Muscle Foods pp 224-247 | Cite as

Meat-Animal Composition and Its Measurement

  • Robert G. Kauffman
  • Burdette C. Breidenstein


Composition is the aggregate of ingredients, their arrangement, and the integrated interrelationship which form a unified, harmonious whole. Figure 8.1 is an example that represents the composite average of cattle, hogs, and sheep and includes the major parts. Because animals are intentionally raised to produce meat for humans, the greatest emphasis is the musculature and its relationship to everything else. The proportion of the animal’s musculature is related to several criteria, but the three most important are visceral proportions (primarily affected by contents of the alimentary canal and pregnancy), fatness, and muscling (as expressed by muscle/bone). Variations in fatness and muscling are illustrated by the exhibits shown in Fig. 8.2., and practical averages of carcass composition (including poultry, fish, and venison) are included in Table 8.1. Since Fig. 8.1 represents a composite of beef, pork and lamb, Figs. 8.3–8.6 are included to illustrate how each of these three species’ parts are divided into muscle, fat, and bone. These are averages that are highly dependent on method of cutting, stage of growth, and heredity.


Carcass Weight Carcass Composition Ground Meat Meat Animal Pelvic Limb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selected References

  1. A.O.A.C. 1990. In: Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed., K. Helrich; ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, R.T. and R.M. Butterfield. 1976. New Concepts of Cattle Growth. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Ellenberger, H.B., J.A. Newlander, and C.H. Jones. 1950. Compositions of the Bodies of Dairy Cattle, Bulletin 558, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Vermont, Burlington.Google Scholar
  4. Elsley, F.W.H., I. McDonald, and V.R. Fowler. 1964. The effect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded, Anim. Prod. 6: 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fahey, T.J., D.M. Schaefer, R.G. Kauffman, R.J. Epley, P.F. Gould, J.R. Romans, G.C. Smith, and D.G. Topel. 1977. A comparison of practical methods to estimate pork carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 44: 8.Google Scholar
  6. Forrest, J.C., C.H. Kuei, W. Chen, R.S. Lin, A.P. Schinckel, P. Walstra, H. Kooper, and M.D. Judge. 1991. Electromagnetic scanning: carcass evaluation. In: Electronic Evaluation of Meat in Support of Value-Based Marketing. Pages 85 - 111. Purdue Meat Science Industrial Advisory Consortium and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  7. Kauffman, R.G. 1971. Variation in gross composition of meat animals. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 24: 292.Google Scholar
  8. McMeekan, C.P. 1941. Growth and development in the pig with special reference to carcass quality characters. J. Agric. Sci. 31: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Kauffman
  • Burdette C. Breidenstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations