Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:05:45.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the use of the ‘Danscanner’ for prediction of the composition of a sample joint from beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Alliston  and
C. E. Hinks
J. C. Alliston
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
C. E. Hinks
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Forty-five crossbred cattle were scanned by ultrasonics at three sites on the body and were ‘condition scored’ before slaughter and subsequent dissection of a sample rib joint.

Ultrasonic measurements gave a better indicator of fat content than did ‘condition score’. The third lumbar vertebra site on the body gave a better prediction of sample joint composition than did the 10th or 13th rib.

The mean ultrasonic measurement of fat depth at the three sites did not improve the prediction of composition as compared with the value obtained at the third lumbar vertebra. The overall standard deviation for total fat concentration was 42·1 g/kg and for lean concentration was 35·4 g/kg. Area of fat at the third lumbar vertebra was the best single indicator of fat concentration and lean concentration in the sample joint, with residual standard deviations of 25·1 and 23·1 g/kg respectively. A combination of fat measurements at the 3rd lumbar position was the best overall predictor (residual standard deviation: 23·8g fat and 23·0g lean per kg).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , June 1981 , pp. 345 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

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

Alliston, J. C. and Sales, D. I. 1979. The repeatability of interpretation of ‘Danscanner’ ultrasonic backfat and m. longissimus measurements in pigs. Anim. Prod. 28: 443 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. 1976. Note on the use of the Scanogram on live cattle to predict carcass composition. Agric. Res. Semin. on Criteria and Meth. for Assessment of Carcass and Meat Characteristics in Beef Prod. Exps., Zeist, 1975, pp. 65–69.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation—to assess beef and lamb variation. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Ser.) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Owen, M. G. 1981. A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Anim. Prod. 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1973. Condition scoring of cattle. Bull. E. Scotl. Coll. Agric, No. 6.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. and Lang, C. P. 1973. An evaluation of the “Scanogram” for predicting carcass composition of live cattle. Rep. Sch. Agric. For., Univ. Melbourne. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Wallace, M. A., Stouffer, J. R. and Westervelt, R. G. 1977. Relationship of ultrasonic and carcass measurements with retail yield in beef cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar