- Email: [email protected]
Carcass yield, composition and meat quality attributes of sheep and goat under semiarid conditions
Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Carcass yield, composition and meat quality attributes of sheep and goat under semiarid conditions A.R. Sen, A. Santra, S.A. Karim* Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, 304501, Rajasthan, India Received 23 July 2001; received in revised form 17 January 2003; accepted 18 January 2003
Abstract Carcass composition and meat quality attributes were compared in yearling sheep and goats. After weaning at 3 months of age, the animals were maintained under stall fed condition up to 1 year of age. Throughout the study, the animals were maintained on ad libitum complete feed (50:50 roughage and concentrate). The yearling sheep had higher (P <0.05) pre slaughter weight, hot carcass weight and dressing % than the goats. The muscular development as indicated by loin eye area was significantly (P< 0.01) greater in sheep than goats. In general, total non-carcass fat contents were more in sheep than goats. Similarly, the dissected total fat of half carcass was also more (P< 0.01) in sheep than the goats. Neck and shoulder portion was heavier (P <0.01) in goats than the sheep. Shear force value was greater (P< 0.01) in goats (7.42 kg/cm2) than sheep (3. 74 kg/cm2). Goat meat had more (P< 0.01) moisture and less fat than mutton. In sensory evaluation both the species were rated almost equal in overall palatability scores. The current study showed that dressing yield was higher in sheep than goats. But goat yielded leaner carcass which is desirable for the calorie concern consumers. It was also revealed that meat from goat carcasses was tougher than mutton. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Carcass traits; Goat; Meat quality; Sheep; Stall feeding
1. Introduction Small ruminant sector play an important role in the economy of India with annual contribution of about Rs. 24,000 million to rural and Rs. 80,000 million to national economy. Sheep and goats are considered important tools for the development of rural economy as estimated five million families are engaged in various activities related to rearing of sheep and goats and utilizing their products. The country possesses 23.53% of world sheep and goat population ranking first in goat and fifth in sheep population (Agnihotri, 1998). Sheep are important meat producing animals worldwide whereas goats are more important meat animals in the tropics, including India. However, in our country, the meat consumption pattern is entirely different to those in developed countries. Majority of Indian consumers prefer goat meat while mutton is an alternate source of meat, some times used as an adulterant in goat meat. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1437-28143; fax: +91-1437220163. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Karim). 0309-1740/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00035-4
Growth and development of the animals is the basis for meat production whereas amount and site of fat in the carcass influences its quality (Mahgoub & Lu, 1998). Carcass yield and distribution of carcass tissues have been well studied in sheep (Butterfield, 1988; Farid, 1991) and goat (Hogg, Mercer, Mortimer, Kirton, & Duganzich, 1992; Johnson, McGowan, Nurse, & Anous, 1995). A limited study comparing carcass composition of sheep and goats have appeared in literature (Babikem, El Khiderml, & Shafie, 1990; Gaili & Ali, 1985a; Mahgoub & Lodge, 1998) while these studies have been carried out in temperate locations on improved breeds under different grazing and feeding protocol. Very little is known on carcass and meat quality of sheep and goats raised using locally available feed resources in semiarid region. Carcass characteristics of 6 month old male sheep and goat have been extensively studied in India (Karim, 2000) while such information is lacking in yearling stock. Therefore, this study was designed to compare carcass yield, composition and meat quality of yearling sheep and goats for efficient utilization of both species for meat production potential.
758
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Location The experiment was conducted at Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, India located at 75 280 E latitude and 26 170 N longitude, 320 m above mean sea level. The climatic condition of the location is typical hot and semiarid. 2.2. Animals and feeding management Twelve each of female weaner lambs and kids were maintained on 50:50 roughage (Zizyphus nummularia) leaves and concentrate based complete feed. Prior to initiation of the growth study, the lambs and kids were maintained with their dams and in addition to free suckling, grazed on mixed common pasture during cooler parts of the day. After weaning at 3 months, the lambs/kids were maintained under stall fed condition up to 1 year of age. The physical and chemical composition of the feed is presented in Table 1. Weighed quantity of the feed was offered to the lambs and kids once daily at 09:00 h and residue of the previous day’s offer, if any, was weighed back next day and discarded before fresh feed offer. The feeding experiment was continued till 1 year of lamb/kid age followed by the slaughter study. The feed conversion ratio was calculated as kg feed consumed/kg body weight gain. 2.3. Slaughter and carcass evaluation Feed was withheld overnight with free access to water and animals were slaughtered in the experimental abattoir by Halal method. After slaughter, the head was removed at the atlanto-occipital joint and fore and hind feet removed at the carpal and tarsal joints, respectively. The animals were partially skinned lying on their back on the floor. Thereafter, the animals were suspended by the hind legs for further skinning. Carcass and noncarcass components were weighed immediately after slaughter and carcasses were chilled at 4 C. Lungs, trachea and heart were weighed as one piece and designated as pluck. Non-carcass components included head, skin, feet, digestive tract, liver, spleen, pancreas and pluck. Weight of digestive contents was computed as the
Table 1 Chemical composition of feeds (on % dry matter basis) Attributes
OM CP
difference between full and empty digestive tract. The empty live weight (ELW) was computed as the difference between slaughter weight and weight of digesta content. Kidney, omental, pelvic and mesenteric fats were separated and weighed. The GR measurement was taken by the procedure of Kirton, Woods, and Duganzich (1984). Back fat thickness was measured on 12th rib and fat thickness assessed at three sites on the location by metal ruler. The dressed carcass was then split into fore and hind quarters and loin eye area (cm2) was recorded on the cut surface of M. longissimus dorsi at the interface of 12th and 13th rib, on both side of the carcass. The carcass was then split along the vertebral column into left and right halves using a band saw. The left half was cut into leg, loin, rack, neck and shoulder and breast and fore shank as per ISI (1963) specifications. The composition (Lean, subcutaneous and inter muscular fat and bone content) of the over night chilled cuts was carried out by manual dissection and percent distribution was calculated on the basis of chilled (4 C) carcass weight. 2.4. Meat quality evaluation M. longissimus dorsi was collected within 20 min of slaughter, trimmed of fat and chilled at 4 C and analyzed for meat quality traits. The pH was recorded 45 min after carcass dressing (pH45) using a digital pH meter and subsequently pH (pHu) of minced meat samples was recorded at 24 h post mortem. Waterholding capacity (WHC) was estimated by filter paper pressing technique in screw plates (Trout, 1988). Cook loss% was determined by weight loss after cooking of meat for 1 h in water bath at 80 C (Babikerm et al., 1990). The shear force value of cooked meat samples was determined by Warner–Bratzler shear press (Chrystall et al., 1994). Drip loss was evaluated on raw meat after slaughter and it was expressed as percentage loss keeping the meat samples at 4 C for 24 h in a refrigerator under polyethylene sealed covers. Proximate composition of M. longissimus dorsi was determined on fresh muscle samples according to AOAC (1984). The sensory evaluation of cooked meat (20 min in a boiling water bath with 0.5% salt) samples for color, odor, juiciness, tenderness and overall palatability was performed by a taste panel consisting of 10 panelists using 5 point scale (5=excellent, 1=very poor). All these traits were evaluated by the panelists and data were recorded based on their preference (like/dislike) for the samples. 2.5. Statistical analysis
NDF ADF Cellulose Lignin
Composite feed 87.4 16.8 49.3 Pala(Ziziphus nummularia) 80.7 11.7 62.4
26.6 50.1
20.2 21.9
6.1 13.7
The data on all the carcass and meat quality traits were subjected to analysis of variance (Snedecor & Cochran, 1968).
759
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Table 2 Growth performance of sheep and goats Traits
Initial body weight (kg) Final body weight (kg) Total body weight gain (kg) Average daily gain (g) Total feed consumed (kg) FCRb
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
10.01 25.80 15.8 57.40 135.0 8.5
0.40 3.58 0.41 11.67 8.11 0.38
9.90 20.80 10.9 39.64 104.6 9.6
0.51 1.26 0.27 4.96 6.37 0.28
NSa * ** ** ** *
a
NS, non significant. FCR, feed consumed (kg) for 1 kg body weight gain. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01. b
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Growth and feed conversion efficiency Initial body weight of lambs and kids was similar while the finishing body weight was higher (P < 0.05) in lambs than the kids (Table 2). The performance of kids in terms of body growth and feed conversion ratio (total feed intake/total body weight gain during the experiment) was relatively poor than the lambs. It is realized that goats are predominantly browsers and highly selective in feeding behavior under extensive range management (Devendra, 1989) and hence stall feeding possibly influenced their feed selection and consumption. The experimental design in the present study had inherent limitation of confinement in stall feeding which could have contributed to lower feed intake and growth rate of kids. 3.2. Carcass characteristics Antemortem and postmortem examination of sheep and goat and their carcasses did not show any marked abnormality. The yields of different quantitative carcass characteristics are presented in Table 3. The yearling sheep had higher (P < 0.05) slaughter weight (28.54 kg), empty live weight (26.65 kg), hot carcass weight (14.88 kg) and dressing out% (52.14) than the goats (20.46, 18.75, 10.09 kg and 49.02%, respectively). However, the dressing yield expressed in terms of empty live weight was found to be non significant with same tendency in the two species. Sheep also had heavier skins than the goats. The sheep were not shorn before slaughter hence their higher skin weight was partly contributed by fleece weight. The finding is in agreement with the observation of Mahgoub and Lodge (1998) in Omani sheep and goats. Higher dressing yield of sheep in the current study was possibly due to their higher pre slaughter weight or relative fatness of the carcass. Further, although statistically non significant, the weight of GI
tract with respect to live weight was relatively higher in goats (16%) than the sheep (13%) which could have contributed to dressing yield differences. There are contradicting reports on dressing percentage in sheep compared with goats. Riley, Savell, Shelton, and Smith (1989) reported lower dressing out percentage for goats than sheep, whereas Naude and Hofmeyr (1981) reported higher dressing out in Boer goats than Merino sheep. Apparently these discrepancies arose from comparing sheep and goats raised under different feeding systems and subjected to variable periods of fasting prior to slaughter. On the other hand, the weight of head, liver and heart did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between the two species. The muscular development as indicated by loin eye area was significantly (P < 0.01) greater in sheep as compared with goats which could be due to their higher pre slaughter weight as larger carcasses invariably have grater eye muscle area. The depot (non carcass) fat distribution of sheep and goats is presented in Table 4. In general, sheep exhibited tendency for higher total non carcass fat deposition than the goats. The profile of fat deposition in the two species indicated that the sheep deposit relatively more (P < 0.05) depot fat than the goats, particularly as pelvic fat. The observed difference could be either due to species difference or a reflection of unfavorable stall feeding condition for goats. Similarly dissected total fat % of half carcass was more (P < 0.0l) in sheep than the goats (Table 5). In this study better dressing out % in sheep may also be due to this higher carcass fat contents. Excess carcass fat is less desirable as it reduces feed conversion efficiency and needs to be trimmed, thereby reducing carcass value. The present result also indicated that goats tend to have more carcass lean and bone % than sheep. Although the proportional yield of meat was higher in goats, the body condition in terms of muscling was inferior in them especially when compared in relation to bone yield. The current study confirmed reports that goat carcass is leaner than sheep (Devendra
760
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
Table 3 Carcass composition of sheep and goat Traits
Sheep
Pre slaughter weight (kg) Empty live weight (kg) Hot carcass weight (kg) Dressing % (LW basis) Dressing % (ELW basis) Tissue weight (as % of pre slaughter weight) Blood Head Skin Hind cannon Fore cannon Pluck Liver Heart GI tract (full) GI tract (empty) Loin eye area (cm2) GR measurement (mm) Back fat thickness (mm)
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
28.54 26.65 14.88 52.14 55.78
3.55 3.24 1.85 0.31 0.32
20.46 18.75 10.09 49.02 53.50
1.20 1.12 0.89 1.34 1.43
* * * * NSa
3.05 5.68 12.23 1.05 0.87 2.73 1.19 0.42 13.14 6.52 14.48 13.50 10.20
0.28 0.28 1.16 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.03 1.96 0.87 1.30 1.82 1.21
3.71 5.62 9.53 1.66 1.27 2.15 1.32 0.39 15.98 7.62 9.21 10.7. 7.90
0.34 0.58 0.64 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.78 0.34 0.85 0.90 0.90
NS NS ** NS NS *** NS NS NS NS ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01. *** P <0.001.
& Burns, 1983; Naude & Hofmeyr, 1981). It is therefore possible that goat meat satisfies the increasing consumer preference for lean meat more than mutton. Subcutaneous fat was poorly developed in both species. Gaili and Ali (1985a) also reported similar findings in Sudan desert sheep and goats. The underlying cause of this finding is probably adaptation to the hot semiarid conditions. It is established that the adapted tropical breed in order to facilitate thermolysis by cutaneous evaporative cooling deposit more fat in the viscera rather than in the subcutaneous region. However, on comparing meat to bone ratio of sheep and goats, the advantages of goat over sheep carcass became less evident due to higher proportion of bone in goat carcass. Species difference for wholesale cuts as a percentage of chilled half carcass tended to be small and mostly Table 4 Fat distribution of sheep and goat (% of pre slaughter weight) Traits
Kidney fat Omental fat Pelvic fat Mesentric fat Total non carcass fat a
Sheep
Goat
Mean SE
Mean SE
2.94 3.92 0.21 1.65 8.72
1.61 2.98 0.15 2.00 6.74
NS, non significant. * P <0.05.
1.15 0.98 0.03 0.35 2.20
Level of significance
0.29 0.53 0.01 0.19 0.92
NSa NS * NS NS
non significant (Table 5). Neck and shoulder portion was heavier (P < 0.01) in goats than sheep. Lean, fat and bone contents in individual cuts are presented Table 6. The fat content in individual cuts also reflected the same result (sheep > goat) as in total carcass fat. Irrespective of species, the leg cut had highest proportion of lean and loin cut had highest proportion of fat. In breast and fore shank cut, the lean content was significantly (P < 0.01) more in goats than sheep however, the fat contents showed the reverse trend. The goat carcass had proportionally more weight distributed in neck and shoulder while muscle content of the cut was non significantly different in the two species. Further, the cut proportion for breast and fore shank was non significant in sheep and goats while muscle content was significantly (P < 0.01) higher in goats than sheep. The observed differences in cut proportions and their content in neck and shoulder and breast and fore shank is either a species difference or the posture adopted by the two species while grazing. Goats in semiarid and arid region mainly subsist on browsing shrubs and trees requiring erect and extended neck posture with bipedal stance (Bhatta, Sankhyan, Shinde, & Verma, 2001) which could have contributed to the observed difference. The lean content of loin and rack cuts was more (P < 0.01) in goats than the sheep while the fat content was more in sheep than the goats (Table 6). Mahgoub and Lodge (1998) also reported that the sheep tend to deposit more carcass and depot fat than the goats.
761
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Table 5 Primal cut yield and half carcass composition of sheep and goat (%) Traits
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Leg Loin Rack Neck and shoulder Breast and fore shank
28.54 15.12 14.88 22.97 18.49
0.44 0.85 0.49 0.54 0.69
28.19 13.43 13.71 26.20 18.46
0.73 0.61 0.68 0.71 0.59
NSa NS NS ** NS
Total separable carcass (%) Lean Bone Total fat Subcutaneous fat Intermuscular fat
59.14 13.51 27.35 34.23 65.66
2.64 0.77 3.10 4.30 4.31
68.39 17.55 14.08 37.59 62.40
1.35 1.07 0.67 2.69 2.70
* * ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
(Shackelford, Morgan, Cross, & Savell, 1991). The species difference in carcass fat content could have contributed to the observed difference in tenderness. Such changes could also be due to species differences as goat meat is reported to have thicker muscle fibers (Gaili & Ali, 1985b). The goat meat had significantly (P < 0.001) more moisture and less fat than mutton (Table 7). This result is in close agreement with the findings of Babikerm et al. (1990). Goats, unlike sheep deposit more fat around the visceral organs than in the carcass
3.3. Meat quality attributes Data presented in Table 7 show the physico- chemical attributes of sheep and goat meat. There was no significant (P > 0.05) difference in pH, WHC% and cook loss% of sheep and goat meat. Shear force value (kg/ cm2) was however, significantly (P < 0.01) higher in goat (7.42) than the sheep (3.74). WBS values exceeding 5.5 kg would often be considered as objectionably tough both by a trained sensory panel and the consumers Table 6 Lean, fat and bone content of individual cuts in sheep and goats (%) Cut
Traits
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Leg
Lean Fat Bone
74.88 12.05 13.06
1.21 1.18 0.53
76.77 6.93 16.30
2.06 l.32 1 46
NSa ** NS
Loin
Lean Fat Bone
40.32 51.15 8.53
6.21 6.82 1.04
62.36 26.83 10.81
2.75 2.02 1.20
** ** NS
Rack
Lean Fat Bone
50.35 36.49 13.16
4.29 5.47 1.58
67.13 14.93 18.84
4.01 3.34 2.14
** ** NS
Neck and shoulder
Lean Fat Bone
63.56 20.21 16.23
1.28 1.12 0.52
65.70 12.71 21.55
2.64 1.32 1.43
NS ** *
Breast and fore shank
Lean Fat Bone
52.39 32.37 15.62
5.47 5.55 1.31
64.32 18.02 17.65
1.18 0.74 0.96
** ** NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
762
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
Table 7 Physico-chemical attributes of sheep and goat meat Traits
Sheep
pH45 pHu WHC (%) Cook loss (%) Shear force value (kg/cm2) Drip loss (%) Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%)
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.93 5.46 59.50 20.74 3.74 3.86 68.85 8.47 21.02
0.09 0.02 3.79 2.46 0.30 1.01 0.73 0.79 0.93
5.88 5.48 57.03 22.67 7.42 3.46 74.23 3.16 20.38
0.07 0.02 3.09 2.76 0.39 0.89 0.53 0.71 1.07
NSa NS NS NS *** NS *** *** NS
a
NS, non significant. *** P <0.001.
