Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:47:12.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of electronic meat-measuring equipment in predicting carcass composition in the live pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. M. Joyal ,
S. D. M. Jones  and
B. W. Kennedy
S. M. Joyal
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
S. D. M. Jones
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
B. W. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access

Abstract

An electronic meat-measuring equipment (EMME) determination (average of three consecutive readings) and backfat thickness (averaged over two sites) were taken on each of 107 live Yorkshire pigs weighing approximately 110 kg. After slaughter, 10 carcass traits: killing out, grade fat (fat thickness at maximum loin of split carcass), in. longissimus area, total and individual weights of the four untrimmed primal cuts (butt, picnic, loin and ham) and total weight of lean and subcutaneous fat in the four primal cuts, were measured and used to evaluate the EMME and ultrasound backfat probe, alone and in combination, in predicting carcass merit. Value of prediction was measured as significant improvement in correlation over a base model (A/?2). After adjustment for live weight and treatment (diet, sex and housing) differences, the EMME alone was significant in predicting grade fat (A/?2 = 007), weight of the four untrimmed primal cuts (A/?2 = 0·03) and weights of ham (A/?2 = 0·04), lean (A/?2 = 0·17) and subcutaneous fat (A/?2 = 0·08). Backfat thickness alone was significant in predicting grade fat (AR2 = 0·21) and the weights of loin (AR2 = 0·03), ham (AR2 = 0·02), lean (AR2 = 0·09) and subcutaneous fat (AR2 = 0·42). Their combined information was superior in predicting fat thickness (AR2 = 0·24), weight of lean (AR2 = 0·21) and weight of subcutaneous fat (AR2 = 0·44). Similar results were obtained when treatment effects were ignored. Correlations of the EMME number with fat thickness, weight of total lean and total subcutaneous fat were 0·31, 0·49 and -0·30, respectively. Correlations of backfat thickness with grade fat, weight of total lean and total subcutaneous fat were 0·53, -0·35 and 0·72, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Adams, J. P., Omtvedt, I. T., Whiteman, J. V. and Walters, L. E. 1972. Live and carcass measurements as indicators of lean cut yield in swine. Journal of Animal Science 35: 25–30.Google Scholar
Domermuth, W. F., Veum, T. L., Alexander, M. A., Hedrick, H. B., Clark, J. and Eklund, D. 1976 of EMME for swine. Journal of Animal Science 37: 259 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Domermuth, W. F., Veum, T. L., Alexander, M. A., Hendrick, H. B., Clark, J. and Eklund, D. 1976. Prediction of lean body composition of live market swine by indirect methods. Journal of Animal Science 43: 966–976.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Martin, A. H. and Sather, A. P. 1979. Evaluation of an electronic technique for measuring lean content of the live pig. Journal of Animal Science 48: 536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrick, H. B. 1983. Methods of estimating live animal and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1316–1327.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1983. The electronic prediction of commercial yield and lean content in pig carcasses. Animal Production 37: 33–40.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. Animal Production 29: 175–181.Google Scholar
Mersmann, H. J., Brown, L. J., Chai, E. Y. and Fogg, T. J. 1984. Use of electronic meat measuring equipment to estimate body composition in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar