Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:52:30.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evaluation of automatic probes in Spain for the new scheme for pig carcass grading according to the EC regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Diestre ,
M. Gispert  and
M. A. Oliver
A. Diestre
Affiliation:
Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Tecnología de la Carn, Granja Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Spain
M. Gispert
Affiliation:
Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Tecnología de la Carn, Granja Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Spain
M. A. Oliver
Affiliation:
Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Centre de Tecnología de la Carn, Granja Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Spain
Get access

Abstract

An evaluation of three automatic recording probes, the Fat-o-Meater (FOM), the Hennessy Grading Probe II (HGP) and the Destron PG-100 (DST) was carried out for use in the revised European Community (EC) Pig Grading Scheme. One hundred and forty-five pig carcasses were selected from four abattoirs covering the national fatness distribution. Two fat thickness depths, one at the head of the last rib (LR) and the other at the 3rd/4th from the last rib (3/4LR fat), and one muscle depth (3/4LR muscle) taken in the same operation for recording 34LR fat were studied as predictors of EC reference lean concentration. All measurements were taken 60 mm from the dorsal mid line. The corresponding cut surface measurements were also recorded and the carcasses were dissected. The prediction of cut surface fat depths from fat depth probes was better than the prediction of cut surface muscle depth from muscle depth taken with the probes. The DST fat measurement predicted more accurately the corresponding cut surface measurements and FOM muscle depth was more precise in predicting muscle cut surface depth. The DST was better in the prediction of EC reference lean concentration with 3/4LR fat and 3/4LR muscle as predictors (residual s.d. 23·1 g/kg). By adding LR as a third independent variable FOM predicted slightly better the lean concentration (residual s.d. 22·3). For Spain, the equations with these three independent variables were submitted to the Pig Management Committee of the EC. All the methods tested predicted EC reference lean concentration with a residual s.d. less than 25 g/kg and a correlation higher than 0·8.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 443 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Averdunk, G., Reinhardt, F., Kallweit, E., Henning, M., Scheper, J. and Sack, E. 1983. Comparison of various grading devices for pig carcasses. 34th Annual Meeting, European Association of Animal Production, Paper 6.5.Google Scholar
Commission of The European Communities. 1979. Development of uniform methods of pig carcass classification in the EEC. Information on Agriculture Series, No. 70. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Ook, 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: 427–434.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. 1968. PIDA dissection techniques. Proceedings of a Symposium on Methods of Carcass Evaluation, European Association of Animal Production, Dublin. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Diestre, A., Gispert, M., Arpa, I. and Tibau, J. 1985. [The description of a standardized technique for pig carcass evaluation: disection and cutting.] I Jornadas sobre Production Animal, ITEA. Vol. Extra No. 5, pp. 262–265.Google Scholar
Diestre, A. and Kempster, A. J. 1985. The estimation of pig carcass composition from different measurements with special reference to classification and grading. Animal Production 41: 383–391.Google Scholar
Diestre, A., Oliver, M. A. and Gispert, M. 1987. The fatness of commercial pig carcasses measured with automatic probes. II Jornadas sobre Production Animal, ITEA. Vol. Extra No. 7, pp. 410–412.Google Scholar
Fortin, A., Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1984a. 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., Jones, S. D. M. and Haworth, C. R. 1984b. A note on the accuracy of the New Zealand Hennessy Grading Probe and the Danish Fat-o-Meater in measuring fat and muscle thickness in pig carcasses. Animal Production 38: 507–510.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Allen, O. B. and Haworth, C. R. 1982. The accuracy of two recording instruments in the measurement of subcutaneous fat thickness in pork carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 62: 731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and HARRINGTON. G. 1982. Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. Granada, St. Albans.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Jones, D. W. and Cuthbertson, A. 1979. A comparison of the Danish MFA, Ulster and Optical Probes for use in pig carcass classification and grading. Meat Science 3: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, O. K. and Busk, H. 1982. Development of automatic equipment for grading of pig carcasses in Denmark. Livestock Production Science 9: 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pommeret, P. 1983. [The Fat-o-Meater. A contribution t o the programmes to estimate pig carcass lean content. Relations with the EC pig grading scheme.] ITP Oest. Le Rheu France. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Usborne, W. R., Menton, D. and McMillan, I. 1987. Evaluation of the Destron PG-100 electronic probe for grading warm pork carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar