Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:10:41.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of four ultrasonic machines (sonatest, scanogram, Ilis Observer and Danscanner) for predicting the body composition of live pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. J. Kempster ,
A. Cuthbertson ,
M. G. Owen  and
J. C. Alliston
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
A. Cuthbertson
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
M. G. Owen
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
J. C. Alliston
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Measurements of the m. longissimus and overlying fat at the last rib were taken on the live pig using ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: Sonatest (simple A-mode machine), Scanogram and His Observer (modified linear scanners), and Danscanner (‘real time’ scanner). These measurements were examined as predictors of the corresponding carcass measurements and percentage lean in the carcass.

Sonatest and Scanogram were compared using 143 purebred and crossbred pigs of different types. The analysis was pooled within breed-type and sex. The standard deviation for percentage lean was 3·94. Residual standard deviations for predicting percentage lean from live weight and best fat thickness were 2·72 (Sonatest) and 2·56 (Scanogram). Addition of m. longissimus depth (Sonatest) and m. longissimus area (Scanogram) reduced these to 2·69 and 2·29 respectively. The use of two or more fat measurements provided no extra precision over a single fat measurement.

Scanogram and His Observer were compared using a subset of 38 pigs. Scanogram was a better predictor of percentage lean using a single fat measurement but when a combination of measurements was used, there was little difference between the machines.

Scanogram and Danscanner were compared using a subset of 27 pigs. The standard deviation of percentage lean was 3·57. Residual standard deviations for predicting percentage lean from live weight, best fat depth and m. longissimus area were 2·18 (Scanogram), and 2·03 (Danscanner). Fat areas had similar predictive precision to fat thickness measurements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Cuthbertson, A. 1968. PIDA dissection techniques. Proc. Symp. Meth. Carcass Evaluation. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Dublin.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A. 1976. Note on the use of the Scanogram on live cattle to predict carcass composition. Agricultural Research Seminar, ‘Criteria and methods for assessment of carcass and meat characteristics in beef production experiments’, Zeist, 1975, pp. 65–69. Commission of the European Communities Directorate General (EUR 5489).Google Scholar
Harrington, G. 1958. Pig Carcass Evaluation. Tech. Commun. No. 12. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks.Google Scholar
Hazel, L. N. and Kline, E. A. 1959. Ultrasonic measurement of fatness in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isler, G. A. and Swiger, L. A. 1968. Ultrasonic prediction of lean cut percent in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. and Owen, M. G. 1977. A preliminary evaluation of the ‘Scanogram’ for predicting the carcass composition of live lambs. Anim. Prod. 24: 145–146 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Evans, D. G. 1979. A comparison of different predictors of the lean content of pig carcasses. 1. Predictors for use in commercial classification and grading. Anim. Prod. 28: 87–96.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1977. Commercial Product Evaluation summary report. Third te-t results: combined results years 1–3. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1978. Commercial Pig Evaluation summary report. Fourth test report: pigs purchased 1975/1976. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Miles, C. A. 1978. Note on recent advances in ultrasonic scanning of animals. Proc. 24th Eur. Meat Res. Workers Congr., Kulmbach, pp. W13.3–W13.6.Google Scholar
Stouffer, J. R., Wallentine, M. V., Wellington, G. H. and Diekmann, A. 1961. Development and application of ultrasonic methods for measuring fat thickness and rib-eye area in cattle and hogs. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 759–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundgren, P. E. 1973. Studies on pig performance testing. Rep. No. 2. Dep. Anim. Breeding, Agric. College, Sweden, S-750 07, Uppsala.Google Scholar