R I C H A R D H m ALSMEYER. MEAT OUAL i T Y L A B O R A T O R Y R E S E A R C HDIVISION, ARS

Transcription

1 R E S U L T S OF U L T R A S O # C RESEARCH ON B E E F C A T T L E N THE UN T E D S TA T E S R C H A R D H m ALSMEYER ANMAL ~ ~ MEAT OUAL i T Y L A B O R A T O R Y HUSBANDRY R E S E A R C HDVSON, ARS A G R C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H CENTER BELTSV L L E MARYLAND Various ultrasonic devices have been used on c a t t l e i n t h e United S t a t e s f o r t h e p a s t eight years t has been hoped t h a t t h i s nondestructive evaluation method would prove successful and would o f f e r t h e livestock and meat industry an effective technique f o r measuring fatness and/or meatiness of t h e l i v e animal What progress has been made t h u s f a r? Let's take a look Fat Measurements by Ultrasonics n 1956, Temple et a l, ultrasonically measuring subcutaneous f a t thickness a t three points over t h e l a s t r i b of 6 c a t t l e, obtained a gross t o t a l correlation of 39 with a c t u a l carcass f a t thichness (Table 1) The correlation between a l l ultrasonic (us) values on each animal and measured fatness, when used t o distinguishbetween animals was 63 Two years l a t e r, Rowden reported a higher correlation of 7 between average "Somascope" us f a t thickness readings and the f a t thickness of carcass of 38 animal He a l s o noted a 69 correlation between us f a t readings and the weight of f a t i n t h e 2 r i b section, Price et a, 1 using t h e Sperry Reflectoscope, reported t h a t ultrasonics had indicated some promise f o r measuring f a t thickness Reports by t h e Cornell researchers (Stouffer and Wellington, 196 and Wallentine, 196) gave s l i g h t l y lower values of 35 and 5, respectively, f o r t h e us and a c t u a l f a t thickness relationship Hedrick e t a 1 () ultrasonically measured t h e f a t thicknesses of several groups of c a t t l e j u s t p r i o r t o slaughter The correlations between u s values and carcass f a t thicknesses ranged frm 43 t o 69 However, when c a t t l e were evaluated ultrasonically for f a t thickness f i v e months before This would be expected, since slaughter, the correlation was only 15 most of t h e fatness v a r i a b i l i t y would occur i n the l a t t e r stages of fattening Using 8 scanning type Branson bstrument, Davis and Long () a t Georgia, obtained correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s of 9 and 67 f o r two groups of c a t t l e when us and a c t u a l subcutaneous f a t thicknesses were compared (Table 2) Temple and Raasey (), summarizing t h e i r research using t h e t i s s u e scanner and Branson instrument, indicated correlation coefficients of 4 t o 89 between 2at thickness measured ultrasonically and on t h e carcass Alsmeyer, Hiner and Thornton () computed correlations of 46, 61, 6 and 55 between us subcutaneous f a t thickness estimates

2 241 Table 1 Measuring Subcutaneous Fat Thickness of C a t t l e with Ultrasonics (us) Simple Correlation Ultra Number of No of Ultrasonic sonic Fat Thickness Actual a cas$ Weight of Fat Animals Measurements Fat 9U Rib and Location (a) Researcher( s) bf Temple, et&, Rowden, w Stouffer & Wellington, w 3 39* (c) 63* (d) 69* Wallentine, 196,~" Hedricls, et al, _ 18 Crosssectional scan, 5* " " , l e f t s i d e 53% 63w! 8, av us and tracing 69 of b o g sides t 8, 5 mos before slaughter 43* 15 ( a ) All ultrasonic measurements over l a s t r i b (b) Average of a l l ultrasonic and carcass f a t values (c) Each ultrasonic value (3 per animal) compared with each a c t u a l f a t thickness A (d) U ultrasonic and f a t thickness used t o distinguish between animals p < 1 * p < 5

3 242 Table 2 Measuring Subcutaneous Fat Thickness of Cattle with Ultrasonics Researchers Davis & Long, NO Of Animals 6 Temple & Ramsey 1 963a sonic Fat Thickness Number of Ultra sonic Measurements and Location (a) Actual Carcass Fat Ultrasonic scan photo between 12th & 13th r i b 1 Simple Correlation Ultra Wei@t of Fat 9 Rib go 67% 4 t o 84* 89% Alsrneyer, Hiner and Thornton, (a) 24 Ultrasonic depth, l a t e r a l of midline: 2 in 21 46w 4* 3 in 61* 5* in 6* 68* in 55* 44* Ultrasonic measurements made over l a s t rib or between t h e 12th and 1 3 t h rib a t 2, 3, 4, and 5 inches l a t e r a l of t h e animal's midline and t h e average f a t thickness of t h e carcass When these us values were correlated with t h e weight of separable f a t in the 9 U r i b cut, t h e correlations were 4, 5, 68 and 44 f o r t h e four locations, respectively The ultrasonic measurement location, 4inches l a t e r a l of the animal s midline, bore t h e highest relationship t o body composition of any point yet studied a t Beltsville

4 243 Muscling and Leanness Measurements by Ultrasonics Early e f f o r t s t o measure depth of lean in c a t t l e by Price A year l a t e r, Stouffer, Wallentine and Wellington (1959), resorted t h e i r technique of ribeye us, measurement The external curvature over t h e l a s t r i b was determined by individual u s soundings a t 1/2inch i n t e r v a l s and a t lcnown angles Readings were then plotted, and depth and area measurements taken (This procedure was demonstrated by J R Stouffer during the 1959 Reciprocal Meat Conference Workshop a t Michigan S t a t e University) et a 1 (1958), were not prcmisinc Stouffer and Wellington (196), reported correlations of 49 between us loineye tracing areas and a c t u a l loineye area when 9 measurements areas over t h e l a s t r i b were employed (Table 3) The correlations improved somewhat a s more u s values were obtained A simple correlation of 43 between us values an's a c t u a l loineye area was obtained by Wallentine u s i n g a n elementary scanning device over t h e 13th r i b of 64 cattle Correlation coefficients ranging fram 58 t o 89 on various (1961 and ), f o r groups of 22 c a t t l e were obtained by Hedrick et t h e relationship between us and a c t u a l loineye area The Missouri researchers were using t h e t r a c i n g technique demonstrate& by Stouffer i n 1959 e Morrow and Wideman () and Wideman () of t h e Southwest Agricultural n s t i t u t e have reported finding correlations ranging f r G m 5 t o 94 between ultrasonically estimated loineye area and a c t u a l loineye tracings of t h e carcasses of 945 animals Davis and Long ()obtained excellent r e s u l t s i n most of t h e i r studies with correlation coefficients ranging f r o m 64 t o 93 between loineye area and a c t u a l loineye area of t h e carcass (Table 4) Carrying t h e i r study f h t h e r, they found a pronounced relationship between us l o i n eye area and width of loineye ( r = 2) On a weight constant KGsis, t h e p a r t i a l correlation between us loineye area and t o t a l pounds of prot e i n in t h e carcass was 65 The depth or t h i c h e s s of & dorsi muscle was measured u l t r a sonically by Alsmeyer, H i n e r and Thornton () a t points 2, 3, 4, and 5 inches l a t e r a l of t h e midline over the animal's l a s t r i b Ultrasonic lean depth values, when correlated with 4 d o r s i area, yielded correlation coefficients ranging from 29 t o G31 (Table 5) Low and usually nons i g n i f i c a n t correlations were computed between u s lean depth and a c t u a l L d o r s i thickness and weight of remaining s e p a z b l e lean of the 9 ll r i b cut Correlations from 23 t o 3 were obtained between t h e lean depth a t t h e four ultrasonic locations and t h e weight of i d o r s i muscle of the 9 ll r i b cut Apparently, us lean depth measurements obtained by t h i s technique a r e not strongly indicative of meatiness or muscular development Results noted with us scanning techniques and constructing loin eye tracings bj locating tissue interfaces have met with greater success

5 244 Table 3 Measuring Muscling of Cattle Using Ultrasonics Researcher (s) Simple Correlation Number of Ultrasonic lleasurements Ultra sonic Values and Location (a) Loin Eye Area LoinEye Width No of Animals Stouffer and WeUington, , over l a s t r i b 82 Wallentine, 196 " Hedrick, et al, ==p 64 l5 Morrow & Wideman, (a) last rib _ " Scan of area 1 < 49 > 49 43* e42 ", Over last r i b, l e f t side 58w 71 Over last r i b, l e f t side w89* 36 5 mos p r i o r t o slaughter 7M 57 Av us with tracing, 78* ""_ "_ 47 " 15 or more over * both sides 12th r i b 85* " 1 t , t / 89* 9* 92* go* 91* 88* 94* Ultrasonic outline of L dorsi constructed and its area determined by operator no phoxograph taken < 1

6 245 Table 4 Researchers, Measuring Muscling of C a t t l e Using Ultrasonics (us) No of Animals Number of Ultra sonic Neasurements and Locations 6 us scan (a) Davis & Long, 1, 1 f! t it Simple Correlation Ultrasonic Values LoinEye EEEye Lbs Lean Area Width Carcass 87* 93* 82* 65*(b) 64*,,, ',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ", Temple & Ramsey, us scan ( a ) 7w t _ Sonograph of loineye between 12th and Wth r i b from a B scan type oscilloscope (a) (b) P a r t i a l correlation between ultrasonic loin eye area and pounds of carcass protein p we p < 5 < 1 Table 5 Researchers Alsmeyer, Hiner & Thornton,l963 p < 1 No of Animals Measuring Muscling of C a t t l e Using Ultrasonics Number of Ultra sonic Measurements and Location Depth Lean Lateral midline over l a s t r i b : 2 in 3 in 4 in 5 in Simple Correlation Ultrasonic Values LoinEye LoinEye Area Width,3* 2929* 31* 8 15 a13 G2* 9 Rib Out L d o r s i Remainin6 Weight Separable Lean W t 26w,27w 3* * 23w 9

7 246 lean Multiple correlation of three variables, E f a t depth, depth and liveweight with the area of & d o r s i was reported by Alsmeyer e t a 1 () t o have a coefficient of 35 The multiple correlation coefficient f o r t h e relationship amoug these same independent variables ( u s values and liveweight) and t h e combined weight of round, rump and loin was 95 Ultrasonic Fat and Lean Observations made a t Locations Other than t h e 12th 13th R i b Area Four other locations (other than the r i b area) were studied on 1 values and steers by Davis and Long () Relationships between these a c t u a l carcass measurements, us loineye area and u s f a t thickness are shown i n Table 6 The Georgia researchers computed correlations of 32, 57, 55 and 82, respectively, f o r Biceps femoris, forearm depth t o bone, forearm t o t a l thickness and ltanbar loineye area between us l i v e values and carcass measurements of these thicknesses Correlations were usually lower between u s values a t t h e four other points and = l o i n e y e area There was a s t r i k i n g negative relationship between forearm thickness t o bone and When t h e t o t a l depth or thickness of us f a t thickness a t t h e last r i b forearm was measured ultrasonically, a correlation coefficient of 91 was noted The authors state t h a t, "these data indicate t h a t the thicker t h e us f a t thickness a t t h e 12th r i b, t h e thinner t h e t i s s u e i n t h e surface t o bone forearm region Conversely, it seems valid there is an association between f a t thickness and t o t a l forearm thickness because t h e inner side Of t h e forearm accounts f o r f a t t y tissue disposition from t h e brisket" V Some Observations by Researchers U s i n g Ultrasonics (1) The v e n t r a l border of t h e loineye was readily detected with a 1 mc transducer but not with a 225 mc t r a n s ducer (Wallentine, 196) (2) F a t t e r c a t t l e seem t o have l a r g e r ribeye areas due t o slower sound transmission through f a t (Wallentine, 196) (3) Lntercostal muscle readings helped t o identify t h e t al ; ) v e n t r a l ribeye p i p a s t h e animal breathed (Hedrick e (4) Highly finished c a t t l e were more d i f f i c u l t t o measure 3 than c a t t l e with less f i n i s h (Hedrick e t a l,, Alsmeyer, e t a1 and Temple and Ramsey, ~ ) (5) Fatness of t h e carcass could not be accurately estimated ultrasonically f i v e (5) months p r i o r t o slaughter (Hedrick e t a2 1 ) (6) nterpretation of t h e "somagraph" is extremely important and may be an inportant source of error Extensive experience observing beef c a t t l e carcasses i s helpful in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e "somagraph" pictures (Temple and Ramsey, a)

8 247 Table 6 Ultrasonics Used on C a t t l e a t L c t i o n s Other Than t h e 12th and 13th Rib p87 Ultrasonic Measuring Location Carcass Measurement Biceps femoris thickness Simple Correlation Us Fat Area Thickness U s LoinEye e24 Forearm ( t o t a l thickness) Lumbar LE area 32 Foreaim ( t o bone) (a) Davis and Long, 1362 (N 29 96* a 64* 9l* 58 1) ( 7 ) There is an association between i n t e r p r e t e r s of u l t r a sonic l o i n eye photographs L i t t i e difference i n l o i n eye area resulted i n the positional e f f e c t O f probe location (Stouffer and Davis, ) ( 8 ) S l i g h t increase in t h e velocity of ultrasonic energj noted (1513 t o 16 M/sec) a s t h e temperature of beef was (Stouffer and Davis, ), changed from 5' t o 1'F was (9) A longitudinal scan 41/2 inches l a t e r a l t o the animal's midline from the 1th t o 13th rib offered several locations f o r measuring f a t thickness (Temple and Ramsey, b) (1) Ultrasonic measurements obtained from the round of beef c a t t l e show strong promise f o r estimating musclin6 (Ramsey, Alsmeyer, ) Summary Studies of ultrasonically measuring f a t thickness i n l i v e c a t t l e and comparing the ultrasonic (us) values with l i n e a r f a t measurements of t h e carcass, have been conducted atcolorado State, Cornell, Michigan State, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee and the Agricultural Research Center a t B e l t s v i l l e Simple correlations between us and a c t u a l f a t thickness measurements ranged from 15 t o 89 The majority of correlations were between

9 248 The data indicate t h a t reasonably accurate depth of subcutaneous f a t values a r e obtainable by use of ultrasonics 5 and 7 Research a t t h e previously mentioned i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e Southwest Agricultural n s t i t u t e has shown t h e value f o r u s f o r estimating muscling i n c a t t l e, Several techniques have been employed t o obtain E values f o r comparison with carcass lean y i e l d and muscle size The corr e l a t i o n s with loineye area range from 43 t o 94, Lower but s i g n i f i cant correlations between us depth of l e a n and & d o r s i area or weight of Lo d o r s i of the 9 ll r i b c u t have been reported by USDA researchers The newer t i s s u e scanning techniques f o r muscle area evaluation show marked promise Muscling seems more d i f f i c u l t t o measure i n f a t c a t t l e ; however, f a t n e s s i s best measured j u s t p r i o r t o slaughter A thorough knowledge of carcass anatmy fs a d i s t i n c t advantage when i n t e r preting oscilloscope pips or sonographs f o r deep t i s s u e and f a t layer interfaces Future research will involve measuring thickness and area of f a t of lean a t numerous locations on t h e animal during d i f f e r e n t stages O f t h e animal * s development L3!ERATURE CTED Alsmeyer, R H, R L Hiner and J W Thornton, Ultrasonic measurements OP f a t and muscle thickness of c a t t l e and swine Annals of t h e New York Academy of Sciences (Body Composit i o n Conference) ~n Press Alsmeyer, R H, E K Johnson, J W Thornton and R L Hiner Relationships among ultrasonic values, liveweight and y i e l d s of lamb and beef North Atlantic Section, h e r Soc Animal Sci, Morgantaa?, W Va,, J u l y 1617, (Abstradt) Davis, J K and R, A Long Ultrasonic and other methods of estimating muscling i n beef c a t t l e J Animal Sci 21:97 (Abstract) Hedrick, He Bo, W H Meyer, M A Alexander, S E, Zobrisky and H D Nauaann, Estimation of ribeye area and f a t thickness of beef c a t t l e with ultrasonics, J Animal Sci 21:362 Morrow, J and D Wideman Ultrasonic Evaluation Price, J F, He B Pfost, A M Pearson and C W Hall Some observations on t h e use of ultrasonic measurements f o r determining fatness and leanness i n l i v e animals J Animal Sci, 17:56 (Abstract) 1958 The Cattleman, April, pg, 52

10 249 Rowden, 1958 W W Master's Thesis Colorado, 1958 Colorado S t a t e University, Fort Collins, Stouffer, J R and J K Davis Unpublished data, Cornell University, Stouffer, J R, M V Wallentine and G H Wellington Ultrasonic measurement of f a t thickness and loineye area on l i v e 1959 c a t t l e and hogs J Animal Sci, 18:1483 (Abstract) Stouffer, J R and G H Wellington Ultrasonics f o r evaluation of l i v e animal and carcass composition 196 Proc 12th Res Conf h e r Meat B e t Fa, University of Chicago, pg 81 Temple, R S a Master's Thesis Colorado, 1956 Temple, R S Comparison of two ultrasonic estlslates of f a t thickness and ribeye area taken on t h e same group of animals, Unpublished data, 1956 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, ARS, USDA Temple, 1 963a R S and C B Ramsey Estimation of L dorsi area and f a t thickness by ultrasonic measurement Unpublished data, ARS, USDA and Univ of Tenn b Changes in L dorsi s i z e and f a t thickness of c a t t l e on fullfeed a f t e r weangg a s measured by ultrasonics Unpublished data, ARS, USDA and miv of Tenn c Predicition of carcass cutout i n b u l l s and s t e e r s by t h e use of ultrasonic measurement Unpublished data, ARS, USDA and Univ of Tenn Temple, 1956 R S, H H Stonaker, D Howry, G Posakony and M H Hazaleus Ultrasonic and conductivity methods f o r estimating f a t thickness i n l i v e c a t t l e Proc h e r SOC Animal Prod, Western Section, 7:xx Wallentine, M V 196 Master's Thesis Wideman, Cornell University, thaca, New York, 196 D The use of ultrasonic equipment i n evaluating fleshing q u a l i t i e s i n l i v e animals Presented a t the New Mexico State Univ Cattle Breeding f o r Beef February 2, Breeders' School

11 DR RAMSEX: Thank you, Dick m i g h t say, a t this point, t h a t a t the session a t 3:45 tomorrow afternoon, we will have availeble a b s t r a c t s of t h e U S works There a r e about 2 1 of them, i f you a r e interested Dr Temple was quite instrumental n g e t t i n g all of t h i s done Be compiled a l l of t h i s work, and, of course, he had a l o t of help fram t h e people who sent these a b s t r a c t s n, but he is responsible f o r getting the a b s t r a c t s reproduced We certainly appreciate this, Bob There a r e many s i d e s to most any question, and t o give us what might be called another s i d e of t h i s one, we a r e c a l l i n g on t h a t handsome gentleman who has had some firsthand experience i n t h e problems Right now He is on the extension s t a f f, having moved there B i l l Backus i s a t VP from Mississippi S t a t e University ############