VARIATIONS IN EDIBLE MEAT BETWEEN PUREBRED AND CROSSBRED ROASTING CHICKENS Thesis for the Degree» of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Raymond Pillar I 94I THESIS VARIATIONS IN EDIBLE MEAT BETWEEN PUREBRLD ALL CROSSBRED ROASTING CHICKENS by Raymond Pillar A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Poultry Husbandry 1941 THESIS I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. CO NTE NTS IIVTRODmTION O O O O O C O O O O REVIEV; OF TJITISRATURE o O o o o 0 PURPOSE METHODS l. 2. I 5. 4. 5. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION . . . . ARD MATERIAL Photographic Procedure, ments and Grading . . Eviscerating Procedure Method of Cutting . . . Boning Procedure . . . Discussion of Results . LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . FiIFE RE DICES . O O O O O O C O O 0 Body Measure- 27 29 50 ACKNOVLEDGEMENT The assistance of the following members of the Michigan State College staff is gratefully acknowledged: Dr. E. E. Henderson, Assistant Professor of Poultry Husbandry, directed the research project and gave helpful criticisms; Professor C. G. Card offered helpful criticisms in the prep- aration of the thesis; Dr. W. D. Eaten, Associate Professor of Mathematics made the statistical computations; Professor J. A. Davidson, Associate Professor of Poultry Husbandry, assisted in the dressing and grading of the birds; Professor J. M. Moore, Extension Specialist in Poultry Husbandry, fur- nished photographic material and gave valuable suggestions; Miss Ruth Carr, Research Assistant in.Home Economics, assis- ted with suggestions relative to the preparation of the roast- ers for cooking. I. IIHRODUCTION Quality Specifications for the "ideal" market tyne bird, live or dressed, as expressed in the "Tentative Specifications for United States Standards and Grades", indicate that the bird must be young, meaty, full—fleshed, uniform color, well-bled, and free from deformi- ties, torn skin, pin feathers, bruises or other dressing defects. Meaty and full-fleshed, from a market man's view point, per— tains to the amount of fattening finish present in a bird with ref— erence to the age. The breast, thighs, and the drumstick are given special attention and must be full and meaty. There should be very little indication of excessive amount of bone present. A marxet man thinks in terms of "cut-out" values when handling birds. He is inter- ested in low dressing and eviscerating percentages, and in obtaining a high percentage of edible meat. A high percentage of "edible meat or choice cuts" adds "eye appeal" to the dressed carcass, and also market demand. Possible variations in the dressing, eviscerating and bone percentages between breeds are of great interest to market men and certain breeds may be preferred over others. The terms "broad breast", "plumpness", and "fleshing" are used in the practice of grad— ing. Actually, there is little difference in body type, after the feathers are removed, between most breeds of approximately the same weight. It is difficult to be specific in pointing out extreme dif- ferences in type between the Mediterranean and Asiatic Classes of chickens and Cornish breeds. The Mediterranean Classes are normally more "rangy" in type than the Asiatics. The birds are inclined to be long legged in pro- 2. portion to body size. The breast of the Leghorn is not broad and meaty and the shoulder and back are narrow in width. The standard weight of the Cornish breed is greater than the Langshan, but lighter than the other Asiatic Classes. In general type both the Cornish and the Asiatic Class have deep and broad breasts. EXperiments are few in.which tangible measures of differ- ences in market characteristics between breeds have been made. "Market grade" is the common practical measure, but the yield of "choice cuts" is probably more precise. The term "choice cuts" refers to those which have the least perCentage of bone, or the greatest proportion of edible meat to bone. The cuts that are normally considered choice are the breast, thigh and drumstick. The principal loss in determining the percentage of edible meat in a carcass is that of the bones. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Variations between breeds in the percentage of bone of the total weight have been reported by Jull and haw (1925 . The varia- tions were not great. The heavier breeds had more total edible meat in prosortion to bone than the lighter breeds. Mitchell, Card and Hamilton (1926) found the greatest percentage of bone in young chicks. As the birds approached maturity, the percentage of bone decreased. Larger choice cuts are obtained from the larger sized breeds, and for this reason large breeds are preferred to small ones. Jaap and Penguite (1958) in comparing different breeds, found that birds having a broad, well-fleshed breast had a better "market type" than narrow breasted and angular ones. 5. A comparison of crossbred and purebred chickens, Maw (1955) found that Cornish x Barred Plymouth Rock and Leghorn x White Plymouth Rock were heavier than the Barred Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Red, Wyandotte and White Leghorn purebreds at 10 weeks of age. As roast- ers at 4 pounds weight, there was very little difference between the purebreds and the crossbreds in age. However, the Leghorn x White Plymouth Rock crosses reached the 4 pound weight two weeks earlier than the Reds or the Barred Plymouth Rock purebreds. Great— er differences in age at 5 pounds were noted between breeds. The Reds and Barred Plymouth Rocks attained the weight earlier than the other breeds. III. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION The objects of the eXperimental procedure reported herewith were to determine variations in the percentage of edible meat and proportions of "choice cuts" between purebred and crossbred roasting chickens, and to establish tangible measures of body type with relation to market grade, and to determine the possibility of salvag- ing food nutrients from raw chicken bones. IV. HETHODS AND MATERIAL Tests were made of male progeny of five different matings. The matings were Rhode Island Reds, White Leghorns, Dark Cornish x White Leghorn, White Cornish x Barred Plymouth Rock, and Barred Ply- mouth Rock. The birds were hatched June 15, wing—banded and reared on the college poultry experimental grounds. The pullets were sep- arated from the cockerels at eight weeks of age. One—half of the males were caponized at this age. 4. The birds were fed a growing mash ration* and were reared in batteries the first 6 weeks and then allowed on the range. Veighings were taken at regular intervals during the growth period. In the fall the birds were put into pens and confined. In February, at 10 months of age, for 5 successive days, 10 birds, 5 capons and 5 cockerels, one from each mating, were fasted for 24 hours. The birds were allowed water during the first 12 hours only. 1. PhotOgraphic Procedure, Body Measurements and Grading During the fasting period, the birds were photographed against a white grid back board. The grid was divided into one-inch squares. Black-and—white and Kodachrome photographs were taken.at a distance of 7 feet from the back board with the birds standing approximately 8 in- ches from the background.** *Used by hichigan State College Starter Ration White fish lOO# Wheat bran 400# Meat scraps 100 Yellow corn 640 Dried skim milk 100 Oyster flour 20 Soybean oil meal 100 Steam bone meal 10 Alfalfa meal 100 85 D cod liver oil 20 Ground oat groats 400 Salt lO . , Growing Ration Cracked corn and wheat fed in heppers and whole corn after birds were older. Ground corn 600# Alfalfa meal lOO# Ground oats 460 Soybean oil meal 80 Wheat bran 400 Salt (iodized) 20 Meat scraps lOO Ground oyster shell Whitefish meal 100 flour 50 Dried skim milk 100 **The photography results will be reported elsewhere. 5. Equipment used for photographing the birds was a Leica camera,/ an Argus 0—5 camera, a tripod for the camera using the colored film, two "fotoflood" lamps with reflectors, a Weston light meter, Type A Kodachrome and black-and-white panatomic film. Measurements were taken of 9 parts of each bird with calipers as follows:' length of back, the width of hips, width of breast, depth of front, depth of rear, length of breast, length of shank, drumstick length, and the drumstick diameter. These measurements were supple- mented by market grades. The live birds were graded by from three to five individuals.