J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boland, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Forrest, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boland, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Forrest, J. C.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 73, Issue 3 637-644, Copyright © 1995 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Alternative pork carcass evaluation techniques: I. Differences in predictions of value

M. A. Boland, K. A. Foster, A. P. Schinckel, J. Wagner, W. Chen, E. P. Berg and J. C. Forrest
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.

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.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society of Animal Science.