Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-26T02:20:17.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between ultrasonic point readings in live cattle and carcass fat cover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. D. Greathead  and
D. J. Barker
K. D. Greathead
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Jarrah Road, South Perth, 6151, Western Australia, Australia
D. J. Barker
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Jarrah Road, South Perth, 6151, Western Australia, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four inexperienced operators used a Smith's Essem Metatest ultrasonic grader and a Philips Sonatest instrument to estimate the thickness of tissue overlying the M. longissimus dorsi at three sites over the tenth intercostal space of live steers. They also measured skin fold thickness over the central site using a micrometer. Suprafascial (selvedge) and total carcass fat were measured at corresponding sites on the chilled carcasses.

The residual standard deviations from multiple and simple regressions of suprafascial and total carcass fat thickness on the ultrasonic readings of different operators, using both instruments over the three sites with and without a measurement of skin thickness were compared.

The following conclusions were drawn. Use of a constant distance from the midline of the live animal to locate the site for ultrasonic point measurement would lead to errors in estimating fat thickness at a specific anatomical location. If the edge of the M. 1. dorsi is palpated to locate the measurement site, estimates of carcass fat thickness with a residual standard deviation of 2·5 mm are possible by relatively inexperienced operators using single point reading ultrasonic instruments. Fat deposition between the fascial sheath and the underlying M. 1. dorsi is a source of inaccuracy when estimating carcass fat cover particularly at sites closer to the midline and on fatter animals.

Using the Metatest instrument, fat cover could bo estimated in the live animal with an accuracy similar to that reported by other workers using the Scanogram. Using the Sonatest instrument the estimates were generally slightly less accurate especially at the most lateral site. Inclusion of a measurement of skin thickness gave a very slight but consistent improvement in accuracy of estimation of carcass fat cover.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 651 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Bass, J. J. (1979). Relationships between ultrasonic measurements taken on live cattle and their carcase composition. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 39, 217–222.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. (1965). The relationship of carcase measurements and dissection data to beef carcase composition. Research in Veterinary Science 6, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillis, W. A., Burgess, T. D., Osborne, W. R., Greiger, H. & Talbot, S. (1973). A comparison of two ultrasonic techniques for the measurement of fat thickness and rib eye area in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. F., Saul, G. R. & Spiker, S. A. (1980). An evaluation of the Meritronic livestock grader for estimating the subcutaneous fat depth of live cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 13, 501.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. & Harrington, G. (1982). Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. London, Toronto, Sydney and New York: Granada.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D. W. & Owen, M. G. (1981). Predictors of body composition of live cattle using two ultrasonic machines of differing complexity: a report of four separate trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, B. L. & Ryan, W. J. (1983). Estimation of fat content of beef carcasses in a commercial classification system. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McReynolds, W. E. & Arthaud, V. H. (1970). Ultrasonic application for estimating fat thickness of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 30, 186—190.Google Scholar
Scully, R. J. & McKeown, D. W. (1979). An evaluation of the Scanoprobe. Australian Meat Research Committee Review 35, 21–23.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Truscott, T. G. & Lang, C. P. (1973). An evaluation of the ‘Scanogram’ for predicting the carcase composition of live cattle. Report to the Australian Meat Board.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. A., Stouffer, J. R. & Westervelt, R. G. (1977). Relationship of ultrasonic and carcase measurements with retail yield in beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 4, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar