Use of live ultrasound, weight and linear measurements to predict carcass composition of young beef bulls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-slaughter ultrasound and whole side dissection data from 47 crossbred bulls were used to assess (1) the relative value of six previously published equations based on live animal measurements, (2) the value of alternative pre-slaughter measurements, and (3) the value of alternative ultrasound probes as predictors of whole side lean meat yield. Analysis of absolute bias-corrected residuals indicated that all six previously published equations predicted whole side lean meat yield with similar accuracy (P = 0.62), but analysis of absolute rank residuals indicated that an equation originally based on carcass measurements tended (P = 0.17) to rank bulls less precisely than five ultrasound-based equations. Breed composition, age, liveweight, hip width, heart girth, and round muscle depths did not contribute to new lean meat yield prediction equations (P > 0.10), but height, 12th/13th rib body wall, rump fat, and gluteus medius muscle depths and marbling score did (P < 0.10). However, examination of absolute residuals and absolute rank residuals indicated that accuracy (P = 0.55) and precision (P = 0.64) did not improve significantly compared to equations based only on height, rib fat and longissimus muscle size. Similarly, analysis of absolute residuals and absolute rank residuals indicated that fat and longissimus muscle depth measurements collected with a short probe predicted whole side lean meat yield as accurately and precisely as measurements collected with a long probe. Results indicated that (1) equations based on live measurements may provide more precise predictions of lean meat yield than equations derived from carcass measurements, (2) supplementing ultrasonic rib fat and longissimus muscle measurements with additional ultrasound measurements did not improve the accuracy or precision of lean meat yield prediction, and (3) lean meat yield of yearling bulls can be accurately predicted using fat and longissimus muscle depth measurements collected with a short probe. Key words: Ultrasound, beef bulls, carcass composition, prediction models
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".