Volume: 53 Issue: 3
Year: 2022, Page: 485-491, Doi: https://doi.org/10.51966/jvas.2022.53.3.485-491
Received: March 23, 2022 Accepted: June 9, 2022 Published: Sept. 30, 2022
The present study was carried out to find the correlation between different live animal physical measurements and some economically important carcass parameters and to predict these carcass parameters using multiple linear regression models. Heart girth and flank girth showed a highly significant (p<0.01) correlation with carcass weight in all three weight groups.Angle showed significant correlation with carcass weight in group I and highly significant correlation in group II. Heart girth also showed a highly significant (p<0.01) correlation with the total meat yield of pigs in groups I and II. Dressing per cent was not significantly correlated with any of the live animal physical measurements in groups I and III.But the correlation was highly significant with heart girth in group II. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that live animal physical measurements played a minor role on the majority of carcass characteristics, while the heart girth was critical in several instances. Physical measures of the live animals predicted carcass weight better than other carcass parameters. (R2 =0.623 – 0.924)
Keywords: Physical body measurements, carcass weight, dressing per cent, total meat yield
Adeola, A.C., Oseni, S.O. and Omitogun, O.G. 2013. Morphological characterization of indigenous and crossbred pigs in rural and peri-urban areas of southwestern Nigeria. J. Anim. Sci. 3: 230-235.
AOAC. 2006. [Association of Official Analytical Chemist]. Meat and meat products. In: Official methods of analysis of official analytical chemists. (18th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists Inc., Virginia, 1298p.
Duran, P., Harada, H., Satou, K. and Fukuhara, R. 1995. Prediction of carcass composition for live pigs from ultrasonic estimates of carcass traits and body measurements. Anim. Sci. Technol. 66: 673-673.
Knauer, M.T. and Baitinger, D.J. 2015. The sow body condition caliper. Appl. Engng. Agric. 31: 175-178.
Li, Y., Cui, S., Baidoo, S.K. and Johnston, L.J. 2021. Evaluation of Sow Caliper for body condition measurement of gestating sows. J. Swine Hlth. Prod. 29: 245-252.
Leena A., Anil, S.S. and Mercey, K.A. 2004. Prediction of weight of pigs using body measurements. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 35: 61-65.
Michaela G. 2019. Small-scale pig keeping: the benefits of accurate body condition scoring. The pig site. Available: https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/small-scale-pig-keeping-the-benefits-of-accurate-body-condition-scoring [10 August 2020]
Muthukumar, A. 2018. Evolving a suitable live and carcass grading system for pigs. M.V.Sc thesis, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 109p.
Mutua, F.K., Dewey, C.E., Arimi, S.M., Schelling, E. and Ogara, W.O. 2011. Prediction of live body weight using length and girth measurements for pigs in rural Western Kenya. J. Swine Hlth. Prod. 19: 26-33.
Narayanikutty, U., Ramamoorthi, S. and Mercy, A.D. 2004. Prediction of body weight of pigs from body measurements. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 35: 58-60.
Ochoa Zaragoza, L.E. 2009. Evaluation of the accuracy of simple body measurements for live weight prediction in growing-finishing pigs. M.Sc thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 62p.
Yazama, F and Tomoda, S. 1986. Correlation between live body measurements and carcass measurements in pigs. Jap. J. Swine Sci. 23: 148-156.
© 2022 Jishnu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Jishnu, P., Vasudevan, V. N., Sunil, B., Jayakumar, C., Sathu, T., Safeer, M.S., Ann, T.J. and Pratik, S.Y.2022. Relationships between different live animal physical measurements and carcass parameters of crossbred pigs of three different weight groups. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 53 (3): 485-491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51966/jvas.2022.53.3.485-491