Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:03:24.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of the percentage lean of pig carcasses with a small or a large number of instrumental carcass measurements – an illustration with HGP and Vision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2007

B. Engel ,
E. Lambooij ,
W. G. Buist ,
H. Reimert  and
G. Mateman
B. Engel*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
E. Lambooij
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
W. G. Buist
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
H. Reimert
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
G. Mateman
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: Bas.Engel@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

In this paper we report on the results of a recent dissection experiment in The Netherlands where prediction formulae for the percentage lean meat in pig carcasses with the Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP) and a vision system (from now on referred to as Vision) were determined. Predictions with the HGP were based on one fat and one muscle depth measurement only, while predictions with Vision were based on as many as 115 direct and derived measurements. The data from this dissection experiment were used to illustrate the statistical calculations involved in relation to the number of carcass measurements. Prediction with instruments that gather a large number of measurements per carcass is not covered by the present European Community (EC) regulations. Therefore the calculations were conducted according to new regulations for statistical methodology in pig carcass grading that are expected to be adopted by the EC in the near future. The calculations included consideration of 3 subpopulations (females, entire males and castrated males). The Vision data were also used to show that ordinary regression after selection of a subset of carcass measurements severely under estimates the accuracy of prediction: instruments and associated prediction formulae are seemingly much more accurate than they truly are. When standard regression methods are used for instruments that gather a large number of measurements, there is a considerable risk that measurement instruments will be selected for the wrong reasons. Accuracy of approved instruments may not even comply with the EC-regulations, with poor consequences for harmonization within the EC.

Keywords

carcass compositionleanleast squarespigspredictionregression analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 919 - 928
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Brown, P. J. (1993) Measurement, regression and calibration. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Butler, N. A., Denham, M. C. (2000) The peculiar shrinkage properties of partial least squares regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 62: 585–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causeur, D. J. (2005) Optimal sampling from concomitant variables for regression problems. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 128: 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causeur, D. J., Dhorne, T. J. (1998) Finite sample properties of a multivariate extension of double regression. Biometrics 54: 1591–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causeur, D., Daumas, G., Dhorne, T., Engel, B., Font i Furnols, M., Højsgaard, S. (2006) Statistical handbook for assessing pig classification methods (In press).Google Scholar
Coniffe, D. (1985) Estimating regression equations with common explanatory variables but unequal numbers of observations. Journal of Econometrics 27: 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B. (1991) Statistical analysis of the Dutch dissection data concerning harmonisation of methods for grading pig carcasses in the community. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Engel, B., Walstra, P. (1991a) Increasing precision or reducing expense in regression experiments by using information from a concomitant variable. Biometrics 47: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B., Walstra, P. (1991b) A simple method to increase precision or reduce expense in regression experiments to predict the proportion of lean meat of carcasses. Animal Production 53: 353–359.Google Scholar
Engel, B., Walstra, P. (1993b) Accounting for subpopulations in prediction of the proportion of lean meat of pig carcasses. Animal Production 57: 147–152.Google Scholar
Engel, B., Buist, W. G., Walstra, P., Olsen, E., Daumas, G. (2003) Accuracy of prediction of percentage lean meat and authorization of carcass measurement instruments: adverse effects of incorrect sampling of carcasses in pig classification. Animal Science 76: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EUPIGCLASS. 2000. Standardisation of pig carcasses classification in the EU through improved statistical procedures and new technological developments. Program funded under the Growth Programme. www.cordis.lu/en/home.html.Google Scholar
European Community. 1985. EC regulation no. 2967/85, laying down detailed rules for the application of the community scale for grading pig carcasses.Google Scholar
European Community. 1994. EC regulation no. 3127/94, amending regulation (EC) no. 2967/85, laying down detailed rules for the application of the community scale for grading pig carcasses.Google Scholar
Fearn, T. (1983) A misuse of ridge regression in the calibration of a near infrared reflectance instrument. Applied Statistics 32: 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font i Furnols, M., Engel, B., Gispert, M. (2004) Validation of the Spanish equation to predict the lean meat percentage of pig carcasses with the Fat-O-Meater. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2: 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat Committee (2000) The guide to GenStat. (ed. Payne, R.), VSN, International Ltd, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gusnanto, A., Pawitan, Y., Huang, J., Lane, B. (2003) Variable selection in random calibration of near-infrared instruments: ridge regression and partial least squares regression settings. Journal of Chemometrics 17: 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helland, I. S. (1988) On the structure of partial least squares regression. Communications in Statistics and Simulation 17: 581–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, H., Naes, T. (1989) Multivariate calibration, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. G., Peck, E. (1992) Introduction to linear regression analysis, Second Edition, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Osten, D. W. (1988) Selection of optimal regression models via cross-valiadation. Journal of Chemometrics 2: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (1994) User's guide version 6, Fourth Edition, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stone, M., Brooks, R. J. (1990) Continuum regression: cross validated sequentially constructed prediction embracing ordinary least squares, partial least squares and principal components regression (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 52: 237–269.Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1986. Assessment of the regression formula for estimation of the lean meat percentage by HGP-measurements in the Netherlands. EC working paper, Brussels, VI/4849/86.Google Scholar
Walstra, P., Merkus, G. S., Procedure for assessment of the lean meat percentage as a consequence of the new EC reference dissection method in pig carcass classification. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar