Carcass Muscle Weight Distribution and Yield: a Comparison between Grey Kangaroos, Macropus giganteus, and Red Kangaroos, M. rufus

Abstract

Information is presented from which the carcass muscle yield as well as muscle yield from forequarter, hindquarter, tail and nine other carcass regions may be predicted for grey and red kangaroos of both sexes. Carcass muscle weights from grey and red kangaroos of the same body weight were found to be similar. Grey kangaroos were found to have a relatively greater proportion of their carcass muscle in the hindquarter, whereas red kangaroos were relatively heavier muscled in the forequarter and tail. Female kangaroos of both species were found to be relatively heavier muscled in the hindquarter, whereas males were relatively heavier muscled in the forequarter.

Aerobic characteristics of red kangaroo skeletal muscles: is a high aerobic capacity matched by muscle mitochondrial and capillary morphology as in placental mammals?

“…Values of 47-52% have been reported previously for red kangaroos; variability can occur due to variable fill of the large foregut (Table·1) and sexual dimorphism (Grand, 1990;Hopwood, 1981;Hopwood and Griffiths, 1984;Tribe and Peel, 1963). A value near 50% places kangaroos among the most muscular of mammals (Table·4) (Grand, 1990).…”

Bennett’s wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus) marrow quality vs quantity: evaluating human decision-making and seasonal occupation in late Pleistocene Tasmania

“…This was regarded as a normal amount. Similar small proportions of fat on macropod carcasses have been noted by Garvey (2010), Hopwood (1981), Hopwood and Griffiths (1984), Hopwood et al (1976), O'Connell andMarshall (1989), and Tribe and Peel (1963). Hunteregatherers are aware that game meat is very lean and adjust their hunting practices and selection of species accordingly, sometimes even abandoning lean prey (see Hayden, 1981:397;Sackett, 1979;Tindale, 1972:248).…”

“…Previous studies on macropod economic morphology have predominantly focused on the larger Red kangaroo, Macropus rufus, and the Eastern Grey kangaroo, M. giganteus (Hopwood, 1981;Hopwood and Griffiths, 1984;Hopwood et al, 1976;O'Connell and Marshall, 1989;Tribe and Peel, 1963), with Garvey's (2010) recent economic anatomy or utility of the Bennett's wallaby the first study of a smaller macropod. Although there have been no studies on the fatty acid composition of the Bennett's wallaby, analyses on other Australian native animals have concentrated on their potential role in the domestic/international game meat market and/or dietary benefits for indigenous Australians (Hopwood, 1988(Hopwood, , 1999Naughton et al, 1986;O'Dea, 1984O'Dea, , 1988Sinclair, 1988;Sinclair et al, 1987;White, 1985White, , 1990White, , 2001.…”

Functional morphology of the forelimb of living and extinct tree‐kangaroos (Marsupialia: Macropodidae)

“…The forelimb of terrestrial macropodids is disproportionately small compared with other marsupials due to their principally bipedal locomotor behavior (Hopwood,1981; Grand,1990) and is apparently relatively unspecialized for manipulative functions (Iwaniuk et al,2000; Weisbecker and Archer,2008). Species of Dendrolagus , however, have relatively more equal ratios of forelimb to hindlimb length and muscle weight, as well as overall reduction in relative muscle mass, when compared with terrestrial kangaroos and wallabies (Grand,1990).…”