Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:29:20.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of three ultrasonic machines for predicting the body composition of live pigs of the same breed, sex and live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Alliston ,
A. J. Kempster ,
M. G. Owen  and
M. Ellis
J. C. Alliston
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
M. G. Owen
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Get access

Abstract

Measurements of the m. longissimus and overlying fat at the last rib were taken on 39 live entire male pigs using three ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: Sonatest (simple A-mode machine), Scanogram (modified linear scanner) and Danscanner (‘real time’ scanner). Each machine had a different operator and interpreter. The pigs were from two lines of Large White, one selected for efficiency of lean-tissue gain (20 pigs) and the other a genetic control line (19 pigs). They were measured in the week prior to slaughter at approximately 90 kg live weight (91·4 (s.e. 4·4) kg).

The analysis was pooled within line and the precision of carcass lean prediction at constant live weight examined for the three machines. Standard deviation of lean in carcass at equal live weight was 16·2 g/kg.

A single fat thickness measurement taken by the Sonatest gave the most precise prediction (residual s.d. = 12·9 g/kg). Marginally poorer relationships were recorded for a similar measurement taken by the Scanogram (13·5 g/kg) and Danscanner (13·3 g/kg). Precision was not improved from the use of additional fat thickness measurements or, in the case of the scanning machines, from the addition of fat area over the m. longissimus or the area of the muscle itself. The results confirm that the Scanogram and Danscanner do not offer significant advantages over the simpler and cheaper Sonatest in the circumstances considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 165 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cuthbertson, A. 1968. PIDA dissection techniques. Proc. Symp. Meth. Carcass Evaluation, Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Dublin.Google Scholar
Henderson, Ruth., Whittemore, C. T., Ellis, M. and Smith, W. C. 1980. Comparison of the Newcastle Large White control and selection line pigs on a fixed feed, fixed time trial. Anim. Prod. 30: 464 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Owen, M. G. and Alliston, J. C. 1979. A comparison of four ultrasonic machines (Sonatest, Scanogram, His Observer and Danscanner) for predicting the body composition of live pigs. Anim. Prod. 29: 175–181.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1978. Note on recent advances in ultrasonic scanning of animals. Proc. 24th Eur. Meat Res. Wkers' Congr., Kulmbach, pp. W13·3–W13·6.Google Scholar