J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Apple, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Apple, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, J. W.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 69, Issue 12 4845-4857, Copyright © 1991 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Determining beef carcass retail product and fat yields within 1 hour postmortem

J. K. Apple, M. E. Dikeman, L. V. Cundiff and J. W. Wise
Anim. Sci & Ind. Dept., Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.

Hot carcasses from 220 steers (progeny of Hereford or Angus dams mated to Angus, Charolais, Galloway, Gelbvieh, Hereford, Longhorn, Nellore, Piedmontese, Pinzgauer, Salers, or Shorthorn sires) were used to develop equations to estimate weights and percentages of retail product (RP) and trimmable fat (TF) yields. Independent variables examined were 1) 12-13th rib fat probe (12RFD), 2) 10-11th rib fat probe (10RFD), 3) external fat score (EFS), 4) percentage of internal fat estimated hot (H%KPH), 5) hindquarter muscling score (HQMS), and 6) hot carcass weight (HCW). Right sides of the carcasses were fabricated into boneless retail cuts, trimmed to .76 cm of subcutaneous and visible intermuscular fat, and weighed. Cuts were trimmed to 0 cm of subcutaneous and visible intermuscular fat and reweighed. Multiple linear regression equations containing 12RFD, EFS, H%KPH, and HCW accounted for 95 and 89% of the variation in weight of total RP at .76 and 0 cm of fat trim, respectively. When weights of RP from the four primal cuts (.76 and 0 cm of fat trim) were the dependent variables, equations consisting of 12RFD, EFS, H%KPH, and HCW accounted for 93 to 84% of the variation. Hot carcass equations accounted for 83% of the variation in weight of total TF at both .76 and 0 cm of fat trim. Furthermore, equations from hot carcass data accounted for 54 and 51% of the variation in percentage of total RP and 57 and 50% of the variation in percentage of RP from the four primal cuts at .76 and 0 cm of fat trim, respectively. Hot carcass prediction equations accounted for 72% of the variation in percentage of total TF at both fat trim levels. Hot carcass equations were equivalent or superior to equations formulated from chilled carcass traits.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Society of Animal Science.