Acknowledgements
Table 8 Organoleptic attributes of sheep and goat meat Traits
Color Odor Tenderness Juiciness Overall palatability
Sheep
Goat
Mean SE
Mean SE
3.87 3.87 4.25 3.87 3.75
4.50 4.00 3.37 3.87 3.87
0.22 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.25
Level of significance
0.19 0.26 0.18 0.22 0.22
* NSa ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
(Mahgoub & Lodge, 1998), a fact which substantiates the earlier findings. However, protein content was similar in the meat from the two species. The color (visual appeal) of cooked goat meat was rated significantly (P < 0.05) better than mutton (Table 8), which was reflection of darker red color of fresh goat meat. Odor and juiciness scores were however rated to be similar between the two species. In tenderness score, mutton was rated significantly (P < 0.01) superior than goat meat. This sensory tenderness score is direct reflection of the shear force values. Lastly, in overall palatability score, both the species were rated almost equal.
4. Conclusion The current study showed that dressing yield was higher in sheep than goats. The goats yielded leaner carcasses and that the meat from goat carcasses was tougher than mutton. Further, goat M. Longissimus dorsi had low fat content indicating it to be a low fat nutritious red meat. Additionally the goat because of experimental limitation of stall feeding did not adapt well which contributed to their lower carcass fat.
Authors are thankful to the Director, CSWRI, Avikanagar for providing necessary facilities. The technical assistance by Mr. M. Nasimuddin is also acknowledged.
References Agnihotri, M. K. (1998). Production, processing and marketing of meat and meat products in India. Lead paper. In Golden Jubilee Seminar on ‘‘Sheep, goat and rabbit production and utilization’’, Jaipur, India 24–26 April (pp. 150–154). AOAC. (1984). Official methods of analysis (14th ed.). Washington DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Babikerm, S. A., Elkhiderml, A., & Shafie, S. A. (1990). Chemical composition and quality attributes of goat meat and lamb. Meat Science, 28, 273–277. Bhatta, R., Sankhyan, S. K., Shinde, A. K., & Verma, D. L. (2001). Seasonal changes in diet selectivity and grazing behavior of goats on semiarid rangeland. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 71, 62–65. Butterfield, R. M. (1988). New concepts of sheep growth. Australia: Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Sydney. Chrystall, B. B., Culioli, J., Demeyer, D., Honikel, K. O., Moller, A. J., Purslow, P., Schwagele, F., Shorthose, R., & Uytterhaegen. L. (1994). Recommendation of reference methods for assessment of meat tenderness. In Proceeding of 40th Annual International Congress of Meat Science Technology (S-V06). Devendra, C., & Burns, M. (1983). Goat production in the tropics (Technical communication no. 19). Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Farid, A. (1991). Carcass and chemical composition of three fat-tailed breeds of sheep. Meat Science, 29, 109–120. Gaili, E. S., & Ali, A. E. (1985a). Meat from Sudan desert sheep and goats: part 1—carcass yield, offal and distribution of carcass tissues. Meat Science, 13, 217–227. Gaili, E. S., & Ali, A. E. (1985b). Meat from Sudan desert sheep and goats: part 11—composition of muscular and fatty tissues. Meat Science, 13, 229–236. Hogg, B. W., Mercer, G. J. K., Mortimer, B. J., Kirton, A. H., & Duganzich, D. M. (1992). Carcass and meat quality attributes of commercial of goats in New Zealand. Small Ruminant Research, 8, 243–256. ISI. (1963). Indian Standard specification for mutton and goat flesh.
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Fresh, chilled and frozen (IS2536). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standard Institution. Johnson, D. D., McGowan, C. H., Nurse, G., & Anous, M. R. (1995). Breed type and sex effects on carcass traits, composition and tenderness of young goats. Small Ruminant Research, 17, 57–63. Karim, S. A. (2000). Feeding small ruminants for meat and wool production. In Proceedings of National Workshop on ‘‘Animal Nutrition in Health and Disease’’, 17–19 February, Veterinary College, University of Agricultural Science. Bangalore, India. Kirton, A. H., Woods, E. G., & Duganzich, D. M. (1984). Predicting the fatness of lamb carcasses from carcass wall thickness measured by ruler or by a total depth indicator (TDI) probe. Livestock Production Science, 11, 185–194. Mahgoub, O., & Lodge, G. A. (1998). A Comparative study on growth, body composition and carcass tissue distribution in Omani sheep and goats. Journal of Agricultural Science (Camb.), 131, 329–339.
763
Mahgoub, O., & Lu, C. D. (1998). Growth, body composition and carcass tissue distribution in goats of large and small sizes. Small Ruminant Research, 27, 267–278. Naude, R. T., & Hofmeyr, H. S. (1981). Meat production. In C. Gall (Ed.), Goat Production (pp. 285–307). London: Academic press. Riley, R. R., Savell, J. W., Shelton, M., & Smith, G. C. (1989). Carcass and offal yields of sheep and goats as influenced by market class and breed. Small Ruminant Research, 2, 265–272. Shackelford, S. D., Morgan, J. B., Cross, H. R., & Savell, J. W. (1991). Identification of threshold levels for Warner Bratzler shear press in beef top loin steaks. Journal of Muscle Foods, 2, 289–296. Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1968). Statistical methods (6th ed.). Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Trout, G. R. (1998). Techniques for measuring water binding capacity in muscle foods—a review of methodology. Meat Science, 23, 235– 252.
Carcass yield, composition and meat quality attributes of sheep and goat under semiarid conditions A.R. Sen, A. Santra, S.A. Karim* Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, 304501, Rajasthan, India Received 23 July 2001; received in revised form 17 January 2003; accepted 18 January 2003
Abstract Carcass composition and meat quality attributes were compared in yearling sheep and goats. After weaning at 3 months of age, the animals were maintained under stall fed condition up to 1 year of age. Throughout the study, the animals were maintained on ad libitum complete feed (50:50 roughage and concentrate). The yearling sheep had higher (P <0.05) pre slaughter weight, hot carcass weight and dressing % than the goats. The muscular development as indicated by loin eye area was significantly (P< 0.01) greater in sheep than goats. In general, total non-carcass fat contents were more in sheep than goats. Similarly, the dissected total fat of half carcass was also more (P< 0.01) in sheep than the goats. Neck and shoulder portion was heavier (P <0.01) in goats than the sheep. Shear force value was greater (P< 0.01) in goats (7.42 kg/cm2) than sheep (3. 74 kg/cm2). Goat meat had more (P< 0.01) moisture and less fat than mutton. In sensory evaluation both the species were rated almost equal in overall palatability scores. The current study showed that dressing yield was higher in sheep than goats. But goat yielded leaner carcass which is desirable for the calorie concern consumers. It was also revealed that meat from goat carcasses was tougher than mutton. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Carcass traits; Goat; Meat quality; Sheep; Stall feeding
1. Introduction Small ruminant sector play an important role in the economy of India with annual contribution of about Rs. 24,000 million to rural and Rs. 80,000 million to national economy. Sheep and goats are considered important tools for the development of rural economy as estimated five million families are engaged in various activities related to rearing of sheep and goats and utilizing their products. The country possesses 23.53% of world sheep and goat population ranking first in goat and fifth in sheep population (Agnihotri, 1998). Sheep are important meat producing animals worldwide whereas goats are more important meat animals in the tropics, including India. However, in our country, the meat consumption pattern is entirely different to those in developed countries. Majority of Indian consumers prefer goat meat while mutton is an alternate source of meat, some times used as an adulterant in goat meat. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1437-28143; fax: +91-1437220163. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Karim). 0309-1740/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00035-4
Growth and development of the animals is the basis for meat production whereas amount and site of fat in the carcass influences its quality (Mahgoub & Lu, 1998). Carcass yield and distribution of carcass tissues have been well studied in sheep (Butterfield, 1988; Farid, 1991) and goat (Hogg, Mercer, Mortimer, Kirton, & Duganzich, 1992; Johnson, McGowan, Nurse, & Anous, 1995). A limited study comparing carcass composition of sheep and goats have appeared in literature (Babikem, El Khiderml, & Shafie, 1990; Gaili & Ali, 1985a; Mahgoub & Lodge, 1998) while these studies have been carried out in temperate locations on improved breeds under different grazing and feeding protocol. Very little is known on carcass and meat quality of sheep and goats raised using locally available feed resources in semiarid region. Carcass characteristics of 6 month old male sheep and goat have been extensively studied in India (Karim, 2000) while such information is lacking in yearling stock. Therefore, this study was designed to compare carcass yield, composition and meat quality of yearling sheep and goats for efficient utilization of both species for meat production potential.
758
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Location The experiment was conducted at Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, India located at 75 280 E latitude and 26 170 N longitude, 320 m above mean sea level. The climatic condition of the location is typical hot and semiarid. 2.2. Animals and feeding management Twelve each of female weaner lambs and kids were maintained on 50:50 roughage (Zizyphus nummularia) leaves and concentrate based complete feed. Prior to initiation of the growth study, the lambs and kids were maintained with their dams and in addition to free suckling, grazed on mixed common pasture during cooler parts of the day. After weaning at 3 months, the lambs/kids were maintained under stall fed condition up to 1 year of age. The physical and chemical composition of the feed is presented in Table 1. Weighed quantity of the feed was offered to the lambs and kids once daily at 09:00 h and residue of the previous day’s offer, if any, was weighed back next day and discarded before fresh feed offer. The feeding experiment was continued till 1 year of lamb/kid age followed by the slaughter study. The feed conversion ratio was calculated as kg feed consumed/kg body weight gain. 2.3. Slaughter and carcass evaluation Feed was withheld overnight with free access to water and animals were slaughtered in the experimental abattoir by Halal method. After slaughter, the head was removed at the atlanto-occipital joint and fore and hind feet removed at the carpal and tarsal joints, respectively. The animals were partially skinned lying on their back on the floor. Thereafter, the animals were suspended by the hind legs for further skinning. Carcass and noncarcass components were weighed immediately after slaughter and carcasses were chilled at 4 C. Lungs, trachea and heart were weighed as one piece and designated as pluck. Non-carcass components included head, skin, feet, digestive tract, liver, spleen, pancreas and pluck. Weight of digestive contents was computed as the
Table 1 Chemical composition of feeds (on % dry matter basis) Attributes
OM CP
difference between full and empty digestive tract. The empty live weight (ELW) was computed as the difference between slaughter weight and weight of digesta content. Kidney, omental, pelvic and mesenteric fats were separated and weighed. The GR measurement was taken by the procedure of Kirton, Woods, and Duganzich (1984). Back fat thickness was measured on 12th rib and fat thickness assessed at three sites on the location by metal ruler. The dressed carcass was then split into fore and hind quarters and loin eye area (cm2) was recorded on the cut surface of M. longissimus dorsi at the interface of 12th and 13th rib, on both side of the carcass. The carcass was then split along the vertebral column into left and right halves using a band saw. The left half was cut into leg, loin, rack, neck and shoulder and breast and fore shank as per ISI (1963) specifications. The composition (Lean, subcutaneous and inter muscular fat and bone content) of the over night chilled cuts was carried out by manual dissection and percent distribution was calculated on the basis of chilled (4 C) carcass weight. 2.4. Meat quality evaluation M. longissimus dorsi was collected within 20 min of slaughter, trimmed of fat and chilled at 4 C and analyzed for meat quality traits. The pH was recorded 45 min after carcass dressing (pH45) using a digital pH meter and subsequently pH (pHu) of minced meat samples was recorded at 24 h post mortem. Waterholding capacity (WHC) was estimated by filter paper pressing technique in screw plates (Trout, 1988). Cook loss% was determined by weight loss after cooking of meat for 1 h in water bath at 80 C (Babikerm et al., 1990). The shear force value of cooked meat samples was determined by Warner–Bratzler shear press (Chrystall et al., 1994). Drip loss was evaluated on raw meat after slaughter and it was expressed as percentage loss keeping the meat samples at 4 C for 24 h in a refrigerator under polyethylene sealed covers. Proximate composition of M. longissimus dorsi was determined on fresh muscle samples according to AOAC (1984). The sensory evaluation of cooked meat (20 min in a boiling water bath with 0.5% salt) samples for color, odor, juiciness, tenderness and overall palatability was performed by a taste panel consisting of 10 panelists using 5 point scale (5=excellent, 1=very poor). All these traits were evaluated by the panelists and data were recorded based on their preference (like/dislike) for the samples. 2.5. Statistical analysis
NDF ADF Cellulose Lignin
Composite feed 87.4 16.8 49.3 Pala(Ziziphus nummularia) 80.7 11.7 62.4
26.6 50.1
20.2 21.9
6.1 13.7
The data on all the carcass and meat quality traits were subjected to analysis of variance (Snedecor & Cochran, 1968).
759
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Table 2 Growth performance of sheep and goats Traits
Initial body weight (kg) Final body weight (kg) Total body weight gain (kg) Average daily gain (g) Total feed consumed (kg) FCRb
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
10.01 25.80 15.8 57.40 135.0 8.5
0.40 3.58 0.41 11.67 8.11 0.38
9.90 20.80 10.9 39.64 104.6 9.6
0.51 1.26 0.27 4.96 6.37 0.28
NSa * ** ** ** *
a
NS, non significant. FCR, feed consumed (kg) for 1 kg body weight gain. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01. b
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Growth and feed conversion efficiency Initial body weight of lambs and kids was similar while the finishing body weight was higher (P < 0.05) in lambs than the kids (Table 2). The performance of kids in terms of body growth and feed conversion ratio (total feed intake/total body weight gain during the experiment) was relatively poor than the lambs. It is realized that goats are predominantly browsers and highly selective in feeding behavior under extensive range management (Devendra, 1989) and hence stall feeding possibly influenced their feed selection and consumption. The experimental design in the present study had inherent limitation of confinement in stall feeding which could have contributed to lower feed intake and growth rate of kids. 3.2. Carcass characteristics Antemortem and postmortem examination of sheep and goat and their carcasses did not show any marked abnormality. The yields of different quantitative carcass characteristics are presented in Table 3. The yearling sheep had higher (P < 0.05) slaughter weight (28.54 kg), empty live weight (26.65 kg), hot carcass weight (14.88 kg) and dressing out% (52.14) than the goats (20.46, 18.75, 10.09 kg and 49.02%, respectively). However, the dressing yield expressed in terms of empty live weight was found to be non significant with same tendency in the two species. Sheep also had heavier skins than the goats. The sheep were not shorn before slaughter hence their higher skin weight was partly contributed by fleece weight. The finding is in agreement with the observation of Mahgoub and Lodge (1998) in Omani sheep and goats. Higher dressing yield of sheep in the current study was possibly due to their higher pre slaughter weight or relative fatness of the carcass. Further, although statistically non significant, the weight of GI
tract with respect to live weight was relatively higher in goats (16%) than the sheep (13%) which could have contributed to dressing yield differences. There are contradicting reports on dressing percentage in sheep compared with goats. Riley, Savell, Shelton, and Smith (1989) reported lower dressing out percentage for goats than sheep, whereas Naude and Hofmeyr (1981) reported higher dressing out in Boer goats than Merino sheep. Apparently these discrepancies arose from comparing sheep and goats raised under different feeding systems and subjected to variable periods of fasting prior to slaughter. On the other hand, the weight of head, liver and heart did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between the two species. The muscular development as indicated by loin eye area was significantly (P < 0.01) greater in sheep as compared with goats which could be due to their higher pre slaughter weight as larger carcasses invariably have grater eye muscle area. The depot (non carcass) fat distribution of sheep and goats is presented in Table 4. In general, sheep exhibited tendency for higher total non carcass fat deposition than the goats. The profile of fat deposition in the two species indicated that the sheep deposit relatively more (P < 0.05) depot fat than the goats, particularly as pelvic fat. The observed difference could be either due to species difference or a reflection of unfavorable stall feeding condition for goats. Similarly dissected total fat % of half carcass was more (P < 0.0l) in sheep than the goats (Table 5). In this study better dressing out % in sheep may also be due to this higher carcass fat contents. Excess carcass fat is less desirable as it reduces feed conversion efficiency and needs to be trimmed, thereby reducing carcass value. The present result also indicated that goats tend to have more carcass lean and bone % than sheep. Although the proportional yield of meat was higher in goats, the body condition in terms of muscling was inferior in them especially when compared in relation to bone yield. The current study confirmed reports that goat carcass is leaner than sheep (Devendra
760
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
Table 3 Carcass composition of sheep and goat Traits
Sheep
Pre slaughter weight (kg) Empty live weight (kg) Hot carcass weight (kg) Dressing % (LW basis) Dressing % (ELW basis) Tissue weight (as % of pre slaughter weight) Blood Head Skin Hind cannon Fore cannon Pluck Liver Heart GI tract (full) GI tract (empty) Loin eye area (cm2) GR measurement (mm) Back fat thickness (mm)
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
28.54 26.65 14.88 52.14 55.78
3.55 3.24 1.85 0.31 0.32
20.46 18.75 10.09 49.02 53.50
1.20 1.12 0.89 1.34 1.43
* * * * NSa
3.05 5.68 12.23 1.05 0.87 2.73 1.19 0.42 13.14 6.52 14.48 13.50 10.20
0.28 0.28 1.16 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.03 1.96 0.87 1.30 1.82 1.21
3.71 5.62 9.53 1.66 1.27 2.15 1.32 0.39 15.98 7.62 9.21 10.7. 7.90
0.34 0.58 0.64 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.78 0.34 0.85 0.90 0.90
NS NS ** NS NS *** NS NS NS NS ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01. *** P <0.001.
& Burns, 1983; Naude & Hofmeyr, 1981). It is therefore possible that goat meat satisfies the increasing consumer preference for lean meat more than mutton. Subcutaneous fat was poorly developed in both species. Gaili and Ali (1985a) also reported similar findings in Sudan desert sheep and goats. The underlying cause of this finding is probably adaptation to the hot semiarid conditions. It is established that the adapted tropical breed in order to facilitate thermolysis by cutaneous evaporative cooling deposit more fat in the viscera rather than in the subcutaneous region. However, on comparing meat to bone ratio of sheep and goats, the advantages of goat over sheep carcass became less evident due to higher proportion of bone in goat carcass. Species difference for wholesale cuts as a percentage of chilled half carcass tended to be small and mostly Table 4 Fat distribution of sheep and goat (% of pre slaughter weight) Traits
Kidney fat Omental fat Pelvic fat Mesentric fat Total non carcass fat a
Sheep
Goat
Mean SE
Mean SE
2.94 3.92 0.21 1.65 8.72
1.61 2.98 0.15 2.00 6.74
NS, non significant. * P <0.05.
1.15 0.98 0.03 0.35 2.20
Level of significance
0.29 0.53 0.01 0.19 0.92
NSa NS * NS NS
non significant (Table 5). Neck and shoulder portion was heavier (P < 0.01) in goats than sheep. Lean, fat and bone contents in individual cuts are presented Table 6. The fat content in individual cuts also reflected the same result (sheep > goat) as in total carcass fat. Irrespective of species, the leg cut had highest proportion of lean and loin cut had highest proportion of fat. In breast and fore shank cut, the lean content was significantly (P < 0.01) more in goats than sheep however, the fat contents showed the reverse trend. The goat carcass had proportionally more weight distributed in neck and shoulder while muscle content of the cut was non significantly different in the two species. Further, the cut proportion for breast and fore shank was non significant in sheep and goats while muscle content was significantly (P < 0.01) higher in goats than sheep. The observed differences in cut proportions and their content in neck and shoulder and breast and fore shank is either a species difference or the posture adopted by the two species while grazing. Goats in semiarid and arid region mainly subsist on browsing shrubs and trees requiring erect and extended neck posture with bipedal stance (Bhatta, Sankhyan, Shinde, & Verma, 2001) which could have contributed to the observed difference. The lean content of loin and rack cuts was more (P < 0.01) in goats than the sheep while the fat content was more in sheep than the goats (Table 6). Mahgoub and Lodge (1998) also reported that the sheep tend to deposit more carcass and depot fat than the goats.
761
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Table 5 Primal cut yield and half carcass composition of sheep and goat (%) Traits
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Leg Loin Rack Neck and shoulder Breast and fore shank
28.54 15.12 14.88 22.97 18.49
0.44 0.85 0.49 0.54 0.69
28.19 13.43 13.71 26.20 18.46
0.73 0.61 0.68 0.71 0.59
NSa NS NS ** NS
Total separable carcass (%) Lean Bone Total fat Subcutaneous fat Intermuscular fat
59.14 13.51 27.35 34.23 65.66
2.64 0.77 3.10 4.30 4.31
68.39 17.55 14.08 37.59 62.40
1.35 1.07 0.67 2.69 2.70
* * ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
(Shackelford, Morgan, Cross, & Savell, 1991). The species difference in carcass fat content could have contributed to the observed difference in tenderness. Such changes could also be due to species differences as goat meat is reported to have thicker muscle fibers (Gaili & Ali, 1985b). The goat meat had significantly (P < 0.001) more moisture and less fat than mutton (Table 7). This result is in close agreement with the findings of Babikerm et al. (1990). Goats, unlike sheep deposit more fat around the visceral organs than in the carcass
3.3. Meat quality attributes Data presented in Table 7 show the physico- chemical attributes of sheep and goat meat. There was no significant (P > 0.05) difference in pH, WHC% and cook loss% of sheep and goat meat. Shear force value (kg/ cm2) was however, significantly (P < 0.01) higher in goat (7.42) than the sheep (3.74). WBS values exceeding 5.5 kg would often be considered as objectionably tough both by a trained sensory panel and the consumers Table 6 Lean, fat and bone content of individual cuts in sheep and goats (%) Cut
Traits
Sheep
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Leg
Lean Fat Bone
74.88 12.05 13.06
1.21 1.18 0.53
76.77 6.93 16.30
2.06 l.32 1 46
NSa ** NS
Loin
Lean Fat Bone
40.32 51.15 8.53
6.21 6.82 1.04
62.36 26.83 10.81
2.75 2.02 1.20
** ** NS
Rack
Lean Fat Bone
50.35 36.49 13.16
4.29 5.47 1.58
67.13 14.93 18.84
4.01 3.34 2.14
** ** NS
Neck and shoulder
Lean Fat Bone
63.56 20.21 16.23
1.28 1.12 0.52
65.70 12.71 21.55
2.64 1.32 1.43
NS ** *
Breast and fore shank
Lean Fat Bone
52.39 32.37 15.62
5.47 5.55 1.31
64.32 18.02 17.65
1.18 0.74 0.96
** ** NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
762
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763
Table 7 Physico-chemical attributes of sheep and goat meat Traits
Sheep
pH45 pHu WHC (%) Cook loss (%) Shear force value (kg/cm2) Drip loss (%) Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%)
Goat
Level of significance
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.93 5.46 59.50 20.74 3.74 3.86 68.85 8.47 21.02
0.09 0.02 3.79 2.46 0.30 1.01 0.73 0.79 0.93
5.88 5.48 57.03 22.67 7.42 3.46 74.23 3.16 20.38
0.07 0.02 3.09 2.76 0.39 0.89 0.53 0.71 1.07
NSa NS NS NS *** NS *** *** NS
a
NS, non significant. *** P <0.001.
Acknowledgements
Table 8 Organoleptic attributes of sheep and goat meat Traits
Color Odor Tenderness Juiciness Overall palatability
Sheep
Goat
Mean SE
Mean SE
3.87 3.87 4.25 3.87 3.75
4.50 4.00 3.37 3.87 3.87
0.22 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.25
Level of significance
0.19 0.26 0.18 0.22 0.22
* NSa ** NS NS
a
NS, non significant. * P <0.05. ** P <0.01.
(Mahgoub & Lodge, 1998), a fact which substantiates the earlier findings. However, protein content was similar in the meat from the two species. The color (visual appeal) of cooked goat meat was rated significantly (P < 0.05) better than mutton (Table 8), which was reflection of darker red color of fresh goat meat. Odor and juiciness scores were however rated to be similar between the two species. In tenderness score, mutton was rated significantly (P < 0.01) superior than goat meat. This sensory tenderness score is direct reflection of the shear force values. Lastly, in overall palatability score, both the species were rated almost equal.
4. Conclusion The current study showed that dressing yield was higher in sheep than goats. The goats yielded leaner carcasses and that the meat from goat carcasses was tougher than mutton. Further, goat M. Longissimus dorsi had low fat content indicating it to be a low fat nutritious red meat. Additionally the goat because of experimental limitation of stall feeding did not adapt well which contributed to their lower carcass fat.
Authors are thankful to the Director, CSWRI, Avikanagar for providing necessary facilities. The technical assistance by Mr. M. Nasimuddin is also acknowledged.
References Agnihotri, M. K. (1998). Production, processing and marketing of meat and meat products in India. Lead paper. In Golden Jubilee Seminar on ‘‘Sheep, goat and rabbit production and utilization’’, Jaipur, India 24–26 April (pp. 150–154). AOAC. (1984). Official methods of analysis (14th ed.). Washington DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Babikerm, S. A., Elkhiderml, A., & Shafie, S. A. (1990). Chemical composition and quality attributes of goat meat and lamb. Meat Science, 28, 273–277. Bhatta, R., Sankhyan, S. K., Shinde, A. K., & Verma, D. L. (2001). Seasonal changes in diet selectivity and grazing behavior of goats on semiarid rangeland. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 71, 62–65. Butterfield, R. M. (1988). New concepts of sheep growth. Australia: Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Sydney. Chrystall, B. B., Culioli, J., Demeyer, D., Honikel, K. O., Moller, A. J., Purslow, P., Schwagele, F., Shorthose, R., & Uytterhaegen. L. (1994). Recommendation of reference methods for assessment of meat tenderness. In Proceeding of 40th Annual International Congress of Meat Science Technology (S-V06). Devendra, C., & Burns, M. (1983). Goat production in the tropics (Technical communication no. 19). Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Farid, A. (1991). Carcass and chemical composition of three fat-tailed breeds of sheep. Meat Science, 29, 109–120. Gaili, E. S., & Ali, A. E. (1985a). Meat from Sudan desert sheep and goats: part 1—carcass yield, offal and distribution of carcass tissues. Meat Science, 13, 217–227. Gaili, E. S., & Ali, A. E. (1985b). Meat from Sudan desert sheep and goats: part 11—composition of muscular and fatty tissues. Meat Science, 13, 229–236. Hogg, B. W., Mercer, G. J. K., Mortimer, B. J., Kirton, A. H., & Duganzich, D. M. (1992). Carcass and meat quality attributes of commercial of goats in New Zealand. Small Ruminant Research, 8, 243–256. ISI. (1963). Indian Standard specification for mutton and goat flesh.
A.R. Sen et al. / Meat Science 66 (2004) 757–763 Fresh, chilled and frozen (IS2536). New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standard Institution. Johnson, D. D., McGowan, C. H., Nurse, G., & Anous, M. R. (1995). Breed type and sex effects on carcass traits, composition and tenderness of young goats. Small Ruminant Research, 17, 57–63. Karim, S. A. (2000). Feeding small ruminants for meat and wool production. In Proceedings of National Workshop on ‘‘Animal Nutrition in Health and Disease’’, 17–19 February, Veterinary College, University of Agricultural Science. Bangalore, India. Kirton, A. H., Woods, E. G., & Duganzich, D. M. (1984). Predicting the fatness of lamb carcasses from carcass wall thickness measured by ruler or by a total depth indicator (TDI) probe. Livestock Production Science, 11, 185–194. Mahgoub, O., & Lodge, G. A. (1998). A Comparative study on growth, body composition and carcass tissue distribution in Omani sheep and goats. Journal of Agricultural Science (Camb.), 131, 329–339.
763
Mahgoub, O., & Lu, C. D. (1998). Growth, body composition and carcass tissue distribution in goats of large and small sizes. Small Ruminant Research, 27, 267–278. Naude, R. T., & Hofmeyr, H. S. (1981). Meat production. In C. Gall (Ed.), Goat Production (pp. 285–307). London: Academic press. Riley, R. R., Savell, J. W., Shelton, M., & Smith, G. C. (1989). Carcass and offal yields of sheep and goats as influenced by market class and breed. Small Ruminant Research, 2, 265–272. Shackelford, S. D., Morgan, J. B., Cross, H. R., & Savell, J. W. (1991). Identification of threshold levels for Warner Bratzler shear press in beef top loin steaks. Journal of Muscle Foods, 2, 289–296. Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1968). Statistical methods (6th ed.). Calcutta, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Trout, G. R. (1998). Techniques for measuring water binding capacity in muscle foods—a review of methodology. Meat Science, 23, 235– 252.