MEAT

SCIENCE
Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Carcass and meat quality of light lambs using principal

component analysis
~eque
V. Can a,*

, C. P
erez b, S. Velasco a, M.T. D
ıaz a, S. Lauzurica c, I. Alvarez a
,
d d c
F. Ruiz de Huidobro , E. Onega , J. De la Fuente
a
Departamento de Tecnolog
ıa de los alimentos, Instituto Nacional de Investigaci
on y Tecnolog
ıa Agraria y Alimentaria,
Carretera de la Coru~na km 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
Facultad de Veterinaria, Departamento de Fisiolog
ıa Animal (Biolog
ıa), Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Avda. Puerta de Hierro, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
c
Facultad de Veterinaria, Departamento de Producci
on Animal, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda. Puerta de Hierro, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
d
Instituto Madrile~no de Investigaci
on Agraria y Alimentaria, Apdo. 127, 28800 Alcal
a de Henares, Madrid, Spain
Received 27 June 2003; received in revised form 5 December 2003; accepted 5 January 2004

Abstract

Eighty-six male light lambs of Manchego breed were used in this study. Principal component (PC) analysis was performed to
study the relationship between carcass quality variables (n ¼ 22) and between meat quality measures (n ¼ 21). The carcass quality
was assessed using objective and subjective measurements of conformation and fatness besides the joints proportion and tissues
proportion of the leg. The measurements used to evaluate meat quality were pH in longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles, the
colour, moisture, water holding capacity, cooking losses, texture and sensorial analysis on longissimus dorsi. The five first PCs
explained about 77% of the total variability for carcass measures whereas for meat quality the 74% of the total variability was
explained for the eight first PCs. All the carcass measurements showed similar weight to define the first PC, whereas the muscle and
bone proportion as well as muscle:bone ratio of the leg were useful to define the second PC. The meat quality measures that were
more effective to define the first PC were the meat colour measurements, whereas the sensorial variables defined the second PC. The
projection of the carcass quality data in the first two PCs allowed to distinguish clearly between heavier carcasses (higher than 6.5
kg) and lighter carcasses (lower than 5.5 kg). The carcasses with a weight higher than 6.5 kg were on the left side of the figure, where
the variables of conformation and fatness lie. The group of medium carcass weight were placed between the two previous groups.
The projection of the meat quality data in the first two PCs did not differ between hot carcass weights, although there was a trend,
the lighter carcasses lay on the left side of the graph, which implies small differences between meat quality in this range of carcass
weight.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Carcass quality; Meat quality; Principal Component; Light lamb

1. Introduction (Sa~nudo, Alfonso, S
anchez, Delfa, & Teixeira, 2000).

In some European Mediterranean countries, the
slaughter of light lambs at about one month of age is
very common because of the large number of dairy
sheep and the high demand for this type of lamb, which
reaches high prices especially at some periods of the year
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-913-474-038; fax: +34-913-572-
293.
E-mail address: caneque@inia.es (V. Ca~
neque).
Although the range of carcass weights in light lambs is
short, there are high differences in the tissues composi-
tion and meat quality between them (D
ıaz, Velasco,
P
erez, Lauzurica, Huidobro, & Ca~ neque, 2003; Miguel
et al., 2003; Sa~
nudo et al., 1998). The carcass weight is
one of the most important factors that affects carcass
and meat quality (Sa~nudo, Santolaria, Sierra, Alcalde, &
Touraille, 1992; Vergara, Molina, & Gallego, 1999).
There are a great number of parameters described to
assess carcass and meat quality that have been used by

0309-1740/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.01.002
596 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605
large number of authors along the years (Beriain, Hor-
cada, Purroy, Lizaso, Chasco, & Mendizabal, 2000;
Ca~neque et al., 2001; Colomer-Rocher, Morand-Fehr, &
Kirton, 1987; D
ıaz et al., 2002; Fisher & De Boer, 1994;
Hofmann, 1987; Sa~ nudo, Campo, Sierra, Mar
ıa, Olleta,
& Santolaria, 1997; Velasco et al., 2001; Sarti, Morbi-
dino, Panella, Cavalletti, & Lavvaf, 1992), and they are
also used to predict saleable meat, since the carcass
value is based on carcass weight, fatness and confor-
mation (Delfa, Gonz
alez, & Teixeira, 1996; Frutos,
Mantec
on, & Gir
aldez, 1997; Jones, Robertson, Price, &
Coupland, 1996; Teixeira, Delfa, & Treacher, 1996;
Wood & MacFie, 1980). All of these carcass and meat
traits are related. Karlsson (1992) proposed that when a
large number of measures were used to assess meat
quality and they were correlated, they could be replaced
by fewer measures without a significant loss of infor-
mation. He recommended using principal component
analysis to reduce a whole set of correlated variables of
meat quality to uncorrelated linear functions of the
original variables. This technique has been already used
to assess relationships between carcass characteristics
(Laville & Bastien, 1996; Hern
andez, Pla, Oliver, &
Blasco, 2000; Hern
andez et al., 2000; Sarti et al., 1992)
and between meat characteristics (Hern
andez, Pla, &
Blasco, 1998; Karlsson, 1992; Næs, Baardseth, Helge-
sen, & Isaksson, 1996).
The present study examines the relationship between
several measurements of carcass quality and between
several meat quality traits (chemical and physical mea-
surements) besides the sensorial evaluation of carcass
and meat.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Animals
Data on 86 male suckling lambs slaughtered at a
range of live weight between 8 and 14.5 kg. were anal-
ysed. The lambs came from several farms, all of them
belonging to the Manchego Pure-Breed Association.
The lambs were reared in the same conditions on all
farms and they received no food other than maternal
milk. When a group of lambs reached the slaughter live
weight, they were transported to the abattoir and
slaughtered immediately after arrival.
2.2. Carcass quality measurements
The slaughter and carcass dressing were performed
following the methods of Colomer-Rocher et al. (1987).
One hour after slaughter, the carcasses were refrigerated
for 24 h at 4 °C. The hot and cold carcass weights (HCW
and CCW, respectively) were recorded and the refrig-
eration losses were calculated. The HCW was used to
classify the carcass in low HCW, lower than 5.5 kg,
medium HCW between 5.5 and 6.5 kg and high HCW
higher than 6.5 kg, the number of carcasses in each
group was 27, 32 and 27, respectively.
The following carcass conformation measurements
were taken: Carcass width (Wr: widest carcass mea-
surement at the ribs), thoracic depth (Th: maximum
distance between the sternum and the back of the car-
cass at the sixth thoracic vertebra), buttock width (G:
widest buttock measurement in a horizontal plane on
the hanging carcass), hind limb length (F: length from
perineum to distal edge of the tarsus) and internal car-
cass length (L: length from cranial edge of the symphysis
pelvis to the cranial edge of the first rib). The indices
from these carcass conformation measurements: chest
roundness index (Wr/Th), buttock/leg index (G=F ),
carcass compactness (CCW/L) and leg compactness (leg
weight/F) were calculated (Fisher & De Boer, 1994;
Velasco et al., 2000).
The carcass conformation was also subjectively eval-
uated using the scoring system suggested by Colomer-
Rocher, Delfa, and Sierra (1988) (1–5 points). Fatness
was subjectively assessed using a scoring system, taking
into account the carcass as a whole (1–4 points) (EEC
Regulation no. 461/93). A digital calibrator (Mitutoyo,
UK) was used to measure dorsal fat thickness at a point 4
cm from the carcass midline and 4 cm from the caudal
edge of the last rib (Fisher & De Boer, 1994; Velasco et al.,
2000). The carcasses were split down the dorsal midline.
The kidney knob and channel fat (KKCF) from the right-
half carcass was weighted. The left side was jointed
(Colomer-Rocher et al., 1987) and the weight of the loin-
rib, shoulder and leg were recorded and expressed as
proportion of the left-half carcass weight. The leg was
frozen for subsequent dissection.
Dissection of the leg was carried out following the
methods of Fisher and De Boer (1994) obtaining muscle,
bone and fat with the subcutaneous, intermuscular and
pelvic fat depots being recorded separately.
2.3. Meat quality measurements
Carcass pH was determined at 45 min and 24 h after
slaughter in the m. longissimus dorsi (L1) and m. semi-
tendinosus, by means of a pH-meter equipped with a
penetrating electrode and thermometer (Schott-Ger€ ate
GMBH, Germany).
The meat quality parameters were measured on the
longissimus dorsi muscle dissected from the left-half
carcass, left to age for 48 h at 4 °C. The meat colour was
assessed by the L
(lightness), a
(redness) and b
(yel-
lowness) system (Centre International de LÕEclairage
[CIE], 1986) using a Minolta colorimeter (Chroma
Meter CR-200, Minolta Camara C., Osaka, Japan),
which gives the average of three measurements, to de-
termine the colorimetric indices of chromaticity
 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605 597

(C
¼ ða
2 þ b
2 Þ1=2 , quantity of colour) and Hue Table 1

(H
¼ tan1 ðb
=a
Þ, real colour) in one steak of 1 cm Mean, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of the
carcass quality measurements
thickness after 1and 24 h of air exposure.
The meat moisture was determined by the official Mean SD CV
methods for meat products analysis (AOAC, 1990). The Cold Carcass Weight (CCW) kg 5.79 0.87 15.02
pressure method of Grau and Hamm (1953) was used to Refrigerated losses (RL) (%) 2.31 1.11 48.15
measure water-holding capacity (WHC), which was ex- Carcass compactness index (CC) 0.13 0.02 12.13
Buttock/leg index (B/Lg) 0.60 0.05 7.85
pressed as the ratio of muscle area to total area. Chest roundness index (ChR) 0.68 0.06 9.00
Cooking losses were determined by calculating the dif- Leg compactness index (LC) 39.45 5.20 13.17
ference in weight before and after a 15 min immersion in Conformation score (Cs)a 0.99 0.24 24.43
a 75 °C water bath. During the immersion, the poly- Fatness score (Fs)b 1.24 0.37 29.63
ethylene bags containing the sample were placed in such KKCF (g) 63.54 26.48 41.67
Dorsal fat thickness (DFT) (mm) 1.33 0.72 53.65
a way that water could not enter them. Using a TA- Loin-ribs (L-R) (%) 20.42 1.53 7.49
TXT2 texture analyser (Stable Micro Systems, UK) Shoulder (Sh) (%) 20.77 0.90 4.32
equipped with a Warner–Br€ atzler cell, raw and cooked Leg (Lg) (%) 34.48 1.36 3.96
meat tenderness were assessed by means of a shear force Muscle leg (MLg) (%) 63.45 1.84 2.90
test (test speed of 60 mm/min, distance of 35 mm and Bone leg (BLg) (%) 25.02 1.73 6.90
Fat leg (FLg) (%) 9.01 2.69 29.87
trigger force of 8 g), taking three measurements on each Subcutaneous fat leg (SFLg) (%) 3.70 1.55 42.08
of three 10  10  30 mm prismatic portions, the meat Intermuscular fat leg (IFLg) (%) 2.86 0.63 22.06
had previously been cooked in a 75 °C hot-water bath Pelvic fat leg (PFLg) (%) 2.45 0.81 33.30
for 15 min. Muscle:bone ratio (M:B) 2.56 0.18 7.22
Twelve trained tasters of lamb meat performed the Muscle:fat ratio (M:F) 7.95 3.42 43.01
Subcutaneous:intermuscular 1.28 0.46 36.45
sensory analysis in four sessions. The assessors were ratio (Sb:Im)
selected and trained according to Cross et al. (1978). The a
5-Point structured scale (1 ¼ minimum score; 5 ¼ maximum score).
parameters retained were: hardness, springiness, juici- b
4-Point structured scale (1 ¼ minimum score; 4 ¼ maximum score).
ness, flavour, fat flavour and overall acceptability. The
sensory analysis was performed on samples of the lon- Table 2
gissimus thoracis muscle following a complete block Mean, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of the
design. The scales used in the sensory analysis were meat quality measurements
structured on 10 points, where 1 and 10 were, respec- Mean SD CV
tively, the minimum and maximum score. The samples pH 45 min m. longissimus dorsi (pH45ld) 6.21 0.25 4.07
of longissimus thoracis muscle came from right-half pH 24 h m. longissimus dorsi (pH45ld) 5.57 0.15 2.66
carcass between the 1st and 13th ribs. It was divided into pH 45 min m. semitendinosus (pH45st) 6.01 0.26 4.26
12 steaks and each one was vacuum packed and frozen pH 24 h. m. semitendinosus (pH45st) 5.62 0.13 2.35
Lightness 1 h (L
1) 48.46 2.18 4.46
()18 °C). Samples were thawed and grilled in a electric
Chromaticity 1 h (C
1) 10.78 1.53 14.15
double grill preheated to 160 °C, wrapped between two Hue 1 h (H
1) 27.71 6.67 24.07
foils of aluminium paper, until they reached an internal Lightness 24 h (L
24) 49.59 2.06 4.16
temperature of 75 °C. No salt was added. Samples were Chromaticity 24 h (C
24) 11.95 1.61 13.46
stored in preheated oven at 80 °C until tasting. Hue 24 h (H
24) 32.69 6.14 18.78
Moisture (M) % 77.55 0.92 1.19
WHC (Muscle: total area) 0.32 0.03 9.02
2.4. Statistical analysis Cooking losses (CL) % 26.04 3.10 11.90
Warner–Bratzler shear in raw 2.39 0.52 21.71
The data were analysed statistically with the proce- meat (WBr), kg
dures UNIVARIATE, CORR and PRINCOMP from Warner–Bratzler shear in cooked 1.76 0.52 29.87
meat (WBc), kg
the Statistical Analysis System package (SAS, 1996).
Hardness (H )a 3.68 0.61 19.44
The variables for PC analysis were standardized to a Springiness (S)a 4.04 0.74 18.31
mean of zero and variance of one. Juiciness (J )a 3.85 0.83 21.60
Flavour (F )a 5.05 0.76 15.06
Fat flavour (Ff)a 3.81 0.76 19.97
Overall acceptability (Oa)a 5.22 0.82 15.67
3. Results and discussion
a
10-Point structured scale (1 ¼ minimum score; 10 ¼ maximum
score).
Tables 1 and 2 display means, standard deviations
and coefficients of variation of the carcass and meat
quality measurements, respectively. The coefficients of portion of the leg, while there were other measurements
variation were lower than 5% for shoulder and leg for which coefficients of variation were higher than 30%,
proportion of the left-half carcass and the muscle pro- like refrigeration losses, subcutaneous and pelvic fat
 598
Table 3
Correlations coefficients between the carcass quality measurementsa
CCW RL CC B/L ChR LC Cs Fs KKCF DFT L-R Sh Lg MLg BLg FLg SFLg IFLg PFLg M:B M:F
RL )0.29

