Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:07:16.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speed of ultrasound in Hereford bulls and its correlation with carcass composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. A. J. Fursey ,
C. A. Miles ,
S. J. Page  and
A. V. Fisher
G. A. J. Fursey
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research — Bristol Laboratory, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
C. A. Miles
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research — Bristol Laboratory, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
S. J. Page
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research — Bristol Laboratory, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
A. V. Fisher
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Food Research — Bristol Laboratory, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Get access

Abstract

Measurements were made of the speed of ultrasound transmission through sites in the hind limbs of 125 pedigree Hereford bulls. Twenty-five of these were measured twice at weekly intervals on three occasions prior to slaughter to assess the short-term repeatability of the measurement and the magnitude of long-term changes. Analyses of variance of the means of the measurements at two sites showed that the residual standard deviation (within animal and occasion), was 0·01 (μs/cm. There was a decrease of 0·01 (μs/cm in the group mean over the 2-week period and a significant time × animal interaction. This showed that lipid concentration at the measurement sites decreased as the bulls adjusted to their new surroundings following delivery to the Institute's farm. When a separate group of 64 bulls was measured at the farm at which they were being reared an increase in the group mean of 0·006 iμs/cm was recorded over a 30·day period, indicating an increase in lipid concentration. The residual standard deviation for that group was 0·007 μs/cm, similar to that recorded above.

The mean of the reciprocal speeds at the two sites, when used in a multiple regression with live mass, yielded a residual standard deviation in predicted proportion of lean in the side of 20·0 g/kg and in total fat proportion of 22·1 g/kg. These corresponded to population standard deviations, adjusted for live mass, of 29·7 and 34·1 g/kg respectively. It was concluded that the measurement of ultrasound speed in the hind limbs of Hereford bulls could be used to predict lean proportion in the carcass. The method does not require subjective interpretation and responds equally to subcutaneous and interand intra-muscular fat.

Keywords

carcass compositioncattleultrasound
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 263 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Andersen, B. B., Busk, H., Chadwick, J. P., Cuthbertson, A., Fljrsey, G. A. J., Jones, D. W., Lewin, P., Miles, C. A. and Owen, M. G. 1983. Comparison of ultrasonic equipment for describing beef carcass characteristics in live cattle. Livestock Production Science 10: 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krautkramer, J. and Krautkramer, H. 1969. Ultrasonic Testing of Materials. Chapter 2. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1981. In-vivo techniques for the estimation of body composition in beef: other techniques and future possibilities. Proceedings of CEC Workshop, National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. and Fursey, G. A. J. 1974. A note on the velocity of ultrasound in living tissue. Animal Production 18: 93–96.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A., Fursey, G. A. J. and Pomeroy, R. W. 1983. Ultrasonic evaluation of cattle. Animal Production 36: 363–370.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A., Fursey, G. A. J. and York, R. W. 1984. New equipment for measuring the speed of ultrasound and its application in the estimation of body composition of farm livestock. In In-vivo Measurement of Body Composition in Meat Animals. (ed. Lister, D.), pp. 93–105. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A., Pomeroy, R. W. and Harries, J. M. 1972. Some factors affecting reproducibility in ultrasonic scanning of animals 1. Cattle. Animal Production 15: 239–249.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1983. The use of ultrasound to predict the carcass composition of live cattle — a review. Animal Breeding Abstracts 51: 853–875.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Smith, C. and Prescott, J. H. D. 1985. Environmental effects on bull performance test results. Animal Production 41: 177–185.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R. and Bergstrom, P. L. 1980. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording. EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. EUR 6878 EN (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
York, R. W. R. and Fursey, G. A. J. 1985. An automatic system for measuring intertransducer distance when determining the speed of ultrasound through live animal tissue. Laboratory Practice 34: 95–97.Google Scholar