Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock
A study was carried out on five lowland farms in Northern Ireland over 2 years to investigate the effects of crossbred ewe and ram genotype on lamb meat quality. Four ewe genotypes were sourced from six hill farms – Bluefaced Leicester×Blackface (BLXB), Texel×Blackface (TXB), Suffolk×Cheviot (SXCH)...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of agricultural science 2002-09, Vol.139 (2), p.195-204 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 204 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 195 |
| container_title | The Journal of agricultural science |
| container_volume | 139 |
| creator | DAWSON, L. E. R. CARSON, A. F. MOSS, B. W. |
| description | A study was carried out on five lowland farms in Northern Ireland over 2 years to investigate the effects of crossbred ewe and ram genotype on lamb meat quality. Four ewe genotypes were sourced from six hill farms – Bluefaced Leicester×Blackface (BLXB), Texel×Blackface (TXB), Suffolk×Cheviot (SXCH) and Texel×Cheviot (TXCH). On each farm groups of 20–30 of each crossbred ewe genotype were crossed with Suffolk or Texel sires. Within each of the ram breeds, high lean growth index rams sourced from UK sire reference schemes (SRS) were compared with rams sourced from flocks not involved in objective genetic improvement programmes (control). Throughout the 2 years of the study the ewes lambed at 1 and 2 years of age. Lambs from each of the crosses were slaughtered at 36, 44 and 52 kg live weight. Meat from lambs slaughtered at 36 kg had lower a* values (15.1) than meat from lambs slaughtered at 52 kg (17.0 S.E. 0.47) (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S002185960200237X |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743192610</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S002185960200237X</cupid><sourcerecordid>1409642621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-c7d84b4255c8e247c6bd67d87696efc35eb4dbe98078bf324dbc9032a1d992f83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtr3DAUhUVpoNO0P6A7UShdOdVb8rINSZowUEL6yE7I8lXixLYmkod0_n3lztCBhmz0uOc7l8NB6B0lR5RQ_emKEEaNrBVh5cX19Qu0oELVlSznS7SY5WrWX6HXOd8RQjSpzQK1JyGAnzKOAfsUc24StBgeAd_AGKfNCrAbW5zcsB_EEfduaPAAbsIPa9d30waHFAc83QLu42M_W_ItwAqHPvr7N-gguD7D2919iH6cnnw__lotv52dH39eVl5QMVVet0Y0gknpDTChvWpaVWZa1QqC5xIa0TZQG6JNEzgrH18Tzhxt65oFww_Rx-3eVYoPa8iTHbrsoS95IK6z1YLTmilKCvn-P_IurtNYwllGuCZSmxmiW-hvMQmCXaVucGljKbFz6_ZJ68XzYbfYZe_6kNzou7w3CkkkMbpw1Zbr8gS__-ku3VuluZZWnV3an78uLq_5lwu7LDzfZSnNp669gX3i59P8Ae6aoEw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>203705780</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>DAWSON, L. E. R. ; CARSON, A. F. ; MOSS, B. W.</creator><creatorcontrib>DAWSON, L. E. R. ; CARSON, A. F. ; MOSS, B. W.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[A study was carried out on five lowland farms in Northern Ireland over 2 years to investigate the effects of crossbred ewe and ram genotype on lamb meat quality. Four ewe genotypes were sourced from six hill farms – Bluefaced Leicester×Blackface (BLXB), Texel×Blackface (TXB), Suffolk×Cheviot (SXCH) and Texel×Cheviot (TXCH). On each farm groups of 20–30 of each crossbred ewe genotype were crossed with Suffolk or Texel sires. Within each of the ram breeds, high lean growth index rams sourced from UK sire reference schemes (SRS) were compared with rams sourced from flocks not involved in objective genetic improvement programmes (control). Throughout the 2 years of the study the ewes lambed at 1 and 2 years of age. Lambs from each of the crosses were slaughtered at 36, 44 and 52 kg live weight. Meat from lambs slaughtered at 36 kg had lower a* values (15.1) than meat from lambs slaughtered at 52 kg (17.0 S.E. 0.47) (P<0.05). Ewe genotype had no effect on any parameter of meat quality measured. The carcasses of lambs sired by Suffolk rams had a higher pHU than lambs sired by Texel rams (5.70 v. 5.65; S.E. 0.014; P<0.05) and hue angle was lower (P<0.05) in Suffolk-sired lambs (32.9°) compared with Texel-sired lambs (35.1°) (S.E. 0.62°). Warner–Bratzler shear force was lower in SRS-sired lambs (2.05 kg/cm2) compared with control-sired lambs (2.36 (S.E. 0.096) kg/cm2; P<0.05). Carcasses from male lambs had a greater cooking loss (217 g/kg) than from female lambs (196 S.E. 5.7 g/kg) (P<0.01) and meat from male lambs had greater values for Warner–Bratzler shear force (2.44 kg/cm2) than from female lambs (1.97 S.E. 0.098 kg/cm2) (P<0.001). Low, but statistically significant (P<0.05) correlations were obtained between carcass fat measurements and meat quality parameters (r = −0.29 for the relationship between cooking loss and fat depth over the gluteus medius P<0.001); r = 0.21 for the relationship between fat classification and C* values P<0.01). When meat quality parameters for each of the fat classes were averaged, significant linear regressions (P<0.05) were obtained between fat classification and pHU, a* and C* values.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8596</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-5146</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S002185960200237X</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JASIAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Age ; Agriculture ; Animal productions ; ANIMALS ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cooking ; Farms ; Food industries ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genetic improvement ; Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution ; Genotype & phenotype ; Genotypes ; Meat ; Meat and meat product industries ; Meat quality ; Population genetics, reproduction patterns ; Terrestrial animal productions ; Vertebrata ; Vertebrates</subject><ispartof>The Journal of agricultural science, 2002-09, Vol.139 (2), p.195-204</ispartof><rights>2002 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-c7d84b4255c8e247c6bd67d87696efc35eb4dbe98078bf324dbc9032a1d992f83</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002185960200237X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=14505087$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DAWSON, L. E. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CARSON, A. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOSS, B. W.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock</title><title>The Journal of agricultural science</title><addtitle>J. Agric. Sci</addtitle><description><![CDATA[A study was carried out on five lowland farms in Northern Ireland over 2 years to investigate the effects of crossbred ewe and ram genotype on lamb meat quality. Four ewe genotypes were sourced from six hill farms – Bluefaced Leicester×Blackface (BLXB), Texel×Blackface (TXB), Suffolk×Cheviot (SXCH) and Texel×Cheviot (TXCH). On each farm groups of 20–30 of each crossbred ewe genotype were crossed with Suffolk or Texel sires. Within each of the ram breeds, high lean growth index rams sourced from UK sire reference schemes (SRS) were compared with rams sourced from flocks not involved in objective genetic improvement programmes (control). Throughout the 2 years of the study the ewes lambed at 1 and 2 years of age. Lambs from each of the crosses were slaughtered at 36, 44 and 52 kg live weight. Meat from lambs slaughtered at 36 kg had lower a* values (15.1) than meat from lambs slaughtered at 52 kg (17.0 S.E. 0.47) (P<0.05). Ewe genotype had no effect on any parameter of meat quality measured. The carcasses of lambs sired by Suffolk rams had a higher pHU than lambs sired by Texel rams (5.70 v. 5.65; S.E. 0.014; P<0.05) and hue angle was lower (P<0.05) in Suffolk-sired lambs (32.9°) compared with Texel-sired lambs (35.1°) (S.E. 0.62°). Warner–Bratzler shear force was lower in SRS-sired lambs (2.05 kg/cm2) compared with control-sired lambs (2.36 (S.E. 0.096) kg/cm2; P<0.05). Carcasses from male lambs had a greater cooking loss (217 g/kg) than from female lambs (196 S.E. 5.7 g/kg) (P<0.01) and meat from male lambs had greater values for Warner–Bratzler shear force (2.44 kg/cm2) than from female lambs (1.97 S.E. 0.098 kg/cm2) (P<0.001). Low, but statistically significant (P<0.05) correlations were obtained between carcass fat measurements and meat quality parameters (r = −0.29 for the relationship between cooking loss and fat depth over the gluteus medius P<0.001); r = 0.21 for the relationship between fat classification and C* values P<0.01). When meat quality parameters for each of the fat classes were averaged, significant linear regressions (P<0.05) were obtained between fat classification and pHU, a* and C* values.]]></description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>ANIMALS</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cooking</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Food industries</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genetic improvement</subject><subject>Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution</subject><subject>Genotype & phenotype</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Meat and meat product industries</subject><subject>Meat quality</subject><subject>Population genetics, reproduction patterns</subject><subject>Terrestrial animal productions</subject><subject>Vertebrata</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><issn>0021-8596</issn><issn>1469-5146</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtr3DAUhUVpoNO0P6A7UShdOdVb8rINSZowUEL6yE7I8lXixLYmkod0_n3lztCBhmz0uOc7l8NB6B0lR5RQ_emKEEaNrBVh5cX19Qu0oELVlSznS7SY5WrWX6HXOd8RQjSpzQK1JyGAnzKOAfsUc24StBgeAd_AGKfNCrAbW5zcsB_EEfduaPAAbsIPa9d30waHFAc83QLu42M_W_ItwAqHPvr7N-gguD7D2919iH6cnnw__lotv52dH39eVl5QMVVet0Y0gknpDTChvWpaVWZa1QqC5xIa0TZQG6JNEzgrH18Tzhxt65oFww_Rx-3eVYoPa8iTHbrsoS95IK6z1YLTmilKCvn-P_IurtNYwllGuCZSmxmiW-hvMQmCXaVucGljKbFz6_ZJ68XzYbfYZe_6kNzou7w3CkkkMbpw1Zbr8gS__-ku3VuluZZWnV3an78uLq_5lwu7LDzfZSnNp669gX3i59P8Ae6aoEw</recordid><startdate>20020901</startdate><enddate>20020901</enddate><creator>DAWSON, L. E. R.</creator><creator>CARSON, A. F.</creator><creator>MOSS, B. W.