CC 0.98


)0.36



B/L 0.49


)0.09 0.55



ChR 0.28

)0.15 0.32

0.51

V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605

LC 0.94


)0.24
0.93


0.65


0.36



Cs 0.20 0.22
0.20 0.21 0.28


0.22

Fs 0.67


)0.25
0.70


0.39


0.38


0.60


0.17
KKCF 0.65


)0.31

0.66


0.37


0.28

0.60


0.16 0.63



DFT 0.45


)0.16 0.47


0.33

0.22
0.41


0.13 0.50


0.44



L-R 0.47


)0.30

0.50


0.41


0.24
0.40


0.21 0.55


0.66


0.35



Sh )0.31

0.20 )0.33

)0.23
)0.05 )0.34

)0.04 )0.14 )0.51


)0.10 )0.44



Lg )0.48


0.29

)0.46


)0.31

)0.18 )0.35


)0.19 )0.45


)0.52


)0.30

)0.55


0.42



MLg )0.23
0.11 )0.25
)0.26
)0.31

)0.16 )0.12 )0.48


)0.40


)0.17 )0.48


0.24
0.36



BLg )0.70


0.26
)0.71


)0.39


)0.27
)0.70


)0.18 )0.67


)0.60


)0.44


)0.48


0.29

0.31

0.05
FLg 0.66


)0.28

0.69


0.44


0.39


0.60


0.23
0.79


0.70


0.43


0.68


)0.37


)0.51


)0.73


)0.69



SFLg 0.66


)0.29

0.71


0.47


0.33

0.62


0.19 0.82


0.68


0.45


0.64


)0.33

)0.48


)0.64


)0.70


0.95



IFLg 0.44


)0.21 0.47


0.39


0.42


0.41


0.29

0.55


0.44


0.32

0.59


)0.30

)0.51


)0.66


)0.47


0.80


0.63



PFLg 0.55


)0.23
0.56


0.27
0.32

0.49


0.19 0.63


0.67


0.33

0.59


)0.36


)0.38


)0.70


)0.58


0.88


0.73


0.65



M:B 0.57


)0.20 0.57


0.27
0.13 0.60


0.13 0.43


0.41


0.35


0.26
)0.17 )0.15 0.35


)0.91


0.35


0.40


0.18 0.26

M:F )0.57


0.23
)0.60


)0.42


)0.37


)0.54


)0.17 )0.72


)0.65


)0.41


)0.67


0.36


0.43


0.69


0.59


)0.90


)0.82


)0.78


)0.81


)0.28


Sb:Im 0.52


)0.17 0.56


0.35


0.14 0.50


0.07 0.66


0.57


0.35

0.43


)0.22
)0.25
)0.38


)0.56


0.67


0.83


0.16 0.50


0.38


)0.59



a
Cold carcass weight (CCW); refrigerated losses (RL); carcass compactness index (CC); buttock/leg index (B/L); chest roundness index (ChR); leg compactness index (LC); conformation score
(Cs); fatness score (Fs); kidney knob and channel fat (KKCF); dorsal fat thickness (DFT); loin-ribs proportion (L-R); shoulder proportion (Sh); leg proportion (Lg); muscle leg proportion (MLg);
bone leg proportion (BLg); fat leg proportion (FLg); proportion of subcutaneous fat of the leg (SFLg); proportion of intermuscular fat of the leg (IFLg); proportion of pelvic fat of the leg (PFLg);
muscle:bone ratio of the leg (M:B); muscle:fat ratio of the leg (M:F); subcutaneous fat:intermuscular fat ratio of the leg (Sb:Im).
*
P ¼< 0:05.
**
P ¼< 0:01.
***
P ¼< 0:001.
Table 4
Correlations coefficients between the meat quality measurementsa
pH45ld pH24ld pH45st pH24ld L
1 C
1 H
1 L
24 C
24 H
24 M WHC CL WBr WBc H S J F Ff



pH24ld 0.30
pH45st 0.16 0.10
pH24st 0.15 0.56


0.21

V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605

L
1 )0.06 )0.14 )0.19 )0.07
C
1 0.05 0.15 0.23
0.04 )0.87



H
1 )0.20 )0.26
)0.21 )0.08 0.83


)0.73



L
24 )0.18 )0.19 )0.05 )0.13 0.35

)0.31

0.43



C
24 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.06 )0.36


0.34

)0.43


)0.77



H
24 )0.39


)0.30

)0.3 )0.25
0.24
)0.14 0.44


0.75


)0.46



M 0.05 0.32

0.19 0.11 )0.22
0.22
)0.28
)0.10 0.14 )0.20
WHC )0.16 )0.11 0.05 0.00 0.09 )0.04 0.11 )0.12 0.08 0.06 )0.36



CL )0.01 )0.02 0.05 )0.08 0.02 )0.12 0.05 )0.12 0.18 )0.09 )0.02 0.00
WBr )0.10 0.02 0.02 )0.05 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.26
)0.16 0.25
0.00 0.00 0.09
WBc )0.19 0.01 )0.03 )0.03 0.12 )0.07 0.07 )0.01 0.00 )0.08 0.13 0.05 0.28
)0.06
H )0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.05 )0.07 0.02 )0.20 0.04 )0.13 0.08 0.07 0.04 )0.06 0.35


S 0.19 0.19 )0.01 0.19 )0.08 0.00 )0.07 )0.16 0.09 )0.22
0.03 )0.08 0.02 )0.17 0.20 0.47



J 0.10 0.25
)0.11 0.02 )0.09 0.14 )0.06 )0.09 0.12 )0.08 0.00 )0.11 )0.04 0.04 0.01 )0.17 0.21
F 0.10 0.16 )0.13 0.00 )0.03 )0.01 )0.02 )0.07 )0.11 )0.16 0.05 0.10 )0.12 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.21 0.26

Ff 0.02 0.02 )0.12 )0.03 )0.08 0.00 )0.06 )0.06 0.05 )0.17 0.31

)0.18 0.04 0.10 0.07 )0.10 0.02 0.35

0.43



Oa 0.07 0.03 )0.13 )0.13 )0.15 0.21 )0.06 0.10 )0.11 0.11 0.10 )0.12 )0.24
0.10 0.01 )0.23
)0.02 0.42


0.40


0.30


a
pH 45 min m. longissimus dorsi (pH45ld); pH 24 h m. longissimus dorsi (pH24ld); pH 45 min m. semitendinosus (pH45st); pH 24 h m. semitendinosus (pH24st); lightness 1 h (L
1); chromaticity 1 h
(C
1); Hue 1 h (H
1); lightness 24 h (L
24); chromaticity 24 h (C
24); hue 24 h (H
24); meat moisture (M); water holding capacity (WHC); cooking losses (CL); Warner–Br€atzler shear in raw meat
(WBr); Warner–Br€ atzler shear in cooked meat (WBc); hardness (H); springiness (S); juiciness (J ); flavour (F ); fat flavour (Ff); overall acceptability (Oa).
*
P ¼< 0:05.
**
P ¼< 0:01.
***
P ¼< 0:001.

599
600 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605

proportion of the leg and the ratios between muscle and Table 5
fat of the leg and between subcutaneous and intermus- Results from the principal component analysis for the first five
principal components of the carcass quality measurements
cular fat of the leg. In relation to the meat quality pa-
rameters, the pH in both muscles and times, the meat Component Eigenvalues Portion of Cumulative
variance (%) variance (%)
lightness also at both times and the meat moisture dis-
played a coefficient of variation lower than 5%, and 1 10.73 48.79 48.79
there was no coefficient of variation greater than 30%. 2 2.36 10.72 59.51
3 1.46 6.64 66.15
The Warner–Br€ atzler shear an cooked meat showed the 4 1.25 5.70 71.86
highest coefficient of variation (29.87%). 5 1.04 4.73 76.59
The Tables 3 and 4 show the correlation coefficients
between the carcass and meat quality variables respect-
ability. The carcass quality variables are highly corre- Table 6
lated, although the conformation score shows the lowest Results from the principal component analysis for the first eight
number of significant correlation coefficients, just with principal components of the meat quality measurements
chest roundness index (r ¼ 0:28, P ¼ 0:0090), inter- Component Eigenvalues Portion of Cumulative
muscular fat of the leg (r ¼ 0:29, P ¼ 0:0067), leg fat variance (%) variance (%)
proportion (r ¼ 0:23, P ¼ 0:0288), refrigerated losses 1 3.76 17.91 17.91
(r ¼ 0:22, P ¼ 0:0412) and leg compactness index 2 2.80 13.32 31.23
(r ¼ 0:22, P ¼ 0:0406), all of them positives. The posi- 3 2.14 10.21 41.44
tive correlation between conformation scores of the 4 1.73 8.23 49.67
5 1.62 7.71 57.38
carcass and fat proportion agreed with Jackson and 6 1.37 6.54 63.93
Mansour (1974) who reported that subjective score of 7 1.07 5.09 69.02
conformation was influenced by fatness, since they 8 1.04 4.96 73.98
found that carcass with the better conformation had a
higher fat proportion. On the contrary, Safari, Hopkins,
and Forgaty (2001) reported negative correlation coef- that required a total of eight variables (PCs) to obtain a
ficients among conformation score and the depth of similar value of total variation (74%) (Table 6). Laville
tissues from the carcass surface at 12th rib and eye et al. (1996) found the first ten PCs analysing 76 mor-
muscle area and depth at 12th and 13th rib. However, phometric variables from young Charolais bull carcass
the highest correlation coefficient is between cold carcass explained 80% of the total variability of those mea-
weight and carcass compactness (r ¼ 0:98, P < 0:001), surements. However, in rabbits Hern
andez et al. (2000)
others correlation coefficients that can be mentioned are: reported the four first PCs for meat quality explained
between carcass compactness and leg compactness 62% of the total variation. They analysed meat quality
(r ¼ 0:93, P < 0:001), between leg fat proportion and using 23 variables, including pH, meat colour, WHC,
fatness score (r ¼ 0:79, P < 0:001) and between subcu- cooking loss, fatty acid composition and sensory
taneous fat of the leg and fatness score (r ¼ 0:82, parameters.
P < 0:001). Table 7 shows that all variables of carcass quality had
There are few significant correlation coefficients in similar proportions in the first PC, although the con-
relation to the meat quality, although it could be re- formation score had the lowest value and the leg fat
marked correlation coefficients of the colour parameters proportion showed the highest. In fact, in the loading
mainly in their first assessment were positive between plot (Fig. 1) these variables are placed near or far from
lightness and hue (r ¼ 0:83, P < 0:001) and negative be- the origin of the first PC according to their proportion in
tween chromaticity and lightness (r ¼ 0:87, P < 0:001), the new variable (first PC). The second PC is charac-
and chromaticity and hue (r ¼ 0:73, P < 0:001), besides terized by three measurements, muscle and bone pro-
the significant correlation among sensory parameters, portion of the leg and the ratio between both
which agrees with Destefanis, Barge, Brugiapaglia, and parameters. These variables are placed in the loading
Tassone (2000) who found high correlation coefficients plot (Fig. 1) on the bottom and top. The carcass con-
among sensorial parameters in beef, and with Hern
andez formation measurements (conformation score, chest
et al. (2000) who also reported high correlation coeffi- roundness index and buttock/leg index) and refrigera-
cients among eating quality (toughness, chewiness, juic- tion losses are important for the third PC. Finally,
iness and fibrousness) in rabbit meat. shoulder and leg proportion and subcutaneous:inter-
The results of the PC analysis are presented in Table 5 muscular fat ratio of the leg are the main three mea-
for carcass quality parameters and in Table 6 for meat surements that characterize the fourth PC.
quality measurements. The four first PC explain 72% of The coefficients for the first four PCs of the meat
the total variation for carcass quality measurements, quality parameters are shown in the Table 8. The first
and lower for the meat quality measurements (50%), PC is characterized by colour parameters (lightness,
 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605 601

Table 7
Coefficients in the eigen vectors (loadings) for the first four principal components (PC) of the carcass quality measurements
Variables PC 1 % PC 2 % PC 3 % PC 4 %
CCW 0.25 5.58 )0.23 6.39 )0.02 0.60 )0.08 2.05
RF )0.10 2.34 0.05 1.32 )0.41 12.24 0.23 5.69
CC index 0.26 5.77 )0.23 6.19 )0.02 0.66 )0.08 2.09
Buttock/leg index 0.18 3.91 )0.07 1.89 )0.34 10.64 )0.22 5.59
CR index 0.13 2.93 0.07 1.96 )0.47 14.60 )0.13 3.37
LC index 0.24 5.34 )0.28 7.64 )0.13 3.96 )0.12 2.91
Conformation score 0.08 1.74 0.03 0.92 )0.53 16.26 )0.12 2.97
Fatness score 0.25 5.64 )0.01 0.22 )0.02 0.70 0.26 6.49
KKCF 0.24 5.43 )0.01 0.27 0.18 5.44 )0.10 2.60
Dorsal fat thickness 0.16 3.66 )0.11 3.03 )0.07 2.13 0.08 2.06
Loin/ribs 0.22 4.94 0.15 4.08 0.12 3.56 )0.19 4.83
Shoulder )0.13 2.96 )0.06 1.64 )0.30 9.17 0.47 11.77
Leg )0.18 3.95 )0.11 3.10 )0.13 3.82 0.42 10.49
Muscle leg )0.17 3.74 )0.51 14.00 0.02 0.37 )0.12 3.00
Bone leg )0.24 5.32 0.29 8.07 )0.03 0.92 )0.12 3.00
Fat leg 0.29 6.34 0.16 4.49 0.02 0.62 0.14 3.58
Subcutaneous fat leg 0.28 6.18 0.07 2.03 0.05 1.88 0.23 5.76
Intermuscular fat leg 0.22 4.84 0.26 7.17 )0.15 4.51 )0.13 3.35
Pelvic fat leg (%) 0.24 5.42 0.20 5.40 0.06 1.98 0.14 3.42
Muscle:bone ratio 0.16 5.83 )0.48 13.15 0.03 0.91 0.06 1.44
Muscle:fat ratio )0.26 3.52 )0.20 5.37 )0.01 0.40 )0.13 3.26
Subcutaneous:intermuscular ratio 0.21 4.62 )0.06 1.66 0.14 4.61 0.41 10.30

0,4

0,3 BLg
IFLg
PFLg
Principal component 2 10.71 %

0,2 FLg
L-R
0,1 ChR SFLg
RL Cs
KKCF
0
B/L Fs
-0,1 Lg Sh Sb:Im
DFT
-0,2 CCW CC
M:G
-0,3 LC

-0,4
M:B
-0,5 MLg

-0,6
-0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Principal component 1 48.79 %

