Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:52:42.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pig carcasses 2. Predictors for use in population studies and experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. G. Evans  and
A. J. Kempster
D. G. Evans
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

Linear measurements and sample joint dissections were examined as predictors of carcass lean percentage using data from 1060 carcasses comprising 108 subgroups (nine genotypes × two sexes × two feeding regimes × three slaughter weights). The potential predictors were examined in terms of precision, cost and the stability of their regression equations.

Probed fat thickness 6·5 cm from the dorsal mid-line at the last rib (P2) was the individual measurement giving the most precise prediction (residual s.d. pooled within subgroups = 2·21 percentage units; r = −0·72). The square root transformation (P2½) gave stable regression slopes over levels of all four factors, though there were important differences in intercepts between genotypes, sexes and slaughter weights.

The precision of prediction from the lean percentage of sample joints was generally improved by including P2½ with each in multiple regression. Used in this way with current Meat and Livestock Commission costings, the ham joint offered the best compromise between cost and precision (pooled residual s.d. = 1·25 percentage units; R = 0·92). Regression slopes on each joint were stable for all factors except for those on the rump back and rib back joints which varied by feeding regime. Intercepts varied by genotypes for all joints except the ham, while intercept differences for feeding regimes were small or non-significant.

The results confirm the value of the ‘sub-sampling with regression’ procedure for predicting carcass composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 97 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Adam, J. L. and Smith, W. C. 1966. The use of sample joints in predicting the composition of the pig carcass. Anim. Prod. 8: 85–94.Google Scholar
Buck, S. F., Harrington, G. and Johnson, R. F. 1962. The prediction of lean percentage of pigs of bacon weight from carcass measurements. Anim. Prod. 4: 25–36.Google Scholar
Conniffe, D. 1975. Double sampling with regression-extension to the case of unequal regression coefficients. Statistician 24: 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conniffe, D. and Moran, M. A. 1972. Double sampling with regression in comparative studies of carcass composition. Biometrics 28: 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. L., Cuthbertson, A., Smith, R. J. and Kempster, A. J. 1974. Prediction of pig carcass composition by sample joint dissection and fat thickness measurements. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Series) 3: 86. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. 1968. PIDA dissection techniques. Proc. Symp. Methods of Carcass Evaluation, Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Dublin.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. and Pease, A. H. R. 1968. The inter-relationships of various measurements, visual assessments and dissection results of pigs of 200 lb live weight. Anim. Prod. 10: 249–255.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1958. Pig Carcass Evaluation. Tech. Commun. Commonw. agric. Bur., No. 12.Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1963. The separation of technical errors and biological variation and other statistical problems arising in body composition studies. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110: 642–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houseman, R. A. 1972. Studies of methods of estimating body composition in the living pig. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Evans, D. G. 1979. A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pig carcasses. 1. Predictors for use in commercial classification and grading. Anim. Prod. 28: 87–96.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Commercial Product Evaluation Report. First year results of eight hybrid companies andpopulations ofpurebred and crossbred pigs. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1976. Commercial Product Evaluation Report. Second test results: pigs purchased 1973/1974. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks. (Mimeograph)Google Scholar
Smith, G. C. and Carpenter, Z. L. 1973. Evaluation of factors associated with the composition of pork carcases. J. Anim. Sci. 36: 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. J. 1959. Regression Analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar