Wear Science 61i982) 285-.-"94

G R O W T H A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O F W A T E R B U F F A L O A N D F R I E S I A N C R O S S B R E D C A T T L E , W I T H S P E C I A L R E F E R E N C E T O T H E ' E N T I R E ' A N D ' B O N E L E S S ' C U T S

O. Y. AIIDAI..LAlt, KARIMA A. SHAHIN ,Ik M. G. A. LXTtF

Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. Shoubra El-Kheima, Cairo, Egypt

(Received: 25 February. 1981)

SUMMARY

Tweh'e buffaloes, nine Friesian x Baladi and nine Friesian x ( Friesian x Baladi) bulls were slaughtered over the live weight ranges 161-560kg for buffaloes and 176-448 k g for cattle. Right sides of all carcasses were jointed and dissected and the increase in the weight of'entire' and'boneless" cuts and cut groups (i.e. pistol; BLRC) relative to the "entire" and 'boneless' side weights, respectively, were examined using covariance analyses.

Increasing distoproximal and dorsoventral growth gradients were found in both species. Most noticeably, the sticking was early developing in buffaloes and late developing in cattle, whereas the shortloin dereloped approximately at an arerage rate in buffaloes and at a lower rate in cattle. Statistically significant but relatively slight differences were recorded between buffaloes and cattle in the adjusted means of the 'entire' and "boneless' hind shank, sirloin (favouring buffaloes) and brisket (favouring cattle). Buffaloes were superior to cattle in weight o f pistol. At an equal side weight o f 73 kg buffaloes had significantly higher weight o f pistol (maximum difference = 1"4 kg). A t a ! 15 kg side weight, the maximum difference in 'entire' and "boneless" pistol reached 3"58 and 5"04 kg, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

A detailed study of the composition of the carcass in terms of its component tissues in buffaloes and Friesian crossbred bulls has been described previously (Abdallah et al., 198 I). At 73 kg dissected side weight, buffaloes, compared with half Friesian and three-quarter Friesian crosses, had less muscle (47.88; 50.70; 50.36 kg, respectively), more bone (12-45; I1.11; I 1-57 kg, respectively) and more fat (7.35; 5.63; 5-94kg, respectively). The assessment of the composition of the carcass in terms of its component marketable cuts in this series of animals is of interest from several points of view.

285 Meat Science 0309-1740/82/0006-0285/$02.75 ~ Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1982 Printed in Great Britain

286 O . Y . ABDALLAH, KARIMA A. SHAHIN, M. G. A. LATIF

A knowledge of the percentage yield of various carcass cuts ensures more efficient pricing of such carcasses (Caroil, 1972). A more or less accurate knowledge with regard to the pattern of growth of carcass cuts is of interest in deciding, from the point of view of desirable conformation, the optimum marketable carcass weight (Harrington & Pomeroy, 1959). Experiments designed to determine the yield of wholesale cuts of slaughter animals varying greatly in conformation have been conducted to specify to what extent visual assessment may be a good indicator of yields of cuts in the carcass (Cole et al., 1964; McAllister et al., 1976). The present study was undertaken to look at data from carcasses of buffaloes and Friesian crossbred cattle from these points of view.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an experiment to compare growth patterns of body components and carcass tissues of water buffalo and Friesian crossbred cattle, twelve buffalo, nine half Friesian (3 Friesian x 2 Baladi, Egyptian native cattle) and nine three-quarter Friesian (3 Friesian x ~ half Friesian) bulls were randomly chosen, individually penned and fed from weaning to slaughter on cubed concentrates and green roughage and wheat straw. Details of the feeding regime adopted, management and slaughter procedures were given in a previous paper (Abdallah et al., 1981). The animals were slaughtered over the body ranges 161-560kg, 176-440kg and 186-448 kg for buffaloes, half Friesians and three-quarter Friesians, respectively.

After slaughter, each dressed carcass was chilled at 2 °C for approximately 24 h, after which the right side of each carcass was taken and jointed according to the Chicago style of cutting described by Levie (1963). The kidney and kidney and channel fat were removed from the sides before jointing. The cuts in the Chicago style (Fig. 1) are (i) in the hindquarter: hind shank, buttock, sirloin, shortloin. tenderloin and flank; (ii) in the forequarter: 7 x 10 rib, plate, brisket, foreshank, chuck-plus-shoulder and sticking. Two groups of cuts were made to represent the high price cuts in the carcass. (i) The combination of the hind shank, buttock, loin and 7 x 10 rib represents the Egyptian pistol and (ii) thecombination ofthe buttock, loin, 7 x 10 rib and chuck-plus-shoulder is referred to as BLRC.

All cuts were dissected into muscle, fat, bone and 'other tissues'. For each cut, the total weight of muscle, bone, fat and 'other tissues' was referred to as the 'entire' cut and the total weight of muscle, fat and 'other tissues' was referred to as the 'boneless" cut. Weights of the "entire" cuts were analysed each relative to the 'entire' side weight (total weight of 'entire' cuts) and weights of the 'boneless' cuts relative to 'boneless" side weight (total weight of "boneless' cuts). One-way analysis of cowmance was applied using the following model.

log Y0 = Ao + G, + blogX 0 + (Gb) , logX , j + e o

GROWTH OF BUFFALO AND CATTLE CARCASS CUTS 287

Wl,nk

Wo~er.t~a~Jc

lb

.~Loulder

Fig. I. Side cuts according to the Chicago style.

where: Y,~ = weight in kilograms of the 'entire" or "boneless" cut o f the ith animal; A o = intercept: G, = fixed effect o f the ith genotype group; X, = total weight in kilograms of the "entire" side or "boneless" side o f the ith animal; b = regression coefficient for Y on X: (Gb), = adjustment to slope b due to the ith genotype group and e,, = e r r o r . assumed to be N I D (0, a~).

In cases where the individual regressions were not different, the c o m m o n regressions were used to adjust the genotype g roup means to the geometric mean of the "entire" side or the 'boneless" side. Duncan 's multiple range test, as modified by Kramer (1956). was used to compare each group mean with every other group mean whenever a significant Fva lue was obtained for the difference between adjusted means. According to the cowtriance concept, compar ison of adjusted means is not legitimate if the individual regressions are significantly different. Therefore, adjusted means in such cases were calculated merely for completeness but have not been statistically compared.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Unadjusted means and standard deviations for weights of fasted body, carcass, "entire' and "boneless' sides and "entire' individual cuts and cut groups are given in Table I. Overall means and standard deviations are also given in the same Table. It

288 o . Y . ABDALLAH, KARIMA A. SHAHIN, M. G. A. LATIF

TABLE I UNADJUSTED MEANS IN KILOGRAMS ( +-STANDARD DEVIATION) FOR WEIGHTS OF FASTED BODY (FBW)o COLD

CARCASS (CCW), 'ENTIRE' SIDE, "BONELESS" SIDE AND "ENTIRE" INDIVIDUAL CUTS AND CUT GROUPS

Buffaloes Half Friesians Three-quarter Friesians Overall

FBW 348 + 145-6 299 + 92.6 313 + 97-8 320 + 116.0 CCW 180-7 + 68.91 157. I + 60.62 157.3 _+ 56.33 166.6 + 96.92 'Entire" side 85.1 _.+ 38-43 74.9 __. 27.02 76.3 _+ 26.94 79.7 _+ 31-33 "Boneless" side 71.4 + 33.44 64.3 + 23.90 64.8 __. 23.82 67.3 + 27-43 Hind shank 5-62 + 1-912 4-70 + 1.343 4.81 + 1.170 5-10 + 1-561 Buttock 19.95 + 8'653 17-63 __. 6-326 17.23 + 5.385 18-44 + 7.004 Sirloin 6.81 _.+ 3.164 5-45 + 1.857 5-51 + 1.932 6-01 + 2.493 Tenderloin i.03 + 0.472 1-01 __. 0.436 1-08 + 0.359 1-04 + 0.413 Shortloin 5.04 + 2.504 4.38 + 1.391 4-29 + 1.333 4.62 + 1.874 Flank 2.57 + 1.514 2.47 __. 1-246 2.65 + i.163 2-56 _.+ 1.291 7 x 10 rib 6.95 + 2-993 6-25 + 2.070 6.43 + 2. i 13 6.58 + 2.434 Plate 5-17 + 3-076 3-85 + 1.654 4-09 __. 2.033 4.45 + 2.424 Brisket 3.70 + 2.093 3.50 __. 1.473 3.54 + 1.452 3-59 + 1.693 Fore shank 3.28 + I. 184 2-87 + 0.812 2-95 + 0-800 3.05 + 0.692 Chuck+shoulder 17.98+_8.352 15.87+-5.691 16.31+6.232 16.85_.+6.851 Sticking 6.01 + 2.648 6.75 + 2-802 6.56 + 2.821 6-39 + 2.670 Pistol 45.41 +- 19.563 39-36+ 13-320 39.40+- 12.151 41.79 + 15.622 BLRC 57.77 + 25-992 50.55 + 17.672 51.23 +- 17.582 53.64 +- 20.964 Hindquarter 41.03 +- 17.984 35.61 __. 12.493 35.61 _+ 11.193 37.78 +- 14.405 Forequarter 44.06 +- 20.421 39.84 __. 14.524 40.71 _+ 15.372 41.80 +- 16.893

appeared that the buttock was the greatest con t r ibu to r to the side weight (23 o~) followed by the chuck-plus-shoulder (21.2 ~/o). The pistol accounted for 52-4 ~ and the BLRC for 67-3 ~ of the side weight. The h indquar te r : fo requar te r ratio was

1 : 1-1 in the 'ent ire ' sides.

Table 2 gives the analyses o fcovar iance for the weight of each cut taken as 'entire" and "boneless' with, respectively, the 'entire" side weight and the 'boneless ' side weight as the independent variate. Table 3 gives corresponding analyses of covariance for the hind- and forequarters and expensive cuts. The buffaloes, half

Friesians and three-quarter Friesians did not differ significantly in the relative rate of increase (b value) of the weight of the 'entire ' and 'boneless ' hind shank, sirloin, 7 x 10 rib, brisket, foreshank and chuck-plus-shoulder . There were no differences

(P > 0.05) between groups in the relative growth of the 'ent i re ' tenderloin, flank (cuts without bone) and buttock or in the relative growth of the 'boneless ' plate. However, there were significant differences (P < 0-05) between groups in the relative rate of increase of the 'entire ' and 'boneless ' shor t lo in and sticking, the 'entire' plate and the 'boneless ' but tock (Table 2). The rates of increase in the 'boneless" pistol and BLRC, those of the combined forequarter 'ent i re ' cuts and of the combined h indquar ter 'entire ' and 'boneless ' cuts were significantly different between genotypes (Table 3).

A striking result in both the 'entire ' and "boneless' analyses was the inconsistency of the individual genotype group slopes both for 'entire ' and the 'boneless" short loin and sticking. The growth coefficient of the short loin was significantly less than 1 (b = 0-81-0.85) in the Friesian crossbred groups and did not differ significantly

TA

BL

E 2

F_

~TIM

AT

ES

OF

P

AR

AM

ET

ER

S O

F A

LI.

OM

ET

RIC

RE

GR

ES

SIO

N A

ND

AD

JUS

TE

D M

EA

NS

FO

R

WE

IGH

T O

F '

EN

TIR

E'

CU

TS

AN

D "

B(I

NE

I.F

-~'

cu

rs

WIT

II

CO

RR

ES

PO

ND

ING

W|!

IGII

I O

F

rOT

AL

C

UT

S A

S T

HE

IN

DE

PE

ND

EN

T V

AR

IAT

E (

X)

Dep

cade

nt

Bu~'

al,~

es

Hal

l Fr

lesl

ans

Thre

e-6l

'~ar

ler

.l~'rl

esgl

n$

Com

mon

R

estd

ual

.4d/

uste

d m

¢¢l//

Is.~

Sq

cmhc

am'e

la

rglt

e .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

('

|/

Ult

ti/U

R Y

fO

fllqF

ted

I0

u'u

II/

dl~e

rem

clo

t 11

o R Y

) A

o

h"

SE

A

o

b S

E

A o

b

~,'L

" A

o

b S

'¢"

(".)

o

f te

om

etr

lc

mea

n o

/X

- -

-

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

B

etw

ttll

B

etw

ttP

l B

" ]

f ~F

s/

oil

s ad

lust

ed

rise*

ms

Ifin

dsh

an

k E

ntir

e -0

55

8

0-69

8 0

03

-0

74

6

07

58

0

02

-0

61

4

0691

0

05

B

onel

ess

-09

25

0

7"1

9

00

7

-09

99

0

77

7

00

6

-08

79

0

7i7

0

08

B

utto

ck

Ent

src

- 0

577

0:97

3 0

02

-

0-64

5 i ~

7

00

3

- 0

471

0-¢~

10-8

- 0'

03

Bon

eles

s -0

58

6

09

88

0-

02

-06

34

10

08

00

3

-04

51

0

90

0

0'03

S

irlo

in

Ent

ire

- 1.

155

1,02

9 0-

04

- 1.

069

0.96

2 0.

04

- 1.

157

1.00

8 0.

03

Bon

eles

s -

I 05

5 0

983

00

4

- 10

26

0-94

1 0,

05

- 1,

142

1.00

6 0,

03

Ten

derl

oin

Ent

ire

- 1.

931

1.00

7 0-

05

- 2.

094

I.I

14

0.08

-

1-60

a 0-

872

0.10

S

hort

ioin

E

ntsr

e -

I 36

1 10

66

OO

S -O

95

2

08

~0

0

'06

-0

-96

2

O'8

.$0

00

3

Bon

¢lc~

s -I

35

3 1

061

00

5

• 0

92

1

()~

23

00

7

-09

08

0-

80~/

" 0

03

Fl

ank

Entire

- 1972

1-226

0 09

- 2269

i 40

8 0

I0

- 1852

1204

0 08

7x

1

0r,

b

lint,

re

-09

99

0-

959

00

3

-09

09

U

SO

9"

00

4

-09

96

0

95

8

0'03

H

~mel

ess

-10

70

0

97

6

00

3

-09

55

0

91

9

00

4

-09

67

0

93

0

0,05

P

late

E

ntir

e -

I 97

2 I

380

O0-

4 -

1531

1.

124

00

7

- I

721

1232

0'

13

Hon

cles

s -1

73

5

1278

0

04

-1

41

4

1083

0

07

-1

50

6

1"14

3 0'

13

Bris

ket

[!nt

*re

- I

962

I 30

~-

0 08

-

I 86

1 12

76

0 10

-

1 69

0 1'

186

011

Bon

ek~s

s -

1 88

4 1"

287

00

7

- 1"

793

1"2~

" 0

08

-

16

10

1"

163

0"11

F

~e

sha

nk

Ent

ire

-09

60

0-

769

0-03

-O

92

1

0"73

6 0.

06

- 1.

002

07

84

0"

05

Bon

eles

s -1

19

4

08

13

0

04

-0

90

7

06

43

0'

14

-I.2

30

0'

840

00

5

Chuck +s

houl

der

Enti

re

-0653

I ()2-9

001

-0653

()-9

-87"

002

-0"810

I'073 0"05

Bon

eles

s -0

71

2

1.01

9 0

02

-0

65

7

09

85

0

02

-0

76

1

IO42

0

07

S

licki

ng

E

ntir

e -0

87

6

08

87

0

05

-1

20

9 I

108

00

4

- 13

70

1.18

6 0

05

Boneless

-0 811

0 ~

0

00

5

- 1-193

I -I [6"

0'04

- 1"

298

i:l-

6f

0"05

t G

row

th c

o~l~

:*en

ts u

ndef

linoc

l w

ere

$ism

fica

mly

dzl

Tere

nt

fro

m

1 at

P <

00

5

- 0

64

2

0 71

1 0-

02

46

7

08"

6 36

* 6

49*

NS

"*

* -

0'9

50

0

766

00

4

10.1

4

8U"

40

2*

4

'I 3

* N

S

***

-0'5

76

0

96

9

00

1

31

23

73

2

34

3

22

88

N

S

NS

-0

-57

5

0 96

7 0"

01

3'7

24 8

2 24

"08

23'5

3 *

-1"1

43

1'

009

0"02

5

'0

7-98

" 7-

29 j

7'23

* N

S

***

- 1-

075

0.97

7 0

02

5

5 8

22

j 7

43*

7-40

* N

S

***

-1-8

96

1

-00

7

00

4

103

I 21

" I

31 "~

1

43

' N

S

**

- 1.

182

0"97

1 0

04

8"

1 5

83

5.92

5

78

* -I

161

0954

00

4

96

57

4

582

57

3

-2007

1"226

006

12 8

2-81"

3.10

"*

339*

NS

**

-0974

0944

0-02

45

8-30

838

8.~0

NS

NS

-I018

0953

002

54

77

5

7-99

810

NS

NS

- 1.

820

1-2

88

0-

05

10"4

5

48

5'07

5-

17

* -1

61

6

1.204

004

10

5

581

545

563

NS

NS

-I-8

72

I

273

00

6

II 7

40

1 °

4 53

* 4

56

* N

S

* -

1.79

6 1'

257

0"05

11

'4

4-27

" 4"

806

4'82

~ N

S

* -0

'96

2

0"76

4 0"

02

3"4

4"09

3'

88

3 95

N

S

NS

-

1.31

0 0'

777

00

5

11.7

3"

05

2'87

2,

98

NS

N

S

-07

27

10

27

0-02

3

6

21'0

5 21

"16

21-2

6 N

S

NS

-0

-71

0

1"0

15

0'

02

4 7

20 66

20.8

2 21

O0

NS

NS

- I '

036

0.999

0 04

8 4

8'33

881

949

* -0

'985

0'981

004

9 5

8-66

I0 33

9-92

* ..........................

Ad

just

me

nt t

o 8c

orn¢

t r;

c m

ean

of'

en

tire

' si

de w

l .

72.9

6 k

s an

d'bo

mel

c~s'

sid

e w

t =

61 2

2 kg

alo

ng

the

slop

e o

f co

mm

on

rcg

ress

aon

line

B =

buf

falo

: ~F

-

ha

lf F

rics

lan

; ,JF

~ t

hree

-qua

rter

Frl

¢~,a

n N

un,'~

fals

in th

e f.

lm¢

row

bca

fln 8

dll|

¢ren

t su

pcr~

crlp

~ d

dFcr

sis

nlh

can

lly a

t P

< 0

05

?t

NS

no

ss

gniti

cant

(P

>0

05

) *

P<

00

5;

**P

<0

OO

l;

***P

<0

OO

I

TA

BL

E

3 I.

S ! I

MA

I I

S O

1'

PA

RA

MI

I liR

S O

F

AI.

I.O

MI:

1 R

IC

I(I:

(,;R

F.S.

~;IO

N A

ND

AI)

JU.~

I I!

i)

MI:

AN

S F

OR

W

EI(

;III

O

F "

I:.N

'IIR

E'

AN

D "

IH)N

I:I.

F.S.

~'

('O

MI|

INI~

I)

I IIG

II-P

RI(

'Id

),

IIIN

IH~

UA

H I

I'R

A

NI)

Dep

ende

nt

la.a

tc

11,,~

¢ Y]

FO

RE

QU

AR

TE

R C

UIS

W

ITH

('

OR

RE

SP

ON

I)IN

G

WE

I(3

H]

OF

1

OR

AL

CU

TS

AS

TH

E I

ND

EP

EN

DE

NT

VA

RIA

TE

(X

)

Buffa

loe~

H

alf

Fr~

esi~

ms

Thre

e-qu

arte

t F

.esi

ans

Co

mm

on

Re

sadu

al

Adl

uUed

mea

lts,~

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

('

V

am

iloK

Y ¢

~m

l~tt

cd t

. o,

,

A o

b

' S

E

A o

b

' S

'£

A u

b

SE

A

u

b S

E

(')

uJ x

eo

.~u

, m

ean

.J X

a 1~

,'+

F~,io

l ls

m.c

-0

-17

8

09

52

00

1 -U

]73

0'

942

OO

I -0

-08

9

08

96

0

02

-0

-16

2

09

39

0

01

2

1

5426

" 52

66'

52

38'

B

onel

c~

-0.2

06

0.

964

001

-0

190

()94

7 0

02

-0

09

9

()8~

/4

00

2

-0

185

09

46

00

1 2.

4 53

.90

51

90

51

63

BL

RC

E

nhfe

-0

17

2 I

002

00

1

-0

127

09

75

00

1 -0

15

0 0.

988

00

2

-0.1

57

0~99

3 -

0O

I 1

6

6811

6

74

9

67

48

B

onel

e~,s

-O

-163

I-0

(30

O01

-0

12

1 09

72"

001

-00

90

0-

952

00

2

-01

41

0

98

4

00

1

19

6

90

8

67-6

8 6

70

4

}{m

dqua

rlcr

E

n|il'¢

-0

-25

3

09

68

00

1 -0

28

6

09

79

0

01

-0

-15

5

09

07

0.

02

-0.2

45

0

95

9

00

1

2-2

47

29

4

74

6

47

29

/~

on<l

e~s

-02

63

0

97

6

OO

l -0

2~

9 O

9)1

1

00

2

-0

154

09

05

0.

02

-0.0

52

0.

963

00

! 2

5 49

53

47

7i

47-5

8 F

orc

qu

a.e

r E

n.re

-0

3.1

7

IO31

00

1 -0

30

8

I 01

6 0

02

-0

42

6

I 08

1 0

02

-0

35

0

I 03

7 00

1 2-

1 51

-57

5298

53

0"/

Bo

ncl

¢~

-0

33

9 -1

02

3

0O

I -0

32

1 I

022

00

I -0

396

I

063

0 03

-0

.34

3

1-0

31

0

01

2

5

~O 7

4"

52 4

9*

52

.28

' .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

Sixn

i/~ur

u¢

.J #

t/Jc

re~

¢Jt

t

~lw

¢¢

n

J~l w

ren

Jh,p

¢~

adlu

Jtcd

nw

unJ

NS

""

NY

J N

S

NS

**

t, :

. tt

A.

cxpl

d*nc

d in

T~b

l~ 2

GROWTH OF BUFFALO AND CATTLE CARCASS CUTS 291

from 1 in buffaloes (b = 1.01-1.07) whereas the coefficient for the sticking was significantly less than l in buffaloes (b = 0.86-0-89)and significantly greater than 1 in Friesian crosses (b = 1-I !-1.19). Literature data on the growth of shortloin and sticking cuts are non-existent. Berg et al. (I 978) found the growth coefficient of the muscles of the loin in cattle bulls to be significantly less than 1 and that of the neck significantly greater than 1. The results of Ragab et al. (1966) on buffalo bulls showed that, as carcass weight increased, the proportion of the loin increased and that of the neck decreased. These findings are in support of the present results.

The results of the present study agree with reported results on cattle bulls and steers (Joubert. 1959) and on buffalo bulls and steers (Ragab et al . , 1966) in that the hind shank is the earliest developing cut in the carcass and the fore limb cuts (fore shank and shoulder; the shoulder common b + SE was 1.021 + 0.02 for 'entire" and 1-011 +0.03 for 'boneless' cuts) have higher relative growth rates than the corresponding hind limb cuts. This probably reflects the fact that the hind limb does not have to support so much weight as the fore limb, with the increase of the animal weight anterior-wise.

The present results on bulls were in agreement with published results on heifers and steers (Harrington & Pomeroy, 1959; Luitingh, 1962) in that the ventral cuts in the trunk are late-developing and had higher relative growth rates than the corresponding dorsal cuts, indicating that buffalo and cattle on the one hand, and bulls, heifers and steers, on the other, are alike in that respect. This can be explained on the basis of the weight-supporting r61e of the ventral region of the thorax in quadrupeds (Dukes, 1955) and the increase in the rigidity of the ribs and the development of the abdominal wall as the thoracic and abdominal organs increase in weight (Fowler, 1968).

The last stages of development were found to occur in the loin cut in lambs (Hammond, 1932) and between the neck and chuck (the hump cut) (Joubert, 1959) and in the chuck cut (Luitingh, 1962) in cattle. In the present study the relative growth of the loin (sirloin, tenderloin, shortloin) and of the chuck-plus-shoulder was similar to the total side weight. This difference may be due to the different jointing techniques employed in the studies. Butterfield (1963), Seebeck & Tulloh (1968) and Kempster et al. (I 976) suggested that the late maturity of the loin joint reported by Hammond (1932) was a reflection of the late developing abdominal muscles included in the loin joint. These authors showed that the muscles of the anatomical loin region develop at the same rate as the total side muscle.

The present results showed remarkable similarity in the growth patterns of the bone-in and the bone-out forms of the same cut compared for the same genotype group. This suggests that the growth of a cut follows the same law as governs the development of the non-bone tissues.

After adjustment using the common regression equations given in Tables 2 and 3, the "entire" buttock, the 'boneless' plate and the 'entire" and "boneless" 7 x 10 rib, fore shank and chuck-plus-shoulder cuts occupied similar proportions in the buffalo and

EO

TA

BL

E

4 E

ST

IMA

IED

ME

AN

S A

ND

P

ER

CE

NTA

GE

S

OF

"EN

TIR

E'

AN

D '

BO

NE

LES

S'

CO

MB

INE

D H

IGH

-PR

ICE

D,

HIN

DQ

UA

RT

ER

A

ND

FO

RE

QU

AR

TER

C

UT

S A

T F

IVE

DIF

FE

RE

NT

.O

W

EIG

HT

S O

F C

OR

RE

SP

ON

DIN

G T

OT

AL

CU

TS

"<

(Yet

ght

Cut

W

eJX

bt a

nd p

erce

ntag

e oJ

the

cut

gro

up i

n th

e er

a(re

~id

es o

f.

Wei

gh!

~ pe

rcen

tage

of

the

~t

grou

p m

the

boc

lele

ss s

oles

of

W

oJ t

otal

gr

oup

....

..

cuts

B

uffa

loes

H

alf

Frl

esm

nJ

Thr

ee.~

artt

r FF

tesJ

ans

Buf

falo

ej

Hal

( F

riej

~uu

Thre

e.qu

arte

~ Fr

l¢~i

ans

)"

l'(-g}

/~g

¢'~

k 8

~g

~,

kg

?~

kg

%

k&

~/.

["

>

35

I~,to

l 19

59

(560

I i9

15

(.~4

7)

19 7

0 (~

,'3)

1918

(~

4-8)

18

.70

(534

) 19

'12

(546

) B

LR

C

23 7

0 (6

77}

23 9

4 (6

8 4)

23

73

(67.

8)

24-0

9 (6

88)

2398

(6

85)

24 0

2 (5

8 6)

H

indq

uart

er

1742

(4

98)

1681

(4

80)

1764

(5

0.4)

17

"53

(50"

13

1684

(4

8.13

17

-51

(500

) ~b

, Fo

requ

arte

r 17

.58

(50'

2)

1823

(5

2 i)

17

-43

(498

3 17

.47

(49-

9)

18.0

9 (5

173

17.6

1 (5

0 3)

55

P~

slol

30

12

(54

8)

29 3

3 (5

3 3(

29

54

(557

) 29

66

(53

9)

2868

(5

2-13

28

"63

(52.

1)

~'

BLR

C

37 2

7 (6

7 8I

37

20

(676

3 37

0~

(67,

4)

37.8

7 (6

88J

37.2

2 (6

7 7)

36

.94

(67.

2)

~"

H*n

dqua

rlet

26

98

(491

) 26

17

(47

5)

26 5

8 (4

&3I

27

-22

(495

) 26

"23

(477

) 26

35

(47"

9)

~,

I'ore

quaT

lcr

28 O

( (5

0 9)

28

86

(52

53

28 4

2 (5

1.73

27

76

(50.

5)

28"7

1 (5

2'2)

28

48

(51

'8)

75

P~Io

( 40

46

153"

93

39 2

8 15

2 4)

39

'00

(52

0)

4000

(5

33)

38'4

7 (5

1 '3

) 37

"78

(504

) B

LR

C

5085

(6

78)

5035

(6

71l

5038

(6

72)

51"6

4 (6

5"9)

50

'31

(67-

15

4960

(6

61)

~,

Hin

dqua

rter

36

42

(486

) 35

46

147

3)

35 2

2 14

70)

3685

(4

9-13

35

.55

(47-

4)

]4-8

9 (4

65)

~l"

):oT

cqua

rtcr

38

56

(51.

4)

3956

(5

27)

39 7

4 (5

30)

38-1

3 (5

08)

39.4

2 (5

26)

39-6

1 (5

2 8)

.~

95

Pt

~lol

50

66

(53

J)

4908

(5

1 7)

48

19

(.~J.

7J

50.2

4 (5

29)

4811

(5

061

46,6

7 (4

9 I,~

-

BI.

RC

64

44

(67

8)

63 4

0 (6

6 7)

63

63

(67

O)

65 4

1 (6

8 9)

63

31

(666

) 62

17

(65

4)

~'

)hnd

quar

ter

45 7

8 (4

8.23

.11

4 69

(47

0(

43 6

4 (4

5.9)

46

41

(48

8)

44 ~

4 (4

7 2)

43

-21

(455

) (-

ore(

outle

t 49

20

15! 8

) 50

30

(52

9)

51 3

( (5

40)

48 5

7 (5

1-7)

50

.19

(32

8)

50.9

2 (5

3-6)

C

~ I I

5

Pis

tol

60 7

7 (5

38)

58 7

7 (5

11)

57 1

9 (4

9'7)

60

-40

(525

) 57

65

(50

l)

5536

(4

8"I)

B

LRC

78

03

(67

9)

76 3

9 (6

6 4)

76

85

(668

3 79

19

(68.

9)

76-2

4 (6

633

74 5

8 (6

4 9)

~

' lh

ndqu

artc

T 55

07

147

9)

53 8

9 (4

6 9l

51

90

(45

i I

55.9

1 (4

8 6)

54

(~

(470

) 51

-37

(44

7)

F'

I"or¢

quar

tct

5991

15

213

61 0

8 (5

3 l)

63

08

(349

1 59

07

(5|.

4)

61.0

1 (5

31)

62-3

9 (5

43)

~'

• L)

cr,v

ed fr

om r

c~rC

~lon

cqu

atlo

n~ E

lven

in T

able

3; ~

clsh

ls I

hcn

con~

trtcd

to p

crcc

nlai

¢~

~q

GROWTH OF BUFFALO AND CATTLE CARCASS CUTS 293

cattle carcass sides. However, buffaloes had higher proportions of 'entire' and 'boneless" hind shank and sirloin and of 'entire' pistol but lower proportions of 'entire" and 'boneless' brisket and 'boneless' forequarter than the Friesian crossbred groups which did not differ from each other (P > 0.05). The proportions of the tenderloin and flank also differed between genotype groups. In the two cuts the three-quarter Friesians were superior (P < 0.05) to buffaloes whereas the half Friesians did not differ from both groups (P > 0.05).

The coefficients of residual variation recorded in the present study (Tables 2 and 3) indicate very low variability in the weight of cut groups (expensive groups and hind- and forequarters) and individual cuts of relatively high yield (buttock and chuck- plus-shoulder). The variability in the weight of a cut tended to increase with the decrease of its contribution to the side weight. The remarkable lack of variability for cut groups and heavy cuts, which was also reported in previous work (Le Guelte et

al., 1964; McAIlister et al. , 1976) was apparent in spite of the great variation in fatness reported for the present animals by Abdallah et al. (1981).

The individual genotype group allometric equations shown in Tables 2 and 3 permitted the comparison in weights ofexpensive cuts and hind- and forequarters to be made at 'entire" and 'boneless' side weights of 35, 55, 75, 95 and I 15 kg (Table 4). For all genotypes, as the side weight increased, the proportion of the pistol and hindquarter decreased whereas the proportion of the forequarter increased. The proportion of the BLR.C decreased in both Friesian crosses but showed practically no change in buffaloes. At all side weights the estimated percentages of pistol, BLRC and hindquarter were higher and the percentages of forequarter were lower in the buffaloes than in the Friesian crosses. The largest estimated difference was 5.04 kg (at 115 kg side weight) in the "boneless' pistol. In a previous study (Abdailah et al., 1981) on the same animals used in the present study, the carcass composition has been estimated at the above-mentioned side weights (i.e. 35kg up to 115kg). Buffaloes had a lower ratio of muscle to bone, a lower percentage of muscle and higher percentages of fat and bone than Friesian crosses. These findings, combined with those obtained in the present work, permit one to conclude that the com- position of the carcass in buffaloes is inferior in terms of its component tissues but slightly superior in terms of its component desirable cuts to that of Friesian crosses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was one aspect of a project supported in part by grants from the Research Development Fund of Ain Shams University.

REFERENCES

ABDALLAH, O. Y., SHAHII'4, K. A. • LATIF, M. G. A. 0980. J. Agric. Sci., Camb., 97, 205. BERG, R. T., ANDER.~N, B. B. & LlaORIUSSEN, T. (1978). Anita. Prod., 27, 51.

294 O.Y. ABDALLAH, KARIMA A. SHAHIN, M. G. A. LATIF

BUTTERFIELD. R. M. (1963). In: Syrup. Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. (Tribe, D. E. (Ed.)), CSIRO, Melbourne.

CAROLL, M. A. 0972). In: Syrup. Aspects of Carcass Eraluation. Proc. Br. Soc. Anita. Prod.. p. 123. COLE, J. W., R^MSEY. C. B., HOBaS. C. S. & TEMPLE, R. S. (1964). J. Anita. Sci.. 23. 71. DUKES. H. H. 0955). The physiology of domestic animals (seventh edition). London. Ballicr¢. Tindall &

Cox. FOWLER. V. R. (1968). In: Growth anddeL'elopment ofmammab. ( Lodge. E. A. & Lamming. G. E. (Eds)).

London, Butterworths. HAMMOND. J. (1932). In: Growth and the de~'elopment of mutton qualities in the sheep. (Crew, F. A. E. &

Culter, D. W. (Eds)). Edinburgh, Oliver & Boyd. HARRINGTO.~. G. & POMEROY. R. W. (1959). J. Agric. Sci., Camb.. 53, 64. JOb'BERT, D. M, (1959). S. Aft. J. Sci.. 55. 139. KEMPS'r~R, A. J., Ct,'TffBEaTSO~. A.. SMITH. R. J. (1976). J. Agric. Sci., Camb., 87, 533. KRA.~ER. C. W. (1956). Biota., 12, 307. LE Gt;ELTE, P.. DU~OST. B. L. & AFtNOUX, J. (1964). Ann. Zootech.. 13, 255. LEVJE, A. (1963). The meat handbook. Connecticut. The Avi Publishing Company. Inc. LUlTINGff. H. C. (1962). J. Agric. Sci., Camb., 58. I. McALUSTER. T. J., WILSON. L. L.. ZIEGLER, J. H. & SINK. J. D. (1976). J. Anita. Sci.. 42, 324. RAG^g, M. T.. DAll.WlSI-I, M. T. H. & M^LEK. A. G. A. (1966). J. Anita. Prod., U.A.R., 6, 31. SEEBECK. R. M. & TULLOff. N. M. 0968). Aust. J. Agric. Res.. 19. 673.