‘ Body conformation, amount of fleshing and the quality of finish were taken into consideration. The dressed carcasses were graded by the same individuals. After the birds were photographed, measured, graded, and fasted the required amount of time, they were weighed alive, stuck, bled, and debrained. The blood was caught in cups and weighed. The birds were dry-picked, except the first 10 individual birds, which were "soft scalded" and weighed again to determine losses. This loss included the total blood and feather loss. The carcasses were chilled for 24 hours at 550 F. and photographed. Photographing was done by placing the carcass upon its side on the grid which was placed flat on the floor. The photographs were taken.by the camera operator standing on a ladder above the birds, holding the camera at a distance of 7 feet from the grid. Both a black-and—white and a Kodachrome photograph were taken of each bird. Later the dressed carcass will be super-imposed upon the photograph of the live bird. After the side views were taken, the birds were hung on a chilling rack. A black-and-white and Kodachrome photograph 6. was taken of each class of birds together, showing the breast view. While the birds remained on the rack they were graded. The dressed birds were eviscerated by splitting the back with a meat saw and remov- ing the viscera. Then the carcass was Split the rest of the way so that one-half of it could be used for cutting into parts and the other half saved for a cooking test.* 2. Eviscerating Procedure The eviscerating procedure was as follows: First the shanks were removed by cutting them at the hooks. The head was removed by an incision with a cleaver at a point on the neck one inch from the base of the skull. Next the crop was removed by making an incision in the skin. After removing the crop, the esophagus and the larynx, an incision was made in the abdominal region and around the vent. The vent was loosened, the back was Split lengthwise with a meat saw, and the viscera was lifted out and separated into various parts. The edible viscera, the offal and the inedibles were each weighed separately, namely, the head, shanks, liver, gizzard, heart and the inedibles. The left half of the birds was chilled another 12 hours while the right half was cut into 8 parts, the neck, wing, drumstick, thigh, wishbone section of the breast, the breast, rear quarter of the torso or the back, and the front quarter. 5. Method of Cutting The method used for cutting the halves of the birds into the *The cooking results will be reported elsewhere. 7. . various parts was as illustrated in.Figure 1. Extension Bulletin N . 223*. Each cut was weighed separately on a balance calibrated in 5 gram units. The amount of work required for killing birds five days in suc- cession, made it necessary to preserve the parts by quick freezing. The frozen parts were thawed when convenient. The bones were removed from each part and weighed to find the percentages of bone in each. 'The "boning" was done without cooking the samples to determine how advantageous it may be to "bone" Certain uncooked parts for market- ing purposes. 4. Boning Procedure In the experimental procedure, only the bone was weighed. Loss or gain in weight due to moiSture and a small amount of meat present on the bones was not considered significant because weights were recorded from a balance calibrated in 5-gram intervals. After the bones were removed from the cuts, the boneless parts of each individual bird were wrapped together in locker paper and quick- frozen again to be used for a fat determination in each respective cut.** The bones from each bird were saved and then were cooked to determine how much food value could be salvaged. The Cooking was done by boiling the bones. After the bits of meat were Cooked to a stage when they were falling off the bones, the bones were removed from the broth, and the broth allowed to cool slightly. Owing to experimental error and difficulty in obtaining satisfactory results in the methods used, the experiment was not completed. It was thought that measure- ments of the density of the fat content of the broth might reflect the * Preservation of Meets and Poultry in Frozen Food Lockers. Mich. Ext. Bul. 225. ** Fat determinations will be reported elsewhere. 8. loss in cooking the bones. The difficulty encountered was that the stock was viscous and gelatinous so that successive hydrometer readings on the same sample were not identical. 5. Discussion of Results The results are presented in tabular form for convenient summarization and to conserve space. Data presented in all cases are on the average of five birds. In.the case of the Leghorn capons, the average is on three birds only. Dressing and eviscerating losses of the capons are given in Table l. The blood and feather losses were computed in percentages of the live bird weight. The head, shank, edible viscera and inedible viscera weight were computed in percentages of the dressed carcass weight. Analysis of the live weights (Table l) of the capons indicates that there are some notable differences. The White Cornish x Plymouth Rock cross was the heaviest of the group. The purebred Plymouth Rocks were next and the Rhode Island Reds were third. These were followed closely by the Dark Cornish x hhite Leghorn, and the White Leghorn purebreds respectively. There were no great differences in dressing and eviscerating losses between breeds or each class except the White Leghorns. The Leghorns in each class had a high blood, feather and head loss in comparison with the other breeds. They had the highest percentage of edible giblets also. In comparing the dressing losses of the cockerels, Table 2, the losses were approximately the same for all breeds except the Leg- Table 1. {LIGHTS OF VARIOUS PARTS OF‘CHICKENS OF DIFFERENT BRBLDING (CAPONS) Parts Plymouth hhite Cornish Rhoda White Dark Cornish Rock x Island Leghorn x Plymouth Rock Red Leghorn (White) Live weight (gr.) 5268.8 5552.1, 2851.1 1928.8 2724 Dressed . weight (gr.) 2914.6 5554.2 2624.1 1979.4 2859.2 Eviscerated weight Lgr.) 2510 2595 2059 l22§;5 1965 Blood 1058 (%)*11, 2.558 ___5.199 2.946 4.821 5.744 Feather loss (5)'* 10.855 8.485 7.962 10.984 6.915 Head loss (5144‘, 5.808 5.954 4.028, 8.559 4.890 Shanks loss_j%)fi** 4.495 4.506 4.151 4.865 4.145 Inedibles loss. C51** 7.719 6.756 8.251 8.422 7.654 Liver loss (%)** .995 .971 __.876 1.614 “1.155 Heart . loss jfili¥ .460 _*,606 .701 .778 ..756 _Gizzard loss (a) ** 5,451 2.425 5.125 5.209 2.616 * Based on live weight ** Based on the dressed weight lO. Table 2. WEIGHTS OF VARIOUS PLRTS 0F CHICKENS 0F DIFFEREIH‘BBEEDING (COCKFRELS) :=‘—‘__—-———_—1="— if _ 1' Parts Plymouth l’fhit'e Cornish Rhode White Dark Cornish Rock x Island Leghorn x . Plymouth Rock Red Leghorn (hhite) Live weight (gr.1 2941.9 5550.5 2960 1979.4 2869.2 Dressed weight (gr.) 2655.5 5078.1 2724 1570.6 2586.8 Fviscerated weight_1gr.) 2046 2488.6 2157 1551 2067 Blood lgss (%)* 4.115 2.298 5.851 4.951 4.007 Feather loss (i)* 10.494 8.150 7.975 10.551 8.415 Head loss Cil** 5.180_V 4.288 4.956 7.681 4.659 ‘_ Shanks loss (%)** 4.481 4.191 5.928 5.958 5.866 Inedibles loss._l%ls* 8.499 6.855 8.005_, 8.415 7.545 Livers lgssji)** 1,276 .877 1.057 1.555 1.198 Heart ' loss (%)** .706 .702 .698 .779 .775 Gizzard loss 1%)** 2.560 2.014 2.298 2.429 2.519 * Based on live weight ** Based on dressed weight 11. horns. Because of large combs of the Leghorns, the average head loss was high. The blood losses and the percentage of edible viscera were the highest in the Leghorns. Comparing the live, dressed and evis- cerated weights between the purebred and crossbred chickens in each class, the crossbreds were heavier in all cases. In live weight, the White Cornish x Plymouth hock crossbreds were 265.5 grams heavier than the Plymouth Rock purebreds. There was a difference of 517.8 and 285 grams in the dressed and eviscerated weights respectively. In the Dark Cornish x Leghorn cross, the crossbreds were heav- ier in live, dressed and eviscerated weight (795.2, 801.5 and 759.7 grams respectively) than the Leghorn purebreds. Considering weights of the cuts in the capons, it is indicated in Table 5 that there is not a great difference between cuts of differ- ent breeds. however, the breast weight of the Rhode Island Reds was lower, and the weight of the back was greater than the corresponding cuts of the other breeds. In the Leghorns, the wings were heavier, and the back was lighter than that of the other breeds. The breast weight of the Rhode Island Red cockerels, Table 4, was lower, and the weight of the back vas greater than the corresponding parts of the other breeds of cockerels. The Leghorn cockerels did not show any great variations in.weights by parts in comparison with the other breeds. The average percentage of bone found in each cut of the capons is shown in Table 5. The percentage of bone present in each "choice cut" of the Leghorns was higher than that of the other breeds. The Rhode Island Reds had the lowest percentage of bone in the breast and also .1n the back than that of the other breeds. 12. Table 5. TEIGHTS 013112111005 PARTEQE CAmngr DIFFERENT gamma; Plymouth White Cornish Rhode White Dark Cornish Parts Rock x Island Leghorn x _‘_ Plymouth Rock Red Leghorn LY‘niteL Eviscerated weight (g:.) 2510 2595 2059‘ 1225.5 1965 Wish Bone 1979.4 50.6 Dark Cornish x Leghorn 2724.0 2869.2 145.2 *Significantly different 21. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Dr. Baten made the following comment: "The material in Table 8 was tested by Bartlett's(l) test of heterogeneity to determine whether or not the data could be analyzed by one Analysis of Variance table. The test showed evidence of heterogeneity between the variances of the breeds Within the classes; hence, the sums of squares cannot be 'pooled to form an experimental error. This test was applied to the data pertaining to cockerels and it showed no evidence of heterogeneity among breed variances. An analysis of variance was carried out for the cockerel data and is given in Table 9. There are significant differences between the breed means." "Bartlett's test was applied to the capon data. It showed evidence of heterogeneity between breed variations". "Analysis of Variance, Table 10, of differences between the classes of the same breed shows that there was a significant difference only between the Plymouth Rock cockerels, and Capone." Variations in the percentage of edible meat and the proportions of "choice cuts" within and between breeds do exist. These individual differences make it difficult to draw conclusions on small groups of birds. Averages of the five birds in the breeds used did not show great significant differences between classes of each respective breed. It must be taken into consideration that these birds were 10 months old and (l) M. 5. Bartlett, "Properties of Sufficiency and Statistical Tests", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, Vol. 160, 1957 pp. 275. Rider, P. h. 1954, An Introduction to Modern Statistical Methods. John.Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 102. (This was used inflabove). 22. the cockerels were a bit "staegy". This evidence is brought out in Table 7 where the average live and dressed grades are compared. The crossbreds in both classes graded higher than did the purebreds, but neither graded very much above the other. There was a tendency on the part of the judges to grade the live birds lower than the dressed carcasses. Approximately 55 per cent of the eviscerated carcass is composed of "choice cuts" and 45 percent of the less "choice cuts". The "choice cuts" on the average contain less than 20 percent bone. It was found that bone was approximately 5 percent of the wish bone section of the breast, 18 percent of the breast, 15 percent of the thighs, and 22 percent of the drumsticm. The results indicate that the removal of the bones would be a feasible practice. Approximately 18 minutes time is required to remove the bones from an entire bird by parts. The breast, thighs, and drum- stick require approximately 6 minutes time for removal of bones. Removing the bones from "cheaper cuts" may not be advisable. A possible use for the stock from the csoked bones is suggested if satisfactory cooking methods of the raw bones are developed. The carcasses with greater percentages of edible meat were associated with the higher marKet grades and contained a lower per- centare of bone.* 25. ‘l 3. a Q. ". .8 an " .. 'Ta :4 v r ‘ .oJ J I ~ o .. 1" o C . .' 0 ~— 14' " C ' § . _ '.8‘ \~ ' . ' 0.1: O r 5 ~ I , i. ‘ . ".‘. , U \ .. '\ . o ' LI-‘ I a ' in r ' ~ ’3 l” ’I . ' m9 so u 7‘ Pivccnf you: not include gibler: : 24. Illustration 1, showing a White Leghorn capon (slip). The dressed carcass, grade C, is shown in Illustration 5, page 26. 25. lv_q—_—’w‘_r lfi_____._, . Illustration 2, showing a Barred Plymouth Rock Capon. The dressed carcass, grade A, is shown in illustration 5, page 26. 26. Illustration 5, showing dressed capon carcasses. From left to right - White Leghorn, Dark Cornish x White Leghorn cross, Barred Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Red, and White Cornish x Barred Ply- mouth Rock cross. V; SUMMARY The variations in percentage of edible meat and yield of choice cuts and market grade among capon and cockerel purebred and crossbred progeny from five different matings of poultry was determined by weigh- ing the parts and removing the meat from the bones. The progeny were Barred Plymouth Rock, White Cornish x Barred Plymouth Rock cross, Rhode Island Red, White Leghorn, and Dark Cornish x White Leghorn cross. By the criterion of percentage of edible meat the means of the cockerals were as follows: Rhode Island Red 78.82, White Cornish x Plymouth Rock cross 78.67, Dark Cornish x White Leghorn cross 76.82, Plymouth Rock 76.14, and hhite Leghorns 72.2.. In the capons the means of total edible meat were as follows: Dark Cornish X hhite Leghorn cross 78.92, White Cornish 1: Plymouth Rock cross 77.78, Plymouth Rock 76.47, hhode Island Red 76.50, and White Leghorns 74.70. hith respect to yields of "choice cuts" the values in percentages by weight of the cockerels were as follows: White Cornish x Plymouth cross 58.2, Dark Cornish x White Leghorn cross 58.1, White Leghorn 56.2, Plymouth Rock 55.92, and Rhode Island Red 55.21. In.the capons the values in percentages by weight of "choice cuts" were as follows: Dark Cornish x White Leghorns cross 56.4, Light Cornish x Plymouth Rock cross 55.6, Plymouth Rock 55.5, White Leghorns 55.5 and Rhode Island Red 52.1. Dressed market grade was associated with percentage of edible meat. The live weight of the cockerel progeny exceeded that of the caoon progeny in each mating except in the case of the Plymouth Rock and the Leghorns. 28. Measurements of nine parts of the anatomy were made together with photographs of the live birds and dressed carcasses for possible future correlation. 29. VI. LITERATURE CITED Jaap, R. George, and Robert Penguite, 1958. Criteria of conforma- tion in market poultry. Poul. bci., 17: 425-450. Jull, M. A., and h. A. Maw, 1925. Determination of the dressed, drawn and edible percentages of various kinds of domestic birds. ., l's‘. A., 1955. meat production in poultry. U. 8. Egg and Poul. Mag. 59(7): 18-47 hitchall, H. fi., L. E. Card and T. S. Hamilton, 1926. The growth of white Plymouth Racks. Univ. Ill. Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bull. 278. Rider, P. 3., 1954. An introduction to modern statistical methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 102. 50. VII. REFERENCES Brown, W. A., 1940. The grading of poultry in Canada. U. 8. Egg and Poul. Mag. 46(5); 148-151. Cook, W. 3., 1959. Precooling, freezing and storage of dressed poultry. U. 8. Egg and Poul. Mag. 46(7): 419-421, 440-445. Cook, W. H., 1959. Precooling of poultry. Food Res. 4: 245-258. Cook, h. 5., 1959. Surface drying of frozen poultry during storage. Food Res. 4: 407-418. Cook, W. fi., 1959. Frozen storage of poultry. LI. Bloom. Food Res. 4: 419-424. Cook, W. H, and h. h. White, 1959. Frozen storage of poultry. III. Peroxide oxygen and free fatty acid formation. Food Res. 4: 455-440. Edmunds, C. E., 1940. Federal inspection of dressed poultry for condition and wholesomeness. U. D. Egg and Poul. Mag., 46(7): 424-428. ‘ Harshaw, H. M., 1959. The effect of different cereals on the com- position of the edible portions of cockerels. Poul.-Sci. 18(6): 486-491. ’ Harshaw, H. M., 1958. The effect of fattening at different ages on the composition of cockerels. Poul. Sci. 17(2); 165-169. Harshaw, H. M., 1956. Effect of diet, range, and fattening on the physical and chemical composition of cockerels. Jour. Agr. Res. 55: 557-568. Holcomb, R., and W. A. Maw., 1954. The analysis and composition of the flesh of the domestic fowl. Canadian Jour. Res. 11(6): 615-621. Jaap, R. G., 1958. Body conformation of the live market turkey. P011]... 8010 173 120-1250 Jaap, R. G., 1958. Breeding for shape in chickens. U. 5. Egg and Poul. hag. 44: 488-489, 505. Jackson, H. W., and P. V. Mitchell, 1912. Experiments in fattening fouls for market. Penn. Sta. Rept. Jull, M. A., 1952. Egg production of greater dollar value than poultry meat production. U. D. bgg and Poul. Mag., 58: 12-15. Lerner, I. M., 1959. Predicability of body weight from live shank measurements. Poul. Sci. 18: 578-580. 51. Lerner, I. M., 1957. Shank length as a criterion of inheritant size. Poul. Sci. 16: 215-215. Lerner, I. M., 1957. Relative growth and hereditary size limitations in domestic fowl. Hilgardia 10: 511-560. Lippincott, Wm. A., 1911. Trussing and boning chicken for fancy trade. Iowa bta. bull. 125: pp. 5-18. Marsden, S. J., 1957. Dressing shrinkages of bronze turkeys. Poul. Sci. 16: 112-117. Maw, W. A., 1940. Quality of poultry meat. U. 8. Egg and Poul. Mag. haw, W. A., 1959. Factors influencing market quality and consumer value in poultry meat stock. U. b. hgg and Poul. Mag., 45: 204-206, 244. Maw, h. A., and A. J. G. Maw, 1958. The influence of type of sire on the body size of the progeny. U. Q. Egg and Poul. Mag. 44: 78-84. Maw, h. A., and I. h. Puddington, 1957. The determination of the effect of fattening on the carcass of.the chickens. Sci. Agr. 17: 540-545. Maw, E. A., A. J. G. haw., R. Holcomb, and L. H. Bemont, 1957. Protein levels in the fattening ration as influencing the compos- ition of the thigh muscles with different ages of poultry meat stock. sci. Agr. 17: 455-460. Maw, W. A., I. 5. Puddington, and A. J. G. Maw, 1957. Supplementary fats in the fattening ration. Sci. Agr. 18: 102-107. Maw, W. A., R. Holcomb, L. b. Rodger, and A. M. Franklin, 1956. The relationship of the distribution of body fat to the cooking losses with graded dressed poultry. U. 5. Egg and Poul. Mag., 42(5): 276-278, 314-515. Maw, R. A., 1955. How quality in poultry meat is affected by the distribution of fat in the carcass. U. D. Egg and Poul. Mag., 41(5): 52-5 . Maw, W. A., 1955. how the quality in poultry meat is affected by the distribution of fat in the carcass. U. 5. Egg and Poul. hag., 41(7): 16-19. Maw, W. A., and A. J. G. haw, 1955. The relationship of the dressed carcass to the live bird outline. U. D. Egg and Poul. Mag. 41: 15-20. haw, W. A., 1955. The cereal grains and their use in poultry nutrition II. Influences on live weieht gains and distribution of fat in fattening stock. bci. Agr. 16(2): 77-78. Morse, J. 3., D. V. m., 1959, Factors applied in the grading of dressed beef and poultry carcasses. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc., 47(6): 627-655. Shaible, P. J., and J. A. Davidson, 1941. Boninr,'curing and smoking poultry meat. U. 5. Egg and Poul. Mag., 47: 228-251, 255-256. Snedecor, George W., 1957. btatistical aethods. Collegiate Press, Inc., Ames, Iowa. Tressler, Donald 4., 1955. Freezer burn on refrigerated poultry. U. S. Egg and Poul. Mag., 41(9): 55-46, 41(10 : 58-41. Vernon, h. M., 1925. Losses enstained in preparing poultry for Mar 2048 3130‘ mm l USE um c i‘ I I J II I _ . I . , on, II. Q I ‘ l ‘ I . , 1 ' . W r: .-' " " .11 I I' "J J. ‘ . ,., I ‘I t ‘ H ‘ I I". I LI. I+- . I ' +I . ‘ I . - . ‘. . _ .’.' ', fl}! ‘ .I\\ . I“? . I {Iv 8‘ MI If: .‘y I I- I I (I ’ _ . _ I . II 'I ‘ ’ II.:I . I I: I . II I \ 1" ‘3.” ‘ I J“ \IJI '0' ‘1 II'. . In: [I . g‘. . ,N. " Iv: ‘eII' “VI. A. 3”. " ‘ \. ’ , II ‘. I ‘.‘.‘L[’ I‘ ' H I -' L, I 5‘1“" t ‘oI‘I " II. '),‘ I. ‘.I' '. ‘3; l " "‘I' ' 3I'.2-t I‘ 1 l , I.‘u. I l “T t , ., ( ( ~ . ‘- s " I . . + ' 0‘ I"; ‘ . .I I‘ ' o.I_ -. - . I". ‘ . ' \ u y a 0 Q '3‘ "I'vvh-HM’ .r * " ' ' ~ . «If-3}.» ‘4 ~. - .' .*' :. V "e ‘I R ‘ ' . .‘ . . l . '1? w... I' I ' "‘9' ‘ ‘I’ 3"" "L J '\ l‘.‘ ' -' ¢ "04.5, ' "1 ‘ 7! , ' ‘ .. . . r" . ‘ I "fa" ‘ . . I , u . ‘2 ,y .' . ; I .+ .¢. .. ma . I I. I I I.. : a..§. . . . § .3 I f k .I-!'IL.‘:%. ‘ 'VAK LII .'I‘"Jl{ ' . ‘I 3}: I“ L“; “1‘ L' l! ',‘.‘IIt.‘.-‘I ‘ II I é \\.r 'ID‘ ~ .' . it"s? ' "", "" 3‘." . J . A - z . i I ' ‘ “ ' . ‘L .' .‘ ‘Jwrsw ”fig-'7" ":‘."“f'z"".£ , ., '_ 'J I I‘.‘ .33?” 9 IE: I I '. ' _7 .u I (I . n-‘ (I III I“. . IL: IIII ‘ . I "\I . III, -I . .II\ II V . . r I l I .l '0 + I I'lfi' r ‘ I. \I'Il . {I ’0' . “I ‘. I I: ‘. 1 II II ‘ II I { ‘afijdqf’f L‘fih'l’ig ' “"2; '. --"‘ ’ .' . _. ‘ "' -.ol:"’ 'c“’..;"- .— ‘1‘4 ..I \‘ a‘ I. . fag; "Icahn. '1.» +£3§vfpu~ \II .I V9.3. I ,.: .- "rIth. . ”H9. we. . e.:-:-. .. 93'; 'l‘ ‘1‘“ 7 O ; “'. - ‘ I \ ‘. :g I.‘ l ' , ’6 “"7 'I 'g. ,‘ 't 5%“: 4“ 9-4-3." N in" ) “"I"(l 1L" 4.) y ,.¢I nupficfiz; I fl . fi I .I ' "u ‘ o l .n.’ \ '+ ‘ ’- ’A'. .‘1' ‘ ‘ ‘ v; - ‘ 'w t .1. ‘ n ‘ ‘ (fifliivfit I?! Iqu: ‘ I . .I ‘ ‘._ 1‘” 1‘IquI'IIIIQII‘II'IItr‘IIIIQ ‘i’IIL-I Lih'l'r J‘ I III” I ~. :-. A ‘. ' -a "-I - ‘_ ‘ r' - . . ' V. ‘.~ ‘.-:'~‘ -. d'."."Y“ .IH."5 . ' f“ '-. ('39,. II'" , ' -- ' In} Vi ' Jr“. “35;“; 'I-I'IIu‘fi'. :7 - '1 ' ‘ '.. I . fi“.' _ ‘I o ’ ' n . w“; - . ‘ I ' H n ‘ .H‘ I ‘ . ' ' I I- . . I ~ I ‘K 2 3‘ :II 'dI'3‘l I 7.: .I .i "v ', . .‘ crr‘I‘d '§ ~ _ v " I ‘ ' ' - v I." "' ‘r". l: ‘- '1' . 1' K. ' I- 'J . . . a i .~. .10 I» . 7, - 21 A ~. . ~ ~ . .., .. '°7‘. I.-II ' ‘V ks " ‘ y“, :-.' r . 1 'A ‘ I .uI I '.I. . II - -. I III ' ‘ . . -- .‘ . I +‘ ‘ " (v' . ' o ‘ .‘ .\ 5" {2ij Q I 3%}; it ?’%*‘I:;~;I¢I:<- C .I, r I fiI'II '1’ I I, " . g 0 @4I fix “Viki I ~ 4 ‘ \Y' 't I + ‘. {I , ~I- ‘v .‘ ,c . . I I I. I I I IIII I I II' I ,II ._'I£'_II‘. I '4' u . '% R . I I I- 4':- 0‘ .II'I II"1-’h -. I I .U III LII II.III...I II III: I I II I .‘ .. a, . I, - . ’II . : I II .. -IIIII . I :I I I1 .. “I - I III _II ,1 I5.‘ I IIII . ,4 I III" I I N I «if?! ‘ ‘ ‘ I : I" g ' ‘ {533‘ , '55. ., :- I' '? i . I, g. ’3" . - «I'J' ‘. ~. ' $‘6JVI-Ixau‘ it)". LII I’I. 97‘» II' '. 5:3: III 'I.-II“. '37-“ . I! Ir L‘ f :I r '.II 7. -‘.- 916'“: afir'f 3&:€6I2.-;Tf}§’ - W'q‘ A." 61:31:" ‘-I~I 3%. . k . 1%: II: III-II ..I I II L I ‘ “.Arl’.' "‘ W ‘ ‘le , ‘- I‘: " I ’. T.‘ ‘ , N t .. . ' I l I ' I » - ‘ , “l" I,‘ ‘ -’.‘ . I l . .- +4422.— ~ 4 ~ : 2 mm 4:, a» a: a . , . . ...w . . 2 ' . "--,'."J: . .4~1“c"l"a'l."' - . . . .‘ j. . '. ‘ ‘ '.‘\ H . Vfll“+: fl. 1 94a .‘. II». 11;“. :- h 1’ I; r ‘34" ,v: + .. ‘5 II ‘ I '- 3. ,. : '33“ -- -- -\,, . . : a- vase- ‘ c . a . t. . ‘ ’ - "3‘1" ' ,"r". ': .., . I, . ‘5" Ii“, .J‘ .7510 . . " "AI-OI" ’ ‘ "$1 " I." l , ‘ . ' ' A“ “ I, «y . I' a p v ' " ’kflrélefif '\ I- J" J4. + . , .u I I. ) I w I.‘ ':' II. .I I 1. ,v.‘ ‘I\ .‘y.4\ .> ,I\ ' 1 a ‘4. t \I "_ x. I .I ‘I& I- ' o ' I.‘ - I.I ". .-.I..’q I - . II . I. I‘ . u'. . ‘. VII . I . I I- :-« ,-, I . .IIIuv III‘ '. I + I ‘54“ vim-W ; -: . .. : - . - ~ .. v a , . 9 + ~22": '-..‘ r: 4' :' . ». "' n. 6 ' . I |. .x . ll" \' y I. I . ' . I .: ‘ -' .. ' .'-,< \. ‘ '-' I ;l~‘|‘ ' - b3: 1-:..! . I 2 . ;' . , '- ', ‘ .. _ - -: P‘. .. " -".‘_ l" . " . .I I: I . . . - ~ - . I‘ . . ' .. , - '4‘ _~ . . . - "T . )VI.J‘§ .' 'I. ". + I] ,9 . . . . n . .,.I . . A... .c, II, . II “ 1 f, . . II" . .‘ -. -' I I‘.“ l r . It '. -, .fi. kl“), 7:. ”II' I_ I . V (vs. J‘ if: ,‘ ' . _ '. ‘."_. ' I f ' . ' I-l .I-q‘ ': :1 3' V ' ~ ' 'Il. ’. I' Hf". " \ / ~ " ' ‘ ' ,Ii . I 1‘ " I _ PI“? I I . . .0}; -. I .I‘.‘ _—IIII ‘-I ;. II' .. II I} IL. .II IVIIHII IIII_ ."'I II I II II a“ .I. .-I: 5")“; I ”II "b '. I." .Q I ’5‘? I .IIIIII I ,I_ .‘7 II‘I.“ ‘ I I . I. .( p . ‘ ,v; ' . . .. . I 1: 1". - M J . ‘hle-‘I I. .' ’\E.L.'I'- I ‘1 ‘I’ . . . ,: I, I .. I .. . I 4‘ II I . .. '.‘ . . .‘Is I n. I..'.‘.." .I‘ III +' "M's ’< WWW " "5 2‘2"." ' " ‘ ’ ' ' " ‘ ' ' - ." 1' ‘-r‘ I \ "v ' I (.3? -« :1-»1‘.‘-f.r ' w .I; ~14 :4 4a}. -.,; . m». '- ~ '; a" i ‘1“ (I | 1’63: :3? 154.7144: IgI Wilt-ELI: j”??? II III II I .1 '. '59:.» b',‘ ' ”(f I:‘ ' u ' w l ‘ . > ‘ .~ ', iii-3 {'.I'. ”(.53 :2 2: .2 . . w , I ' I . . ' I' ' I o I: 1 ~. {1,29ng Meg“: ' '. 1‘9" .1- . ' I v ' l I. -' M_ '7" “ ‘1./ w. ' *‘I 1‘ . . .IV I‘ . J , - . ~ . I,‘ « I . I . .II. 9‘ . '. 'I . .‘ . . I , ‘ J . II. “:'£:f’rbl‘r'::‘g‘A7 II .(II . . I - ' . ..." . ~. .-' " ' . . ' ... J ‘ ‘. '. :t'.' r‘“.' ,.:. '; .~:=+.+.+»+:. »: , :. v: . 2: 4 -.= +'a&$uw»ruu~¢ I .jr‘\_ .' I . r3“. . “I NC". I 1 . I ‘. ‘I II. I . . £II‘ . _ . .‘ . . I I . Ik _. ,I . . I. ,- IIII. 'Ill ."¢_..(I'II:‘ I;I I I ‘ . ¢ I f', . ' 'r ~‘ II '.' . ‘ . '. -\. I ‘. ’ ,I .I-‘ E II I" . :7 + ‘ 'n .I‘ t I I a l ' . . I '.+ I ' . . . ' ' , I 3 ,"s ‘ _ I ' - - : . .. ' . I " ‘ ‘ f. . -- ' I .w. ..‘ - ‘ .' '3’) - ~’ ‘ 4 . u ' , L 3'} 9'3 3‘ I (A .0 ‘ ~‘. " . . - "I: ‘. . I! -. I, .‘ l" 2?. 1I- “I _I' Ir , .' ' . '5’“! 5w.» . .~\ ‘ w. ‘ l ‘3‘ J .‘ . .l I " ' .4 ~' I I h I' . I ' I’ -‘ ‘ u I .‘ 'fi) , ‘ > '7‘ , , ‘ I . I ’ I a ‘ ._ f . I". *‘fiznbna c I g ,‘ 1 A - I . ‘ I. . 4, i . - ‘ - I . ’I ' «I '0‘: g‘:' "‘Ll l !'|'.:I‘ 1'. I E"‘ II' I .‘ . '2‘ "-~ .‘I‘. '-.¢{"“¢ : ~- kc» v . i ', 3 Lu , . - . - . . ~ \ .I .I .- - -. , . . , ' \ ~. . I _\ . . . . 1' I I I . I - - I . u . I . , I I . I- ‘II- . l ‘. ‘ r r...‘ ".=I‘. ‘ ‘ t ”'II‘IIIIIII’IIIII’IIII[IIIII‘IIIIIIIIIIII'IIII‘III‘5