| Literature DB >> 25049531 |
Yun Ho Choy1, Byoung Ho Park1, Tae Jung Choi1, Jae Gwan Choi1, Kwang Hyun Cho1, Seung Soo Lee1, You Lim Choi1, Kyung Chul Koh1, Hyo Sun Kim1.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to estimate economic weights of Hanwoo carcass traits that can be used to build economic selection indexes for selection of seedstocks. Data from carcass measures for determining beef yield and quality grades were collected and provided by the Korean Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation (KAPE). Out of 1,556,971 records, 476,430 records collected from 13 abattoirs from 2008 to 2010 after deletion of outlying observations were used to estimate relative economic weights of bid price per kg carcass weight on cold carcass weight (CW), eye muscle area (EMA), backfat thickness (BF) and marbling score (MS) and the phenotypic relationships among component traits. Price of carcass tended to increase linearly as yield grades or quality grades, in marginal or in combination, increased. Partial regression coefficients for MS, EMA, BF, and for CW in original scales were +948.5 won/score, +27.3 won/cm(2), -95.2 won/mm and +7.3 won/kg when all three sex categories were taken into account. Among four grade determining traits, relative economic weight of MS was the greatest. Variations in partial regression coefficients by sex categories were great but the trends in relative weights for each carcass measures were similar. Relative economic weights of four traits in integer values when standardized measures were fit into covariance model were +4:+1:-1:+1 for MS:EMA:BF:CW. Further research is required to account for the cost of production per unit carcass weight or per unit production under different economic situations.Entities:
Keywords: Carcass Trait; Economic Weight; Hanwoo; Selection Index
Year: 2012 PMID: 25049531 PMCID: PMC4094153 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Average bid price of the Hanwoo carcasses (won/kg) by final grades
| Grade | N (slaughtered) | N (with bid price) | Price (won/kg carcass)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Min | Max | |||
| 1++A | 36,612 | 11,344 | 20,402 | 1,792 | 9,012 | 41,538 |
| 1++B | 71,258 | 22,248 | 19,873 | 1,998 | 9,000 | 37,000 |
| 1++C | 23,852 | 10,258 | 18,695 | 1,906 | 10,000 | 30,510 |
| 1+A | 82,948 | 26,341 | 18,189 | 1,591 | 5,199 | 26,100 |
| 1+B | 179,519 | 55,326 | 17,647 | 1,785 | 201 | 26,930 |
| 1+C | 52,231 | 20,826 | 16,445 | 1,748 | 5,000 | 25,390 |
| 1A | 111,582 | 33,582 | 16,687 | 1,726 | 1,000 | 24,890 |
| 1B | 252,093 | 78,799 | 16,008 | 1,925 | 1,000 | 27,890 |
| 1C | 70,672 | 29,469 | 14,953 | 1,990 | 4,899 | 25,860 |
| 2A | 133,464 | 35,461 | 14,228 | 1,996 | 1,200 | 20,259 |
| 2B | 208,262 | 65,936 | 13,272 | 2,066 | 294 | 19,816 |
| 2C | 48,752 | 20,481 | 12,290 | 2,017 | 1,000 | 18,890 |
| 3A | 182,271 | 33,872 | 11,381 | 2,284 | 1,000 | 19,175 |
| 3B | 74,695 | 27,514 | 10,159 | 2,122 | 100 | 18,450 |
| 3C | 17,159 | 8,765 | 9,022 | 2,195 | 100 | 15,562 |
| D | 11,601 | 9,254 | 4,805 | 2,623 | 10 | 15,077 |
| Overall | 1,556,971 | 489,476 | 14,628.50 | |||
Average bid price of the Hanwoo carcasses (won/kg) by final grades without grade ‘D’ and with price over won 6,000/kg
| Grade | N | Price (won/kg carcass)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Min | Max | ||
| ------------------------- excluding outliers regarding carcass measures --------------------------- | |||||
| 1++A | 11,339 | 20,401.8 | 1,791.3 | 9,012 | 41,538 |
| 1++B | 22,218 | 19,872.3 | 1,996.7 | 9,000 | 37,000 |
| 1++C | 10,205 | 18,689.7 | 1,899.6 | 10,000 | 30,510 |
| 1+A | 26,326 | 18,190.3 | 1,585.5 | 7,500 | 26,100 |
| 1+B | 55,266 | 17,648.3 | 1,782.6 | 7,550 | 26,930 |
| 1+C | 20,738 | 16,448.2 | 1,742.8 | 8,100 | 25,390 |
| 1A | 33,557 | 16,689.1 | 1,719.3 | 6,500 | 24,890 |
| 1B | 78,677 | 16,010.9 | 1,919.9 | 6,500 | 27,890 |
| 1C | 29,281 | 14,959.5 | 1,980.8 | 6,000 | 25,860 |
| 2A | 35,444 | 14,228.8 | 1,994.7 | 6,000 | 20,259 |
| 2B | 65,778 | 13,279.6 | 2,052.0 | 6,000 | 19,816 |
| 2C | 20,174 | 12,327.9 | 1,974.3 | 6,000 | 18,890 |
| 3A | 33,805 | 11,386.4 | 2,276.5 | 6,000 | 19,175 |
| 3B | 26,625 | 10,252.9 | 2,039.9 | 6,000 | 18,450 |
| 3C | 6,997 | 9,405.1 | 1,936 | 6,000 | 15,562 |
| Overall | 476,430 | 15,319.4 | |||
Phenotypic variances (σ2p, diagonals), covariances (σp12, below diagonals) and correlation coefficients (rp12, above diagonals) estimated between carcass traits1
| σp12/σ2p/rp12 | Carcass traits | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | EMA | BF | CW | |
| --------------------------------------------- All the observations (Error df = 1,545,345) ---------------------------------- | ||||
| MS | 3.53 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.19 |
| EMA | 4.75 | 105.90 | 0.11 | 0.62 |
| BF | 1.17 | 5.28 | 23.74 | 0.35 |
| CW | 16.48 | 293.99 | 77.86 | 2,108.44 |
| ---------------------------------------------------- 10 to 90 percentiles ---------------------------------------------------- | ||||
| All sexes (Error df = 476,391) | ||||
| MS | 3.82 | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.25 |
| EMA | 6.74 | 116.95 | 0.13 | 0.64 |
| BF | 1.64 | 7.58 | 28.90 | 0.39 |
| CW | 23.17 | 330.58 | 100.55 | 2,303.09 |
| Sex = Female (Error df = 195,027) | ||||
| MS | 3.96 | 0.30 | 0.19 | 0.31 |
| EMA | 6.90 | 133.04 | 0.17 | 0.72 |
| BF | 2.22 | 11.34 | 33.19 | 0.36 |
| CW | 28.37 | 383.40 | 96.52 | 2,155.36 |
| Sex = Bull (Error df = 38,248) | ||||
| MS | 0.55 | 0.05 | 0.32 | 0.12 |
| EMA | 0.43 | 129.39 | 0.12 | 0.69 |
| BF | 0.66 | 3.79 | 7.39 | 0.28 |
| CW | 4.72 | 413.73 | 40.49 | 2,776.53 |
| Sex = Steer (Error df = 243,116) | ||||
| MS | 4.22 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.22 |
| EMA | 7.61 | 102.08 | 0.10 | 0.56 |
| BF | 1.34 | 5.17 | 28.84 | 0.44 |
| CW | 21.90 | 275.12 | 113.23 | 2,347.12 |
Prices less than ₩ 6,000/kg and of final grade ‘D’s were excluded.
MS= Marbling score (1 to 9), EMA = Eye muscle area (cm2), BF = Backfat thickness (mm), CW = Carcass weight (kg).
Parameter estimates from different models (dependent variable: price/kg carcass)
| Effects and covariates | All sexes
| Sex categories
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female
| Bull
| Steer
| ||||||||
| df | Estimate+SE | wt | df | Estimate±SE | wt % | Estimate±SE | wt % | Estimate±SE | wt % | |
| N (R2) | 476,430 (0.62) | 195,040 (0.55) | 38,262 (0.25) | 243,129 (0.58) | ||||||
| Sex×house | 38 | −1,067.86 | ||||||||
| House | 12 | −755.95 | 1,304.95 | −158.61 | ||||||
| Intercept | 7,701.74 | 4,654.14 | 5,687.67 | 10,473.20 | ||||||
| MS | 1 | 948.52 | 129.9 | 1,086.56 | 62.1 | 1,363.13 | 459.0 | 822.52 | 393.6 | |
| EMA | 1 | 27.32 | 3.7 | 16.91 | 1.0 | 16.94 | 5.7 | 27.94 | 13.4 | |
| BF | 1 | −95.18 | −13.0 | −96.92 | −5.5 | 21.86 | 7.4 | −105.02 | −50.2 | |
| CW | 1 | 7.30± | 1.0 | 17.50 | 1.0 | 2.97 | 1.0 | 2.09 | 1.0 | |
MS = Marbling score (1 to 9), EMA = Eye muscle area (cm2), BF = Backfat thickness (mm), CW = Carcass weight (kg).
house = Abattoir.
Weights relative to the estimates of carcass weight (increase in value, won, per unit increase in covariate).
Weights when standardized values of carcass measures were taken into model fit(regression coefficients in the parentheses).
Figure 1Fit diagnostics diagram for the model of all sexes (First model in Table 3).