Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:48:50.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some sources of error and possible bias in Danscan ultrasonic measurements of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. P. Gibson  and
J. C. Alliston
J. P. Gibson
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. C. Alliston
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Photographs of ultrasonic images of 10 animals were taken. Two replicate photographs were taken at each of four body positions (10th rib, 13th rib, 3rd lumbar and hindquarter) on both sides of the body in the morning and the afternoon of the day of scanning. Several measurements were taken on each photograph by an experienced interpreter. Replicate photographs failed to account for all possible sources of measurement error. Since neither time of day nor side of the body affected the mean value, taking observations at different times of the day or on both sides of the body could permit most sources of measurement error to be taken into account. Variation due to errors of measurement and differences among animals are presented. The residual error distribution contained several extreme outliers.

It was concluded that a better understanding of all the sources of bias and error will be needed if ultrasonic measurements are to be more widely used.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , August 1983 , pp. 67 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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

Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. and Owen, M. G. 1981. Prediction of body composition of live cattle using two ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: a report of four separate trials. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 96: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Owen, M. G. 1981. A note on the accuracy of an ultrasonic technique for selecting cattle of different breeds for slaughter at equal fatness. Anim. Prod. 32: 113–115.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1978. Note on recent advances in ultrasonic scanning of animals. Proc. 24th Eur. Meat Res. Workers Congr., Kulmbach, pp. W 13.3–W 13.6.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A., Pomeroy, R. W. and Harries, J. M. 1972. Some factors affecting reproducibility in ultrasonic scanning of animals. 1. Cattle. Anim. Prod. 15: 239–249.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. A. 1978. A time-controlled feeding system for cattle. Anim. Prod. 27: 277–284.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. and Lang, C. P. 1973. An evaluation of the “Scanogram” for predicting carcass composition of live cattle. A report submitted to the Australian Meat Board. The School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar