Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:25:02.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison of three ultrasonic machines (Danscan, AIDD (NZ) and Body Composition Meter) and subjective fat and conformation scores for predicting chemical composition of live sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. J. Bass
Affiliation:
Ruakitra Agricultural Research Centre Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
E. G. Woods
Affiliation:
Ruakitra Agricultural Research Centre Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
W. D. Paulsen
Affiliation:
Ruakitra Agricultural Research Centre Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand

Summary

Ultrasonically measured backfat depths and subjective fat and conformation scores taken on 123 Romney ewes were related to the chemical composition of the carcass in trial 1. Fat depths at one position over the eye muscle, determined using ultrasonic machines with a single probe, were similar to the best judge's fat scores at predicting carcass composition after adjustment for pre-slaughter live weight. Fat depths measured from a two-dimensional scan (Danscan) did not predict carcass composition as well as most of the judges' fat scores. Judges' conformation scores failed to improve the prediction of composition after adjustment for live weight and fat score.

In trial 2, two ultrasonic machines of the single probe type provided accurate measure of carcass fat depths on both full fleeced and shorn sheep. Ultrasonically measured fat depths would appear to be a useful method for selecting lean breeding stock and for training inexperienced stock judgesto assess fatness of sheep.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Bass, J. J., Winn, G. & Paulsen, W. D. (1982). A comparison of three ultrasonic machines (Scanogram, Danscan and AIDD (NZ)) and visual estimates for predicting carcass composition of live cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 337341.Google Scholar
Clements, B. W., Thompson, J. M., Harris, D. C. & Lane, F. G. (1981). Prediction of carcase fat depth in live lambs: a comparison of techniques. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 21, 566569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, A. (1980). Fat thickness measured with three ultrasonic instruments on live ram lambs as predictors of cutability. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60, 857867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooden, J. M., Beach, A. D. & Purchas, R. W. (1980). Measurement of subcutaneous backfat depth in live lambs with an ultrasonic probe. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 161165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, N. E. (1977). Preliminary results from Danscan ultrasonic measurement of fat thickness and loin area of lamb. Proceedings of the 28th European Association for Animal Production, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. & Owen, M. G. (1977). A preliminary evaluation of the Scanogram for predicting carcase composition of live animals. Animal Production 24, 145.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Barton, R. A. & Rae, A. L. (1962). The efficiency of determining the chemical composition of lamb carcasses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, W. A., Thompson, J. M. & Butterfield, R. M. (1975). An evaluation of the Scanogram as an ultrasonic aid for assessing carcass composition in live sheep. Australian Meat Board Report.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. & Gunn, R. G. (1969). Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72, 451454.Google Scholar
Stouffer, J. R. & Westervelt, R. G. (1977). A review of ultrasonic applications in animal science: reverberations in echocardiograms. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 5, 124127.Google Scholar