2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.10.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting meat yields and commercial meat cuts from carcasses of young bulls of Spanish breeds by the SEUROP method and an image analysis system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Oliver, Mendizabal, Ripoll, Albertí, and Purroy (2010), for example, used 2D still digital photographs and image analysis software to predict the weight of meat in four categories for 91 young bulls in Spain, and showed that image analysis accounted for more variation in cut weight than hot carcass weight alone, or combined with visual conformation scores that were assigned by two classifiers (Table 8). The young bull carcasses in the experiment of Oliver et al (2010) were very lean (FAT% of 9.2%) and the prediction equations were for saleable meat weight rather than the more informative SMY%. The comparison between image analysis and [S]EUROP conformation without fat class may be problematic if applied to other types of cattle where the FAT% is much higher.…”
Section: Further Development Of Viamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Oliver, Mendizabal, Ripoll, Albertí, and Purroy (2010), for example, used 2D still digital photographs and image analysis software to predict the weight of meat in four categories for 91 young bulls in Spain, and showed that image analysis accounted for more variation in cut weight than hot carcass weight alone, or combined with visual conformation scores that were assigned by two classifiers (Table 8). The young bull carcasses in the experiment of Oliver et al (2010) were very lean (FAT% of 9.2%) and the prediction equations were for saleable meat weight rather than the more informative SMY%. The comparison between image analysis and [S]EUROP conformation without fat class may be problematic if applied to other types of cattle where the FAT% is much higher.…”
Section: Further Development Of Viamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison between image analysis and [S]EUROP conformation without fat class may be problematic if applied to other types of cattle where the FAT% is much higher. Unfortunately, Oliver et al (2010) did not apply their image analysis techniques to predict FAT%. However, in a pilot trial involving 29 cross-bred steer and heifer carcasses under abattoir conditions, the area of fat on the carcass explained between 1 and 2% of the variation in total fat weight in the half carcass (Prieto et al, 2009).…”
Section: Further Development Of Viamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The system was set up to take into account carcass quality factors in addition to carcass weight. The conformation and fat cover scores are furnished by slaughterhouse personnel who have been suitably trained in the grading of beef carcasses with the aid of the photographic patterns employed in the SEUROP system (Oliver et al, 2010). Eriksson et al (2003) estimated genetic parameters for these traits by a linear animal model in beef breeds Charolais, Hereford and Simmental in Sweden.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Carcass percentage of male Bali cattle fed with fermented cacao shell was relatively high 52.76%, it did not differ from previous studies reported by Wiyatna (2007) 54. 0% and Pane (1990) et al, 2002) and Spanish breed with MBR of 4.1:1 (Oliver et al, 2010). The result of statistical analysis showed that there was not any different on the back fat thickness of Bali cattle fed with ration containing different fermented cacao shell.…”
Section: Carcass Quality Of Male Bali Cattlementioning
confidence: 90%