Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T09:51:57.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Automatic assessment of sheep carcasses by image analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. W. Horgan
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service, The King's Buildings, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ
S. V. Murphy
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

The commercial value of animal carcasses depends not only on their weight but also on their composition and shape (termed conformation). This is usually assessed subjectively by a skilled inspector. In this paper an attempt is described to assess the saleable meat yield of sheep carcasses by automatic digital image analysis. A low-cost system based on a still video camera and a personal computer was used. The results indicate that better prediction of saleable meat yield can be obtained using objective measures of carcass shape than from subjective conformation scores. Information from the intensities of colour components was not found to be useful, possibly due to difficulties with lighting and image quality. Recommendations are made for implementing a practical system.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Cross, H. R., Gilliland, D. A., Durland, P. R. and Seideman, S. 1983. Beef carcass evaluation by use of a video image-analysis system. Journal of Animal Science 57: 908917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. H. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5 release and reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glasbey, C. A. and Horgan, G. W. 1995. Image analysis for the biological sciences. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, R. C. and Wintz, P. 1987. Digital image processing. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1981. Value of conformation as an indicator of sheep carcass composition within and between breeds. Animal Production 33: 3949.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. The relationship between conformation and the yield and distribution of lean meat in the carcasses of British pigs, cattle and sheep: a review. Meat Science 6: 3753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Jones, D. W. and Wolf, B. T. 1986. A comparison of alternative methods for predicting the carcass composition of crossbred lambs of different breeds and crosses. Meat Science 18: 89110.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1993. Sheep yearbook 1993. MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Petersen, F., Klastrup, S., Sorensen, S. E. and Madsen, N. T. 1989. Beef Classification Centre. Proceedings of the thirty-fifth international congress of meat science and technology, Copenhagen, pp. 4952.Google Scholar
Simm, G. and Murphy, S. V. 1995. The effect of selection for lean growth in Suffolk sires and on the saleable meat yield in their crossbred progeny. Animal Science In press.Google Scholar
Wassenberg, R. L., Allen, D. M. and Kemp, K. E. 1986. Video image-analysis prediction of total kilograms and percent primal lean and fat yield of beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science 62: 16091616.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and Nicholson, D. 1981. Genetic parameters of growth and carcass composition in crossbred lambs. Animal Production 32: 17.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Newman, P. B., Miles, C. A. and Fisher, A. V. 1991. Video image analysis: comparisons with other novel techniques for carcass assessment. Proceedings of the symposium on electronic evaluation of meat in support of value-based marketing, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 145169.Google Scholar