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020901</creationdate><title>Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock</title><author>DAWSON, L. E. R. ; CARSON, A. F. ; MOSS, B. W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-c7d84b4255c8e247c6bd67d87696efc35eb4dbe98078bf324dbc9032a1d992f83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>ANIMALS</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cooking</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Food industries</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genetic improvement</topic><topic>Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution</topic><topic>Genotype & phenotype</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Meat and meat product industries</topic><topic>Meat quality</topic><topic>Population genetics, reproduction patterns</topic><topic>Terrestrial animal productions</topic><topic>Vertebrata</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DAWSON, L. E. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CARSON, A. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOSS, B. W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of agricultural science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DAWSON, L. E. R.</au><au>CARSON, A. F.</au><au>MOSS, B. W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of agricultural science</jtitle><addtitle>J. Agric. Sci</addtitle><date>2002-09-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>139</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>195</spage><epage>204</epage><pages>195-204</pages><issn>0021-8596</issn><eissn>1469-5146</eissn><coden>JASIAB</coden><abstract><![CDATA[A study was carried out on five lowland farms in Northern Ireland over 2 years to investigate the effects of crossbred ewe and ram genotype on lamb meat quality. Four ewe genotypes were sourced from six hill farms – Bluefaced Leicester×Blackface (BLXB), Texel×Blackface (TXB), Suffolk×Cheviot (SXCH) and Texel×Cheviot (TXCH). On each farm groups of 20–30 of each crossbred ewe genotype were crossed with Suffolk or Texel sires. Within each of the ram breeds, high lean growth index rams sourced from UK sire reference schemes (SRS) were compared with rams sourced from flocks not involved in objective genetic improvement programmes (control). Throughout the 2 years of the study the ewes lambed at 1 and 2 years of age. Lambs from each of the crosses were slaughtered at 36, 44 and 52 kg live weight. Meat from lambs slaughtered at 36 kg had lower a* values (15.1) than meat from lambs slaughtered at 52 kg (17.0 S.E. 0.47) (P<0.05). Ewe genotype had no effect on any parameter of meat quality measured. The carcasses of lambs sired by Suffolk rams had a higher pHU than lambs sired by Texel rams (5.70 v. 5.65; S.E. 0.014; P<0.05) and hue angle was lower (P<0.05) in Suffolk-sired lambs (32.9°) compared with Texel-sired lambs (35.1°) (S.E. 0.62°). Warner–Bratzler shear force was lower in SRS-sired lambs (2.05 kg/cm2) compared with control-sired lambs (2.36 (S.E. 0.096) kg/cm2; P<0.05). Carcasses from male lambs had a greater cooking loss (217 g/kg) than from female lambs (196 S.E. 5.7 g/kg) (P<0.01) and meat from male lambs had greater values for Warner–Bratzler shear force (2.44 kg/cm2) than from female lambs (1.97 S.E. 0.098 kg/cm2) (P<0.001). Low, but statistically significant (P<0.05) correlations were obtained between carcass fat measurements and meat quality parameters (r = −0.29 for the relationship between cooking loss and fat depth over the gluteus medius P<0.001); r = 0.21 for the relationship between fat classification and C* values P<0.01). When meat quality parameters for each of the fat classes were averaged, significant linear regressions (P<0.05) were obtained between fat classification and pHU, a* and C* values.]]></abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S002185960200237X</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-8596 |
| ispartof | The Journal of agricultural science, 2002-09, Vol.139 (2), p.195-204 |
| issn | 0021-8596 1469-5146 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743192610 |
| source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Age Agriculture Animal productions ANIMALS Biological and medical sciences Cooking Farms Food industries Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Genetic improvement Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution Genotype & phenotype Genotypes Meat Meat and meat product industries Meat quality Population genetics, reproduction patterns Terrestrial animal productions Vertebrata Vertebrates |
| title | Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A41%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20crossbred%20ewe%20genotype%20and%20ram%20genotype%20on%20lamb%20meat%20quality%20from%20the%20lowland%20sheep%20flock&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20agricultural%20science&rft.au=DAWSON,%20L.%C2%A0E.%C2%A0R.&rft.date=2002-09-01&rft.volume=139&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=195&rft.epage=204&rft.pages=195-204&rft.issn=0021-8596&rft.eissn=1469-5146&rft.coden=JASIAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S002185960200237X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1409642621%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=203705780&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S002185960200237X&rfr_iscdi=true |