Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:52:12.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of lean meat proportion in pig carcasses and in the major cuts from multiple measurements made with the Hennessy Grading Probe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. Hulsegge ,
P. Sterrenburg  and
G. S. M. Merkus
B. Hulsegge
Affiliation:
DLO-Research Institute for Animal Production ‘Schoonoord’, PO Box 501, 3700 AM Zeist, The Netherlands
P. Sterrenburg
Affiliation:
DLO-Research Institute for Animal Production ‘Schoonoord’, PO Box 501, 3700 AM Zeist, The Netherlands
G. S. M. Merkus
Affiliation:
DLO-Research Institute for Animal Production ‘Schoonoord’, PO Box 501, 3700 AM Zeist, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Measurements were carried out on 200 selected carcasses in order to investigate whether single or multiple site measurements could provide an accurate estimation of the lean meat proportion in the carcass and the major cuts i.e. ham, shoulder, loin and belly. Fat measurements were taken with the Hennessy Grading Probe II at 17 sites on the left side of the carcass, and muscle measurements at four of these sites. The day after selection 200 left sides were dissected according to the simplified European Community (EC) reference method.

Fifty of these left sides were further dissected according to the full EC reference method. The use of multiple site measurements, compared with a single site measurement, only slightly reduced the residual s.d. of the estimated lean meat proportion in the carcass and the major cuts, e.g. addition of a second site measurement reduced the residual s.d. values by 0·3 to 1·3 gjkg only. The measurement between the 13th and 14th thoracic vertebrae, 7 cm off the dorsal mid line, appeared to be the best single estimator, of the sites probed, for lean meat proportion in the carcass and in the major cuts. Prediction of lean meat proportion in the belly appeared to be problematic (residual s.d.> 29 g/kg).

During the experiment two problems emerged. Firstly, the algorithm, which calculates fat and muscle thickness from the optically measured tissue profile, was not appropriate for every site. Secondly, the definition of the probing position did not always coincide with the anatomical position of the intended superficial layer of muscle underneath the subcutaneous fat.

Keywords

carcass compositionHennessy Grading Probelean proportionpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 119 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Branscheid, W., Dobrowolski, A. and Sack, E. 1990. Vereinfachung der EG-Referenzmethode fur die grobgewebliche Vollzerlegung von Schweineschlachtkörpern. Fleischwirtschaft 70: 550–553.Google Scholar
Cook, G. L., Chadwick, J. P. and Kempster, A. J. 1989. An assessment of carcass probes for use in Great Britain for the EC pig carcass grading scheme. Animal Production 48: 427–434.Google Scholar
Diestre, A., Gispert, M. and Oliver, M. A. 1989. The evaluation of automatic probes in Spain for the new scheme for pig carcass grading according to the EC regulations. Animal Production 48: 443–448.Google Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991a. Increasing precision or reducing expense in regression experiments by using information from a concomitant variable. Biometrics 47: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991b. A simple method to increase precision or reduce expense in regression experiments to predict the proportion of lean meat of carcasses. Animal Production 53: 353–359.Google Scholar
European Community. 1985. EC document no. 2967/85, determining the Community scale for grading pig carcasses.Google Scholar
European Community. 1989. EC document no. VI/3860/89–EN, research concerning the harmonizing of methods for grading pig carcases in the Community.Google Scholar
European Community. 1990a. EC document no. Vl/3590/90–EN, protocol for EC-trial in The Netherlands.Google Scholar
European Community. 1990b. EC document no. VI/2251/90–EN, simplification of the EC reference method for the full dissection of pig carcasses.Google Scholar
Fortin, A., Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1984. Pork carcass grading: a comparison of the New Zealand Hennessy Grading Probe and the Danish Fat-O-Meater. Meat Science 10: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furnival, G. M. and Wilson, R. W. 1974. Regression by leaps and bounds. Technometrics 16: 449–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsegge, B., Sterrenburg, P. and Engel, B. 1990. [Prediction of EC-lean meat percentage in major cuts of pig carcasses from fat and muscle thickness measurements with the Hennessy Grading Probe as performed in pig grading in The Netherlands.] IVO-reports B–346. DLO-Research Institute for Animal Production “Schoonoord”, Zeist, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hulsegge, B., Sterrenburg, P. and Merkus, G. S. M. 1991. Estimation of EC-lean meat percentage in major cuts of pig carcasses based on multiple measurements of fat thickness with the Hennessy Grading Probe 2. Proceedings of the thirty seventh international congress of Meat Science and Technology, Kulmbach, Germany, pp. 119–122.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Chadwick, J. P. and Jones, D. W. 1985. An evaluation of the Hennessy Grading Probe and the SFK FatO-Meater for use in pig carcass classification and grading. Animal Production 40: 323–329.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. Animal Production 28: 87–96.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. K. 1984. Pig carcass classification and grading-relationships between quantitative and qualitative aspects. In Carcass evaluation in beef and pork: opportunities and constraints (ed. Walstra, P.), satellite symposium to the thirty fifth annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, The Hague, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
Thissen, J. and Goedhart, P. 1990. Genstat 5 GLW procedure library manual. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1986. Assessment of the regression formula for estimation of the lean meat percentage by HGP-measurements in The Netherlands. EC working paper, Brussels VI/4849/86–EN.Google Scholar