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 Marchello, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, J. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marchello, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, J. K.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 77, Issue 9 2464-2468, Copyright © 1999 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Bioelectrical impedance: fat content of beef and pork from different size grinds

M. J. Marchello, W. D. Slanger and J. K. Carlson
Animal and Range Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105-5727, USA. mmarchel@ndsuext.nodak.edu

Multiple linear regression equations were developed for predicting the percentage of fat content of beef and pork. The predictor variables were bioelectrical resistance, temperature, and weight of product. Equations were developed for trim and product ground through a .95- or a .32-cm plate. The trim, .95-cm, and .32-cm grinds had 64, 108, and 96 observations, respectively, for beef product and 56, 101, and 92 observations, respectively, for pork product. Each of these observations was the average of bioelectrical impedance measurements taken in triplicate. The fat percentage ranges were 4 to 50% for beef and 7.5 to 50% for pork. The prediction equation applied to beef trim provided the following values: R2 = .80, Mallows's C(P) = 5.1, and root mean square error = 6.64. The R2 for equations predicting fat percentage in .95- and .32-cm ground beef were .84 and .95, respectively. The prediction equation applied to pork trim provided the following values: R2 = .77, Mallow's C(P) = 5.0, and root mean square error = 6.2. The R2 for equations predicting fat percentage in .95- and .32-cm ground pork were .87 and .96, respectively. The analyses were repeated with data sets of observations with less than 35% fat. The sample sizes and R2 for the trim, .95-, and .32-cm ground beef were 48, .36; 76, .60; and 65, .86; respectively. The sample sizes and R2 for the trim, .95-, and .32-cm ground pork were 42, .64; 62, .66; and 58, .92; respectively. Resistance, temperature, and weight remained as predictor variables for ground product with less than 35% fat. The smaller the grind, the more accurate the prediction. These results are positive for developing inexpensive, on-line systems for efficiently mixing ground product to a specific fat percentage.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Society of Animal Science.