Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:17:17.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of body composition of live cattle using two ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: a report of four separate trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Kempster ,
A. Cuthbertson ,
D. W. Jones  and
M. G. Owen
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Blelchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. Cuthbertson
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Blelchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. W. Jones
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Blelchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
M. G. Owen
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, P.O. Box 44, Queensway House, Blelchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Results are reported from four separate trials carried out to determine the precision of the Sonatest (simple A-mode ultrasonic machine) and the Scanogram (modified linear scanner) for predicting the body composition of live cattle. Cattle in the four trials differed in breed, sex and origin, and the data provided an opportunity to determine the consistency of results in different circumstances. A total of 210 cattle were involved.

Fat thickness measurements (Sonatest and Scanogram) and fat and M. longissimus areas (Scanogram only) were taken at the 10th and 13th ribs and at the position of the 3rd lumbar vertebra. Their precision as predictors of carcass tissues percentages was examined when they were used in addition to live weight at evaluation.

There was little consistency between trials in the positions and measurements which gave the most precise prediction. The lowest within-breed residual standard deviations of carcass lean percentage obtained with fat thickness measurements taken by Sonatest were in the range 2·5–2·7 and there was little advantage in using additional measurements in multiple regression.

Fat areas taken by Scanogram were more precise predictors (within-breed residual standard deviations were close to 2·0). Precision was improved marginally to about 1·8 by using combinations of fat areas but M. longissimus areas were of little additional value.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 301 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Bech, Anderson B. (1975). Recent experimental development in ultrasonic measurement of cattle. Livestock Production Science 2, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, J. P. & Kempster, A. J. (1979). A comparison of visual fatness assessment and fat measurements taken by probe as prediotors of beef carcass composition in commercial classification. Animal Production 28, 442–443 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Tissue separation – to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 1, 113–122.Google Scholar
Frood, I. J. M. (1976). An investigation into the effects of sex and plane of nutrition on the growth performance and carcass quality of British Friesian cattle for beef production. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Gillis, W. A., Burgess, T. D., Usborne, W. R., Greiger, H. & Talbot, S. (1973). A comparison of two ultrasonic techniques for the measurement of fat thickness and rib eye area in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Owen, M. G. & Alliston, J. C. (1979). A comparison of four ultrasonic machines (Sonatest, Scanogram, His Observer and Danscanner) for predicting the body composition of live pigs. Animal Production 29, 485–491.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. & Owen, M. G. (1980). A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Animal Production(in the Press).Google Scholar
Limousin And Simmental Tests Steering Committee (1976). Report of the evaluation of the first importation into Great Britain in 1970–71 of Limousin bulls from France and Simmental bulls from Germany and Switzerland. 100 pp. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. (1978). Note on recent advances in ultrasonic scanning of animals. Proceedings of the 24th European Meat Research Workers' Congress, Kulmbach, pp. W13.3–W13.6.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. & Fursey, G. A. J. (1974). A note on the velocity of ultrasound in living tissue. Animal Production 18, 93–96.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. & Lang, C. P. (1973). An evaluation of the ‘Scanogram’ for predicting the carcass composition of live cattle. (A report submitted to the Australian Meat Board.) 66 pp. Melbourne: The School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. A., Stouffer, J. R. & Westervelt. R. G. (1977). Relationships of ultrasonic and carcass measurements with retail yield in beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 4, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilton, J. W., Burgess, T. D. & Batra, T. R. (1973). Ultrasonic measurements of beef bulls in performance testing programs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar