Evaluation of the accuracy of real-time ultrasonic measurements of backfat and loin muscle area in swine using multiple statistical analysis procedures

Real-time ultrasonic measurements of 10th-rib backfat (BF10) and loin muscle area (LMA) were made by a single technician at four mean BW (67.4, 80.3, 93.4, and 104.9 kg) on live hogs to assess the accuracy of predicting carcass measurements before and at slaughter weight. Records were evaluated on 655 purebred barrows and 472 purebred gilts in two tests. Residual correlations-accounting for test, sex, and breed effects, among and between scans and carcass measurements--were moderate to high for BF10 (r=.69 to .82) and LMA (r=.57 to .68), with the largest correlations at 104.9 kg of live weight. Ultrasonic BF10 and LMA were within +/-4 mm and +/-6.45 cm2, respectively, of the corresponding carcass measurement 75.9 and 89.8% of the time. Sex differences for LMA bias were significant (P < .001); ultrasonic LMA was overestimated in barrows by .75 cm2 and underestimated in gilts by .91 cm2. Breed differences were significant (P < .001) for BF10 and LMA bias. Standard errors of prediction (SEP) for BF10 and LMA across the two tests were 3.46 mm and 4.04 cm2, respectively. The SEP for BF10 were 3.60 mm for barrows and 3.19 mm for gilts. The SEP for LMA were 3.77 cm2 for barrows and 4.22 cm2 for gilts. The SEP for BF10 within breeds ranged from 3.25 to 3.72 mm, and for LMA, ranged from 2.98 cm2 to 4.90 cm2. Ultrasound measurements overestimated the carcass measurement by .57 mm for carcasses measuring < 24.1 mm and underestimated by 2.81 mm carcasses with BF10 > 30.3 mm. Ultrasonic LMA overestimated the carcass by 2.35 cm2 in carcasses measuring < 32.5 cm2 and underestimated by 2.29 cm2 in carcasses measuring greater than 37.9 cm2. Results indicate that the magnitude of the carcass measurement affects bias and accuracy of prediction for real-time ultrasonic measurements of BF10 and LMA. The SEP statistic is more consistent in evaluating accuracy of ultrasonic measurement than bias, absolute deviations, and percentage of absolute deviation.