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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, A. L.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 75, Issue 7 1831-1836, Copyright © 1997 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Predicting the yield and composition of mature cow carcasses

D. D. Johnson and A. L. Rogers
Department of Animal Science, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, USA.

Cow carcasses (n = 60) were selected based on conformation and external fat to develop more current and useful prediction equations for estimating yield and composition. Adjusted preliminary yield grade was highly correlated to percentage of the carcass as fat (.91), percentage fat in the total lean (.89), and percentage fat in the lean trimmings (.88) of carcasses from non-grain-fed mature cows. Equations for predicting percentage of the carcass as chemical fat had higher -R2 values than equations predicting other compositional end points. The "best" regression equation for predicting total yield (i.e., whole muscle cuts plus lean trimmings adjusted to 10% chemical fat) included hot carcass weight (HCWT), adjusted preliminary yield grade (APYG), longissimus area (LMA), and marbling (MARB), with R2 = .75 and residual standard deviation (RSD) = 2.47. A similar equation predicting total yield from unribbed carcass data included HCWT, APYG, and conformation (CONF) with R2 = .69 and RSD = 3.11. These two equations were applied to a test group of cow carcasses (n = 20), and the average difference between the actual and predicted total yield values from ribbed data and unribbed data was .45 and .83% of HCWT; simple correlations between the actual and predicted values were .74 and .69, respectively. These equations contain relatively simple independent variables to identify and more nearly represent current industry processing practices than equations previously available.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
L. E. Patten, J. M. Hodgen, A. M. Stelzleni, C. R. Calkins, D. D. Johnson, and B. L. Gwartney
Chemical properties of cow and beef muscles: Benchmarking the differences and similarities
J Anim Sci, August 1, 2008; 86(8): 1904 - 1916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
A. M. Stelzleni, L. E. Patten, D. D. Johnson, C. R. Calkins, and B. L. Gwartney
Benchmarking carcass characteristics and muscles from commercially identified beef and dairy cull cow carcasses for Warner-Bratzler shear force and sensory attributes
J Anim Sci, October 1, 2007; 85(10): 2631 - 2638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society of Animal Science.