The Accuracy of Two Recording Instruments in the Measurement of Subcutaneous Fat Thickness in Pork Carcasses

Jones, S. D. M.; Allen, O. B.; Haworth, C.

doi:10.4141/cjas82-089

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar observations were reported by Kempster, Jones and Cuthbertson (1979). Other workers (Kempster et al, 1979;Kempster, Chadwick, Jones and Cuthbertson, 1981;Jones, Allen and Haworth, 1982;Giles, 1983) generally reported a negative mean bias for probe measurements of fat thickness taken at the last rib or 3 to 4 last rib. At the last rib, greater muscle measurements were recorded with the HG whereas, at the 3 to 4 last rib, greater measurements were obtained with the FOM.…”

supporting

confidence: 84%

“…A significant deviation from unity was an estimate of the extent and direction of bias as fat thickness changed. These values were generally lower than those reported by Kempster et al (1979 and and Jones et al (1982) for the Ulster probe, and the Hennessy and Chong fat depth indicator. Significant deviations from unity were detected at the last rib only with the HG and at the 3 to 4 last rib only with the FOM (P < 001).…”

contrasting

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A note on the accuracy of the New Zealand Hennessy Grading Probe and the Danish Fat-O-Meater in measuring fat and muscle thickness in pig carcasses

1984

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two hundred and twenty-four pig carcasses were used to compare the Hennessy Grading Probe and the Fat-O-Meater in their accuracy for measuring fat and muscle thickness (m. longissimus). Accuracy was defined in terms of precision and bias. The precision (relationship between repeated measurements) of the two probes in measuring fat and muscle thickness varied with the probing locations. When differences were detected, the higher precision was found with the Fat-O-Meater. The mean bias in measuring fat thickness was negative for the Hennessy Grading Probe (P < 0-01); however, for the Fat-O-Meater, no mean bias was detected. Furthermore, the extent and the direction of the bias in measuring fat over the range of fat thickness studied varied with the probe and the probing location.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 84%

contrasting

confidence: 75%

A note on the accuracy of the New Zealand Hennessy Grading Probe and the Danish Fat-O-Meater in measuring fat and muscle thickness in pig carcasses

1984

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite numerous studies on fat-depth probes (Fortin et aE. 1984a,b;Giles 1983;Jones et al 1982;Jones and Haworth 1983;Kempster et al 1981Kempster et al , 1985Kutsky et al 1984;Usborne et al 1987), little has been reported on how they work. Thus, the elastic deformation caused by meat probes remains obscure, even though it occurs in widely used technology and might be exploited for meat toughness prediction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elastic Deformation in Probe Measurements on Beef Carcasses

Swatland

2001

Journal of Muscle Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beef carcasses were probed through the forelimb flexors, the triceps brachii, the width of the M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LD), and the depth of the LD. The objective was to measure elastic deformation from the distortion of optical signals. Strong reflectance at 550 nm combined with weak ultraviolet fluorescence indicated adipose tissue, while strong reflectance combined with strong fluorescence indicated connective tissue. Connective and adipose tissue peaks were examined relative to depth in the carcass. Elastic deformation was detected when way‐in (insertion) peaks were deeper in the carcass than way‐out (withdrawal) peaks, indicating tissue compression in advance of the probe tip. Connective tissue was deformed more than adipose tissue. Whether or not this method can be used to assess meat softness or tenderness on‐line remains to be seen.

show abstract

“…It has been reported that backfat measurements taken on the live pig will be lower than corresponding measurements taken on the hot hanging carcass which will in turn be lower than measurements taken 24 h postslaughter on the cold carcass (Jones et al 1982;Naveau etal'. 1982;Sather et al 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%