Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-22T20:29:44.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ultrasonic evaluation of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. A. Miles ,
G. A. J. Fursey  and
R. W. Pomeroy
C. A. Miles
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
G. A. J. Fursey
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Get access

Abstract

One hundred and fourteen castrated male cattle of various breeds were measured ultrasonically immediately prior to slaughter and the data were examined for correlations with the proportion of adipose tissue in the carcasses. Two flaw detectors and a simple scanner, the Scanogram, were used to make ultrasonic pulse-echo measurements of tissue thicknesses and areas. These were used to compute volumes of adipose tissue and muscle in a region of the back of each animal and the ratio of the volumes of the two tissues was examined for correlation with carcass fatness. Three individuals interpreted the Scanogram photographs and two made measurements using flaw detectors.

In general, pulse-echo measurements made by different individuals differed in magnitude and predictive value, even when identical scans were measured. Equally there were substantial differences between measurements when the same animals were measured by the same individual using different ultrasonic instruments.

In a parallel experiment, the speed of ultrasound transmission was measured at various locations on the living animal and the data were examined for correlations with carcass fatness. Unlike the pulse-echo technique, the transmission method was not prone to errors of subjective interpretation and did not require skill to interpret. Predictions based on speed measurements at two sites in the hind limb were as well related to carcass fatness as were those made on the basis of the best estimate of tissue volumes in the back. The use of two speed measurements in a multiple regression with the best Scanogram data significantly improved the accuracy of predictions of side fatness made on the basis of speed or pulseecho measurements alone.

Two types of analysis were used to examine the effectiveness of Ultrasonic selection of lean animals from a group of 50 Hereford castrated males of similar age and weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 363 - 370
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

Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. 1965. Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B. 1975. Recent experimental development in ultrasonic measurement of cattle. Livesl. Prod. Sci. 2: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, B. B. and Ernst, E. 1972. Results of ultrasonic measurements on young bulls. Zuchtungskunde 44: 81–90.Google Scholar
Exner, O. 1964. Concerning the isokinetic relationship. Nature, Lond. 201: 488–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillis, W. A., Burgess, T. D., Usborne, W. R., Grieger, H. and Talbot, S. 1973. A comparison of two ultrasonic techniques for the measurement of fat thickness and rib eye area in cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Metz, C. E., Starr, S. J. and Lusted, L. B. 1976. Quantitative evaluation of visual detection performance in medicine: ROC analysis and determination of diagnostic benefit. In Medical Images: Formation, Perception and Measurement (ed. Hay, G. A.), pp. 220–241. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1975. Chemical composition of carcasses and sample joints: specific gravity determination. In Carcass and Meat Characteristics in Beef Production Experiments (ed. Fisher, A. V., Tayler, J. C., Boer, H. de and Adrichem, B. van), pp. 253–262. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1978. Note on recent advances in ultrasonic scanning of animals. Proc. 20th Eur. Mtg Meat Res. Workers, Kulmbach, Vol. 3, W13: pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. and Fursey, G. A. J. 1974. A note on the velocity of ultrasound in living tissue. Anim. Prod. 18: 93–96.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. and Fursey, G. A. J. 1977. Measurement of the fat content of meat using ultrasonic waves. Fd Chem. 2: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle 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
National Bureau of Standards. 1959. Tables of the Bivariate Normal Distribution Function and Related Functions. National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W., Williams, D. R., Harries, J. M. and Ryan, P. O. 1974. Composition of beef carcasses. 1. Material, measurements, jointing and tissue separation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1956. Statistical Methods Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. 5th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. and 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. School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar