UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE EDUCATION, ASANTE MAMPONG
GROWTH, CARCASS AND BEHAVIOUR CHARACTERISTICS OF
CASTRATED AND INTACT MALE GRASSCUTTERS
ISSAHAKU IDDISAH
(B.ED. AGRIC. ED.)
NOVEMBER, 2011
GROWTH, CARCASS AND BEHAVIOUR CHARACTERISTICS OF
CASTRATED AND INTACT MALE GRASSCUTTERS
ISSAHAKU IDDISAH
(B.Ed. Agric. Ed.)
(407001002)
A Thesis in the Department of
ANIMAL SCIENCE EDUCATION,
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE EDUCATION,
Asante Mampong
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, University of Education, Winneba, in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the award of the Degree of Master of
Philosophy (Animal Production and Management) of the
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA.
NOVEMBER, 2011
DECLARATION
I, Issahaku Iddisah, declare that the thesis, with the exception of quotations and
references contained in published works which have all been identified and
acknowledged, is entirely my own original work and it has not been submitted either
in part or whole for another degree elsewhere.
---------------------------------ISSAHAKU IDDISAH
(STUDENT)
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
PROF. K. T. DJANG-FORDJOUR
S. Y. ANNOR
(CHIEF SUPERVISOR)
(CO-SUPERVISOR)
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mr W. K. J. Kwenin, Head of the
Department of Animal Science Education of the Faculty of Agriculture Education,
University of Education, Winneba, Asante-Mampong for allowing me to use the
Department’s facilities to run the experiment.
I owe many thanks to a number of persons who have contributed in diverse ways
towards the successful completion of this thesis. They are Prof. K. T. DjangFordjour, my Principal Supervisor, and former Dean of the College of Agriculture
Education and Mr S. Y. Annor, my Co-supervisor, the Department of Animal
Science Education. I am grateful to them for their immense support, guidance and
encouragement throughout the planning, conduct and compilation of the thesis. I
thank Prof. A. K. Tuah and Dr J. Kagya-Agyemang of the Department of Animal
Science Education, for their encouragement during the write up of the thesis. My
sincere thanks are extended to my course mates, Rev. D. O. Korankye and Madam
Antoinette Sena Attigah for their support and encouragement throughout the course.
I thank Mr Samuel Odame, Assistant Farm Manager and Mr Hudu Seidu, the
Veterinary Technician of the Department of Animal Science Education for assisting
me in the management of animals at the farm. I also thank Mr. Samuel Addai, the
Chief Technician at the Science Laboratory of the Biochemistry Department of
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology for his immense
contribution to the chemical analysis of the grasscutter meat. I equally acknowledge
the contributions and support of all persons whose names are not listed.
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife: Alhassan Hannah Ademu, my children:
Nana Ayisha, Kapambu Iddisah, Mohammed Aminu, Abdul Hameed and my
mother: Hajia Mariama.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENT .............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………ix
LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………………… x
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................ 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background to study ......................................................................................... 1
1.2
Problem statement and justification…………………………………………………………….2
1.3
Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Main objective .................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................... 5
2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 5
2.1
The Grasscutter ................................................................................................. 5
2.2
Promotion of Grasscutter Farming in Ghana .................................................... 5
iv
2.3
Grasscutter Housing.......................................................................................... 6
2.4
Grasscutter Feeding .......................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Grasscutter feeding in captivity ........................................................................ 8
2.4.2 Feed consumption rate and feed conversion efficiency of grasscutters ........... 9
2.5
Growth rate and live-weight of grasscutters…….………...……………...….10
2.6
Injuries and Mortalities ................................................................................... 10
2.7
Castration of Animals...................................................................................... 11
2.7.1 Background of castration ................................................................................ 11
2.7.2 Methods of castration ..................................................................................... 12
2.7.3 Age at castration ............................................................................................. 15
2.7.4 Effect of castration on feed intake and feed utilization of animals ................ 15
2.7.5 Effect of castration on the growth of animals ................................................. 16
2.7.6 Effect of castration on meat quality of animals .............................................. 17
2.8
Animal Behaviour ........................................................................................... 18
2.8.1 Docility in animals .......................................................................................... 18
2.8.2 Performance comparison of docile and non-docile animals ........................... 18
2.8.3 Scoring docility............................................................................................... 19
2.9
Carcass Characteristics of Grasscutter..……………………………….……………….…….20
2.9.1 Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutter……….20
2.9.2
Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of meat .............................................. 20
2.9.2.1 Background .................................................................................................. 20
2.9.2.2 Meat attributes ............................................................................................. 21
v
2.9.2.3 Protocols for sensory evaluation of meat..................................................... 22
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 23
3.0
MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................. 23
3.1
Experimental Site and Period of study .......................................................... 23
3.2
Experimental Animals .................................................................................... 23
3.3
Castration of Grasscutters ............................................................................... 24
3.4
Management of Experimental Animals .......................................................... 24
3.4.1 Housing. .......................................................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Sanitation ........................................................................................................ 27
3.4.3 Feeding and watering ...................................................................................... 27
3.4.4 Treatment of injured animals .......................................................................... 28
3.5
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 28
3.5.1 Feed intake and live-weight ............................................................................ 28
3.5.2 Injuries and mortalities ................................................................................... 28
3.5.3 Docility scoring .............................................................................................. 29
3.5.4 Carcass evaluation .......................................................................................... 29
3.5.4.1 Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutter .......... 29
3.5.4.2 Chemical composition of grasscutter meat .................................................... 30
3.5.4.3 Organoleptic/sensory evaluation of grasscutter meat .................................... 31
3.6
Experimental Design and Treatments ............................................................ 32
3.7
Data analysis .................................................................................................. 34
vi
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................... 35
4.0
RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 35
4.1
Feed utilization and growth performance of grasscuters ............................... 35
4.2
Injuries/mortalities/docility of grasscutters ................................................... 36
4.3
Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percent of grasscutters .............. 46
4.4
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat .................................................... 47
4.5
Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of grasscutter meat .............................. 49
CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................... 51
5.0
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 51
5.1
Feed utilization and growth performance of grasscutters .............................. 51
5.2
Injuries/mortalities/docility of grasscutters .................................................. 51
5.3
Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutter ......... 53
5.4
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat ................................................... 54
5.5
Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of grasscutter meat ............................. 54
CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................ 55
6.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………56
6.1
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 56
6.2
Recommendations......................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 75
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE
1
Composition of concentrate diet ……………………..............27
2
Proximate composition of elephant grass and concentrate
diet .………………………………………………….…….…28
3
Lay-out of experimental design and treatments ……....….….33
4
Feed utilization and growth performance of grasscutter .……35
5
Injuries, mortalities and docility of grasscutter ……………...36
6
Carcass parameters of castrated and intact male grassutters
………………………………………………………………..46
7
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat……..……………47
8
Sensory characteristics of cooked grasscutter meat …...….....49
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
1
Three-tie grasscutter cage …………………………………….26
2
Grasscutter injured on loin and snout ……………….………..38
3
Crasscutter injured on hind quarter ………………………......39
4
Grasscutter injured on loin, fore quarter and hind quarter …...40
5
Grasscutter injured on fore quarter …………………………..41
6
Dead grasscutter being dissected for post-mortem
examination .………………………………………………….42
7
Dissected grasscutter showing clotted blood ………….……..43
8
Frank-blood found in dissected grasscutter………….……….44
9
Dissected grasscutter showing ruptured liver and clotted
blood………………………………………………….………45
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
1
Score sheet with 7 point hedonic scale ……………………76
2
Colour chart ………………………………………………..78
3
Meat attribute description chart ……………………………80
4
Meat coding chart ………………………………………….81
5
ANOVA tables for feed utilization and growth
performance………………………………………………...82
6
ANOVA tables for injuries, mortalities and docility ……...83
7
ANOVA tables for carcass weight, organ weight and
dressing percent…………………………………………….84
8
ANOVA tables for chemical composition of grasscutter
meat………………………………………………………..87
9
ANOVA tables for sensory analysis of grasscutter meat.....88
x
ABSTRACT
This experiment was conducted at the grasscutter section of the Department of
Animal Science Education, College of Agriculture Education, University of
Education, Winneba, Asante Mampong. The study aimed at determining growth,
carcass and behaviour characteristics of castrated and intact male grasscutters. Forty
eight (48) male and twelve (12) female grasscutters, 4-5 months old and weighing
between 0.69-1.94kg were used for the experiment. The male grasscutters were
divided into two (2) groups (0.69-1.00kg) and (1.18-1.94kg live-body weights)
constituting two blocks (blocks 1 and 2). Twelve (12) male grasscutters from each
block were randomly selected and surgically castrated. The experimental design used
was the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). The treatments for growth
rate and carcass characteristics were intact males (T1) and castrates (T2). The
animals were fed ad libitum with Pennisetum purpureum as basal diet and
supplemented with concentrate containing 14% crude protein. Carcass evaluation
was conducted using eight (8) intact males and eight (8) castrated grasscutters at the
end of the experiment. Injuries and mortalities resulting from fighting were recorded.
The treatment groups were intact males only (T1), castrates only (T2), intact males
and females (T3), castrates and females (T4), intact males and castrates (T5), and
intact males, castrates and females (T6). Castration of grasscutters between 4-5
months of age could not influence significant change in growth rate (P> 0.05) but led
to improved feed utilization (P< 0.05). Aggressive behaviours of grasscutters in
colony, and docility were also not influenced by castration (P> 0.05).
xi
Intact males mixed with castrates only (T5) and intact males mixed with castrates
and females (T6) co-existed peacefully than the other treatments. Carcass weight
(hot/cold), dressing percentages (hot/cold), fat deposition, chemical constituents of
meat and organ weight were significantly not affected (P> 0.05) by castration.
Sensory panelists identified cooked grasscutter meat colours to range from ivory to
yellow lemon for fore legs, and ivory to light ivory for hind legs and longissimus
dorsi. Both intact males and castrated grasscutter meats were generally acceptable
(P> 0.05) by sensory panelists.
xii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background to study
Grasscutter, Thryonomys swinderianus, is a hystricomorphic rodent that lives in the
wild. The grasscutter, also known as cane rat, belongs to the order Rodentia and is
the second largest rodent in Africa, after the crested porcupine (Mensah and Okeyo,
2005). Grasscutter meat is a delicacy and the most preferred and perhaps the most
expensive meat in West Africa (NRC, 1991). About 40,000 tons grasscutter meat per
year is consumed in West Africa of which only 0.2% is from domesticated animals
(Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). Grasscutter meat fetches high prices compared to beef,
mutton, chevon, chicken and pork (Olomu et al., 2003).
Grasscutter meat contains low fat and cholesterol (Omole et al., 2005). Grasscutter
meat also contains essential amino acids such as methionine, tryptophan and lysine
(Adeola, 1992; NRC, 1991). The protein content of grasscutter meat ranges between
19% to 23%, and compares favourably with that of beef (19.35%), mutton (16.80%)
and pork (19.25%) (Olomu et al., 2003). The economic potential of grasscutter
production is high within the West African sub-region. The meat has an extensive
market due to its high demand (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). The high demand for
grasscutter meat and the economic benefits that accrue from its sale have resulted in
aggressive hunting with complete disregard for conservation of the species and the
environment.
1
Grasscutter hunting has been a major cause of most bushfires, which have negative
effects on the environment (Adu, 2002a). The increasing use of chemical poisons to
hunt for grasscutters has also attracted attention as a public health issue. The
presence of Furadan in grasscutter meat was reported at the Forensic Science
Laboratory of the Ghana Standards Board, possibly indicating its use as bait for
trapping bush meat (Oduro and Kankam, 2002). These methods of hunting using
uncontrolled fire and chemical poisons pose the greatest threat to the survival of the
grasscutter, although the species is currently classified as unthreatened according to
the FAO’s World Watch List (FAO, 2000). The populations of wild grasscutters in
West and Central African countries are declining due to over-hunting and destruction
of their habitat (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). In order to sustain their survival,
domestication of grasscutter becomes very necessary, given the fact that some
success in domestication has been achieved in the West African sub-region (Adu,
2002b). Successful domestication of grasscutter could bring about a reduction in
Africa’s chronic protein shortage (NRC, 1991). Backyard animal husbandry, using
micro-livestock such as grasscutter, was proposed by NRC (1991) and Ehui (1999)
to be prominent in providing important part-time job opportunities, particularly for
landless women and children.
1.2
Problem Statement and Justification
The immense benefits of grasscutter production have led to the widespread
promotion of grasscutter farming by individuals, governmental and nongovernmental organizations in the West African sub-region.
2
The progress in the domestication process has however been slow due to paucity of
information on the biology of the grasscutter (Yeboah and Adamu, 1995).
Grasscutters have nervous temperament and are difficult to rear in captivity
(Hemmer, 1993). On attainment of puberty, male grasscutters in colony fight a lot,
most often resulting in injuries and deaths (Mensah et al., 2005). Traumatic injuries
caused 32% of mortalities in a colony of grasscutters (Adu, 2002c). Aggression and
hostility, leading to high mortality, is of great concern in the grasscutter industry, as
it lowers productivity. Aggressive behaviour further reduces feed intake and this
could translate into slow growth rate. One solution to this problem is to separate
males into individual cages at puberty. This would however require more individual
cages. Meanwhile grasscutter cages are very expensive and beyond the reach of most
farmers (Adu, 2002c). A 3-tier wooden cage is reported to costs between GH¢
250.00 and GH¢ 300.00 (Nketiah and Owusu, 2005). The high cost of cages limits
separating sexually mature males into individual cages. In this regard, there arises
the need to research into other husbandry practices to find solution to the problem.
Castration is an option to be considered, hence, the basis of this research.
1.3
Objectives
1.3.1
Main Objective
The main objective of the project was to improve upon the growth, carcass and
behaviour characteristics of sexually mature male grasscutters using castration.
3
1.3.2
Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study were to determine the effect of castration on:
 Growth performance.
 Docility.
 Injuries and mortalities.
 Carcass characteristics.
 Chemical composition of meat.
 Organoleptic characteristics of meat.
4
CHAPTER TWO
2.0
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Grasscutter
The grasscutter, Thryonomys species, is a hystricomorphic rodent that lives in the
wild. The grasscutter, also known as cane rat, belongs to the order Rodentia and is
the second largest rodent in Africa, after the crested porcupine (Mensah and Okeyo,
2005). Two species of grasscutter, Thryonomys swinderianus and Thryonomys
gregorianus, exist in Africa (Bostid, 1991). Thryonomys swinderianus occur
virtually in all countries of West, East and Southern Africa whiles Thryonomys
gregorianus is found in Savanna areas in Cameroon, Zaire, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique (Bostid, 1991).
Grasscutter is an herbivore and feeds on a wide variety of plant materials. It shows a
high preference for Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Guinea grass
(Panicum maximum). Mature live-weight of captive grasscutter ranges between 4.56.8kg (Ajayi and Tewe, 2008) with an average of 4.5kg for males and 3.5kg for
females (Merwe, 2000).
2.2
Promotion of Grasscutter Farming in Ghana
Grasscutter farming has a high potential in generating employment and income, and
hence alleviating poverty (Adu, 2002c).
5
Grasscutter meat is already an important non-traditional export commodity and could
become even more important as a foreign exchange earner for the country if more
value was added to its processing and packaging (Achana, 2002). Grasscutter
farming could serve as a means of contributing to conserving the environment. It has
been reported that if grasscutter farming was intensified, the demand for bush meat
could be met without undue pressure on the environment (Achana, 2002). The above
stated factors have drawn a number of stakeholders including Governmental, NonGovernmental Organizations, Research Institutions, Individuals and Farmers
Associations into the grasscutter business. Grasscutter production is being promoted
as a means to help achieve poverty reduction, wealth creation and nutritional care to
humans (Mack et al., 2005). Some of the departments and institutions that promote
grasscutter production include the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Animal
Research Institute and the Universities (Adu, 2002a). These centres produce
breeding stock for farmers, train them in grasscutter production and research into
grasscutter domestication (Ankah, 2005; Adu, 2002b). Some Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) operating in the grasscutter industry in Ghana are Action Aid,
German Technical Corporation (GTZ) and TROPENBOS Ghana. NGOs provide
support to farmers in the areas of training, start-up breeding stock, grasscutter
housing, financing and co-financing of training workshops.
2.3
Grasscutter Housing
The type of grasscutter housing is determined by the purpose of production and the
finance at the disposal of the farmer (Akinola, 2008).
6
Floor housing, open cage and closed cage housing systems have been identified
(Ikpeze and Ebenebe, 2004). An enclosure and deep-litter systems for rearing
grasscutters have been proposed (Akinola, 2008). An enclosure system could be a
1m high fence wall topped with 1-2m high wire fence, and cassava, potatoes, maize,
elephant grass and guinea grass may be grown in it to mimic a wild environment
(Akinola, 2008). Hollow tree trunks could be provided to serve as grasscutter hideouts (Akinola, 2008). This semi-intensive system provides conditions close to the
free-range system of grasscutters in the wild. With the deep-litter system, a fence
wall of 1.2m high topped with 1.4m high wire fence could be used (Akinola, 2008).
The grasscutter house is often roofed with thatch or asbestos, so as to avoid or reduce
heat stress (Akinola, 2008). Floor-boxes are constructed with concrete or earth (clay)
blocks in the deep-litter or floor- housing schemes. The floor is made of concrete,
with floor beddings (Akinola, 2008). This system, also known as indoor-floor
housing, minimizes feed wastage, though the risk of infection is high.
Cages are used in out-door housing system for grasscutter production (Akinola,
2008; Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). Cages may be constructed for individuals or
colonies of grasscutters. Akinola (2008) reported a cage with dimension of 200cm ×
125cm × 40cm, with a floor space of 194.92cm × 119.92cm could accommodate 7
breeding grasscutters. Generally, 200cm² cage accommodates 5 grower grasscutters
while 100cm² houses 2 mature males/females (Akinola, 2008). Cages can be
constructed in tiers, one on top of the other up to 2-3 tiers to form compact battery
housing.
7
Caging system quickens adaptation to confinement, taming process of captive
grasscutters, and prevents cannibalism of mature males on newly born kit males
(Mensah and Okeyo 2005).
2.4
Grasscutter Feeding
2.4.1
Grasscutter feeding in captivity
Feed given to captive grasscutters in Southern Ghana are basically what the animals
eat in the wild (Adu et al., 1999). It has been reported that the major forage fed to
grasscutters, Panicum maximum, does not support efficient growth and reproductive
performance (Adu and Wallace, 2003). Dry season feeding in particular poses a
major challenge to most farmers as forages dry up and are of low nutritive value
(Adu et al., 1999). Grasscutter farmers therefore need to provide quality
supplementary feed as required for the animals’ growth, good health and
reproduction. Supplementary feeding aims to make better use of basal diets by
supplying those nutrients that the basal feed is deficient in (Blackwood and Clayton,
2006). For dry season feeding, forage substitutes such as cassava stems, pineapple
leaves and by-products of cereals could be used to feed grasscutters (Yewadan,
2002). However, care should be taken when feeding with cassava because some
varieties are poisonous (Adu et al., 1999). Wheat bran, sorghum, maize bran, soya
bean cake, groundnut cake, minerals and salt are items used to prepare feed
supplements for grasscutter (Yewadan et al., 2002).
8
Grasscutters prefer to gnaw hard feed; hence the ingredients listed above could be
compounded and pelleted for the animals. Pelleted feed for grasscutters constituting
70% forage, 20% concentrate, 1% oyster shells, 0.5% salt and 0.5% termite hill with
cereal flour or cassava dough (2.5%) as binders has been reported (Mensah, 2005).
2.4.2
Feed consumption rate and feed conversion efficiency of grasscutters
Grasscutters maintain steady growth when they are provided with a balanced diet
(Adeniji, 2008). Concentrate supplements containing 21% protein improves the
growth performance of grasscutters (Onyeanusi, 2008). Feeding grasscutters with
protein concentrate improve feed conversion efficiency (FCE), thereby resulting in
faster growth (Adeniji, 2008). Dry matter intake of 269.94g/day for grasscutters fed
on guinea grass was reported by Annor et al. (2008). Dry matter intake of mixture of
grass-concentrate diet of 53.8g was reported by Karikari and Nyameasem (2009).
Daily dry matter intakes of grasscutters fed on elephant grass were reported as
400.40g, 370.20g, 371.14g and 374.20g (Onyeanusi et al., 2008). When animals
were fed diets containing 15%, 17%, 19% and 21% protein to grasscutters, daily dry
matter intake was reported as 178.02g, 202.97g, 244.01g and 262.05g respectively
(Onyeanusi et al., 2008). Annor et al. (2008) reported feed conversion ratio of
grasscutters fed on fresh guinea grass as 82.30. For grasscutters fed on mixture of
grass-concentrate diet (on dry matter basis), Karikari and Nyameasem (2009)
reported a feed conversion ratio of 7.5. Feed conversion ratio of grasscutters fed on
elephant grass and supplemented with protein concentrate was reported as 0.96, 0.82,
0.80 and 3.65, 3.44, 3.07, 3.24 (Onyeanusi et al., 2008).
9
2.5
Growth Rate and Live-weight of Grasscutters
The mature live-weight of grasscutter reported by Ajayi and Tewe (2008) and
Adeola (1992) is 4.30kg-6.83kg and 5.0kg-8.0kg respectively. Annor et al. (2008)
reported a daily weight gain of 3.28g and a total weight gain of 275g for grasscutters
fed on guinea grass. A report of 7.1g weight gain per day of grasscutter was made by
Karikari and Nyameasem (2009).
2.6
Injuries and Mortalities
Grasscutter domestication is associated with such set-backs as high mortality of
newly acquired stock (Adu et al., 2005). High mortality is usually due to
inappropriate handling, self-inflicted trauma due to the nervous temperament of the
animals and diseases (Adu et al., 2005). High stress levels of grasscutters caught
from the wild and inadequate information about the biology of the grasscutter on the
part of researchers and farmers lead to high levels of mortality and low productivity
(Mensah, 2005). Mortality of grasscutters from the wild was reported to be over 80%
in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana (Weidinger and Annan, 2002). The major cause
of death in a newly established colony of grasscutters reared in Ghana was reported
to be traumatic injuries, with pneumonia and gastroenteritis being the least (Adu,
2002c). Results of 31.60% injuries, 15.80% pulmonary congestion and 10.50%
septic wounds were reported as the causes of deaths in captive grasscutter in Ghana
(Adu, 2002c). After post-mortem findings in captive greater cane rats (Thryonomys
swinderianus) in Gabon, Jori and Cooper (2001) reported the causes of death to have
resulted from trauma (30.85%) and septicaemia (12.77%).
10
Traumatic injuries (32%) and pulmonary congestion (16%) were reported as the
main causes of mortality in grasscutters in Ghana (Adu et al., 2000). Injuries as
contributory factor to 11% mortality was reported in grasscutters reared by women
farmers in the Northern Region of Ghana (Djang-Fordjour et al., 2005). Traumatic
injuries were reported as the cause of 83% of death of grasscutters reared at Nungua
farm in Ghana (Bekoe, 2002). Mortalities were reported of imported grasscutters
from the Republic of Benin to the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana as due to stress
(47%), accidents (12%) and injuries (11%) (Weidinger and Annan, 2002). Fighting
was also reported as another cause of death of grasscutters among sexually mature
males in colony (Mensah and Okey, 2005). It has been reported that grasscutters
manifest puberty by simulating copulatory activities, which trigger fight resulting in
serious wounds (Mensah et al., 2005b). Mature male grasscutters housed together
can engage in fatal fights, especially in the presence of females (Adu 2002c; Mensah
and Okeyo, 2005). Significant aggressive fighting and mortalities were reported in
colonies of castrsted Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) (Manharth and Harris-Gerber,
2002).
2.7
Castration of Animals
2.7.1
Background of castration
Castration of farm animals is a common management practice (Kebede et al., 2008)
used in cattle (Ting et al., 2003), sheep (Bani-Ismail et al., 2007), goats (Kebede et
al., 2008; Muhikambele et al., 1994) and pigs (Tuyttens et al., 2006).
11
Castration has also been carried out in rodents, including grasscutter (Thryonomys
swinderianus) (Mensah et al., 2005a; Alogninouwa et al., 1999) but its practice on
the animal is not common, especially in Ghana.
Castration, defined as the
destruction or removal of testes of animals (Andersen, 2007; AVMA, 2007), is often
done for several reasons. Castration improves upon growth and carcass composition
of animals (Solomon et al., 1991).
Castration eliminates the strong male odour present in bucks (male goats) (Kebede et
al., 2008), and boar tainted meat in pigs at slaughter (Tuyttens et al., 2006). In small
ruminants, castration has been observed to improve the quality and palatability of
meat (Jeremiah, 2000). In mammalian species, the male sex hormone testosterone
produced largely by the testes (Ross and Lipsett, 2008) and to a lesser extent by the
adrenal glands stimulates sexual drive (libido) and aggression (Manharth and HarrisGerber, 2002). It has been reported that testosterone circulation in blood decreased
after castration, thereby decreasing aggression (Manharth and Harris-Gerber, 2002).
Castration makes animals docile and easy to handle (Turk, 2007).
2.7.2
Methods of castration
Castration can be accomplished by either physical (Stafford and Mellor, 2005;
AVMA, 2007) or chemical methods (Anderson, 2007). However, the former is the
most common (Anderson, 2007).
12
With the physical methods (surgical, burdizzo and elastic band, Stafford and Mellor,
2005) the testes are removed or blood supply to them is obstructed while chemical
castration suppresses testosterone and spermatogenesis (Schoemaker et al., 2008).
The surgical method is considered the most reliable because the testicles are
removed completely (Anderson, 2007). The use of burdizzo and the elastic band
involve tools applied to the scrotal sac to crush the blood vessels, interrupt blood
supply and kill the testes (Anderson, 2007; Muhikambele et al., 1994; FAO, 1994).
Chemical castration involves the use of either toxic agents. Injection of toxic
chemicals such as 88% lactic acid into the testicular tissues to cause irreparable
damage and loss of function is an example of chemical castration (Stafford and
Mellor, 2005). Chemical castration requires additional procedural time and technical
skill, and almost twice the healing time compared with surgical castration. It has
been reported that androgen production and male behaviour continued in 5 of 28
calves (50-128kg), indicating a high failure rate, and that healing was considered
unsatisfactory in 25% of the chemically castrated calves (Stafford and Mellor, 2005).
Both chemical and physical castration cause pain and stress (Early and Keane, 2008),
making animals to struggle, which injure them and/or the operator in the process.
Physical means (Mensah et al., 2005a) or anaesthesia (Mensah et al., 2005a) may be
employed to restrain animals during castration. A study by Mensah et al. (2005a)
revealed that male grasscutters can be castrated without anaesthesia when they are
between 4-8weeks of age. Physical restraint or cloth bag (Rand, 2001) may be used
when animals to be castrated are not anaesthetized.
13
Rats can be restrained by having a firm but gentle pressure grasp around its thorax
with the thumb and fore-finger under each of the fore-legs (Rand, 2001). The rat may
also be placed in folded cloth to cover its head and thorax regions with firm grasp for
technical manipulation (Rand, 2001).
Problems of haemorrhage, excessive swelling/edema, poor wound healing and
castration failure have been reported (Stafford and Mellor, 2005). The risk of
haemorrhage is greater after surgical castration (Stafford and Mellor, 2005). In a
survey with New Zealand cattle producers, surgical castration was associated with
bleeding, swelling, infection and death (Stafford and Mellor, 2005). To forestall any
cross contamination, proper surgical hygiene must be observed during castration
procedures (Early and Keane, 2008).
Anaesthesia, as defined by Rand (2001) is the loss of feeling or sensation, often
accompanied by loss of consciousness. Analgesia, an analogue to sedation is the loss
of sensation to painful stimulation without the loss of consciousness (Rand, 2001).
Two forms of anaesthesia, parenteral and inhalation have been identified (Rand,
2001). Parenteral anaesthesia is administered intra-peritonealy, intra-muscularly and
intra-venously while inhalation (with volatile anaesthetic agents) is delivered via the
respiratory tract (Rand, 2001). The use of anaesthesia in grasscutter has been
reported by Mensah et al. (2005a). They used a mixture of 2% xylazine and 1%
ketamine at a dose of 0.1ml per kg live-body weight of the animal.
14
To ensure humane castration procedures, legislative requirements have been put in
place in most countries (Early and Keane, 2008). In Ireland for example, it is legally
required to administer anaesthesia prior to surgical, burdizzo or elastrator band
castration of cattle older than 6 months of age (Early and Keane, 2008).
2.7.3
Age at castration
It has been reported that grasscutters can be castrated between 4-8weeks of age,
although the optimum age of castration is 6 weeks (Mensah et al., 2005a). In cattle
farming, owners may choose to manage male calves as intact bulls, castrate early or
castrate late (Andersen, 2007). Some producers delay castration to take advantage of
the growth effects of testosterone (Anderson, 2007) although the best time to castrate
animals is when they are very young (FAO, 1994).
2.7.4
Effect of castration on feed intake and feed utilization of animals
Castration reduced feed intake and the average daily gain of cattle for a period of
time (AVMA, 2007). Castrated goats were reported to be less efficient in utilizing
feed compared to entire male goats (Muhikambele et al., 1994). Castrated goats
between 24.5-36.5kg live-weight were reported to consume more dry matter of feed
than intact males (Muhikambele et al., 1994). The live weight of castrated
grasscutters between 4 and 8weeks of age was reported to be 1.4 times higher than
uncastrated ones of similar age (Mensah et al., 2005a). On the contrary,
Alogninouwa et al. (1999) reported lower growth rate of castrated male grasscutters
(castrated over 4 months of age) compared to their intact counterparts.
15
Castration was reported to have increased feed intake and growth rate in bulls (Ting
et al., 2003). Castrated grasscutters were reported to have a feed conversion ratio of
1.33 times lower than their counterpart intact males (Mensah et al., 2005). Feed-togain ratio of castrated lambs was reported to be significantly higher compared to
intact lambs (Haddad et al, 2006).
2.7.5
Effect of castration on the growth of animals
Previous studies on the effect of castration on the growth and development of male
ruminants have shown numerous contradictory findings (Bani-Ismail et al., 2007). In
a study of goats, Muhikambele et al. (1994) reported little castration effects on goats
up to weaning, and that intact males grew faster than castrates afterwards. It was
reported that there were no differences in live-weight gain for bulls and steers after
21 days following castration at one month of age (Andersen, 2007). Report showed
that while after puberty bulls grew faster than castrates, their live-weight were
largely lost when the bulls were ultimately castrated (Early and Keane, 2008). In
sheep, entire lambs were reported to be heavier at slaughter than castrates but weight
differences in carcasses did not show any significant difference (O’Riodan and
Hanrahan, 1992). Growth rate of castrated grasscutters was lower than that of intact
males (Alogninouwa, 1999). Contrary to this report by Alogninouwa (1999), higher
growth rate was reported of castrated grasscutters than intact males (Mensah et al.,
2005). The differences in the growth rates may be due to the differences at the age of
castration.
16
2.7.6
Effect of castration on meat quality of animals
A study by Mensah et al. (2005a) revealed that castrated grasscutter produced more
meat than uncastrated ones of the same age. Significantly lower fat but heavier
weights in entire goats than in castrates were reported by Kebede et al. (2008). If
castration is desired, early castration is recommended as goats castrated at 3 months
of age had better rib eye muscle area and fat thickness than intact goats (Kebede et
al., 2008). Delayed castration was reported to confer no benefits in terms of carcass
weight (Fisher et al., 2001). Early castration in Damascus goats were reported to
produce fatter carcasses in castrates than in intact males (Louca et al., 1977). In
cattle, it was report that tender and lighter coloured meat was produced by castrates
than intact males (Watson, 1996). In evaluating cattle meat, sensory panelists were
unable (P> 0.05) to detect differences in tenderness between castrates and intact
(Morgan et al., 1993). Higher dressing percentage and intermuscular fat deposition
were reported in castrated goats than in intact (Koyuncu et al., 2007). In Pheasants
castrated at 32 weeks of age, there were no significant differences between castrates’
and intact males’eviscerated weight and dressing percentage (Severin et al., 2007).
Fat and moisture in chemically analyzed Pheasant meat were reported to be higher in
castrates than in intact (Severin et al., 2007). Protein content was however lower in
castrates than intact Pheasant meat (Severin et al., 2007). No significant effects of
castration was reported on hot carcass weight, cold carcass weight and dressing
percentages in Awassi lambs (Haddad et al, 2006). Compared with intact, castrated
cattle meat was reported to have lower water but higher protein contents and ether
extract (Destefanis et al., 2003).
17
2.8
Animal Behaviour
2.8.1
Docility in animals
Temperament is a measure of relative docility, wildness or aggression of an animal
towards unfamiliar situations, human handlers or management interventions
(Kirkpatrick, 2004). Docility shows the ease with which animals respond to
handling, treatment and routine management practices (Kirkpatrick, 2004). What is
considered as poor docility is a heritable and survival trait of animals in the wild
(McDonald, 2006). Animals with bad disposition problems are a safety risk to
handlers, themselves and other animals within the herd (Kirkpatrick, 2004). Such
wild character can be improved genetically through breeding (McDonald, 2006;
Adu, 2002c) or castration (Anderson, 2007; Turk, 2007; Stafford and Mellor, 2005).
Castration makes animals more docile and easy to handle (Turk, 2007). In rats,
report shows that castration of males decreased aggression significantly compared to
intact (DeBold and Czek, 1981).
2.8.2
Performance comparison of docile and non-docile animals
Temperamental cattle are both dangerous and frustrating to handle (Core, 2008).
Fearful cattle can jeopardize human safety or increase the difficulty or duration of
handling by aggression (Le Neindre, 2000). Injuries caused by aggressive behaviour
affect the price of carcass due to trimming of bruised areas (Core, 2008). Nervous
and flighty animals do not spend much time at the feed trough (Thomas, 2008).
18
It has further been reported that considering feedlot gain, death loss, cost of
treatment, meat quality and yield grade, the profitability of a docile cattle was on
average $62.15 more than an aggressive herd (Thomas, 2008). Apart from the
obvious reasons of safety, research strongly indicates that cattle with calm
temperament gain weight more rapidly, produce more tender meat and exhibit less
carcass bruising than cattle with nervous temperament (McDonald, 2006).
2.8.3
Scoring docility
Docility is assessed using subjective scoring system (Le Neindre, 2000; Mensah and
Okeyo, 2005). The system may describe an animal as being docile, calm, restless,
flighty, nervous, wild or aggressive. Docility scoring in cattle has been conducted in
France, New Zealand, Australia and Germany (Le Neindre, 2000). In West Africa,
docility scoring has been conducted in Thryonomys swinderianus (Mensah and
Okeyo, 2005). Docility scoring scale of 1-4 (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005) was used to
score Thryonomys swinderianu. Score 1-4 is assigned to each animal, with 1 being
docile, and 4 being aggressive (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). Before scoring each score
should be defined, with the same person completing all observations to maintain
accuracy (Core, 2008). During scoring, the grasscutter is touched to determine its
score based on its reaction to the touch (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005). The scores are:
 1 is assigned if the grasscutter moves to person(s) and accepts touch (Docile);
 2 is assigned if it moves away without panic (Restless);
 3 is assigned if it is excited and agitated (Flighty); and
 4 is assigned if it is in complete panic (Aggressive).
19
2.9 Carcass Characteristics of Grascutter
2.9.1 Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutter
Carcass characteristics of grasscutter compares favourably with that of sheep and
goats (Ajaye and Tewe, 2008). Cold carcass weight of male grasscutters was
reported by Van Zyl and Van der Merwe (1999) as 2116.46g. Grasscutter hot and
cold carcass weights were reported as 1319.00g and 1287.00 respectively (Karikari
and Nyameasem, 2009). Visceral fat weight of 5.43g was reported in grasscutter
(Annor et al., 2008). Internal offals expressed as percentage of carcass weights was
reported as 15.60 (Karikari and Nyameasem, 2009; Van Zyl and Van der Merwe,
1999). Heart, lung, liver and kidney weights expressed as percentages of hot carcass
weight were reported as 0.011, 0.019, 0.038 and 0.009 respectively (Omole et al.,
2005). Dressing percentages of hot carcasses of grasscutters were reported to be
56.40 (Karikari and Nyameasem, 2009), 57.90 (Van Zyl and Van der Merwe, 1999),
76.98 (Omole et al., 2005), 63.80 (Ajayi and Tewe, 2008) and 50.41 (Annor et al.,
2008). Dressing percentages of cold carcasses of grasscutters were reported as 57.90
(Van Zyl and Van der Merwe, 1999) and 55.00 (Karikari and Nyameasem, 2009).
2.9.2 Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of meat
2.9.2.1 Background
The quality of meat and meat products is defined by the palatability, tenderness,
water holding capacity, proportion of lean meat to fat, freshness, adequate
conservability and absence of harmful microbial organisms (FAO, 1990).
20
Organoleptic characteristics or sensory evaluation of meat involves describing
meat/food attributes that can be perceived by the sense organs (FAO, 1990).
2.9.2.2 Meat attributes
Meat attributes that can be evaluated includes colour, texture (tenderness), juiciness
(consistency), aroma (smell) and flavour (taste) (FAO, 1990).
A survey report
showed that the most important factors considered by consumers when purchasing
meat (beef, mutton, chicken and pork) were flavour (75%), colour (48%), fat content
(45%) and tenderness (30%) (Market Research Africa, 1996). The colour of meat is
the first criterion used by most consumers to judge meat quality and acceptability
(Conforth, 1994). The natural fresh meat colour except that of poultry is dark red,
caused by the muscle pigment myoglobin (FAO, 1990). Cooked meat loses its red
colour and turns grey or brown due to the destruction of myoglobin through heat
treatment (FAO, 1990). The colour of meat is critically appraised by consumers, and
is often their basis for product selection or rejection (AMSA, 1991).
Cooked meat aroma is the sensory characteristic that describes certain volatile
substances as perceived by the olfactory organs (Van Heerden et al., 2007). Flavour
can be described as the complex combination of the olfactory and gustatory attribute
perceived during tasting (Van Heerden et al., 2007).
Factors that can influence meat flavour include the animal’s age, water retention
during cooking and marbling (Shahidi, 1994). Meat texture may be described as how
tough or tender it is (Food Technology Corporation, 2008).
21
Meat tenderness is the perception of meat when chewing and evaluating whether
meat breaks easily between teeth (tender) or has become difficult to bite through
(tough) (Van Heerden et al., 2007). The texture of meat determines the ease with
which moisture can be expressed from the meat as it is being chewed, and hence
contributes to the impression of juiciness (Cross et al., 1986). Juiciness in cooked
meat has two (2) sensory phases, the initial impression of juiciness (experience of
wetness produced by the rapid release of meat fluid during the first few chews)
(Lyon and Lyon, 1989), and sustained impression of juiciness which is largely due to
stimulatory effects of fat on salivation (Lawrie, 1998). Consumer food acceptability
has been described by Hamilton et al. (2000) as the consumption of food
accompanied by pleasure.
2.9.2.3 Protocols for sensory evaluation of meat.
Meat attributes are complex multidimensional sensory characteristics which cannot
be readily measured by the use of objective test methods. Sensory evaluation plays a
primary role in the quantification of meat quality characteristics (Osman and
Aldosari, 2006). For the average consumer, sensory evaluation is the only way to
decide whether or not to buy or eat a certain product (FAO, 1990). Two types of
sensory panels may be used in evaluating the sensory qualities of meat. When
hedonic information is sought an untrained panel is used and when analytical
information is required, a trained panel is utilized (Osman and Aldosari, 2006).
Hedonic tests are those that quantify degree of likeness while analytical tests indicate
if a difference exists between two samples (Osman and Aldosari, 2006).
22
CHAPTER THREE
3.0
3.1
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Site and Period of study
The experiment was conducted at the grasscutter section of the Department of
Animal Science Education of the College of Agriculture Education, University of
Education, Winneba, Asante Mampong, Ghana. Asante Mampong lies within
Latitude 07o 04' N and Longitude 01o 24' W. The experimental area falls within the
transitional zone between the Savannah and the Forest regions of Ghana. It has a hot
humid climate. Within the period of study, the mean rainfall, temperature and
humidity were 194.24mm, 26.40oC and 86.60% respectively (GMSD, 2009). The
experiment took place between April-August, 2009 in three phases. The first phase
was carried out from April to July, 2009. The second and third phases took place in
August, 2009.
3.2
Experimental Animals
Forty eight (48) male and twelve (12) female sexually mature grasscutters, 4-5
months old and weighing 0.69-1.94kg were used for the experiment. The grasscutters
were purchased from Nokwareasa and Samari-Nkwanta in the Ejura-Sekyedumase
District of Ashanti and Sunyani in the Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana. The
grasscutters were all tagged and housed in individual cages, of dimension 50cm ×
50cm × 40cm, for 2 weeks before they were used for the experiment.
23
The male grasscutters were then divided into two (2) live-weight groups of 0.69kg1.0kg and 1.18kg-1.94kg respectively. Each group constituted a block. Twelve (12)
male grasscutters were randomly selected from each block and castrated.
3.3
Castration of Grasscutters
The surgical method of Andersen (2007) with anaesthesia (Mensah et al., 2005) was
used in castrating the grasscutters. The grasscutters were restrained by covering the
head and thorax regions with cloth bag (Rand, 2001), and handled by two persons.
Lidocaine concentration of 4% (Rand, 2001) was injected intra-muscularly into the
scrotal and pelvic regions at a rate of 1ml/kg live-body weight, after disinfecting the
area with methylated spirit. The testicles were located by palpating the inguinal area
and incised with a scalpel blade. The spermatic cord with its associated testicular
blood vessels were located and ligated to prevent internal bleeding. Oxytetracycline
aerosol was sprayed onto the incised tissues to disinfect and facilitate quick wound
healing. There was 100% wound healing at 2 weeks after castration in all the
animals.
3.4
Management of Experimental Animals
3.4.1 Housing.
The grasscutters were housed in 3-tier wooden cages lined with wire mesh (Figure
1).
