TY - JOUR
T1 - Alternative pork carcass evaluation techniques
T2 - I. Differences in predictions of value.
AU - Boland, M. A.
AU - Foster, K. A.
AU - Schinckel, A. P.
AU - Wagner, J.
AU - Chen, W.
AU - Berg, E. P.
AU - Forrest, J. C.
PY - 1995/3
Y1 - 1995/3
N2 - Dissected and predicted wholesale and lean boneless values for 154 pork carcasses representing seven genotypes with substantial variation in carcass composition and percentage of lean were determined. Dissected carcass value was determined using a component pricing model, and four alternative models were specified to predict that value. The models included measurements from a ruler (RULER) and two carcass evaluation technologies, Hennessy probe (PROBE) and electromagnetic scanner (EMS1). A combination of the PROBE and EMS1 models (EMS2) was also used. For wholesale value, R2 were .40, .70, .59, and .74, and the RSD were 8.18, 5.77, 6.76, and 5.38 ($/100 kg of carcass value) for RULER, PROBE, EMS1, and EMS2, respectively. For lean boneless value, the R2 were .41, .73, .59, and .74, and the RSD were 8.34, 5.67, 6.99, and 5.51 ($/100 kg of carcass value) for RULER, PROBE, EMS1, and EMS2, respectively. The results indicate that a combination of probe and electromagnetic scanner measurements provided the best fit to dissected value.
AB - Dissected and predicted wholesale and lean boneless values for 154 pork carcasses representing seven genotypes with substantial variation in carcass composition and percentage of lean were determined. Dissected carcass value was determined using a component pricing model, and four alternative models were specified to predict that value. The models included measurements from a ruler (RULER) and two carcass evaluation technologies, Hennessy probe (PROBE) and electromagnetic scanner (EMS1). A combination of the PROBE and EMS1 models (EMS2) was also used. For wholesale value, R2 were .40, .70, .59, and .74, and the RSD were 8.18, 5.77, 6.76, and 5.38 ($/100 kg of carcass value) for RULER, PROBE, EMS1, and EMS2, respectively. For lean boneless value, the R2 were .41, .73, .59, and .74, and the RSD were 8.34, 5.67, 6.99, and 5.51 ($/100 kg of carcass value) for RULER, PROBE, EMS1, and EMS2, respectively. The results indicate that a combination of probe and electromagnetic scanner measurements provided the best fit to dissected value.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029265536&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029265536&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2527/1995.733637x
DO - 10.2527/1995.733637x
M3 - Article
C2 - 7607995
AN - SCOPUS:0029265536
VL - 73
SP - 637
EP - 644
JO - Journal of Animal Science
JF - Journal of Animal Science
SN - 0021-8812
IS - 3
ER -