1. The results presented in this report indicate that measurements obtained by ultrasonic scanning predict body composition with a similar degree of accuracy to that of corresponding cut face measurements on the carcass. The prediction using ultrasound seems better than might be expected from the relationship between the ultrasonic measurements and the corresponding cut face meaurements on the carcass. This is especially the case at the tenth rib, where there is more difficulty in identifying the appropriate anatomical features.
2. Apart from the Bruel and Kjaer scanner, which seemed poorer than the other equipment, no clear differences emerged between the
machine/operator combinations in terms of predicting body composition.
More distinct differences may be identified when further work has been undertaken involving multiple regression analyses of the best combination of measurements for each machine. Although the Philips and Ohio machines were only able to scan a section of the eye muscle and Its overlying subcutaneous fat, they provided as good a description of carcass composition. Among the operators, however, there was a preference for the "Danscanner" and "Scanogram", which are specially constructed for use on farm animals.
3. An interesting general feature not referred to so far is that inclusion of the hide in the Danish interpreter's assessment of fat depths and fat areas did not seem to affect his precision in predicting carcass composition compared with the UK interpreter who excluded the hide from his assessment of fat.
4. In this trial work, the scanning and interpretation was carried out by experienced operators, and the results obtained may be better than would be achieved by those less experienced. It seems important that those starting scanning work should:
- understand the anatomy of the body;
- be trained in the use of the equipment, including its calibration;
- ensure a good back-up service;
- carry out periodic checks against carcass measurements or, when this is not always feasible, against similar machines.
5. In making the decision on which equipment to use, the other important factors to consider include: capital cost, ease of use, number of operators needed, operating costs, quality of service and robustness.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for the advice of several experts in medical
ultrasonics, particularly Dr. P.N.T. Wells and Dr. M. Halliwell of Bristol General Hospital, Dr. R.J. Blackwell of University College Hospital, London, Mr. T.C. Duggan of the West of Scotland Health Boards, Glasgow, and Dr. A. Northeved of the Danish Institute of Biomédical Engineering, Glostrup, Denmark. We also wish to record our thanks to those companies who lent equipment for the trial: Bruel and Kjaer, Ohio Nuclear and Philips and to Mr. J. Heppenstall, Mr. C D . Tunstall, Mr.J.M. Harries and Dr. H.J.H. MacFie for valuable discussions.
8. REFERENCES
Andersen, B.B. 1975. Livest. Prod. Sei. 2_, 137-146.
Andersen, B.B. 1978. Anim. Prod. 2_7, 381-391.
Berg, R.T., Andersen, B.B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Anim. Prod. 27,51-61.
Busk, A.H. and Pedersen, O.K. 1972. Annual Report: Landokonomisk Forsogs Laboratoriums Efterasmode. 102-107. Copenhagen.
Chivers, R.C. and Parry, R.J. 1978. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 63(3), 940-953.
Cuthbertson, A. 1976. in Criteria and Methods for Assessment of Carcass and Meat Characteristics in Beef Production Experiments. Edited by Fisher, A.V., Taylor, J.C., De Boer, H. and Van Adricem
Boogaert, D.H. Commission of the European Communities Directorate General, Luxembourg.
Cuthbertson,A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R.J. 1972. Proc. Brit. Soc.
Anim. Prod. (New Series) _1, 113-122.
Frucht, A.H. 1953. Z. Gesamte Expt. Med. 120, 526-557.
Horst. P. 1971. Zuchtungskunde 43_(3), 208-218.
Jarvis, H.F.T. 1971. J. Fd. Technol. 6^ 383-391.
Kempster, A.J., Cuthbertson, A., Jones, D.W. and Owen, M.G. 1981.
J. agric. Sei. 96^, 301-307.
Kempster, A.J. and Owen, M.G. 1981. Anim. Prod. 3_2^, 113-115.
Ludwig, G.D. 1950. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22^, 862-866.
Miles, C.A. 1971. Meat Research Institute Annual Report 1971-1972.
p.68. Agricultural Research Council, HMSO,
London-Miles, C.A., Pomeroy, R.W. and Harries, J.M. 1972. Anim. Prod. 1_5, 239-249.
Miles, C.A. 1974. in Meat Freezing - Why and How? 15.1-15.7. Meat Research Institute, Bristol.
Miles, C.A. and Cutting, C.L. 1974. J. Fd. Technol. ^ , 119-122.
Miles, C.A. and Fursey, G.A.J. 1974. Anim. Prod. 1^8, 93-96.
Miles, C.A. and Fursey, G.A.J. 1977. Fd. Chem. 2^, 107-118.
Stouffer, J.R. 1970. Improved Inspection Apparatus. Patent Office No.
3,496,764. Issued 24 Feb. 1970.
Stouffer, J.R., Wallentine, M.V. and Wellington, G.H. 1959. J. Anim. Sei.
JJJ, 1483.
Taylor, K.J.W. and Hill, C.R. 1975. British Journal of Radiology 48, 918-920.
Temple, R.S., Stonaker, H.H., Howry, D., Posakony, C. and
Hazaleus, M.H. 1956. Prod. West. Sect. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod.
7_, LXX.
Tulloh, N.M., Truscott, T.G. and Lang, C.P. 1973. An Evaluation of the Scanogram for Predicting the Carcass Composition of Live Cattle.
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne.
Wells, P.N.T. 1969. Physical Principles of Ultrasonic Diagnosis.
Academic Press, London.
Wells, P.N.T. 1977. Biomédical Ultrasonics. Academic Press, London.
Table la Means and standard deviations of liveweight, dressing
Table lb Means and standard deviations of liveweiqht, dressing
Equipment
l) and 2) 0-15cm area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 3) total area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 4) 5-12.5cm area for all equipment
Equipment
l) and 2) 0-15cm area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 3) total area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 4) 5-12.5cm area for all equipment
Table 4 Correlations between cut face measurements on the carcass and dressing percentage, % lean and lean/bone ratio
(adjusted to constant liveweight)
Dressing percentage % lean lean/bone Animals UK DK UK D_K _UK DK
Fat depth, 7.5cm
10th rib 0.15 0.29 -0.37 -0.60 -0.04 -0.27 1st lumbar Q > 5 3 0 > n _0.18 -0.71 0.40 -0.44
vertebra
Fat area, 0-15cm
10th rib 0.25 0.10 -0.58 -0.76 -0.06 -0.42 1st lumbar Q > 5 2 0 _ n _0.52 -0.77 0.13 -0.45
vertebra
Eye muscle area
10th rib 0.38 0.40 0.34 0.47 0.53 0.62 Ist lumbar Q^^ Q_2 ] 0 > ? 3 Q^2 Q^8
vertebra
Equipment
1) and 2) 0-15cm area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 3) total area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 4) 5-12. 5cm area for all equipment
Equipment
1) and 2) 0-15cm area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 3) total area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 4) 5-12. 5cm area for all equipment
Equipment
1) and 2) 0-15cm area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 3) total area for Scanogram and Danscanner and 5-12.5cm area for Philips and Ohio 4) 5-12. 5cm area for all equipment