24
In the first phase of the experiment, the grasscutters were housed in individual cages
with dimensions of 50cm x 50cm x 40cm. In the second phase, each cage had a
dimension of 100cm × 50cm × 40cm with a floor space of 94.92cm × 44.92cm,
accommodating 2-3 animals. Each cage apartment was barricaded with iron roofing
sheets to prevent grasscutters in one apartment from seeing and reaching others in
adjacent apartments.
25
Figure 1: A 3-tier grasscutter cage.
26
3.4.2
Sanitation
Cages were disinfected with dettol solution at a rate of 7.5ml/l of water before the
start of the experiment. The cages, feeding and watering troughs were cleaned each
day before feeding the animals.
3.4.3
Feeding and watering
The grasscutters were fed ad libitum with elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) as
the basal diet and supplemented with concentrate containing 14% crude protein fed
at a rate of 50g per animal per day. The proximate analysis of the concentrate diet
and that of elephant grass were done at the Nutrition Laboratory of the Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. The results are shown in
Tables 1 and 2. The non-pelleted concentrate was moistened with water at a rate of
6.12ml/50g (0.1224ml/g) to avoid choking of the animals. The grasscutters were fed
and provided with fresh drinking water once daily between 3:30pm-5:30pm.
Table 1: Composition of Concentrate Diet.
Feed Ingredient
Maize
Wheat bran
Soya bean meal
Oyster shells
Vitamin-mineral premix
Salt
Total
Percentage (%)
44.00
41.00
9.00
5.00
0.50
0.50
100.00
Vitamin-mineral premix composition: Vitamin A (8.000V.I.); Vitamin D3 (1.500 V.I.);
Vitamin E (2.500 V.I.); Vitamin K3 (1.000mg); Vitamin B2 (2.000mg); Vitamin B12
(5.000mg); Nicotinic acid (8mg); Calcium panthotenate (2mg); Antioxidant (10mg); Folic
acid (500mg); Choline cloruro (50mg); Manganese (50mg); Zinc (40mg); Copper (4.50mg);
Cobalt (100mg); Iodine (1mg); and Selenium (100mg)
27
Table 2: Proximate Composition of Elephant grass and Concentrate (On dry matter
basis)
Chemical composition
Elephant grass (%)
Concentrate (%)
Crude protein
Crude fibre
Ether extract
Ash
Dry matter
Nitrogen free extract
3.4.4
9.25
31.00
1.17
9.80
34.00
49.30
13.89
5.36
2.99
8.05
87.20
69.71
Treatment of injured animals
Grasscutters that sustained external injuries were treated with Oxytetracycline
aerosol containing 5mg of Oxytetracycline hydrochloride.
3.5
Data Collection
3.5.1 Feed intake and live-weight
Grass, concentrate and left-over feed were weighed with electronic weigh master
digital scale (Penn Scale Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia). Daily feed intake
was computed by calculating the difference between the amount of grass and
concentrate fed and the left-over. The live grasscutters were weighed with electronic
weigh master digital scale fortnightly and their weights recorded. Feed conversion
efficiency was computed using the formula:
Feed intake (g)
Weight gain (g)
28
3.5.2
Injuries and mortalities
All injuries and deaths with post-mortem findings were recorded as and when they
occurred. Post-mortem examination was conducted on each carcass. Pictures of
injured animals and dead animals dissected for post-mortem examinations were
taken with a digital camera. Percentage injuries and mortalities were expressed over
total number of male animals per treatment using the formula:
Number of animals injured/dead per treatment × 100
Total number of animals per treatment
3.5.3
Docility scoring
Docility score of 1-4 (Mensah and Okeyo, 2005) was used to score the behaviour of
the grasscutters. The scores were as follows:
 1 was assigned if the grasscutter moved to person and accepted to be
touched;
 2 was assigned if it moved away without panic;
 3 was assigned if it was excited and agitated; and
 4 was assigned if it was in complete panic.
3.5.4
Carcass evaluation
3.5.4.1 Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percent of grasscutter
Sixteen (16) grasscutters, eight (8) intact males and eight (8) castrates were randomly
selected and slaughtered for carcass evaluation at the end of the experiment.
29
Carcass weights were recorded using an electronic weigh master digital scale. After
scalding with hot water at a temperature of 80oC (Omole et al., 2005) the carcasses
were weighed again using an electronic weigh master digital scale to obtain the
defurred weights. The carcasses were dissected with a sharp knife and the internal
organs were removed. Whole and individual viscera (heart, liver, kidneys, lungs and
spleen) and fat from the visceral organs were weighed on an electronic weigh master
digital scale and their weights recorded. The weights of the eviscerated carcasses, hot
and cold, were also recorded and the dressing percentages worked out using the
formula:
Dressed carcass weight (hot/cold)
× 100
Slaughter weight
3.5.4.2
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat
Castrate and intact grasscutter meat samples were taken for chemical analysis. Two
meat samples of 100g each were taken from each treatment and each block. Each
sample comprised 100g meat from the longissimus dorsi muscles, loins, fore legs,
hind legs, thorax, neck and abdomen. The meat samples were put in plain polythene
sheets separately and frozen for 24hours in a deep freezer. The frozen samples were
transported in cold flask containers to the Nutrition Science Laboratory of the
Biochemistry Department of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi, for analysis.
30
Samples were kept frozen in a deep freezer and analyzed 48hours after slaughter.
Moisture, energy, protein, lipid, pH and ash contents of meat were determined.
The moisture content was determined by drying 5.00g of meat samples in an oven
thermostatistically controlled at 105oC for 5hours. The weight differences in fresh
and dried meat samples were recorded and percent moisture was calculated. The
Kjeldahl procedure which seeks to determine organic nitrogen by converting
nitrogenous compounds to ammonium sulphate was used to analyze the crude
protein content of the meat (AOAC, 1980). Two grammes (2.00g) of dried meat
from each sample were digested in a digester using 25ml. of sulphuric acid with
25ml. of 2% boric acid as catalyst. Through steam distillation, liberated ammonia
from digested samples was trapped in dilute boric acid and titrated with 0.1N
Hydrochloric acid solution. The lipid content was determined by continuous
extraction from dried meat samples with light petroleum fraction. The weight
differences of fresh and dried fat and the percentage fat content were computed.
3.5.4.3
Organoleptic/sensory evaluation of grasscutter meat
Sensory evaluation was conducted on the meat of intact and castrated grasscutters, as
described by Van Heerden et al. (2007) and Osman and Aldosari (2006). Sensory
panelists were given 4 hour training on sensory evaluation procedures at the Science
Laboratory of the University of Education, Winneba, Asante Mampong. Ten (10)
trained sensory panelists took part in the sensory analysis. Meat was taken from the
animals’ fore legs, hind legs, longissimus dorsi and skin.
31
The meat samples were frozen in a deep freezer for 36hours and cut into 1.5cm3
sizes, each weighing about 8g. Ten meat cubes from each part were cooked
separately for 10munites in 65ml of water with 3g of salt.
The meat cubes were served warm to 10 trained panelists in panel booths at the
Science Laboratory of the University of Education, Winneba, Asante Mampong.
Five minutes break was allowed between each of the 8 sessions for mouth rinsing to
reduce sensory fatigue and halo effects. The meat cubes were coded and served
randomly to ensure that each panelist evaluated every sample at the end of the test.
Each panel member tasted 8 different samples of meat from intact and castrated
animals.
The panelists evaluated meat colour, meat colour intensity, aroma,
juiciness, texture, flavour and over all acceptability (Omole et al., 2005) using a
score sheet with 7 point hedonic scale (Osman and Aldosari, 2006) (Appenx 1).
Panelists used colour charts (Appendix 2) and designed meat attribute description
charts (Appendix 3) in rating the meat (Van Heerden et al., 2007). A meat coding
chart was used to conduct the sensory evaluation (Appendix 4).
3.6
Experimental Design and Treatments
The experiment was conducted using the Randomized Complete Block Design
(RCBD). The live-weight groups, 0.69kg-1.0kg and 1.18kg-1.94kg of grasscutters
constituted blocks 1 and 2 respectively. The experiment was conducted in three (3)
phases. In the first phase, there were 2 treatments (intact males and castrates) using
RCBD. Each treatment was replicated 6 times in a block.
32
This phase lasted for 8 weeks and sought to determine the feed utilization and
growth performance of intact and castrated grasscutters.
In the second phase, there were 6 treatments and 4 replications (Table 2). The
experimental treatments were made up of colonies of intact males, castrates or intact
males and castrates, with or without females as follows:
T1 = Intact males only.
T4 = Castrates and females.
T2 = Castrates only.
T5 = Intact males and castrates.
T3 = Intact males and females.
T6 = Intact males, castrates and females.
Table 3: Lay-out of Experimental Design and Treatments.
BLOCK
EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT
TOTAL
1
T1R1
T2R1
T3R1
T4R1
T5R1
T6R1
(0.69kg
2I
2C
2I1F
2C1F
1I1C
1I1C1F
T1R2
T2R2
T3R2
T4R2
T5R2
T6R2
2I
2C
2I1F
2C1F
1I1C
1I1C1F
2
T1R1
T2R1
T3R1
T4R1
T5R1
T6R1
(1.18kg
2I
2C
2I1F
2C1F
1I1C
1I1C1F
to
T1R2
T2R2
T3R2
T4R2
T5R2
T6R2
1.94kg)
2I
2C
2I1F
2C1F
1I1C
1I1C1F
6I6C3F
TOTAL
8I
8C
8I4F
8C4F
4I4C
4I4C4F
24I24C12F
6I6C3F
to
I.00kg)
KEY: I= Intact.
C= Castrate.
F= Female.
33
6I6C3F
6I6C3F
To further enhance easy identification, the experimental animals were fitted with ear
tags of varying colours. Intact males, castrates and females were fitted with red,
white and black coloured tags respectively. This phase lasted for 8 weeks and sought
to determine the effect of castration on docility and aggressive behaviour resulting in
injuries and mortalities of grasscutters.
In the third phase there were three sub-phases. Sub-phase 1 was to evaluate carcass
characteristics. That is, slaughter weight, dressed carcass weight (hot and cold),
dressing percentages (hot and cold), organ weight and viscera fat weight of
grasscutters. There were 2 treatments (intact males and castrates) with 8 replications.
Sub-phase 2 was to determine the chemical constituents of grasscutter meat. There
were 2 treatments (intact males and castrates), each with 12 replications. Sub-phase 3
was to conduct the sensory analysis of intact and castrated grasscutter meat. There
were 2 treatments (intact males and castrates) with 10 replications.
3.7
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and General Linear
Model (GLM) procedures of Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1999). Differences
between means of significant effects were separated by the Probability of Difference
(P.D.I.F.F.) procedures of Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1999).
34
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS
4.1
Feed utilization and growth performance of grasscuters
The mean feed utilization and growth performance of castrated and intact male
grasscutters are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Feed Utilization and Growth Performance of Grasscutters.
Variable
Intact
S. E.
1289.29a
38.77
98.46a
81.03b
3.21
Final live weight (g)
1427.39a
1527.65a
42.69
Total weight gain (g)
224.48a
238.35a
18.92
Initial live body weight (g)
Dry matter intake (g/day)
1202.92a
Treatment
Castrate
Daily weight gain (g/day)
3.75a
3.97a
0.32
Feed conversion ratio
26.26a
20.41b
2.18
(a and b): Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly
different (P< 0.05).
Table 4 shows that there were no significant differences (P> 0.05) between intact
males and castrates’ final live weight, total weight gain and daily weight gain.
However, daily dry matter intake was low (P< 0.05) in castrates than in intact males
which significantly translated into a better feed-to-gain ratio by castrate (P< 0.05).
35
4.2
Injuries/mortalities/docility of grasscutters
The mean injuries, mortalities and docility of castrated and intact male grasscutters,
with or without females are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Injuries (%), Mortalities (%) and Docility.
Variable
No. of animals
1
2
3
Treatment
4
5
6
S. E.
8
8
12
12
8
12
-
0c
5.59
Injuries
25.0ab
37.5a
12.5bc
25.0ab
0c
Mortalities
25.0a
37.5ac
62.5bc
37.5ac
25.0a
25.0a
11.57
Docility
2.83a
2.99a
2.94a
3.14a
2.89a
2.96a
0.11
(a, b and c): Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly
different (P< 0.05).
NOTE: T1 = Intact males only; T2 = Castrates only; T3 = Intact males and females;
T4 = Castrates and females; T5 = Intact males and castrates; T6 = Intact males, castrates
and females
Animals in colonies of intact males only (T1), castrates only (T2), intact males and
females (T3) and castrates and females (T4) sustained body injuries (Table 5) as
shown in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Similar numbers of injuries were
observed in intact males only (T1), castrates only (T2) and castrates and females
(T4) on one hand, and intact males (T1), intact males and females (T3) and castrates
and females (T4) on another hand (P> 0.05). The castrates only (T2) sustained
significantly (P< 0.05) higher number of injuries than the intact males and females
group (T3).
36
Injuries found on the animals were located around their snouts (Figure 2), loins
(Figures 2 and 4), fore quarters (Figure 4 and 5) and hind quarters (Figures 3 and 4).
No injuries were recorded in colonies of intact males and castrates (T5) and intact
males, castrates and females (T6).
The proportion of animals that died in all treatment groups was similar (P> 0.05),
with the exception that higher proportion of animals was lost in the intact males and
females groups (T3) than the intact males only group (T1) (P< 0.05). From the post
mortem findings, internal bleeding as a result of fighting was one major cause of
deaths in all treatments (Figures 7-9). Septicaemia was responsible for the deaths
recorded in colonies of intact males and castrates (T5) and intact males, castrates and
females (T6).
Animals in all the treatments had similar docility scores (P> 0.05) (Table 5).
37
Figure 2: Grasscutter injured on loin and snout as shown by arrows.
38
Figure 3: Grasscutter injured on hind-quarter as shown by arrow.
39
Figure 4: Grasscutter injured on loin, fore-quarter and hind-quarter as shown by
arrows.
40
Figure 5: Grasscutter injured on fore-quarter as shown by arrow.
41
Figure 6: Dead grasscutter being prepared for post-mortem examination.
42
Figure 7: Dissected grasscutter showing clotted blood as shown by arrow.
43
Figure 8: Frank blood found in grasscutter from ruptured liver as shown by arrow.
44
Figure 9: Dissected grasscutter showing ruptured liver (top arrow) and clotted blood
(bottom arrow).
45
4.3
Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutters
The mean carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of castrated and
intact male grasscutters are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Carcass Parameters of intact male and castrated grasscutters
Parameter
Treatment
S. E.
Intact
Castrate
Slaughter weight) (g)
1848.19a
1989.09a
189.34
Defurred weight (g)
1800.38a
1917.55a
185.80
Hot carcass weight (g)
1353.18a
1501.49a
173.29
Dressing %, hot carcass
72.51a
74.59a
2.41
Cold carcass weight (g)
1344.59a
1493.29a
173.26
72.00a
74.14a
2.44
Internal offals plus fat (%)1
8.75a
8.25a
6.17
Internal offals less fat (%)1
8.26a
7.56a
4.96
Viscera fat (%)1
0.48a
0.69a
1.93
Heart (%)1
0.56a
0.49a
0.92
Liver (%)1
1.44a
1.28 a
1.48
Kidneys (pair) (%)1
0.45a
0.44a
0.29
Lungs (pair) (%)1
0.64a
0.52a
0.71
Spleen (%)1
0.09a
0.11b
0.01
Dressing %, cold carcass
(a and b): Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly
different (P< 0.05).
1. Internal offals and organs were expressed as % of pre-slaughter weight.
46
There were no significant differences (P> 0.05) between intact males and castrates
for dressing percentages of hot and cold carcasses, internal offals (plus or less fat),
viscera fat, heart, liver, kidneys and lungs (Table 6). However, the proportion of
spleen to body weight was significantly (P< 0.05) higher in castrates than in intact
males.
4.4
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat (based on dry matter)
The mean chemical compositions of castrated and intact grasscutter meat are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Chemical Composition of Grasscutter Meat.
Variable
Treatment
S. E.
Intact
Castrate
Sample size
12
12
-
Moisture (%)
77.77a
77.26a
0.62
Energy (J)
360.03a
355.99a
13.51
Protein (%)
19.43a
19.72a
0.81
Lipid/Fat (%)
0.96a
1.17a
0.47
pH (%)
6.28a
6.34a
0.04
Ash (%)
1.82a
1.80a
0.09
(a): Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly different
(P< 0.05).
47
Results in Table 7 shows that the chemical composition of Intacts’ and Castrates’
meat did not differ significantly (P> 0.05) with regards to moisture content, energy,
protein, fat, pH and ash. The values for these parameters were similar for intact
males and castrates.
48
4.5 Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of grasscutter meat
The mean sensory characteristics of cooked meat of castrated and intact male
grasscutters are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Sensory Characteristics of Cooked Grasscutter Meat.
Variable
Intact
2.53a
2.74a
2.69a
3.81a
3.41a
3.23a
4.31a
4.25a
4.55a
4.59a
4.59a
4.38a
4.08 a
4.00a
3.86a
4.94a
4.24a
3.87a
4.51a
5.15a
4.50a
5.31a
4.80a
5.30a
2.49a
5.73a
5.94a
5.67a
Fore leg meat colour
Hind leg meat colour
Longissimus dorsi meat colour
Skin colour
Fore leg meat colour intensity
Hind leg meat colour intensity
Longissimus dorsi meat colour intensity
Skin colour intensity
Fore leg aroma intensity
Hind leg aroma intensity
Longissimus dorsi aroma intensity
Skin aroma intensity
Fore leg meat juiciness
Hind leg meat juiciness
Longissimus dorsi meat juiciness
Skin juiciness
Fore leg meat texture
Hind leg meat texture
Longissimus dorsi meat texture
Skin texture
Fore leg meat flavour
Hind leg meat flavour
Longissimus dorsi meat flavour
Skin flavour
Fore leg overall acceptability
Hind leg overall acceptability
Longissimus dorsi overall acceptability
Skin overall acceptability
Treatment
Castrate
1.73a
3.14a
3.32a
2.81a
2.91a
2.83a
2.31b
3.75a
3.95a
3.59a
3.79a
4.68a
4.98a
4.00a
3.96a
4.94a
4.94a
4.57a
5.31a
4.85a
5.00a
5.31a
4.70a
5.70a
2.39a
5.83a
5.44a
5.27a
S. E.
0.66
0.45
0.64
0.53
0.48
0.59
0.49
0.35
0.46
0.58
0.48
0.47
0.63
0.58
0.53
0.68
0.40
0.56
0,38
0.46
0.38
0.44
0.50
0.45
0.53
0.60
0.26
0.37
(a and b): Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly
different( P<0.05).
49
Among all variables evaluated on sensory characteristics of meat, panelists were able
to determine significant differences (P< 0.05) between only longissimus dorsi muscle
colour intensity of intact males and castrates (Table 8). Intact males’ and Castrates’
meat colour, aroma, flavor, juiciness, texture and overall acceptability were not
significantly different (P> 0.05).
50
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1
Feed utilization and growth performance of grasscutters
Castrates consumed less dry matter of feed (P> 0.05) compared to their counterpart
intact males (Table 4). Castration reduced feed intake of cattle (AVMA, 2007) but
improved that of goats (Muhikambele et al., 1994). Although castrates consumed
less dry matter and had similar growth rate, they obtained a better feed-to-gain ratio
than intact males (P< 0.05). A similar result was observed by Mensah et al. (2005a).
Final live weight, total weight gain and daily weight gain were not influenced by
castration. Similar findings were reported in cattle (Andersen, 2007). However,
contradictory results to this study have been reported. Growth rate of male
grasscutter castrated over four (4) months of age was found to be lower than that of
intact males (Alogninouwa et al., 1999). Grasscutters castrated between 1-2 months
of age grew 1.4 times faster than uncastrated ones of similar age (Mensah et al.,
2005a). Studies on the effect of castration on the growth rate of male ruminants have
also shown numerous contradictory findings (Bani-Ismail et al., 2007).
5.2
Injuries/mortalities/docility
Castration of grasscutters between ages 4-5 months could not eliminate injuries
caused by the aggressive behaviour of the animals because both castrates and intact
males were injured to the same degree.
51
The result is in agreement with report by Manharth and Harris-Gerber (2002) that
significant aggressive fighting and injuries were observed in colonies of castrsted
Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis). The result is however contrary to report that
castration of male rats decreased aggression significantly (DeBold and Czek, 1981).
The injuries in this study were observed to have been caused by aggressive
behaviours, particularly fighting. The animals fought by using their claws and teeth
to scratch and bite respectively, thereby resulting in external injuries. No aggressive
fighting was observed in the colonies of intact males and castrates (T5) and intact
males, castrates and females (T6), and hence no injuries were sustained by animals in
these treatments. Therefore intact males and castrates mixed in colony, with or
without females (T5 and T6) co-existed peacefully than other treatments. As to why
such phenomenon happened is still not well understood and requires further
investigations.
Similar proportion of animals died in all treatments. However, higher proportion of
animals was lost in the intact males and females group (T3) than the intact males’
only group (T1) (P< 0.05). This is in agreement with reports by Mensah and Okeyo
(2005) and Adu (2002c) that male grasscutters at puberty can fight to death in the
presence of females. From the post mortem findings, internal bleeding as a result of
fighting was one major cause of deaths in all treatments (Figures 7-9). Septicaemia, a
bacterial infection was responsible for the deaths recorded in colonies of intact males
and castrates (T5) and intact males, castrates and females (T6). Similar result was
reported in grasscutters in Gabon (Jori and Cooper, 2001)
52
The docility of grasscutters castrated between ages 4-5 months was not significantly
influenced by castration. The current finding is contrary to previous reports that
castration promotes docility in cattle (Turk, 2007; Stafford and Mellor, 2005). Based
on the results it could be determined that castration alone was not enough to ensure
success in significantly reducing inter-male aggressive behaviours of grasscutters in
colony. Other factors such as live weight and growth rate also influence docility. It
has been reported that cattle with higher body weight are more docile than those with
lower body weights, and grew faster during fattening than aggressive animals
(Fordyce et al., 1988). The similar docility observed in the treatment groups could
therefore be attributed to the similar weights and growth rates in castrates and intact
males.
5.3
Carcass weight, organ weight and dressing percentage of grasscutter
Carcass weight (hot/cold), dressing percentages (hot/cold), internal offals (plus or
less fat), heart, liver, kidneys and lungs were not significantly affected by castration.
Similar findings were reported in Awassi lambs (Haddad et al, 2006). The result may
be due to the late castration as delayed castration was reported to confer no benefits
in terms of carcass weight (Fisher et al., 2001). Castration did not influence
eviscerated weight and dressing percentage at 32 weeks of age of Pheasants (Severin
et al., 2007). Fat content, which is often a great concern as a public health issue was
also not significantly affected by castration (P> 0.05). Early castration (3 months) is
recommended for thick fat deposition in goat meat (Kebede et al., 2008).
53
Other reports also show that early castration of Damascus goats produced fatter
carcasses in castrates than in intact males (Louca et al., 1977). Castration increased
the proportion of spleen to body weight. This is difficult to explain as there is no data
in the literature to support this. Further investigation is therefore needed to explain
this difference.
5.4
Chemical composition of grasscutter meat
Moisture, energy, protein, fat, pH and ash contents of castrated grasscutter meat were
similar to that of intact males (P> 0.05). However in other research findings, fat and
moisture in Pheasant meat were reported to be higher in castrates than in intacts and
protein content was also lower in castrates than intact (Severin et al., 2007). Higher
intramuscular fat deposition was reported in castrated goats than in intacts (Koyuncu
et al., 2007). In cattle, higher protein content with lower moisture contents were
reported (Destefanis et al., 2003).
5.5
Organoleptic/sensory characteristics of grasscutter meat
Intacts and castrates cooked meat colours were not significantly affected by
castration (P> 0.05). The meat colours for both intacts and castrates ranged from
ivory to yellow lemon for fore legs, and ivory to light ivory for hind legs,
longissimus dorsi muscle and skin. Colour intensity for all body parts of both intacts’
and castrates’ meat evaluated did not differ significantly (P> 0.05) except for
longissimus dorsi muscle (P< 0.05).
54
Castrates produced lighter longissimus dorsi muscle colour than intacts (P< 0.05).
The cooked meat aroma, juiciness, texture and flavour were also not significantly
(P< 0.05) influenced by castration. Similar reports were made by Morgan et al.
(1993). Generally, intact males’ and castrates’ meat were both acceptable as sensory
panelists could not detect any significant differences in both meat (P> 0.05).
Significant differences did not occur between intact males’ and castrates’ cooked
meat attributes perhaps because of the late castration of the animals. Late castration
confers no benefits in terms of taste/flavour (Shahidi, 1994) and fat deposition
(Kebede et al., 2008).
55
CHAPTER SIX
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
From the results, it could be concluded that:
 Castration of grasscutters between 4-5 months of age could not influence a
significant change in feed intake, final body weight and growth rate.
Castration however influenced grasscutters to utilize feed better than intact
males.
 Injuries occurred in both intact males grouped alone and castrates also
grouped alone as a result of fighting. However, castrates and intact males
grouped together co-existed peacefully.
 Mortality was higher in intact males and females group than in intact males
only goup.
 Docility could not be achieved by castration of grasscutters between 4-5
months of age.
 Castration did not influence carcass weight (hot/cold), dressing percentages
(hot/cold), internal offals (plus or less fat), heart, liver, kidneys and lungs.
 The percentage proportion of spleen to live-body was higher in castrates than
in intact male grasscutters.
 Late castration had no significant change in moisture, protein, fat, energy, pH
and ash contents of grasscutter meat.
56
 Sensory panelists identified cooked grasscutter meat colours to range from
ivory to yellow lemon for fore legs, and ivory to light ivory for hind legs and
longissimus dorsi.
6.3
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
 For efficient feed utilization, male grasscutters should be castrated between
ages 4-5 months.
 The work should be repeated by using castration at an early age at 2 months.
 For low fat content in meat, grasscutters should be castrated between ages 4-5
months.
 Farmers may choose to either castrate or not castrate grasscutters because
sensory panelists have found both intact males’ and castrates’ meat as
generally acceptable.
57
REFERENCES
Achana B. (2002). Conservation International’s Experience in Grasscutter
Production: Kakum National Park Grasscutter Research Station. Proceedings of
Workshop for Grasscutter Production for Poverty Rreduction in Ghana, 16-18 Oct.,
2002. Eusbett Hotel, Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 63-65.
Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture
religious festivals, and traditional medicine of Nigeria. Environmental Conservation,
19: 125-134.
Adeniji, A. A. (2008). Effects of feeding three protein sources with or without fish
meal supplementation on the performance of growing Grasscutters. Asian Journal of
Animal and Veterinary Advances, 3(2): 98-103.
Adu, E. K. (2002a). Research on Grasscutter Production in Ghana. Proceedings of a
Workshop for Promoting Grasscutter Production for Poverty Reduction in Ghana,
16-18 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel, Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 27-34.
Adu, E. K. (2002b). Organization of Grasscutter Farmers Associations: Heifer
International Approach. Proceedings of a workshop for promoting Grasscutter
Production for Poverty reduction in Ghana, 16-18 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel,
Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 58-62.
58
Adu, E. K. (2002c). Experiences of a Research Institute on Grasscutter Farming in
Ghana. Deuxième Conférence sur la promotion de la diffusion de l’élevage
d’aulacodes en Afrique au sud du Sahara, des 17,18 et 19 Decembre, 2002, Institut
International d’Agronomie Tropicale (IITA), Godomey, (BENIN), pp. 1-17.
Adu, E. K., Alhassan, W. S. and Nelson, F. S. (1999). Small-holder farming of the
cane rat, Thryonomys swinderianus, Temminck, in Southern Ghana: A base-line
survey of management practices. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 31: 223232.
Adu, E. K., Aning, K. G., Wallace, P. A. and Ocloo, T. O. (2000). Reproduction
and Mortality in a colony of captive Greater Cane Rats, Thryonomys swinderianus
Temminck. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 32(1): 11-17.
Adu, E. K. and Wallace, P. A. (2003). Growth and Reproductive Performance of
Gasscutter fed freshly cut Panicum maximum. Journal of the Ghana Science
Association, 5: 90-93.
Adu, E. K., Paterson, R., Rojas, F., Germana, L., Fielding, D. and Osafo, E.
(2005). Grasscutters, Guinea pigs and Rabbits. In: A. J. Kitalyi, N. Jayasuriya, E.
Owen & T. Smith (Eds.). Livestock and wealth creation: Improving the husbandry of
animals kept by resource-poor people in developing countries. Nottingham
University Press.
59
Ajayi, S. S. and Tewe, O. (2008). Food preference and carcass composition of the
Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) in captivity. African Journal of Ecology,
18(1-3):133-140.
Akinola, L. A. F. (2008). Grasscutter Rearing: A New Initiative in protein supply.
Proceedings of a Workshop in Agricultural Product Development Strategy by Rivers
State Sustainable Development Agency (RSSDA), 9-10 Sept., 2008, Elkan Terrace,
12B Abacha Road, GRA Phase3, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Alogninouwa, T., Kpodekon, M. and Yewadan, L. T. (1999). Effects of castration
on growth and endocrine pattern in the Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus,
Temminck, 1827). Annales de Zootechnie, 48(3): 225-230.
AMSA (American Meat Science Association) (1991). Guidelines for meat colour
evaluation. Proceedings of the Reciprocal Meat Conference, Vol. 44. 1111N.
Dunlop Avenue, Savoy IL61874, USA.
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) (2007). Backgrounder:
Welfare
implications
of
castration
of
cattle.
http://www.avma.org/backgrounders/castration-cattle-bgnd-asp. (Accessed 21/03/
2009).
60
Anderson, N. (2007). Castration of calves.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/facts/07-029.htm.
(Accessed
10/03/2009).
Ankah, J. K. (2005). Policy and Advocacy: Role of Government in Grasscutter
Production. Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting
Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of Local
Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
Annor, S. Y., Kagya-Agyemang, J. K., Abbam, J. E. Y., Oppong, S. K. and
Agoe, I. M. (2008). Growth performance of grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus)
eating leaves and stem fractions of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum). Livestock
Research for Rural Development, 20 (8).
AOAC (1980). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, Washington D. C.
Atiemo, E. (2005). Compressed Earth Block Technology: An option for Grasscutter
housing system. Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting
Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of Local
Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
61
Bani-Ismail, Z. A., AL-Zghoul, M. F., Al-Majali, A. M. and Khraim, N. M.
(2007). Effects of castration on Penile and Urethral Development in Awassi lambs.
Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 10(1): 29-34.
Bekoe, E. (2002). Domestication of Grasscutter in Ghana: Experiences of Nungua
Farm. Proceedings of a workshop for promoting Grasscutter production for poverty
reduction in Ghana, 16-18 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel, Sunyani, Ghana, pp.35-36.
Blackwood, I. and Clayton, E. (2006). Supplementary Feeding Principles-(Online).
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/-data/assets/pdf-file/0008/95903/supplementary-
feeding-principles.pdf. (Accessed 19/02/2009).
BOSTID (1991). Micro-Livestock: Little Known Small Animals with a Promising
Economic Future. Pp. 435. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
Conforth, D. (1994). Colour, its basis and importance. In: A. M. Pearson and T. R.
Dutson (Eds.). Quality attribute and the measurement in meat, poultry and fish
products. Advances in Meat Res. Series, Glasgow Blackie Academic and
Professional,Glasgow, Scotland, pp: 33-17.
Core, S. (2008). Wild cattle-Is it in their eyes.
http://www..omafra.gov.on..ca/english/livestock/beef/news/vbn0708a1.htm.
(Accessed 10/03/ 2009).
62
Cross, H. R., Durland, P. R. and Seidema, S. C. (1986). Sensory qualities of meat.
In: P. J., Bechtel (ed). Muscle as food. New York: Academic Press, 279-320.
DeBold, J. F. and Miczek, K. A. (1981). Sexual Dimorphism in the Hormonal
Control of Aggressive Behaviour in Rats. Pharmacology of Biochemistry and
Behaviour 14(1): 89-93.
Destefanis, G., Brugiapaglia, A., Barge, M. T. and Lazzaroni, C. (2003). Effect
of Castration on Meat quality in Piemontese Cattle. Meat Science 64(2): 215-218.
Djang-Fordjour, K. T., Annor, S. Y., Agbolosou, A. A., Andani, Y. A., Dzoagbe,
S. K. and Ansah, T. (2005). Performance of women Grasscutter farmers in the
Northern Region of Ghana. Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter:
Promoting Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of
Local Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
Early, B. and Keane, G. (2008). Castration methods and their impact on
performance.
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2008/0322/farmmanagement/beef/husbandry.shtml.
(Accessed10/03/ 2009).
63
Ehui, E. (1999). A review of the contribution of livestock to food security, poverty
alleviation and environmental sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa. UNEP Industry
and Environment, April- Sept., (1999):37.
Fisher, A. D., Knight, T. W. and Cosgrove, G. P. (2001). Effects of surgical or
band castration on stress responses and behaviour of bulls. Australian Veterinary
Journal, 79: 279-284.
Fisher, A. D., Crowe, M. A. and Alonso de la Varga, M. A. (1991). Effect of
castration method and the provision of local anaesthesia on plasma cortisol, scrotal
circumference, growth and feed intake of bull calves. Journal of Animal Science,
74:2336-2343.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2000). World
watch list for domestic animal diversity. 716pp.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1994).
Castration of ruminants. In: A manual for the primary animal health care worker.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1990). Manual
on simple methods of meat preservation: Basic methods of quality control, FAO
Animal Production and Health Paper 79: 1-22.
64
Food Technology Corporation (2008). Texture testing for the meat sector.
http://www.foodtechcorp.com/Sectors/Meats.php. (Accessed 29/08/09).
Fordyce, G., Dodt, R. M. and Wythes, J. R. (1988). Cattle temperament in
extensive beef herds in Northern Greensland. Factors affecting temperament.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 28: 683-687.
Ghana Meteorological Services Department (GMSD) (2009). Weather report for
April-August, 2009. Asante Mampong, Ashanti Region, Ghana.
Hamilton, J. A., Mcllveen and Strugnell, C. (2000). Educatimg young consumers:
a food choice model. Journal of Consumer Studies of Home Economics, 24(2):113123.
Haddad, S. G., Husein, M. Q. and Sweidan, R. W. (2006). Effects of Castration on
Growth Performance of Awassi Lambs Fed High Concentrate Diets. Small Ruminant
Research 65(1-2):149-153.
Hemmer, H. (1993). Domestication: Concept and consequences. In: Schrage, R. and
Yewadan, L. T. (eds.). 1ere Conference Internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et
Perspectives, 189-202.
65
Ikpeze. O. O. and Ebenebe, C. I. (2004). Production Performance of the
Grasscutter (Rodentia: Thrynomydae) reared under three different housing systems.
Bio-Reasearch 2(2).
Jeremiah, L. E. (2000). The effects of chronological age, slaughter weight, and
gender on lambs: A review. In: Technical Bulletin 2000-IE: Research Branch,
Agriculture and Food Canada, Lacombe, Alberta, pp.1-9.
Jori, F. and Cooper, J. E. (2001). Postmortem findings in captive Cane Rats
(Thryonomys swinderianus) in Gabon. The Veterinary Record, 148(20): 624-628.
Jori, F., Mensah, G. A. and Adjanohoun, E. (1995). Grasscutter production: an
example of rational exploitation of wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4:257265.
Karikari, P. K. and Nyameasem, J. K. (2009). Productive performance and carcass
characteristics of captive grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed concentrate
diets containing varying levels of Guinea grass. World Applied Sciences Journal,
6(4):557-563.
Kebede, T., Lemma, T., Dinka, H., Guru, M. and Sisay, A. (2008) Growth
performance and carcass characteristics of Arsi-Bale goats castrated at different ages.
Journal of Cell and Animal Biology, 2(11): 187-194.
66
Kirkpatrick, F. D. (2004). Improve convenience traits to keep ranching enjoyable.
http://www.cattletoday.com/achive/2004/october/CT363.shtml.
(Accessed
09/04/2009).
Koyuncu, M., Duru, S., Kara Uzun, S., Ozis, S. and Tuncel, E. (2007). Effect of
Castration on Carcass Traits in Hair Goat Kids under a Semi-intensive System in
South Marmara Region of Turkey. Small Ruminant Research 72(1): 38-44.
Lawrie, R. A. (1998). Meat Science. 6th ed., Cambridge England: Woodhead
Publishing Limited.
Le Neindre, P., Trillat, G., Boivin, X., Boissy, A., Sapa, J. and Menissier, F.
(2000). Temperament and Docility in Limousine cattle. Presented at the International
Limousine Conference. ACS-ERH, Theix 63122, France.
Louca,, A., Economides, S. and Hancook, J. (1977). Effects of Castration on
Growth Rate, Feed Conversion Efficiency and Carcass Quality in Damascus Goats.
Animal Production 24:387-391.
Lyon, B. G. and Lyon, C. E. (1989). Texture profile of broiler pectoralis major as
influenced by post-mortem deboning time and heat method. Poultry Science, 69:329340.
67
Mack, R., Asante, E. S. and Omari, E. (2005). Grasscutter contribution to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDG): The history of Grasscutter Domestication.
Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting Grasscutter as
Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of Local Government Studies,
Accra, Ghana.
Manharth, A. and Harris-Gerber, L. (2002). Surgical castration and the effect on
aggression on Rock Hyrax (Procavia capensis). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine, 33(1): 80-82.
Market Research Africa (1996). Meat Board Qualitative Survey Ibis Park,
Ormonde, Johannesburg, South Africa.
McDonald, A. (2006). Scoring Docility in Limousine cattle.
http://users.northnet.com.au/~limo/technical/tempscore.htm. (Accessed 08/04/2009)
Mensah, E. R. (2005). Homemade pellets from green forages and concentrated
feedstuffs for feeding Grasscutters across seasons. Proceedings of the International
Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16
Dec., 2005, Institute of Local Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
68
Mensah, G. A. and Okeyo, A. M. (2005). Continuous harvest of the diverse African
Animal Genetic Resources from the wild through domestication as a strategy for
sustainable use: A case of the larger Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus).
http://agtr.ilri.cgiar.org/agtrweb. (Accessed 15/03/2008)
Mensah, G. A., Huinato, M., Koudande, O. D., Bembide, C., Dossou-Gbete, G.
S. O., Mensah, S. E., Pomalegni, C. B. and Et Kpera, G. N. (2005a). Castration of
male Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus). Proceedings of the International
Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16
Dec., 2005, Institute of Local Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
Mensah, G. A., Bombide, C., Ogouma, E., Kpehounton, A. P., Missainhoun, U.,
Azehou-Pazou, J. G., Pomalegni, C. B., Silemehou, J. A. S., Tobada, P.,
Kound.ande, E., Toleba, S. S., Houinato, M., Houzangbe, A. S., Salifou, S.,
Biaou, F., Adebidi, A., Dahouenon-Ahoussi, E. and Et Kpera, G. N. (2005b).
New Research results obtained in Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) in Benin.
Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter: Promoting Grasscutter as a
Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of Local Government Studies,
Accra, Ghana.
Merwe, M. (2000). Tooth succession in the Greater Cane Rat, Thryonomys
swinderianus. Journal of Zoology, 251: 541545.
69
Morgan, J. B., Wheeler, T. L., Koohmaraie, M., Savell, J. W. and Crouse, J. D.
(1993). Meat Tenderness and the Calpain Proteolytic System of Longissimus Dorsi
Muscle of Castrated young Bulls and Steers. Journal of Animal Science 71(6): 14711476.
Muhikambele, V. R. M., Mtenga, R. A., Owen, E., Kifaro, G. C., Sendalo, D. S.
C., Masawe, N. F., Kiango, S. M. and Nkungu, D. R. (1994). Effect of castration
and diet on performance and feed utilization in Saanen goats. Proceedings of the 3rd
Biennial Conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network, 5-9 Dec.,
1994, UICC, Kampala, Uganda, pp. 1-7.
National Research Council (NRC) (1991). Micro-livestock: Little-known small
animals with a promising economic future. Washington D.C., National Academic
Press.
Nketiah, K. S. and Owusu, B. (2005). Promoting Grasscutter as a Business: Some
field observations. Proceedings of the International Forum on Grasscutter:
Promoting Grasscutter as a Business in West Africa, 12-16 Dec., 2005, Institute of
Local Government Studies, Accra, Ghana.
70
Oduro, W. and Kankam, B. O. (2002). Environmental and Public Health hazards
of traditional Grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) hunting. Proceedings of
workshop for promoting Grasscutter production for poverty reduction in Ghana, 1618 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel, Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 19-22.
Olomu, J. M., Ezieshi, V. E. and Orhueata, A. M. (2003). Grasscutter production
in Nigeria: Principles and Practice. A Jachem Publication, Nigeria 61pp.
Omole, A. J., Ayodeji, I. O., Ashaye, O. A. and Tiamiyu, A. K. (2005). Effect of
Scalding and Flaming methods of processing on the physico-chemical and
organoleptic properties of Grasscutter meat. Journal of Applied Sciences Research,
1(2): 249-252.
Onyeanusi, A. E., Akinola, O. O. and Bobadoye, A. O. (2008). Performance of
grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed varying levels of dietary protein. Journal
of Innovation and Development Strategy, 2(3): 1-4.
O’Riordan, E. G. and Hanrahan, J. P. (1992). The Effects of Sex and Castration
on Growth Rate and Carcass Traits of Lambs. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food
Research 31: 157-162.
71
Osman, B. M. and Aldosari, M. N. (2006). Sensory Evaluation of Awassi and
Najdi Lambs’ Meat. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied
Sciences), 7(2): 137-146.
Rand, M. S. (2001). Handling, Restraint and Techniques of Laboratory rodents.
http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/uac. (Accessed 21/03/2009).
Ross, G. T. and Lipsett, M. B. (2008). Homologies of structure and function in
mammalian testes and ovaries. International Journal of Andrology, 1(2): 39-52.
Schoemaker, N. J., Van Deijk, R., Muijlaet, B., Kik, M. J. L., Kuijten, A. M., de
Jong, F. H., Trigg, T. E., Kruitwagen, C. L. J. J. aned Mol, J. A. (2008). Use of a
Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist implant as an alternative for
surgical castration in male ferret (Mustela putorius furo) Theriogenology, 70(2): 161167.
Severin, K., Masek, T, Horvatek, D., Konjevic, D., Janicki, Z., Cvrtila, Z.,
Kozacinski, L., Mirza, H. and Baric-Rafaj, R. (2007). The Effects of Castration on
the Growth Parameters, Carcass yield and Meat Chemical Composition of
Intensively Reared Common Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus colchicus). Italian
Journal of Animal Science 6(2): 12-29.
72
Shahidi, F. (1994). Flavour of meat and meat products: an over view. In: F, Shahidi
(ed). Flavour of meat and meat products. London: Blackie Academic and
Professional: 1-3.
Solomon, G., Fletener, I., Gizaw, K. and Yibrah, Y. (1991). Effect of castration
and supplementary feeding on growth, carcass characteristics and market value of
Adal goats. In: I. A. R. Proceedings of the fourth National Livestock Improvement
Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp159-164.
Stafford, K. J. and Mellor, D. J. (2005). The welfare significance of the castration
of cattle: A review. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 53: 271-278.
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (1999). SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Statistical
Analysis Institute, INC., Cary, North Carolina, USA.
Thomas, H. S. (2008). Does Temperament affect carcass quality?
http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1301/does-temperament-affect-carcass-quality.
(Accessed 10/04/2009).
Ting, S. T. L., Early, B., and Crowe, M. A. (2003). Effect of repeated ketoprofen
administration during surgical castration of bulls on Cortisol, immunological
function, feed intake, growth and behaviour. Journal of Animal Science, 81: 12531264.
73
Turk, D. S. (2007). Castration: Detailed discussion of cattle laws.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusbovine.htm. (Accessed 02/02/2009)
Tuyttens, F., De Groot, J., Van Reenen, K., De Bourdeauda huy, A. and
Struelens, E. (2006). Long term consequences of early and late castration of male
piglets on social behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Congress of the
International Society of Applied Ethology, Bristol, 8-12 August, 2006, pp. 98.
Van Heerden, S. M., Strydom, P. E., Schonfeldt, H. C., Kruger, R. and Smith,
M. F. (2007). Effect of fatness on meat quality of the loin cut of Sa Dorper Lamb.
Journal of Sensory Studies, pp: 237.
Van Zyl and Van der Merwe (1999). Meat quality and carcass characteristics of the
vondo (Thryonomys swinderianus). South African Journal of Animal Science, 29(3):
120-123.
Watson, M. J. (1996). The Effects of Castration on the Growth and Meat Quality of
Grazing Cattle. Australian Journal of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
Experimental 9(37): 164-171.
74
Weidinger, R. and Annan, P. (2002). MoFA, Brong Ahafo and GTZ-SFSP Strategy
for Grasscutter promotion. Proceedings of a workshop for promoting Grasscutter
production for poverty reduction in Ghana, 16-18 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel,
Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 47-50.
Yeboah, S. and Adams, E. K. (1995). The Cane Rat. Biologist, 42: 86-87.
Yewadan, L. T. (2002). ‘Systen d elevage en aulacodiculture.’ Proceedings of the
1st International Conference of Grasscutter Production in Cotonou, Benin, 17-19th
Feb. (1992) : 131-142.
Yewadan, L. T., Amoussou, L. and Savi, C. H. (2002). Experiences of Grasscutter
breeding in Benin. Proceedings of a workshop for promoting Grasscutter for poverty
reduction in Ghana, 16-18 Oct., 2002, Eusbett Hotel, Sunyani, Ghana, pp. 43-46.
75
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.0: Score sheet with 7-point hedonic scale.
Panelist Code: …….....
Age :………….(Years).
Sex :…………..(Male/Female).
Please, evaluate the following samples of cooked meat for the designated
attributes.
MEAT CODES
MEAT ATTRIBUTE
RATING SCALE
232
527 158 833 377 467 645 943
1= 1001
Colour Identification
Take a look at the meat. 2= 1012
Compare with those on
3= 1014
colour chart. Identify
4= 1015
and select the
5=1019
appropriate meat colour 6= 1024
by the colour codes.
7= 3009
1= Extremely light
Colour Intensity
Rate the colour you
2= Very light
identified and selected.
3= Slightly light
4= Neither light nor
intense
5= Slightly intense
6= Very intense
7= Extremely intense
1= Extremely bland
Aroma Intensity
Take a few short sniff of 2= Very bland
the meat as soon as it is 3= Slightly bland
served.
4= Neither bland nor
intense
5= Slightly intense
6= Very intense
7= Extremely intense
1= Extremely dry
Juiciness
Amount of fluid
2= Very dry
exuded/dryness
3= Slightly dry
observed when chewing 4= Neither dry nor
meat.
juicy
5= Slightly juicy
6= Very juicy
7= Extremely juicy
1= Extremely bland
Flavour
76
Is a combination of taste
while chewing and
swallowing meat.
Off-flavour
Flavour not associated
with cooked Grasscutter
meat.
Overall Acceptability
Consumption of meat
with pleasure. General
preference and choice of
meat.
2= Very bland
3= Slightly bland
4= Neither bland nor
intense
5= Slightly intense
6= Very intense
7= Extremely Intense
1= Extremely bland
2= Very bland
3= Slightly bland
4= Neither bland nor
intense
5= Slightly intense
6= Very intense
7= Extremely intense
1= Extremely
unacceptable
2= Highly
unacceptable
3= Slightly
unacceptable
4= Neither
unacceptable
nor acceptable
5= Slightly
acceptable
6= Highly acceptable
7= Extremely
acceptable
77
Appendix 2.0: Colour chart.
RAL - classic colors
The visualization of the colors on the screen is conditional
based on the characteristics of the monitor and the particular graphics card.
This technical data chart is intended as a reference guide only.
RAL Computer Video simulations displayed may not exactly match
RAL®-identified color standards. Use current RAL Color Publications for the most accurate
colors.
Maryland Metrics does not sell paint, nor RAL color charts.
RAL 1000
RAL 1001
RAL 1002
RAL 1003
RAL 1004
RAL 1005
RAL 1006
RAL 1007
RAL 1011
RAL 1012
RAL 1013
RAL 1014
RAL 1015
RAL 1016
RAL 1017
RAL 1018
RAL 1019
RAL 1020
RAL 1021
RAL 1023
RAL 1024
RAL 1027
RAL 1028
RAL 1032
RAL 1033
RAL 1034
RAL 2000
RAL 2001
RAL 2002
RAL 2003
RAL 2004
RAL 2008
RAL 2009
RAL 2010
RAL 2011
RAL 2012
RAL 3000
RAL 3001
RAL 3002
RAL 3003
RAL 3004
RAL 3005
RAL 3007
RAL 3009
RAL 3011
RAL 3012
RAL 3013
RAL 3014
RAL 3015
RAL 3016
RAL 3017
RAL 3018
RAL 3020
RAL 3022
RAL 3027
RAL 3031
RAL 4001
RAL 4002
RAL 4003
RAL 4004
RAL 4005
RAL 4006
RAL 4007
RAL 4008
RAL 4009
RAL 5000
RAL 5001
RAL 5002
RAL 5003
RAL 5004
RAL 5005
RAL 5007
RAL 5008
RAL 5009
RAL 5010
RAL 5011
RAL 5012
RAL 5013
RAL 5014
RAL 5015
RAL 5017
RAL 5018
RAL 5019
RAL 5020
RAL 5021
RAL 5022
RAL 5023
RAL 5024
78
RAL Color names
1000 - green beige
2004 - pure orange
4003 - heather violet
6003 - olive green
7003 - moss grey
8001 - ochre brown
1001 - beige
2005 - luminous orange
4004 - claret violet
6004 - blue green
7004 - signal grey
8002 - signal brown
1002 - sand yellow
2007 - luminous orange
4005 - blue lilac
6005 - moss green
7005 - mouse grey
8003 - clay brown
1003 - signal yellow
2008 - lum. bright orange
4006 - traffic purple
6006 - grey olive
7006 - beige grey
8004 - copper brown
1004 - golden yellow
2009 - traffic orange
4007 - purple violet
6007 - bottle green
7008 - khaki grey
8007 - fawn brown
1005 - honey yellow
2010 - signal orange
4008 - signal violet
6008 - brown green
7009 - green grey
8008 - olive brown
1006 - maize yellow
2011 - deep orange
5000 - violet blue
6009 - fir green
7010 - tarpaulin grey
8011 - nut brown
1007 - daffodil yellow
3000 - flame red
5001 - green blue
6010 - grass green
7011 - iron grey
8012 - red brown
1011 - brown beige
3001 - signal red
5002 - ultramarine blue
6011 - reseda green
7012 - basalt grey
8014 - sepia brown
1012 - lemon yellow
3002 - carmine red
5003 - sapphire blue
6012 - black green
7013 - brown grey
8015 - chestnut brown
1013 - oyster white
3003 - ruby red
5004 - black blue
6013 - reed green
7015 - slate grey
8016 - mahogany brown
1014 - ivory
3004 - purple red
5005 - signal blue
6014 - yellow olive
7016 - anthracite grey
8017 - chocolate brown
1015 - light ivory
3005 - wine red
5007 - brillant blue
6015 - black olive
7021 - black grey
8019 - grey brown
1016 - sulfur yellow
3007 - black red
5008 - grey blue
6016 - turquoise grren
7022 - umbra grey
8022 - black brown
1017 - saffron yellow
3009 - oxide red
5009 - azure blue
6017 - may green
7023 - concrete grey
8023 - orange brown
1018 - zinc yellow
3011 - brown red
5010 - gentian blue
6018 - yellow green
7024 - graphite grey
8024 - beige browun
1019 - grey beige
3012 - beige red
5011 - steel blue
6019 - pastel green
7026 - granite grey
8025 - pale brown
1020 - olive yellow
3013 - tomato red
5012 - light blue
6020 - chrome green
7030 - cement grey
8028 - terra brown
1021 - rape yellow
3014 - antique pink
5013 - cobalt blue
6021 - pale green
7030 - stone grey
9001 - cream
1023 - traffic yellow
3015 - light pink
5014 - pigeon blue
6022 - olive drab
7031 - blue grey
9002 - grey white
1024 - ochre yellow
3016 - coral red
5015 - sky blue
6024 - traffic green
7032 - pebble grey
9003 - signal white
1026 - luminous yellow
3017 - rose
5017 - traffic blue
6025 - fern green
7034 - yellow grey
9004 - signal black
1027 - curry
3018 - strawberry red
5018 - turquoise blue
6026 - opal green
7035 - light grey
9005 - jet black
1028 - melon yellow
3020 - traffic red
5019 - capri blue
6027 - light green
7036 - platinum grey
9006 - white aluminium
1032 - broom yellow
3022 - salmon pink
5020 - ocean blue
6028 - pine green
7037 - dusty grey
9007 - grey aluminium
1033 - dahlia yellow
3024 - luminous red
5021 - water blue
6029 - mint green
7038 - agate grey
9010 - pure white
2000 - yellow orange
3026 - lumin. bright red
5022 - night blue
6032 - signal green
7039 - quartz grey
9011 - graphite black
2001 - red orange
3027 - raspberry red
6000 - patina green
7000 - squirrel grey
7042 - traffic grey A
9016 - traffic white
2002 - vermilion
4001 - red lilac
6001 - emerald green
7001 - silver grey
7043 - traffic grey B
9017 - traffic black
2003 - pastel orange
4002 - red violet
6002 - leaf green
7002 - olive grey
8000 - green brown
9018 - papyrus white
Maryland Metrics does not sell paint, nor RAL color charts.
Phones: (800) 638-1830 or (410) 358-3130 are available Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern time.
Faxes: (800) 872-9329 or (410) 358-3142 & E-mail are available anytime.
Warehouse & showroom hours are Monday-Friday 10 AM to 5:30 PM.
[ To: Maryland Metrics home page ] [ To: Maryland Metrics Product Guide ] [ e-mail to Maryland Metrics ]
Please note that all Trademarks and Tradenames are the property of their respective owners.
copyright 2003, 2005, 2006 maryland metrics -- all rights reserved -- ver bb12cCD RALcolorchart.htm techII
79
Appendix 3.0: Meat attribute description chart.
MEAT
INSTRUCTION AND LEXICON
ATTRIBUTE
Colour
Take a look at the meat. Compare meat colour with those on
colour chart. Identify and select the appropriate colour of the
meat.
Aroma
Take a few short sniffs of the meat. This aroma is associated
with cooked Grasscutter meat and has an important influence
and contribution to the flavour.
Juiciness
Chew sample meat with light chewing action. The impression
of juiciness involves exudation of juice from meat or dryness
when chewed.
Texture
Chew sample meat with a light chewing action. The impression
of meat texture involves chewing and evaluating whether meat
breaks easily between the teeth (Tenderness) or has become
difficult to bite through (Toughness).
Flavour
Off-flavour
Acceptability
The combination of taste while chewing and swallowing meat
sample.
Flavour not associated with Grasscutter meat.
Consumption of food accompanied by pleasure.
80
Appendix 4.0: Meat coding chart.
Panel Members (PM) Codes: 01-10.
INTACT:
 Fore leg (FL)- 232
 Hind leg (HL)- 158
 Longissimus dorsi (LD)- 377
 Skin (S)- 645
CASTRATE:
 Fore leg (FL)- 527
 Hind leg (HL)- 833
 Longissimus dorsi (LD)- 467
 Skin (S)- 943
PM
CODE
1ST
2ND
3RD
SESSIONS
4TH
5TH
6TH
7TH
8TH
PM 01
377
232
527
645
467
833
943
158
PM 02
232
833
377
527
158
645
467
943
PM 03
527
943
467
377
833
158
232
645
PM 04
645
527
158
467
377
833
943
232
PM 05
467
377
527
232
943
158
833
645
PM 06
158
467
943
645
232
527
377
833
PM 07
833
943
645
158
527
377
232
467
PM 08
943
645
833
232
158
467
527
377
PM 09
377
158
232
833
645
943
527
467
PM 10
232
833
467
158
645
943
377
527
81
Appendix 5.0: Feed utilization and growth performance.
