Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-24T03:28:28.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How well do bacon grade schedules reflect carcass composition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2017

A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
A. S. Monk
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2EF
Get access

Extract

Most bacon carcasses in Britain are measured, within the national Pig Carcase Classification Scheme operated by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC), for P2 fat thickness, shoulder and loin fat thicknesses and carcass length. Bacon curers use these measurements to define the grading schedules most appropriate to their buying requirements.

There is debate about the value of mid-line fat measurements and length as indicators of carcass quality. The scientific evidence indicates that mid-line measurements are less precise predictors of carcass lean content than P2, and that the mid-line loin measurement is superior to the mid-line shoulder measurement.However, it is argued that the mid-line measurements may have special regional value: eg as predictors of carcass lean content in individual joints. The analysis reported uses a computer model (PIGRADER) to examine overall lean in carcass, the composition of individual joints and joint proportions for alternative grading schedules.

Type
Carcass Quality
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1986

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

Meat and Livestock Commission (1980). Commercial pig evaluation: Management and procedures. MLC Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Monk, A. S. and Kempster, A. J. (1985). Res. Dev. Agric., 2, 27.Google Scholar