Search

This study compared the accuracy of two methods for predicting carcass leanness (i.e., predicted lean yield) with fat-free lean yields obtained by manual carcass side cut-out and dissection of lean, fat, and bone components. The two prediction methods evaluated in this study estimated lean yield by measuring fat thickness and muscle depth at one location with an optical grading probe (Destron PG-100) or by scanning the entire carcass with advanced ultrasound technology (AutoFom III). Pork carcasses (166 barrows and 171 gilts; head-on hot carcass weights (HCWs) ranging from 89.4 to 138.0 kg) were selected based on their fit within desired HCW ranges, their fit within specific backfat thickness ranges, and sex (barrow or gilt). Data (n = 337 carcasses) were analyzed using a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement in a randomized complete block design including the fixed effects of the method for predicting lean yield, sex, and their interaction, and random effects of producer (i.e., farm) and slaughter date. Linear regression analysis was then used to examine the accuracy of the Destron PG-100 and AutoFom III data for measuring backfat thickness, muscle depth, and predicted lean yield when compared with fat-free lean yields obtained with manual carcass side cut-outs and dissections. Partial least squares regression analysis was used to predict the measured traits from image parameters generated by the AutoFom III software. There were method differences (P < 0.01) for determining muscle depth and lean yield with no method differences (P = 0.27) for measuring backfat thickness. Both optical probe and ultrasound technologies strongly predicted backfat thickness (R2 ≥ 0.81) and lean yield (R2 ≥ 0.66), but poorly predicted muscle depth (R2 ≤ 0.33). The AutoFom III improved accuracy [R2 = 0.77, root mean square error (RMSE) = 1.82] for the determination of predicted lean yield vs. the Destron PG-100 (R2 = 0.66, RMSE = 2.22). The AutoFom III was also used to predict bone-in/boneless primal weights, which is not possible with the Destron PG-100. The cross-validated prediction accuracy for the prediction of primal weights ranged from 0.71 to 0.84 for bone-in cuts and 0.59 to 0.82 for boneless cut lean yield. The AutoFom III was moderately (r ≤ 0.67) accurate for the determination of predicted lean yield in the picnic, belly, and ham primal cuts and highly (r ≥ 0.68) accurate for the determination of predicted lean yield in the whole shoulder, butt, and loin primal cuts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The objective was to update the equation used for prediction of pork carcass leanness with the Destron PG-100 optical grading probe. A recent cutout study (completed in 2020-2021) consisting of 337 pork carcasses was used for this research. An updated equation was generated using a calibration dataset (N = 188 carcasses) and prediction precision and prediction accuracy of the new equation was evaluated using a validation dataset (N = 149 carcasses). The updated equation was generated using forward stepwise multiple regression selection techniques in PROC REG of SAS, and the same parameters as the existing equation were used to fit the model. The updated Destron equation [89.16298 - (1.63023 × backfat thickness) - (0.42126 × muscle depth) + (0.01930 × backfat thickness2) + (0.00308 × muscle depth2) + (0.00369 × backfat thickness × muscle depth)] and the existing Destron equation [68.1863 - (0.7833 × backfat thickness) + (0.0689 × muscle depth) + (0.0080 × backfat thickness2) - (0.0002 × muscle depth2) + (0.0006 × backfat thickness × muscle depth)] were similar in their prediction precision for determination of carcass lean yield (LY), with the updated equation R2 = 0.75 and root mean square error (RMSE) = 1.97 and the existing equation R2 = 0.75 and RMSE = 1.94. However, when prediction accuracy was evaluated using the variance explained by predictive models based on cross-validation (VEcv) and Legates and McCabe's efficiency coefficient (E1), the updated equation (VEcv = 67.97%; E1 = 42.41%) was much more accurate compared with the existing equation (VEcv = -117.53%; E1 = -69.24%). Furthermore, when accuracy was evaluated by separating carcasses into 3% carcass LY groupings ranging from less than 50% LY to greater than 62% LY, the existing equation correctly estimated carcass LY 8.1% of the time, while the updated equation correctly estimated carcass LY 47.7% of the time. In an effort to further compare the abilities of the updated equation, comparisons were made with an advanced automated ultrasonic scanner (AutoFom III), which scans the entire carcass. The prediction precision of the AutoFom III was R2 = 0.83 and RMSE = 1.61, while the AutoFom III correctly estimated carcass LY 38.2% of the time and prediction accuracy calculations for the AutoFom III were VEcv = 44.37% and E1 = 21.34%). Overall, refinement of the Destron PG-100 predicted LY equation did not change prediction precision, but substantially improved prediction accuracy., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)