Carcass and Primal Composition Predictions Using Camera Vision Systems (CVS) and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Technologies on Mature Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the potential of computer vision systems, namely the whole-side carcass camera (HCC) compared to the rib-eye camera (CCC) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology to predict primal and carcass composition of cull cows. The predictability (R2) of the HCC was similar to the CCC for total fat, but higher for lean (24.0%) and bone (61.6%). Subcutaneous fat (SQ), body cavity fat, and retail cut yield (RCY) estimations showed a difference of 6.2% between both CVS. The total lean meat yield (LMY) estimate was 22.4% better for CCC than for HCC. The combination of HCC and CCC resulted in a similar prediction of total fat, SQ, and intermuscular fat, and improved predictions of total lean and bone compared to HCC/CCC. Furthermore, a 25.3% improvement was observed for LMY and RCY estimations. DXA predictions showed improvements in R2 values of 26.0% and 25.6% compared to the HCC alone or the HCC + CCC combined, respectively. These results suggest the feasibility of using HCC for predicting primal and carcass composition. This is an important finding for slaughter systems, such as those used for mature cattle in North America that do not routinely knife rib carcasses, which prevents the use of CCC.
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 | 0.000 | 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".