Carcass characteristics of the marketed Matebele goat from south-western Zimbabwe

Live animal and carcass characteristics of South African indigenous goats

“…These values are within the ranges that have been reported for other goat breeds (Devendra & Owen, 1983;Kirton, 1988;Simela et al, 1999). Low carcass fat is one of the main attractions to chevon.…”

“…A previously reported phenomenon with unimproved goats is that there is little variation in the lean/bone index with sex and age (Simela et al, 1999). This phenomenon is in line with the fact that goats are relatively late maturing and hence age-related changes in the proportions of tissues do not occur until at a late stage (Owen et al, 1978).…”

“…The average live weight of these castrates when they are marketed in the commercial sector ranged from a stipulated minimum of 25 kg (Hatendi, 1993) to about 41 kg at the 6-teeth stage (Simela et al, 2000). Side length of carcasses of mixed sex ranged from 57.0 cm at the milk-teeth stage to 66.2 at the 6-to 8-teeth stage (Simela et al, 1999). The corresponding carcass weights were 12.5 kg, 13.3 kg, 16.3 kg and 19.7 kg, respectively for the milk, 2-, 4-and 6-to 8-teeth groups (Simela et al, 1999).…”

“…Side length of carcasses of mixed sex ranged from 57.0 cm at the milk-teeth stage to 66.2 at the 6-to 8-teeth stage (Simela et al, 1999). The corresponding carcass weights were 12.5 kg, 13.3 kg, 16.3 kg and 19.7 kg, respectively for the milk, 2-, 4-and 6-to 8-teeth groups (Simela et al, 1999).…”

“…However, the low and rather invariable subcutaneous fat cover is a particular cause for concern in commercial chevon production since it is often well below the levels considered necessary for effective carcass chilling, without the risk of cold shortening (Smith et al, 1976;Dikeman, 1996). The low subcutaneous cover has also contributed to the downgrading of goat carcasses in a number of commercial enterprises, particularly where the classification/grading schedules that are employed are based on those of lamb and mutton (Pike et al, 1973;Simela et al, 1999). Several scientists (Devendra & Owen, 1983;Kirton, 1988;Prasad & Kirton, 1992;Simela et al, 1998) have emphasised this misconception and recommended use of classification systems that are indicative of the possible end use of the carcass rather than one that attempts to indicate an objective carcass quality.…”