1974
DOI: 10.1016/0301-6226(74)90055-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Manual on E.A.A.P. Reference Methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
75
0
9

Year Published

1979
1979
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 168 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
2
75
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Correlations using carcass conformation and fat scores The strong relationship between carcass conformation score and carcass meat proportion (r 5 0.66) is as expected, because conformation score measures the thickness of muscle and fat in relation to the size of the skeleton (De Boer et al, 1974). Bjelka et al (2002) also reported a higher proportion of meat in class U than class R bull carcasses.…”
Section: Assessorssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Correlations using carcass conformation and fat scores The strong relationship between carcass conformation score and carcass meat proportion (r 5 0.66) is as expected, because conformation score measures the thickness of muscle and fat in relation to the size of the skeleton (De Boer et al, 1974). Bjelka et al (2002) also reported a higher proportion of meat in class U than class R bull carcasses.…”
Section: Assessorssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…At this moment, carcasses were weighed and dressing percentage (DP) was calculated. At this point, the left half-carcasses were moved to the research center pilot plant and the following carcass measurements were collected: length of carcass (LC), length of leg (LL), width of leg (WL) and internal depth of chest (IDC) as described by De Boer et al (1974), whereas external depth of chest (EDC) and perimeter of leg (PL) were also obtained. These parameters were determined to assess carcass morphology.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the range 6 one-third of a class, this machine had a correspondence with reference panel (three experienced classifiers) values of 100% for conformation class and 97% for fat class (Allen and Finnerty, 2000). Perirenal plus retroperitoneal fat weight, together with carcass measurements (DeBoer et al, 1974), were also recorded. Carcass measurements that were taken were carcass length, chest depth, leg length, leg width (maximum width of leg) and leg thickness (width of leg from the medial splitting surface of the symphysis pubis).…”
Section: Management During Finishingmentioning
confidence: 99%