Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
The weight of primal meat cuts
The weights of major primal meat cuts are presented in Table 6.5. The average meat yields from the fore- and hindquarter were 28.05 + 0.50 kg and 33.50 + 0.48 kg, respectively. The forequarter, hindquarter and meat cuts were significantly affected (p<0.001) by breeds of cattle. The fore- and hindquarter weight of Barka breed (34.28 + 1.28 kg, 38.88 + 0.33 kg) was heavier than Raya, Arado nd nondescript breeds. The fore- and hindquarter weight of Arado breed (22.93 + 0.75 kg, 27.34 + 0.78 kg) was the lower compared to other breeds studied. The average weight of meat cuts of brisket, chuck, shine, neck, blade, topside, silverside, rump, flank, knuckle, striploin, tenderloin, shank, and rump cup were 4.26 + 0.17, 7.36 + 0.14, 3.05 + 0.12, 5.53 + 0.14, 8.45 + 0.11, 5.96 + 0.09, 5.90 + 0.08, 4.25 + 0.07, 5.71 + 0.12, 3.97 + 0.05, 4.54 + 0.10, 1.63 + 0.03, 1.45 + 0.02 and 1.43 + 0.03 kg, respectively. The meat cuts from the fore- and hindquarter of Barka cattle were relatively heavier than the Arado cattle. The weight of meat cuts from Raya cattle was relatively heavier than the meat cuts from Arado cattle except for shine and rump. The weight of meat cuts form Raya and nondescript breeds was not significantly different. All the meat cuts from nondescript cattle was heavier than the meat cuts from Arado cattle except meat cuts from chuck and shine.
Meat yield predicted from meat cuts
Meat yield predicted from meat cuts are presented in Table 6.6. All meat cuts can significantly (p<0.001) predicted the meat yield. However, the model variances (R2) differ between meat cuts. The accuracy of prediction (R2) of meat yield from the forequarter was between 30.36 and 59.62%. The accuracy of prediction (R2) of meat yield from hindquarters was between 19.72 and 77.86%. The accuracy of prediction (R2) of meat yield from brisket and blade were 58.27% and 59.62%, respectively. The accuracy of prediction (R2) of meat yield from topside and silverside were 77.86% and 75.64%, respectively.
Carcass pH of cattle slaughtered at Abergelle export abattoir
Carcass pH of beef at Abergelle export abattoir is presented in Table 6.7. Based on the carcass pH measurement made on 151 samples, only 31.13% of the total sample had a pH of 5.4-5.7. About 23.18% of the samples had a pH of 5.9-6.4, 7.28% of sample had the less than 5.4 and 38.41% had the pH 5.7-5.9. The effect of years and season is presented in Table 6.8. The average carcass pH in 2011 (6.01 + 0.04) was higher (p<0.001) than the pH in 2012 (5.78 + 0.02). The carcass pH in the dry season (5.86 + 0.02) was higher (p<0.05) than the pH in the wet season (5.73+ 0.04).
Discussions
The average live weight of cattle slaughtered in the abattoirs studied was comparable to the weight of Zebu (309 kg), Sanga (202 kg) and WASH (162 kg) cattle slaughtered at local abattoirs in Ghana (Teye and Sunkwa, 2010). However, live weight was lower than Nguni (324 kg) and Tuli (418 kg) cattle slaughtered in South Africa (Strydom, 2008). The higher live weights of cattle slaughtered at Melgawendo compared to Abergelle abattoir can be due to difference in breeds and body condition of cattle prior to slaughter. Cattle supplied to Melgawendo abattoir was mostly from the Boran breed. This breed was managed in pastoral and agro-pastoral production system. Moreover, a long term improvement program has been going on for the breed since 1960 (Aynalem et al., 2011). However, most cattle slaughtered at Abergelle abattoir were of the Arado, Barka, Raya and nondescript breeds but no Boran cattle. These breeds were managed in mixed crop livestock production system. More than 50% of cattle slaughtered at Melgawendo had an average live weight of 251 to 300 kg while those slaughtered in Abergelle abattoir had an average live weight of 201 to 250 kg. Similar to the present study, Lazzaroni and Biagini (2009) reported a higher proportion (32%) of cattle slaughtered in the north-west of Italy had live weight between 200-300 kg. The relatively higher live weight of cattle slaughtered in the wet season compared to the dry season ight be due to the availability of feed and water which allowed the cattle to be finished in good body condition and higher slaughter weight. A marked difference in live weights between seasons was reported for livestock in Ethiopia (Tolera and Abebe, 2007). The slaughter weight differences between breeds were similarly reported in some other studies (Biagini and Lazzaroni, 2005; Strydom, 2008; Teye and Sunkwa, 2010). A slaughter weight of 268 kg was reported for Boran cattle in Ethiopian similar to the present finding (Aynalem et al., 2011). Moreover, the slaughter weight of Boran cattle in the present study was comparable to the weight of Ogaden bull with out supplement (297.4 kg) and the weight of Zebu cattle in Ghana (Teye and Sunkwa, 2010; Mekasha et al., 2011). The slaughter weights of Barka, Raya and Arado cattle were relatively higher than the weight of Sanga and WASHA cattle in Ghana (Teye and Sunkwa, 2010). The average carcass weight in the present study was comparable to the carcass weight of Boran cattle (98.2-135.2 kg) managed under experimental condition in Ethiopia and Zebu breed (155.9 kg) in Ghana (Lemma et al., 2007; Teye and Sunkwa, 2010). However, it was lower than carcass weight of Ogaden cattle (163-182 kg) managed under experimental condition in Ethiopia and Nguni (181 kg) and Tuli (241 kg) cattle in South Africa (Strydom, 2008; Mekasha et al., 2011). However, it was higher than the carcass weight of WASH (74.1 kg) and Sanga cattle (95.3 kg) in Ghana (Teye and Sunkwa, 2010). The difference in carcass weights between the present study and other studies reported might be due to differences in breeds and environment.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project theme
1.2 Project title
1.3 Aim
1.4 Motivation
2 LITRATURE REVIEW
2.1 Beef industry and constraints in Ethiopia
2.2 Carcass quality
2.3 Live, carcass weight and dressing percentage
2.4 Phenotypic characterstics of cattle in Ethiopia
2.5 Sanitatary condition of the hide
2.6 Design and equipment recommendations for small- to medium-sized abattoirs
2.7 Responsibility of governments to develop laws governing abattoir operations
2.8 Good manufacturing practice for abattoir
2.9 Hazard analysis at critical control points (HACCP)
2.10 Summary
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Study abattoirs
3.2 Data collection
3.3 Statistical analysis
4 ABATTOIRS OPERATIONS, FACILITIES AND MANAGEMENT IN ETHIOPIA
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Results
4.3 Discussion
4.4 Summary
5 SURVEY ON BEEF CARCASS PRODUCTION AND QUALITY IN ETHIOPIA
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Results
5.3 Discussion
5.4 Summary
6 CARCASS YIELD TRAITS OF SELECTED CATTLE BREEDS IN ETHIOPIA
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Results
6.3 Discussions
6.4 Summary
7 CAUSES OF CONDEMNATIONS OF CARCASSES AND ORGANS OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED AT LOCAL AND EXPORT ABATTOIRS IN ETHIOPIA
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Result
7.3 Discussion
7.4 Summary
8 CARCASS QUALITY AUDIT – A STRATEGY TO IMPROVE THE BEEF SECTOR IN ETHIOPIA
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Establishing beef carcass quality audit in Ethiopia
8.3 Summary
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Conclusions
9.2 Recommendations
LIST OF REFERENCES
