The conventional carcass evaluation and the carcass dissection analysis of pigs

Authors

  • Unto Uusisalmi Department of Animal Breeding, University of Helsinki

Abstract

The information provided by conventional carcass evaluation concerning the carcass quality established by analyses of dissection was investigated on progeny testing pigs (n = 153). After conventional carcass evaluation, the left half of the carcass was cut up. In the most valuable part of the half carcass (ham + carré + back + fore back + shoulder + kidney fat) the skin + fat component was separated from the meat + bone component. The material was processed by stepwise multiple regression analysis. It was possible by means of the results of conventional carcass evaluation to explain 69 % of the variation in the weight of the skin + fat component and 64 % of the variation in its percentage, 61 % of the variation in the weight of the meat + bone component and 56 % of the variation in its percentage, 59 % of the variation in the weight of the most valuable part of the carcass and 17 % of the variation in its percentage. The estimations calculated for the skin + fat component and its percentage had the same characteristics in conventional carcass evaluation as explanatory variables. The estimations calculated for the meat + bone component and its percentages differed from each other. The estimations calculated for the most valuable part of the carcass and its components also explained the shoulder, back and ham, as follows: a) the shoulder, most weakly, b) the skin + fat of the back, best by the skin + fat estimations (56 % of the variation), c) the meat + bone of the ham, best by the meat + bone estimations (58 % of the variation). The length of the carcass and of the side did not occur in the estimations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Section
Articles

Published

1971-01-01

How to Cite

Uusisalmi, U. (1971). The conventional carcass evaluation and the carcass dissection analysis of pigs. Agricultural and Food Science, 43(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71783