Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:28:41.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prediction of pig carcass composition from measurements of carcass density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. W. Holme ,
W. E. Coey  and
K. L. Robinson
D. W. Holme
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture of Northern Ireland andThe Queen's University, Belfast
W. E. Coey
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture of Northern Ireland andThe Queen's University, Belfast
K. L. Robinson
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture of Northern Ireland andThe Queen's University, Belfast
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two cuts, the leg and the loin, were taken from the right sides of 102 pig carcasses. Their densities were determined by weighing in air and in water and the cuts were dissected into fat, muscle, bone, skin and connective tissue. Samples of the muscular and fatty tissues were taken to obtain a measure of the analytically determined fat content. The weights of each tissue were expressed as a percentage of the weight of each cut and related to density by the methods of correlation and regression. Correlation coefficients and regression equations were calculated separately for legs, loins and the composite leg plus loin for each pig and for legs and loins rogarded as 204 separate pieces of pig carcass.

2. Correlations and regressions were used to relate the composition of the loin cut to three measurements of backfat thickness taken over the eye muscle at the level of the last rib, and to eye muscle area. These allowed a comparison of density and backfat thickness as measures of the fat and lean content of the loin cuts.

3. There was evidence of a high degree of association between the fat or muscle contents of the cuts and the density or the reciprocal of density. In no case was the simple correlation coefficient between muscle and density or fat and density less than 0·84. The greatest standard error of estimate of any of the regressions of porcentage fat or percentage muscle on density was 3·3% fat, for the regression of percentage separable fat on the reciprocal of the density of the loin cuts. Density was found to be a better measure of the muscle or fat content of the loin cuts than eye muscle area or any of 3 measurements of backfat thickness taken over the eye muscle.

4. Dissection data from 25 whole sides supported these results showing a high correlation between density and percentage fat or percentage muscle.

5. There was a low correlation, r = 0·41, between percentage bone and density of 102 leg cuts. That between density and percentage bone of 25 whole sides was r = 0·47; suggesting that bone content has but a small influence on carcass density.

6. It is suggested that carcass density is a better measure of carcass fatness or leanness than measurements of backfat thickness or eye muscle area.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1963 , pp. 9 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Barton, R. A. & Kirton, A. H. (1956). Nature, Lond., 178, 920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnke, A. R., Feen, B. G. & Welham, W. C. (1942). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 118, 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, R. W., Rupnow, E. H., Hanning, F. M., Allen, N. N. & Niedermeier, R. P. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breidenstein, B. C., Sleeter, Bull., Forbes, R. M. & Stouffer, J. R. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1227.Google Scholar
Brown, C. J., Hillier, J. C. & Whatley, J. A. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brozek, J. (1946). Fed. Proc. 5, 13 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Brozek, J. & Keys, A. (1950). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 20, 247.Google Scholar
Clausen, H. (1959). Proc. 1959 Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, p. 113.Google Scholar
Cole, J. W., Backus, W. R. & Orme, L. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Costa, E. & Clayton, R. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deule, H. J. Jr., Hallman, L. F., Movitt, E., Mattson, F. H. & Wu, E. (1944). J. Nutr. 27, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Bowman, G. H. & Stothart, J. (1955). Canad. J. Agric. Sci. 35, 91.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Meyer, J. H. & Lofgreen, G. P. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, O. G. & Howe, P. E. (1946). U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 926.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. W. & Jones, O. (1932). The Analyst, 57, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, A. & Brozek, J. (1953). Physiol. Rev. 33, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, A. H. & Barton, R. A. (1958). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 1, 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, E. A., Ashton, G. C. & Kastelic, J. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraybill, H. F., Bitter, H. L. & Hankins, O. G. (1952). J. Appl. Physiol. 4, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraybill, H. F., Goode, E. R., Robertson, R. S. B. & Sloane, H. S. (1953). J. Appl. Physiol. 6, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. & Garrett, W. N. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 119.Google Scholar
Morales, M., Rathbun, E. N., Smith, R. E. & Pace, N. (1945). J. Biol. Chem. 158, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, L. E., Peakson, A. M., Bratzler, L. J. & Magee, W. T. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, A. M., Bratzler, L. J., Deans, R. J., Price, J. F., Hoefer, J. A., Reineke, E. P. & Luecke, R. W. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 86.Google Scholar
Pitts, G. C. (1956). Amer. J. Physiol. 185, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, J. F., Pearson, A. M. & Benne, E. J. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, E. N. & Pace, N. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 158, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, J. E. & Tayler, J. C. (1959). The Grassland Research Institute Ann. Rep. 1957–58. Expts. in Progress, 11, p. 96.Google Scholar
Sarkisian, S. S. (1946). U.S. Naval Med. Bull. no. 46, p. 1207, quoted by Keys & Brozek (1950).Google Scholar
Siri, W. E. (1956). Monograph UCRL-3349. Donner Laboratory of Biophysics and Medical Physics. University of California.Google Scholar
Stouffer, J. R., Sleeter, Bull, Breidenstein, B. C., Neumann, A. L. & Albert, W. W. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 1267 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Whiteman, J. V., Whatley, J. A. & Hillier, J. C. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobrisky, S. E., Naumann, H. D., Lasley, J. F., Brady, D. E. & Mullins, A. M. (1958). Res. Bull. no. 672, University of Missouri College of Agriculture.Google Scholar