Comparative Nutrition of Man and Domestic Animals, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, C. R. (1923). J. Biol. Ohem. 57, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. (1919). J. Agric. Sci. 9, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. (1922). J. Agric. Sci. 12, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat Prod., N.Z. BD. (1963). Annual Rep., New Zealand Meat Producers' Board, pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
Pace, N. & Rathbun, E. N. (1945). J. Biol. Chem. 158, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. & Vergés, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panaretto, B. A. (1963). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14, 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panaretto, B. A. (1964). The estimation of body composition in living animals. Proc. Aust. C.S.I.R.O. Tech. Conf. on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals, Melbourne, August 1963, section 1, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Panaretto, B. A. & Till, A. R. (1963). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14, 926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A., Paladines, O. L. & Van Nierkerk, B. C. H. (1963). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Wellington, C. H. & Dunn, H. O. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, D. A. (1950). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 137, 440–74.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S. & Joubert, D. M. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Y. Z. (1941). Anat. Rec. 80, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C., Alder, F. E. & Rudman, J. E. (1957). Nature, Lond., 198, 214.Google Scholar
Turton, J. F. (1962). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 30, 447.Google Scholar
Walker, D. E. K. (1950). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A. 32, 30.Google Scholar
Walker, D. E. K. (1953). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 35, 360.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1944). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 4, 64.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1955). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 14, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar