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 3 645-650, Copyright © 1995 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Alternative pork carcass evaluation techniques: II. Statistical analysis of error attributable to sex, genotype, and weight

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

Carcasses of 154 hogs representing seven genotypes with substantial variation in carcass composition and percentage of lean were completely dissected and analyzed. Measurements from a ruler, Hennessy probe, and electromagnetic scanner were each used to predict wholesale and lean boneless carcass value. Error, defined as dissected value minus predicted value, due to the omission of sex, genotype, weight, and their interactions was estimated for each model. The errors were significantly different from zero for the models using ruler and electromagnetic scanning measurements separately (P < .01). Errors due to sex, genotype, weight, and their interactions were greatest for the less lean barrows. A combination of probe and electromagnetic scanner measurements resulted in the least error. The value of barrows with low percentage of lean was consistently overpredicted, whereas the value of leaner gilts was underpredicted for the models using ruler and electromagnetic scanning separately (P < .001).




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