5.1: Initial live-body weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
2723197.69
2723197.69
75.50
< 0.0001
Treatment
1
89527.69
89527.69
2.48
0.1244
Replication
11
1243123.73
113011.25
3.13
0.0051
Error
34
1226391.38
36070.34
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
119724.56
5.2: Dry matter intake, forage.
Source of variance df
ss
Block
1
1253.59
Treatment
1
15311.74
Replication
11
76583.73
Error
34
26575.51
Corrected total
47
119724.56
ms
1253.59
15311.74
6962.16
781.63
f
1.60
19.59
8.91
pr >f
0.2140
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
5.3: Dry matter intake, concentrate.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
554.20
554.20
45.55
< 0.0001
Treatment
1
8.76
8.76
0.72
0.4022
Replication
11
1394.69
126.79
10.42
< 0.0001
Error
34
413.72
12.17
____________________________________________________________________
Correct total
47
2371.36
5.4: Final live-body weight gain.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
2841792.68 2841792.68
64.97
< 0.0001
Treatment
1
120610.78
120610.78
2.76
0.1060
Replication
11
2143511.22
194864.66
4.45
0.0004
Error
34
1487271.66
43743.28
___________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
6593186.33
5.5: Total weight gain.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
1263.83
1263.83
0.15
0.7038
Treatment
1
2311.58
3211.58
0.27
0.6074
Replication
11
235934.49
21448.59
2.50
0.0202
Error
34
292198.91
8594.00
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
531708.81
82
5.6: Daily weight gain.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.30
0.30
0.13
0.7258
Treatment
1
0.56
0.56
0.23
0.6315
Replication
11
56.70
5.97
2.48
0.0208
Error
34
81.77
2.41
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
36082.43
5.7: Feed conversion ratio
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
190.40
190.40
0.63
0.4314
Treatment
1
4022.34
4022.34
13.40
0.0008
Replication
11
21660.62
1969.15
6.56
< 0.0001
Error
34
10209.07
3000.27
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
36082.43
5.8: Feed conversion ratio
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
39.24
39.24
2.50
0.1229
Treatment
1
2.52
2.52
0.16
0.6910
Replication
34
197.41
17.95
1.14
0.3598
Error
47
533.10
15.68
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
772.28
Appendix 6.0: Injuries, mortalities and docility.
6.1: Injuries (%).
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
833.33
833.33
5.00
0.0310
Treatment
5
7291.67
1458.33
8.75
< 0.0001
Physiological state 1
0
0
0
1.0000
Error
40
6666.67
166.67
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
16666.67
83
6.2: Mortalities (%).
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
5208.33
5208.33
7.30 0.0101
Treatment
5
7708.33
1541.67
2.16 0.0778
Physiological state 1
0
0
0
1.0000
Error
40
28541.67
713.54
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
42291.67
6.3: Docility.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.02
0.02
0.28
0.5974
Treatment
5
0.27
0.05
0.92
0.4775
Physiological state 1
0.04
0.04
0.67
0.4173
Error
40
2.38
0.06
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
47
2.68
Appendix 7.0: Carcass, organ weight and dressing percent.
7.1: Slaughter weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
417380.60
417380.60
1.46
0.2554
Treatment
1
79411.24
79411.24
0.28
0.6102
Replication
3
109062.37
36354.12
0.13
0.9421
Error
10
286787.48
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
3473729.06
7.2: Defurred weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
361681.96
361861.96
1.31
0.2791
Treatment
1
54919.92
54919.92
0.20
0.6651
Replication
3
105019.10
35006.38
0.13
0.9421
Error
10
2761785.69
276178.57
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
3283406.68
7.3: Hot carcass weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
319988.21
319988.21
1.33
0.2753
Treatment
1
87986.39
87986.39
0.37
0.5585
Replication
3
131218.18
43739.39
0.18
0.9062
Error
10
2402416.52
240241.65
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
2941609.29
84
7.4: Dressing % hot carcass.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
3.61
3.61
0.08
0.7861
Treatment
1
17.22
17.22
0.37
0.5562
Replication
3
51.94
17.31
0.37
0.7746
Error
10
464.53
46.45
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
537.30
7.5: Cold carcass.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
315787.80
315787.80
1.31
0.2782
Treatment
1
99446.76
88446.76
0.37
0.5575
Replication
3
134275.12
44758.37
0.19
0.9033
Error
10
2401520.95
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
2940030.64
7.6: Dressing % cold carcass.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
3.71
3.71
0.08
0.7857
Treatment
1
18.28
18.28
0.38
0.5489
Replication
3
54.16
18.05
0.38
0.7695
Error
10
474.88
47.49
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
551.01
7.7: Internal offals plus fat.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
1406.25
1406.25
1.29
0.2831
Treatment
1
23.04
23.04
0.02
0.8874
Replication
3
2257.47
752.49
0.69
0.5793
Error
10
10927.02
1092.70
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
14613.78
7.8: Internal offals less fat.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
699.60
699.60
0.99
0.3440
Treatment
1
22.56
22.56
0.03
0.8620
Replication
3
1264.57
421.52
0.59
0.6328
Error
10
7090.68
709.07
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
9077.41
85
7.9: Viscera fat.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
122.66
122.66
1.21
0.2979
Treatment
1
90.73
90.73
0.89
0.3672
Replication
3
235.96
78.65
0.77
0.5350
Error
10
1017.20
101.72
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
1466.54
7.10: Heart weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.16
0.16
0.01
0.9369
Treatment
1
1.10
1.10
0.05
0.8354
Replication
3
55.65
18.55
0.77
0.5391
Error
10
242.43
24.24
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
299.34
7.11: Liver weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
62.41
62.41
0.99
0.3440
Treatment
1
4.20
4.20
0.07
0.8018
Replication
3
13.02
4.34
0.07
0.9754
Error
10
632.49
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
712.12
7.12: Kidney weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
14.63
14.63
6.13
0.0328
Treatment
1
0.53
0.53
0.22
0.6489
Replication
3
3.98
1.33
0.56
0.6557
Error
10
23.86
2.39
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
43.00
86
7.13: Lung weight.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
6.25
6.25
0.44
0.5235
Treatment
1
9.61
9.61
0.67
0.4314
Replication
3
36.65
12.22
0.85
0.4956
Error
10
142.99
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
15
195.50
Appendix 8.0 Chemical composition of meat.
8.1: Moisture content (%).
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
1.16
1.16
0.74
0.4393
Treatment
1
0.52
0.52
0.33
0.5957
Replication
1
0.44
0.44
0.28
0.6238
Error
4
6.28
1.57
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
8.40
8.2: Energy content.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
347.95
347.95
0.48
0.5279
Treatment
1
32.72
32.72
0.04
0.8427
Replication
1
62.72
62.72
0.09
0.7840
Error
4
2920.09
730.02
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
3363.49
8.3: Protein content.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.28
0.28
0.91
0.5893
Treatment
1
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.7383
Replication
1
0.75
0.75
2.19
0.3366
Error
4
1.74
0.43
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
2.88
87
8.4: Lipid content.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.23
0.23
0.26
0.6361
Treatment
1
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.7851
Replication
1
0.52
0.52
0.59
0.4850
Error
4
3.49
0.87
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
4.30
8.5: pH content.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.02
0.02
2.85
0.1669
Treatment
1
0.01
0.01
0.92
0.3925
Replication
1
0.01
0.01
2.26
0.2069
Error
4
0.02
0.01
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
0.06
8.6: Ash content.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Block
1
0.07
0.07
2.29
0.2044
Treatment
1
0.001
0.001
0.04
0.8517
Replication
1
0.01
0.01
0.36
0.8521
Error
4
0.13
0.03
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
7
0.21
Appendix 9.0: Sensory analysis.
9.1: Fore leg meat colour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Treatment
1
3.20
3.20
1.12
0.3086
Age
3
13.47
4.49
1.57
0.2419
Sex
1
5.04
5.04
1.76
0.2060
Error
14
40.13
2.87
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
56.80
9.2: Hind leg meat colour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Treatment
1
0.90
0.80
0.60
0.4519
Age
3
2.50
0.83
0.62
0.6112
Sex
1
6.00
6.00
4.49
0.0524
Error
14
18.70
1.34
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
29.20
88
9.3: Longissimus dorsi meat colour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Treatment
1
2.45
2.45
0.92
0.3546
Age
3
6.63
2.21
0.83
0.5012
Sex
1
13.50
13.50
5.05
0.0413
Error
14
37.43
2.67
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
57.75
9.4: Skin colour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Treatment
1
5.0
5.0
2.75
0.1198
Age
3
4.5
4.5
2.47
0.1047
Sex
1
6.0
6.0
3.29
0.0910
Error
14
25.5
1.82
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
47.2
9.5: Fore leg meat colour intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
1.25
1.25
0.93
0.3763
Age
3
1.09
0.36
0.24
0.8648
Sex
1
1.04
1.04
0.70
0.4182
Error
14
20.96
1.50
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
24.55
9.6: Hind leg meat colour intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr >f
Treatment
1
0.80
0.80
0.35
0.5630
Age
3
4.29
1.43
0.63
0.6090
Sex
1
2.04
2.04
0.90
0.3600
Error
14
31.91
2.28
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
40.20
89
9.7: Longissimus dorsi meat colour intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
20.0
20.0
12.44
0.0033
Age
3
0.70
0.23
0.15
0.9311
Sex
1
0
0
0
1.0000
Error
14
22.50
1.61
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
43.20
9.8: Skin colour intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
1.25
1.25
1.56
0.2328
Age
3
12.8
4.27
5.31
0.0118
Sex
1
0
0
0
1.0000
Error
14
11.25
0.80
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
33.75
9.9: Fore leg meat aroma.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
1.80
1.80
1.29
0.2751
Age
3
8.07
2.69
1.93
0.1716
Sex
1
4.17
4.17
2.99
0.1060
Error
14
19.53
1.40
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
30.20
9.10: Hind leg meat aroma intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
5.0
5.0
2.28
0.1533
Age
3
13.29
4.43
2.02
0.1574
Sex
1
5.04
5.04
2.30
0.1517
Error
14
30.71
2.19
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
49.80
90
9.11: Longissimus dorsi meat aroma intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
3.20
3.20
2.10
0.1690
Age
3
11.70
3.90
2.56
0.0964
Sex
1
3.38
3.38
2.22
0.1586
Error
14
21.30
1.52
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
36.20
9.12: Skin aroma intensity.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.45
0.45
0.30
0.5904
Age
3
16.89
5.63
3.80
0.0350
Sex
1
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.8693
Error
14
20.76
1.48
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
40.55
9.12: Fore leg meat juiciness.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
4.05
4.05
1.57
0.2310
Age
3
4.29
1.43
0.55
0.6539
Sex
1
4.17
4.17
1.61
0.2247
Error
14
36.16
2.58
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
58.95
9.13: Hind leg meat juiciness.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0
0
0
1.0000
Age
3
10.0
3.33
1.51
0.2565
Sex
1
9.38
9.38
4.23
0.0587
Error
14
31.00
2.21
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
48.20
91
9.14: Longissimus dorsi meat aroma juiciness.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.8724
Age
3
5.09
1.70
0.91
0.4619
Sex
1
12.04
12.04
6.44
0.0236
Error
14
26.16
1.87
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
57.75
9.15: Skin juiciness.
Source of varianc df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0
0
0
1.0000
Age
3
16.77
5.59
1.83
0.1886
Sex
1
1.04
1.04
0.34
0.5688
Error
14
42.83
3.06
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
62.80
9.16: Fore leg meat texture.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
2.45
2.45
2.38
0.1454
Age
3
15.63
5.21
5.05
0.0140
Sex
1
18.38
18.38
17.83
0.0009
Error
14
14.43
1.03
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
40.95
9.17: Hind leg meat texture.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
2.45
2.45
1.19
0.2939
Age
3
24.49
8.16
3.97
0.0305
Sex
1
12.04
12.04
5.86
0.0296
Error
14
28.76
2.05
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
55.75
92
9.18: Longissimus dorsi meat texture.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
3.20
3.20
3.40
0.0864
Age
3
22.63
7.54
8.01
0.0024
Sex
1
18.38
18.38
19.53
0.0006
Error
14
13.18
0.94
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
42.20
9.19: Skin texture.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.45
0.45
0.33
0.5776
Age
3
30.67
10.22
7.38
0.0033
Sex
1
8.17
8.17
5.90
0.0292
Error
14
19.38
1.38
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
50.95
9.20: Fore leg meat flavour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
1.25
1.25
1.29
0.2754
Age
3
7.27
2.42
2.50
0.1023
Sex
1
2.04
2.04
2.10
0.1689
Error
14
13.58
0.97
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
24.55
9.21: Hind leg meat flavour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0
0
0
1.0000
Age
3
16.57
5.52
4.34
0.0233
Sex
1
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.7230
Error
14
17.83
1.27
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
35.20
93
9.22: Longissimus dorsi meat flavour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.8653
Age
3
2.20
0.73
0.44
0.7295
Sex
1
0.38
0.38
0.22
0.6434
Error
14
23.45
1.68
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
25.75
9.23: Skin flavour.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.4499
Age
3
13.87
4.62
3.49
0.0444
Sex
1
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.7280
Error
14
18.53
1.32
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
34.00
9.24: Fore leg meat overall acceptability.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.8727
Age
3
34.17
11.39
6.07
0.0073
Sex
1
22.04
22.04
11.74
0.0041
Error
14
26.28
1.88
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
62.95
9.25: Hind leg meat overall acceptability.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.8865
Age
3
7.29
2.43
1.03
0.4109
Sex
1
0.17
0.17
0.07
0.7947
Error
14
33.16
2.37
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
42.95
94
9.26: Longissimus dorsi meat overall acceptability.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
1.25
1.25
2.88
0.1120
Age
3
0.66
0.66
1.51
0.2556
Sex
1
1.04
1.04
2.40
0.1439
Error
14
6.08
0.43
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
8.84
9.27: Skin meat overall acceptability.
Source of variance df
ss
ms
f
pr > f
Treatment
1
0.80
0.80
0.87
0.3674
Age
3
0.49
0.16
0.18
0.9097
Sex
1
0.67
0.67
0.72
0.4095
Error
14
12.91
0.92
____________________________________________________________________
Corrected total
19
15.00
95