Evaluation of alternative techniques to determine pork carcass value.
Three techniques for estimating the value of pork carcasses were evaluated: an optical probe, a real-time ultrasound scanner, and an electromagnetic scanner (EMSCAN). The ability of these techniques to predict carcass value was compared to the predictive ability of actual measures of backfat depth and longissimus muscle area taken with a ruler and a dot grid. Results indicated the EMSCAN model was the best predictor of carcass value. However, the optical probe, ultrasound, and the ruler/dot grid all provided information not contained in the EMSCAN model. The choice among ultrasound, the optical probe, and the ruler/dot grid depends on how the carcass will be used. There is no significant difference between ultrasound and the ruler/dot grid or the optical probe and the ruler/dot grid if the carcass is to be marketed in wholesale primal form, but the ruler/dot grid is superior if the ham and loin are to be sold as lean, boneless products. A model combining the EMSCAN and optical probe readings provided more accurate value predictions than either technique alone. A carcass value matrix for use in pricing pork carcasses was developed using readings from the optical probe. Carcass use has a substantial impact on value differences between fat and lean pigs.
Akridge
J T
JT
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
Brorsen
B W
BW
Whipker
L D
LD
Forrest
J C
JC
Kuei
C H
CH
Schinckel
A P
AP
D000273:Adipose Tissue / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D000818:Animals; D001823:Body Composition; D001831:Body Temperature; D004553:Electric Conductivity; D055590:Electromagnetic Phenomena; D016018:Least-Squares Analysis; D008460:Meat / Q000592:standards*; D009132:Muscles / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D012044:Regression Analysis; D013552:Swine / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D014463:Ultrasonography