Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:31:37.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Accounting for subpopulations in prediction of the proportion of lean meat of pig carcasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. Engel
Affiliation:
Agricultural Mathematics Group, GLW-DLO, PO Box 100, 6700 AC Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. Walstra
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production‘Schoonoord’, IVO-DLO, PO Box 501, 3700 AM Zeist, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

In a dissection trial in The Netherlands two subpopulations were distinguished: gilts and castrated males. The sampling scheme, which emphasizes extreme values for the proportion of lean meat in the carcass, was followed for the two sexes separately, to ensure sufficient accuracy for a comparison between them. Significant differences between the prediction formulae for the lean meat proportion for the two sexes were found. Since it is not possible to use separate prediction formulae for the sexes in Dutch slaughterhouses, the formulae had to be combined into one overall prediction formula. In this paper it is shown how the separate prediction formulae for the sexes may be combined, utilizing additional data, not involving dissection, which were easily collected on the slaughterline, at little extra cost. The method can be extended to cover any number of subpopulations. Two objectives can be achieved at the same time: subpopulations may be compared accurately on the basis of a stratified sample and from the results of the comparison an efficient, unbiased, overall prediction formula may be distilled.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Branscheid, W., Dobrowolski, A. and Sack, E. 1990. Vereinfachung der EG Referentzmethode für die grobgewebliche Vollzerlegung von Schweineslachtkörpern. Fleischwirtschaft 70: 550553.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R. and Snell, E. J. 1989. Analysis of binary data. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991a. Increasing precision or reducing expense in regression experiments by using information from a concomitant variable. Biometrics 47: 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, B. and Walstra, P. 1991b. A simple method to increase precision or reduce expense in regression experiments to predict the proportion of lean meat of carcasses. Animal Production 53: 353359.Google Scholar
European Community. 1984. EC regulation No. 3220/84, determining the Community scale for grading pig carcasses. European Community. 1985. EC-Regulation No. 2967/85, hying down detailed rules for the application of the community scale for grading pig carcasses.Google Scholar
European Community. 1989. Proposal for research concerning the harmonisation of methods for grading pig carcasses in the Community, EC document VI/3860/89.Google Scholar
European Community. 1990. Simplification of the EC reference method for the full dissection of pig carcasses EC document No. VI/2251/90-EN.Google Scholar
Fahrmeir, L., Frost, H., Hennevogl, W., Kaufmann, H., Kranert, T. and Tutz, G. 1990. User's guide for CLAMOUR. Institut für Statistik und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, University of Regensburg, Germany.Google Scholar
GENSTAT 5 Committee. 1987. GENSTAT 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized linear models. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walstra, P. 1980. Growth and carcass composition from birth to maturity in relation to feeding level and sex in Dutch Landrace pigs. Mededelingen, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 80–4.Google Scholar
Walstra, P. 1986. Assessment of the regression formula for estimation of the lean meat percentage by HGP-measurements in The Netherlands. EC working paper, Brussels VI/4849/86.Google Scholar