Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T03:46:29.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preliminary studies of eye judgements of the gammons of bacon pigs in relation to dissection data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1960

D. P. Gatherum
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council and University of Cambridge
G. Harrington
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council and University of Cambridge
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council and University of Cambridge
Get access

Extract

1. Attributes desired in the gammons of bacon pigs are discussed, together with the methods whereby they are measured.

2. An experiment is described in which 16 judges made visual assessments of the qualities of the gammons of 10 carcasses of bacon weight from photographs, both of the fresh carcasses and of the cured bacon sides.

3. The judges did not show a high level of agreement in their rankings of the gammons. Although the overall rankings by the panel of the gammons on the fresh carcasses and on the bacon sides were similar, neither ranking was related to the composition or yield of the gammons.

4. The judges showed better agreement in their rankings of photographs of the cut surfaces of these 10 gammons and the cross-sections of the cooked gammons produced from them; in this case their preferences were related to the lean content of the gammons.

5. A second trial in which 25 judges scored 12 actual bacon sides for the quality of their gammons showed an even lower level of agreement between the judges' rankings, and again there was little agreement between the overall rankings of the panel and the results of dissections.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1960

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

Fisher, R. A, & Yates, F., 1957. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. 5th ed.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T, Bowman, G. H, & Stothart, J. G, 1955. Appraisal of certain methods for evaluation of ham quality. Canad. J. agric. Sci., 35: 91.Google Scholar
Gatherum, D. P, Harrington, G., & Pomeroy, R. W, 1958. A study of certain subjective assessments important in animal improvement. Occup. Psychol., 32: 229.Google Scholar
Gatherum, D. P, Harrington, G., & Pomeroy, R. W, 1959. Visual judgements of quality in meat. I. Assessments of the proportion of lean to fat in bacon from photographs of the cut side. J. agric. Sci., 52: 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatherum, D. P, Harrington, G., & Pomeroy, R. W, 1960. Visual judgements of quality in meat. II. A simplification of the assessment of the proportion of lean to fat in bacon. J. agric. Sci., 54: 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, O. G, & Ellis, N. R, 1936. A study of ham composition with special reference to type of hog. Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod., 28th Ann Meet., 1935: 111.Google Scholar
Harrington, G., 1958. Pig carcass evaluation. Tech. Commun. Bur. Anim. Breed. Genet., No. 12. 107 pp.Google Scholar
Harrington, G., & Pomeroy, R. W, 1956. Systems of marking bacon competitions. Pig Breed. Gaz., No. 84: 36.Google Scholar
Hiner, R. L, & Hankins, O. G, 1939. Significance of variation in ham conformation. J. agric. Res., 59; 293.Google Scholar
Instytut Zootechniki W Polsce, 1957. Sprawozdanie, Zeszyt 1, 198 pp.Google Scholar
Janicki, M. A, & Walczak, Z., 1960. Badania nad trafnościa. wzrokowej i pomiarowej oceny szynki. Roczn. Tech. Chem.Zywn., 5: 81.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G, 1955. Rank Correlation Methods. Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd., London. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
National Pig Progeny Testing Board, 1958. Ann. Rep., Vol. I. 76 pp.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, W., 1956. Die Bestandteile des Schweineschinkens und ihre quantitativen Beziehungen zum Ganzen und intereinander. Züchtungskunde, 28: 212.Google Scholar