Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T20:57:50.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X-ray computed tomography accurately assesses beef carcass composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

E A Navajas ,
C A Glasbey ,
A V Fisher ,
D W Ross ,
J J Hyslop ,
R I Richardson ,
G Simm  and
R Roehe
E A Navajas*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
C A Glasbey
Affiliation:
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
A V Fisher
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford, United Kingdom
D W Ross
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
J J Hyslop
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
R I Richardson
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford, United Kingdom
G Simm
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
R Roehe
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
*
Email: elly.navajas@sac.ac.uk
Get access

Extract

X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning of live animals and carcasses provides a very accurate assessment of the weights of fat, muscle and bone in pigs (Dobrowolski et al., 2003) and sheep (Johansen et al., 2007). Although the limiting size of the CT gantry prevents CT scanning of live beef cattle, beef primal joints are small enough to be scanned. Navajas et al. (2008) explored the use of spiral CT scanning (SCTS) to quantify beef carcass composition. The automatic image analysis developed provided very accurate assessments of primal and carcass composition (Navajas et al, 2008). The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of this novel method for assessing beef primal cut and carcass composition in an independent dataset.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2009 , April 2009 , pp. 118
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, P. and Finnerty, N. 2001. National Food Centre Research Report, Teagasc 45. 1–26.Google Scholar
Dobrowolski, A., Romvari, R., Allen, P., Branscheid, W. and Horn, P. 2003. Proceeding of the 43rd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. 371–372.Google Scholar
Fullerton, G.D. 1980. Medical Physics of CT and Ultrasound pp. 125–162.Google Scholar
Johansen, J., Egelandsdal, B., Roe, M., Kvaal, K. and Aastveit, A.H. 2007. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 87. 303–311.Google Scholar
Navajas, E.A., Glasbey, C.A., MacLean, K.A., Fisher, A.V., Richardson, R.I., Ross, D., Hyslop, J.J, Simm, G. and Roehe, R. 2008. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 2008. 45.Google Scholar