Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-bmzkg Total loading time: 0.747 Render date: 2022-07-01T18:01:12.570Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. Hulsegge
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
Get access

Abstract

Fat (and muscle) thickness measurements were carried out in five slaughterhouses on 174 selected carcasses to compare the Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP) with the Renco Lean-Meater (Renco) and Pie Medical ultrasonic devices for their ability to predict the lean meat proportion of pig carcasses. The day after selection, all left carcass sides were dissected according to the simplified European Union (EU) reference method. In addition 44 of these sides were further dissected according to the full EU reference method.

In a further set of slaughterhouses it was found impossible to measure fat thickness with the Renco and Pie Medical ultrasonic device due to extreme singeing of the carcasses. From the five slaughterhouses, between third and fourth from last rib, 6 cm off the dorsal mid line, observations on fat thickness with HGP and Pie Medical were similar but observations with Renco were significantly lower (F < 0·001). Correlations between fat thickness measurements taken with HGP, Renco and Pie Medical all exceeded 0·95.

In terms of residual standard deviations of prediction formulae, the HGP performed highly better than Renco or Pie Medical (23·7, 25·1 and 24·9 g/kg respectively). These results, together with practical problems, make the use of ultrasonic measurements under practical conditions at present less feasible than using the HGP.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Allen, P. and Walstra, P. 1996. Non-invasive techniques for carcass assessment-grading applications. Forty-seventh annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Lillehammer, Norway.Google Scholar
Branscheid, W., Dempfle, L., Dobrowolski, A., Sack, E. and Höreth, R. 1991. The pork grades. New techniques of instrumental grading. Fleischwirtschaft 71: 420423.Google Scholar
Branscheid, W., Dobrowolski, A. and Sack, E. 1990. Vereinfachung der EG-Referenzmethode fur die grobgewebliche Vollzerlegung von Schweineschlachtkörpern. Fleischwirtschaft 70: 550553.Google Scholar
Busk, H. and Olsen, E. 1996. Determination of percent meat in pig carcasses with the AUTOFOM equipment. Fortyseventh annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Lillehammer, Norway.Google Scholar
Cook, G. L., Chadwick, J. P. and Kempster, A. J. 1989. An assessment of carcass probes for use in Great Britain for the EC pig carcass grading scheme. Animal Production 48: 427434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diestre, A., Gispert, M. and Oliver, M. A. 1989. evaluation of automatic probes in Spain for the new scheme for pig carcass grading according to the EC regulations. Animal Production 48: 443448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991a. Increasing precision reducing expense in regression experiments by using information from a concomitant variable. Biometrics 47: 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991b. A simple method increase precision or reduce expense in regression experiments to predict the proportion of lean meat carcasses. Animal Production 53: 353359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union. 1985. Determining the Community scale grading pig carcasses. EU document no. 2967/85.Google Scholar
European Union. 1989. Research concerning the harmonizing of methods for grading pig carcases in the Community. document no. VI/3860/89–EN.Google Scholar
Fortin, A., Martin, A. H., Sim, D. W., Fredeen, H. T.Weiss, G. M. 1981. Evaluation of different ruler and ultrasonic backfat measurements as indices of commercial and lean yield of hog carcasses for commercial grading purpose. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 893905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 ruler and ultrasonic procedures. Canadian journal of Animal Science 60: 635641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glodek, P. 1984. The measurement of body composition opportunities and requirements in animal production. In vivo measurement of body composition in meat animals Lister), pp. 820. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York.Google Scholar
Greer, E. B., Lowe, T. W. and Giles, L. R. 1987. Comparison of ultrasonic measurement of backfat depth on live pigs and carcases with a digital recording instrument. Meat Science 19: 111120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulsegge, B., Sterrenburg, P. and Merkus, G. S. M. 1994. Prediction of lean meat proportion in pig carcasses and the major cuts from multiple measurements made with Hennessy Grading Probe. Animal Production 59: 119123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Allen, O. B. and Haworth, C. R. 1982. accuracy of two recording instruments in the measurement of subcutaneous fat thickness in pork carcasses. Canadian journal of Animal Science 62: 731738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1983. Instrument prediction of the lean meat content of pork carcasses using ultrasound or light reflectance. Journal of Animal Science 56: 418425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Chadwick, J. P. and Jones, D. W. 1985. evaluation of the Hennessy Grading Probe and Fat-O-Meater for use in pig carcass classification and grading. Animal Production 40: 323329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Liu, Y. and Stouffer, J. R. 1995. Pork carcass evaluation with an automated and computerized ultrasonic system. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenaar, B. A. J. 1985. The use of real time linear array ultrasound scanners for evaluation of live body composition. Thirty-sixth annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Kallithea, Haldikiki, Greece, session Pla.l.Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1986. Assessment of the regression formula for estimation of the lean meat percentage by HGP-measurements in The Netherlands. European Union working paper, Brussels VI/4849/86–EN.Google Scholar
Walstra, P., Hulsegge, B. and Mateman, G. 1994. Application of ultrasonics in pig carcass classification. ICoMST The Hague (NL) S-III.13.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Huiskes, J. H. and Ramaekers, P. J. L. 1993. Serial ultrasonic measurements of backfat thickness in growing/finishing pigs. II. Serial ultrasonic measurements and their relationship with carcass traits. Pig News and Information 14: 177N180N.Google Scholar
8
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *