Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T12:04:41.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some factors affecting reproducibility in ultrasonic scanning of animals 1. Cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. A. Miles ,
R. W. Pomeroy  and
J. M. Harries
C. A. Miles
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, nr. Bristol, BS18 7D Y
R. W. Pomeroy
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, nr. Bristol, BS18 7D Y
J. M. Harries
Affiliation:
ARC Meat Research Institute, Langford, nr. Bristol, BS18 7D Y
Get access

Summary

Six Hereford and Shorthorn cross steers were ultrasonically scanned in parallel planes perpendicular to the spine. Scanning was performed at the level of each vertebra and extended from the head of the 9th rib to the articulation of the 3rd and 4th lumbar vertebrae. Scans of each live animal were compared with those of its hot carcass and related to dissected sections of the frozen carcass. In general, the difference between an ultrasonic estimate and the carcass measurement was found to depend on the anatomical parameter being investigated, the location on the animal at which measurement was made and the individual interpreting the scan. Results are presented for fat thickness, Mm. longissimi thoracis et lumborum depth, ‘A’, ‘B’ and area measurements. Possible explanations for some discrepancies between the ultrasonic and carcass measurements are discussed.

Additional results showed that whilst judges are consistent within themselves, in general their interpretations of ultrasonic scans differ significantly from each other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , December 1972 , pp. 239 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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

Davis, D. L., Parker, C. F., Klosterman, E. W. and Ockermann, W. H. 1965. Ultrasonic and visual appraisal for estimating carcass value of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 861 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Davis, J. K., Temple, R. S. and McCormick, W. C. 1966. A comparison of ultrasonic estimates of rib-eye area and fat thickness in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 1087–1090.Google Scholar
McReynolds, W. E. and Arthaud, V. H. 1970. Ultrasonic application for estimating fat thickness of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, W. E., Moody, W. G., Hunziger, G. D., Ringkob, J. P., Alexander, M. A., Zobrisky, S. E. and Hedrick, H. B. 1966. Application of ultrasonic techniques in live animal and carcass evaluation. Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn, No. 905.Google Scholar
Moody, W. G., Zobrisky, S. E., Ross, C. V. and Naumann, H. D. 1965. Ultrasonic estimate of fat thickness and longissimus dorsi area in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 364–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stouffer, J. R. 1970. Improved inspection apparatus. U.S. Patent Office No. 3,496,764.Google Scholar
Stouffer, J. R. and Wellington, , 1960. Ultrasonics for evaluation of live animal and carcass composition. Proc. 12th Recip. Conf., Res. Advisory Council, Am. Meat Inst. Fdn: 81–87.Google Scholar
Temple, R. S., Ramsey, C. B. and Patterson, T. B. 1965. Errors in ultrasonic evaluation of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 282 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Watkins, J. L., Sherritt, C. W. and Ziegler, Z. H. 1967. Predicting body tissue characteristics using ultrasonic techniques. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 470–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, P. N. T. 1969. Physical Principles of Ultrasonic Diagnosis, Chap. 4. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar