Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T02:56:02.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choice of probing site for classification of live pigs using ultrasonic measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. Hulsegge ,
G. Mateman ,
G. S. M. Merkus  and
P. Walstra
B. Hulsegge
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
G. Mateman
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
G. S. M. Merkus
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
P. Walstra
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Body length and ultrasonic fat thickness measurements were taken on 86 live pigs in order to find an optimal probing site for estimation of lean meat proportion. The next day pigs were slaughtered and measurements with the Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP) were made in order to estimate the lean meat proportion.

Fat thickness, 6 cm off the dorsal mid line, increased from a value of 9·5 mm at a site 4 cm cranial to the last rib, progressively through intermediate sites to a value of 12·4 mm, 22 cm cranial to the last rib. Fat thickness measurements at different sites (live pigs) were highly correlated with HGP fat thickness at the site between 3rd and 4th from last rib (3/4 LR) and estimated lean meat proportion (carcasses); correlations ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and -071 to -0.85 respectively. The most accurate predictor of estimated lean meat proportion from the live pig measurements was the measurement at 18 cm cranial to the last rib. Measurement at the site half the distance between the occipital bone and the base of the tail (midpoint) was the second-best for estimated lean meat proportion.

Generally, this midpoint on live pigs was situated around the 3/4 LR on carcasses. However, the range was considerable. Half of the number of animals had a midpoint in the range of -2.5 to 2.5 cm from 3/4 LR. The site midpoint is easily located on the animal and the results of this study suggest that it can be used as an accurate predictor of estimated lean meat proportion. Therefore it can serve as the probing site for classification of live pigs.

Keywords

leannesspigsultrasonic devices
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 641 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Alliston, J. C., Kempster, A. J., Owen, M. G. and Ellis, M. 1982. An evaluation of three ultrasonic machines for predicting the body composition of live pigs of the same breed, sex and live weight. Animal Production 35: 165–169.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. 1950. Problems in the analysis of growth and wear curves. Biometrics 6: 362–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Community. 1985. EC document no. 2967185, determining the Community scale for grading pig carcasses. Google Scholar
Fortin, A. 1986. Development of backfat and individual fat layers in the pig and its relationship with carcass lean. Meat Science 18: 225–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortin, A., Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1984. Pork carcass grading: a comparison of the New Zealand Hennessy Grading Probe and the Danish Fat-O-Meater. Meat Science 10: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortin, A., Sim, D. W. and Talbot, S. 1980. Ultrasonic measurements of backfat thickness at different locations and positions on the warm pork carcass and comparisons of ruler and ultrasonic procedures. Canadian journal of Animal Science 60: 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5 release 3 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gresham, J. D., McPeake, S. R., Bernard, J. K. and Henderson, H. H. 1992. Commercial adaptation of ultrasonography to predict pork carcass composition from live animal and carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 70: 631–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulsegge, B. and Merkus, G. S. M. 1997. A comparison of the optical probe HGP and the ultrasonic devices Renco and Pie Medical for estimation of the lean meat proportion in pig carcasses. Animal Science 64: 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Allen, O.B. and Haworth, C. R. 1982. The accuracy of two recording instruments in the measurements of subcutaneous fat thickness in pork carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 62: 731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Evans, D. G. 1979. A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pig carcasses. Animal Production 28: 87–96.Google Scholar
Krieter, J. and Kalm, E. 1991. An evaluation of two ultrasonic instruments for the prediction of carcass lean grade in growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 361–366.Google Scholar
Sather, A. P., Martin, A. H., Jolly, R. W. and Fredeen, H. T. 1980. Alternative market weights for swine. I. Feedlot performance. Journal of Animal Science 51: 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sather, A. P., Tong, A. K. W. and Harbison, D. S. 1986. A study of ultrasonic probing techniques for swine. I. The effect of operator, machine and site. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 66: 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, C. A., Savell, J. W., Recio, H. A. and Cross, H. R. 1989. Using ultrasound technology to predict pork carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1279–1284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turlington, L. M. 1990. Live animal evaluation of swine and sheep using ultrasonics. M.Sc. thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Huiskes, J. H. and Ramaekers, P. J. L. 1993. Serial ultrasonic measurements of backfat thickness in growing finishing pigs. I. Location determination of serial ultrasonic measurements. Pig News and Information 14: 173N–176N.Google Scholar