X hits on this document

PDF document

S. D. Shackelford2, T. L. Wheeler, and M. Koohmaraie - page 6 / 10

31 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

6 / 10

2636 SHACKELFO

RD ET AL.

in subprimal weights (Table 4). Whereas HCW, by itself, only accounted for 30 to 34% of the variation in weights of round cuts, the combination of image analysis-predicted RPYD and HCW accounted for 78 to 82% of the variation in weights of round cuts. For most subprimals, the combination of image analysis- predicted RPYD and HCW accounted for more of the variation in subprimal weight than did the combina- tion of calculated yield grade and HCW. For ribeye roll and striploin, the combination of calculated yield grade and HCW accounted for more of the variation in

subprimal weight than did the combination of image analysis-predicted RPYD and HCW. Hot carcass weight, the combination of calculated yield grade and

HCW,

and

the

combination

of

image

analysis-

predicted RPYD and HCW accounted for 54, 83, and 91% of the variation in the weight of 80% lean trimmings. Thus, image analysis could be used by the beef industry to more accurately predict individual subprimal weights. In turn, that information and appropriate price extensions could be used to more accurately estimate carcass value.

Figure 2. Comparison of the ability of image analysis and yield grade to predict retail product yield (n = 66).

Document info
Document views31
Page views31
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 22:56:55 UTC 2016
Pages10
Paragraphs592
Words6232

Comments