Fig. 1. Projection of the carcass quality measurements in the plane defined by the two first principal components. Cold carcass weight (CCW);
Refrigerated losses (RL); carcass compactness index (CC); buttock/leg index (B/L); chest roundness index (ChR); leg compactness index (LC);
conformation score (Cs); fatness score (Fs); kidney knob and channel fat (KKCF); dorsal fat thickness (DFT); loin-ribs proportion (L-R); shoulder
proportion (Sh); leg proportion (Lg); muscle leg proportion (MLg); bone leg proportion (BLg); fat leg proportion (FLg); proportion of subcutaneous
fat of the leg (SFLg); proportion of intermuscular fat of the leg (IFLg); proportion of pelvic fat of the leg (PFLg); muscle:bone ratio of the leg (M:B);
muscle:fat ratio of the leg (M:F); subcutaneous fat:intermuscular fat ratio of the leg (Sb:Im).

chromaticity and hue at both times, 1 and 24 h). The chemical parameters (pH in m. longissimus dorsi at both
loading plot displays that these measurements are placed times and pH at 24 h. in the m. semitendinosus), two
far from the origin of the first PC (Fig. 2). The second physical parameters (lightness at 1 h and hue at 24 h)
PC is defined by the eating quality, hardness, juiciness, and one eating quality (springiness), which was not
flavour, fat flavour and overall acceptability; they are within the eating quality that defined the second PC.
placed in the loading plot far from the origin of the Ultimately, the fourth PC is characterized by one
second PC, showing them to be predominant in defining physical measurement (Warner–Br€atzler shear in
this PC (Fig. 2). The third PC is defined by three cooked meat), which had little importance in the
602 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605

Table 8
Coefficients in the eigen vectors (loadings) for the first four principal components (PC) of the meat quality measurements
Variables PC 1 % PC 2 % PC 3 % PC 4 %
pH45ld 0.18 4.87 )0.11 2.59 )0.29 7.41 0.27 6.82
pH45ld 0.21 5.72 )0.09 2.28 )0.34 8.68 0.23 5.90
pH45st 0.21 5.63 0.09 2.12 0.10 2.45 0.01 0.22
pH45st 0.13 3.53 0.05 1.21 )0.41 10.38 0.21 5.33
Lightness 1 h )0.40 11.08 0.18 4.53 )0.24 6.16 0.04 1.07
Chromaticity 1h 0.36 9.93 )0.20 4.80 0.30 7.47 )0.04 0.96
Hue 1 h )0.43 11.73 0.15 3.77 )0.16 3.96 )0.06 1.51
Lightness 24 h )0.33 9.03 )0.23 5.56 0.07 1.86 0.22 5.50
Chromaticity 24 h 0.31 8.54 0.16 3.94 0.08 1.98 )0.16 4.03
Hue 24 h )0.31 8.61 )0.14 3.45 0.29 7.22 0.04 1.11
Moisture 0.13 3.54 )0.09 2.33 0.08 1.97 0.12 3.00
WHC )0.11 3.11 0.13 3.25 0.07 1.72 )0.26 6.52
Cooking losses 0.15 4.00 0.20 4.84 0.20 5.06 )0.24 6.18
WBr )0.10 2.75 )0.16 3.92 0.11 2.71 )0.13 3.18
WBc 0.00 0.11 0.18 4.39 )0.05 1.15 )0.35 8.77
Hardness 0.02 0.59 0.41 10.07 )0.12 3.15 )0.26 6.53
Springiness 0.12 3.42 0.18 4.32 )0.36 9.00 )0.13 3.17
Juiciness 0.06 1.57 )0.34 8.29 )0.24 5.97 )0.21 5.40
Flavour )0.04 1.02 )0.27 6.54 )0.27 6.86 )0.41 10.34
Fat flavour )0.01 0.16 )0.29 7.09 )0.12 2.95 )0.36 9.19
Overall acceptability )0.04 1.04 )0.44 10.71 )0.07 1.87 )0.21 5.29

0,5
H
0,4

0,3
13.32 %

CL
0,2 L*1 WBc S C*24
H*1 WHC
0,1 pH45st
pH24st
Principal component 2

0
M pH24ld
-0,1 H*24 WBr
pH45ld
-0,2 L*24 C*1
F
-0,3 Ff J

-0,4 Oa

-0,5
-0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
Principal component 1 17.91 %

Fig. 2. Projection of the meat quality measurements in the plane defined by the two first principal components. pH 45 min m. longissimus dorsi
(pH45ld); pH 24 h m. longissimus dorsi (pH24ld); pH 45 min m. semitendinosus (pH45st); pH 24 h m. semitendinosus (pH24st); lightness 1 h (L
1);
chromaticity 1 h (C
1); hue 1 h (H
1); lightness 24 h (L
24); chromaticity 24 h (C
24); hue 24 h (H
24); meat moisture (M); water holding capacity
(WHC); cooking losses (CL); Warner–Br€atzler shear in raw meat (WBr); Warner–Br€atzler shear in cooked meat (WBc); hardness (H); springiness
(S); juiciness (J); flavour (F); fat flavour (Ff); Overall acceptability (Oa).

previous PCs, and two sensorial parameters (flavour and
fat flavour).
The Figs. 1 and 2 show plots of the measurements of
carcass and meat quality, respectively, on the two first
PCs. The measurements and PC are interpreted ac-
cording to the correlations between each parameters and
each PC, thus measurements close to each other are
positively correlated, measurements separated 180° are
negatively correlated, whereas if they are separated by
90° they are independent. The fat from the different leg
depots are located far from the first PC (Fig. 1), opposite
to muscle proportion of the leg and proportion of leg
and shoulder in the carcass, which are negatively cor-
related (Table 3). Mahgoubt and Lodge (1994) pointed
out that muscle, fat and bone increased as carcass
weight increased, but when they are expressed as a
proportion if one of the tissues increased the other
decreased, showing a negative correlation.
 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605 603

The conformation and fatness scores are placed
near the second PC, that shows the low importance
in this PC. The measurements related to carcass
conformation (cold carcass weight, carcass compact-
ness and leg compactness indexes) are placed 180°
from the bone proportion of the leg indicating the
negative correlation among these traits. All the fat
measurements are positively correlated since they are
located in the same quadrant. In the Fig. 2, the
eating quality parameters and texture in cooked meat
had little importance defining the first PC, whereas
the colour parameters had high weight to characterize
this PC as was mentioned above. The sensorial
measurements are located far from second PC and
near each other indicating the high correlation among
them.

2
Principal component 2

-1

-2

-3

-4
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Principal component 1
Fig. 3. Projection of the carcass quality data of the three groups of HCW studied in the plane defined by the two principal components.
, HCW
lower than 5.5 kg; N, between 5.5 and 6.5 kg; }, HCW higher than 6.5 kg.

2
Principal component 2

-1

-2

-3

-4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Principal component 1

Fig. 4. Projection of the meat quality data of the three groups of HCW studied in the plane defined by the two principal components.
, HCW lower
than 5.5 kg; N, between 5.5 and 6.5 kg; }, HCW higher than 6.5 kg.
604 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605
The Fig. 3 displays the projection of the carcass
quality data in the first two PCs. Two separated groups
can be observed. Lambs with a HCW lower than 5.5 kg
located on the left side of the figure, where the bone and
muscle proportion of the leg, muscle:fat ratio, shoulder
and leg proportion and refrigeration losses lay. Zygoy-
iannis, Stamataris, Kouimtzis, and Doney (1990) ob-
served that bone and muscle proportion decreased as
carcass weight increased, and Boccard, Dumont, and
Lefevre (1962) reported the same effect of carcass weight
on the proportions of leg, shoulder and ribs. The lambs
with HCW higher than 6.5 kg lie on the right side of the
graph, where the fatness and carcass conformation traits
lay. These relationships among fatness and carcass
conformation with the carcass weight agree with Bicer,
Gueney, and Pekel (1995) who reported that as carcass
weight was raised the carcass conformation and fatness
score also improved. The lamb group with a HCW
medium, between 5.5 and 6.5 kg, is located between the
two groups above, with traits between both groups.
The Fig. 4 displays the distribution of the meat
quality parameters on the two first PCs. Although no
defined sets of points are created, the lightest lambs are
preferentially located along the right area of the figure.
In this sense, the first PC differentiates with respect to
meat quality between HCW lower than 5.5 kg and
higher than 6.5 kg. However, these two groups display a
high variability, because some lambs with high HCW
are placed to the right in the score plot (Fig. 4).
The PC analysis has shown the carcass and meat
quality traits are grouped in independent sets. The ob-
served variation in the carcass traits are explained by of
the carcass quality variables though the fat proportion
and fat depots proportion of the leg explain most vari-
ability. The meat colour and eating quality explain a
large part of the observed variation for meat quality.
The differences between HCW groups in carcass quality
show that though the differences among weight of the
carcass are little, they are enough to make distinctions
between groups. Nevertheless, the differences between
HCW groups in meat quality tend to be small, which
implies that meat quality among these three HCW
groups was very similar.
References
AOAC (1990). Official methods of analysis of the association of official
analytical chemists (15th ed.). Arlington, VA: Association of
Analytical Chemists.
Beriain, M. J., Horcada, A., Purroy, A., Lizaso, G., Chasco, J., &
Mendizabal, J. A. (2000). Characteristics of Lacha and Rasa
Aragonesa lambs slaughtered at three live weights. Journal of
Animal Science, 78, 3070–3077.
Bicer, O., Gueney, O., & Pekel, E. (1995). Effect of slaughter weight on
carcass characteristics of Awassi male lambs. Journal of Applied
Animal Research, 8, 85–90.
Boccard, R., Dumont, B. L., & Lefevre, J. (1962). Etude
de la
production de la viande chez les ovins. V. Note le sur la croissance
relative des r
egions corporelles de lÕagneau. Annales de Zootechnie,
11, 257–262.
Ca~neque, V., Velasco, S., D
ıaz, M. T., P
erez, C., Huidobro, F.,
Lauzurica, S., Manzanares, C., & Gonz
alez, J. (2001). Effect of
weaning age and slaughter weight on carcass and meat quality of
Talavera breed lambs raised at pasture. Animal Science, 73, 85–95.
Centre Internationale de LÕEclairage (1986). Colorimetry (2nd ed.).
Vienna: Publication CIE no 15.2.
Colomer-Rocher, F., Morand-Fehr, P., & Kirton, A. H. (1987).
Standard methods and procedures for goat carcass evaluation,
jointing and tissue separation. Livestock Production Science, 17,
149–159.
Colomer-Rocher, F., Delfa, R., & Sierra, I. (1988). M
etodo normal-
izado para el estudio de los caracteres cuantitativos y cualitativos
de las canales ovinas producidas en el
area mediterr
anea seg
un los
sistemas de producci
on. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de
Investigaciones Agrarias, 17, 19–41.
Cross, H. P., Bernholdt, H. F., Dikeman, M. E., Greene, B. E.,
Moody, W. G., Staggs, R., & West, R. L. (1978). Guidelines for
cookery and sensory evaluation of meat. Chicago: American Meat
Science Association.
Delfa, R., Gonz
alez, C., & Teixeira, A. (1996). Use of cold carcass
weight and fat depth measurements to predict carcass composition
of Raza Aragonesa lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 20, 267–274.
Destefanis, G., Barge, M. T., Brugiapaglia, A., & Tassone, S. (2000).
The use of principal component analysis (PCA) to characterize
beef. Meat Science, 56, 255–259.
D
ıaz, M. T., Velasco, S., Ca~ neque, V., Lauzurica, S., Ru
ız de
Huidobro, F., P
erez, C., Gonz
alez, J., & Manzanares, C. (2002).
Use of concentrate or pasture for fatting lambs and its effect on
carcass and meat quality. Small Ruminant Research, 43,
257–268.
D
ıaz, M. T., Velasco, S., P
erez, C., Lauzurica, S., Huidobro, F., &
Ca~ neque, V. (2003). Physico-chemical characteristics of carcass and
meat Manchego-breed suckling lambs slaughter at different
weights. Meat Science, 65, 1085–1093.
Fisher, A. V., & De Boer, H. (1994). The EAAP standard method of
sheep carcass assessment. Carcass measurements and dissection
procedures Report of the EAAP Working Group on Carcass
Evaluation, in cooperation with the CIHEAM Instituto Agronom-
ico Mediterraneo of Zaragoza and the CEC Directorate General
for Agriculture in Brussels. Livestock Production Science 38, 149–
159.
Frutos, P., Mantec
on, A. R., & Gir
aldez, F. J. (1997). Relationship of
body condition score and live weight with body composition in
mature Churra ewes. Animal Science, 64, 447–452.
Grau, R., & Hamm, R. (1953). Eine einfache Methode zur bestimmung
der Wasserbindung in Muskel. Naturwissenshaften, 40,
29–30.
Hern
andez, P., Pla, M., & Blasco, A. (1998). Carcass characteristics
and meat quality of rabbit lines selected for different objectives: II.
Relationships between meat characteristics. Livestock Production
Science, 54, 125–131.
Hern
andez, P., Pla, M., Oliver, M. A., & Blasco, A. (2000).
Relationships between meat quality measurements in rabbits fed
with three diets of different fat types and content. Meat Science, 55,
379–384.
Hofmann, K. (1987). Der Begriff Fleischqualit€at. Definition und
Anwendung. Fleischwirtsch, 67, 44–49.
Jackson, T. H., & Mansour, Y. A. (1974). Differences between groups
of lambs carcasses chosen for good and poor conformation. Animal
Production, 19, 93–105.
Jones, S. D. M., Robertson, W. M., Price, M. A., & Coupland, T.
(1996). The prediction of saleable meat yield in lamb carcasses.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 76, 49–53.
 V. Ca~neque et al. / Meat Science 67 (2004) 595–605
Karlsson, A. (1992). The use of princial component analysis (PCA) for
evaluation results from pig meat quality measurements. Meat
Science, 31, 423–433.
Laville, E. V. M., & Bastien, O. (1996). Prediction of composition
traits of young Charolais bull carcasses using a morphometric
method. Meat Science, 44, 93–104.
Mahgoubt, O., & Lodge, G. A. (1994). Growth and body composition
of Omani local sheep. 1. Live-weight growth and carcass and non-
carcass characteristics. Animal Production, 58, 365–372.
Miguel, E., Onega, E., Ca~ neque, V., Velasco, S., D
ıaz, M. T.,
Lauzurica, S., P
erez, C., Bl
azquez, B., & Ru
ız de Huidobro, F.
(2003). Carcass classification in suckling lambs. Discrimination
ability of the European Union scale. Meat Science, 63,
107–117.
Næs, T., Baardseth, P., Helgesen, H., & Isaksson, T. (1996).
Multivariate techniques in the analysis of meat quality. Meat
Science, 43, S135–S149.
Safari, E., Hopkins, D. L., & Forgaty, N. M. (2001). Diverse lamb
genotypes. 4. Predicting the yield of saleable meat and high value
trimmed cuts from carcass measurements. Meat Science, 58, 207–
214.
Sa~
nudo, C., Santolaria, R., Sierra, I., Alcalde, M. J., & Touraille, C.
(1992). Sensory meat characteristics from light lamb carcasses. In
Proceedings 38th internatinal congress of meat science and technol-
ogy (pp. 277–280). Clemont, Ferrand: INRA.
Sa~
nudo, C., Campo, M. M., Sierra, I., Mar
ıa, G., Olleta, J. L., &
Santolaria, P. (1997). Breed effect on carcase and meat quality of
suckling lambs. Meat Science, 46, 357–365.
Sa~
nudo, C., Nute, G. R., Campo, M. M., Mar
ıa, G., Baker, A., Sierra,
I., Enser, M. E., & Wood, J. D. (1998). Assessment of commercial
lamb meat quality by British and Spanish taste panels. Meat
Science, 48, 91–100.
605
Sa~
nudo, C., Alfonso, M., S
anchez, A., Delfa, R., & Teixeira, A.
(2000). Carcass and meat quality in light lambs from different fat
classes in the EU carcass classification system. Meat Science, 56,
89–94.
Sarti, D. M., Morbidino, L., Panella, F., Cavalletti, C., & Lavvaf, A.
(1992). Qualitative characteristics of the carcass and meat of Italian
lamb. In Proceedings of the 43rd Reuni
on Anual de Federaci
on
Europea de Zootecnia, Madrid, Spain.
SAS (1996). SAS/STAT users’ guide (6th ed.). Ver. 8.01. Cary, NC:
SAS Inst. Inc.
Teixeira, A., Delfa, R., & Treacher, T. (1996). Carcass composition
and body fat depots of Galego Bragancßano and crossbred lambs by
Suffolk and Merino Precoce sire breeds. Animal Science, 63, 389–
394.
Velasco, S., Lauzurica, S., Ca~ neque, V., P
erez, C., Huidobro, F.,
Manzanares, C., & D
ıaz, M. T. (2000). Carcass and meat quality of
Talaverana breed suckling lambs in relation to gender and
slaughter weight. Animal Science, 70, 253–263.
Velasco, S., Ca~ neque, V., P
erez, C., Lauzurica, S., D
ıaz, M. T.,
Huidobro, F., Manzanares, C., & Gonz
alez, J. (2001). Fatty acid
composition of adipose depots of suckling lambs raised under
different production systems. Meat Science, 59, 325–333.
Vergara, H., Molina, A., & Gallego, L. (1999). Influence of sex and
slaughter weight on carcass and meat quality in light and medium
weight lambs produced in intensive systems. Meat Science, 52, 221–
226.
Wood, J. D., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1980). The significance of breed in
the prediction of lamb carcass composition from fat thickness
measurements. Animal Production, 31, 315–319.
Zygoyiannis, D., Stamataris, K., Kouimtzis, S., & Doney, J. M. (1990).
Carcass composition in lamb of Greek dairy breeds of sheep.
Animal Production, 50, 261–269.