.i’i’ARY ‘ (' M ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME LINEAR.AND PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TO BEEF CARCASS COMPOSITION by Deloran M. Allen Eighty steer carcasses were selected for chilled carcass weight and 12th rib fat thickness (average of three measurements). Two weight grouPs (500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 lb.) of 40 carcasses each and four fat thickness ranges of 10 carcasses each (0.26 to 0.50 in., 0.51 to 0.75 in., 0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in.) were selected within each weight group. The carcasses were subjectively scored for each grade factor and some linear measurements of fat and muscle were recorded. External fat thickness probes were made 4, 8 and 12 in. off the dorsal midline of the left side of each carcass, perpendicular to the anterior edge of the 5th, 8th and 11th thoracic vertebrae, the 1st, 4th and 6th lumbar vertebrae and the 3rd and 5th sacral vertebrae. The left side of each carcass was cut into wholesale cuts and physi- cally separated into muscle, fat and bone with the exception of the round, from which the runp was removed and then the two parts were individually physically separated; and the rib which was cut into the 6-7-8, 9-10-11 and 12th rib sections and each section was physically separated. The right side of each carcass was cut into boneless, closely trimmed (approxi- mately 0.3 in.) retail cuts by wholesale cut. In most instances, highly significant (P < .01) correlations were found between the fat probes and separable components, retail and fat trim yields. As high as 96% of the variation in carcass separable fat, external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and total retail fat trim could be accounted for in either pounds or percent of these variables by combinations of fat thickness, probes and carcass weight. Deloran M. Allen Percent separable muscle and fat from the 9-10-11 rib section and the wholesale flank showed the highest and most consistent relationships to percent carcass separable muscle and fat of any of the wholesale cuts. The ease of separation and low economic value of the flank provided a ‘more rapid yet accurate cut than those presently used for prediction of carcass composition. Eighty-eight percent of the variation in percent carcass separable muscle, 94% of the variation in percent carcass separ- able fat and 83% of the variation in percent carcass separable bone could be accounted for by a combination of flank separable components and objective carcass measurements. Percent retail yield of the flank was also highly related (P < .01) to percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck and total carcass retail yield (0.81 and 0.88, respectively) and was included in prediction equations to estimate both of these carcass yields. Low, non-significant correlation coefficients were found between 1. ‘dg£§i_muscle potassium and sodium and l. dogs} muscle weight, area and total carcass separable muscle (range, 0.00 to 0.30). Means of the organoleptic analyses were not consistent with compositional data. THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME LINEAR.AND PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TO BEEF CARCASS COMPOSITION By :3 Deloran M3 Allen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1966 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation and thanks to Dr. R. A. Merkel and Dr. W. T. Magee of the Animal Husbandry Department for the invaluable guidance, assistance, and encouragement they have ex- tended during this study. Special appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Ken Kemp and Mrs. Bea Eichelberger for their invaluable help. Appreciation is also expressed to all members of the guidance committee and to the Allen Packing Company of Charlotte, Michigan, and Van Alstine Packing Company of Okemos, Michigan. Mbst of all the author wishes to thank his wife, Joyce, for encour- agement and help during this study and a special thanks to his parents for their understanding and encouragement throughout his lifetime. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTmD UCT ION O O O O I O I O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Early Beef Cattle Evaluation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fattening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Physical Methods for Estimating Carcass Composition . . . . Physical Separation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10-11 Rib Section Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12th Rib Separation . . . . . . . . . ..... ......... Round, Chuck and Foreshank Separation . . . . . . Flank Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Individual and Groups of Muscles to Carcass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Individual and Groups of Bones to Carcass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Relationship of Linear Measurements to Carcass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Specific Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 oooooouxnu @ Chemical Methods for Estimating Carcass Composition . . . . 12 Relationship Between Muscle Content of Potassium and Sodium and Carcass Composition . . . . 12 Linear and Multiple Regression Equations for Predicting Carcass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Beef Carcass Retail Yield Studies . . . . . . . . . . 15 Variability of Beef Carcasses Retail Yield . . . . . . 15 Factors Influencing Variability of Retail Yield . . . 16 Influence of Fat Upon Retail Yield . . . . . . . . . . 16 Influence of Carcass weight Upon Retail Yield . . . . 19 Influence of Conformation Upon Retail Yield . . . . 20 Influence of L. dorsi Muscle Area Upon Retail Yield . 23 Influence of Bone Upon Retail Yield . . . . . . . . . 24 Regression Equations for Measuring Differences in Retail Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 iii Page EXPERMNTAI‘ PROCEDURE 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 2 6 Source of Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Grouping O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 2 6 Slaughtering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Subjective Carcass Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Linear Carcass Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Linear Fat Measurements at the 12th Rib . . . . . . . 27 Fat PrObes O O O I O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O I 27 Length and Circumference of Round . . . . . . . . . . 31 Depth at 10th and 12th Thoracic Vertebrae . . . . . . 31 Depth of Fat over the Brisket . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cutting Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Left Side 0 I O O C O O I O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 33 Bone and Muscle Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Right Side 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 33' Tenderness Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Chemical AnalySis O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 35 Statistical AnaIYSi-S O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O 0 O O O 35 RESst AND DISCUSSION 0 C O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 36 Effect of Carcass Weight on Pounds and/or Percent Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . 36 Effect of Fat Thickness on Pounds and/or Percent Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . 41 Carcass Weight and Fat Thickness Interaction Effects on Pounds and/or Percent Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Relationships Between Subjective Carcass Scores and Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . . . . . . 42 Relationship Between Linear Fat Measurements and Separable Components, Retailand Fat Trim Yields . . . . . . . . 47 Relationships Between Some Linear Carcass Measurements and Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trbm'Yields . . . 56 iv Page ‘Multiple Regression Analyses of Objective Carcass Measure- ments on Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ZMultiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Fat on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . . . 59 ‘Multiple Regression Analyses of External Fat Trim from the Round, Loin, Rib and Chuck on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Retail Fat Trim on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . . . 66 ‘Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Separable Carcass ‘Muscle on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . 68 ‘Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Bone on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . . 71 'Multiple Regression Analyses of Retail Yield Measures on Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . . . . . 73 Relationship Between Wholesale Cut Separable Muscle and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 74 Relationship Between Wholesale Cut Separable Fat and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim.Yie1ds . . . 81 Relationship Between Wholesale Cut Separable Bone and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields . . . 85 Relationships Between Percent Separable Components of Some Easily Separated Wholesale Cuts and Percent Separable Carcass Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Multiple Regression Analyses of Separable Carcass Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields on Objective Carcass Measurements and Wholesale Cut Separable Components . 93 Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Muscles on Objective Carcass Measurements and weight of Wholesale Cut Separable Components . . 93 Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Muscle on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Separable Muscle . . . . . . . . . 99 Multiple Regression.Analyses of Separable Carcass Muscle on Combinations of Objective Carcass Measurements and Flank Separable Components . . . . . . . . . 102 Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Fat on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Separable Fat . . . . . . . . 106 Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Bone on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Separable Components . . . . . . . 110 Page Relationships Between weight of Certain Entire Muscles and 'Muscle Groups and weight of Total Separable Carcass Musc1e and Bone O O O O O O O O O O O C I O O O O O O 1 14 Relationships Between weights of Certain Entire Bones and Bone Groups and weight of Total Separable Carcass Muscle and Bone O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 114 ‘Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Separable Carcass Muscle and Bone on Individual and Groups of Muscle and Bone weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Separable Carcass Muscle on Muscle and Bone weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Separable Carcass Bone on Muscle and Bone weights 119 Relationships Between weight and Percent Total Muscle, Fat, and Bone O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 2 1 Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Retail Yield and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim YiEIds O O O O O l O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 123 Relationships Between Pounds and Percent Wholesale Cut Fat Trim and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 127 Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Bone Yield and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 132 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Retail Yield Measures on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yields and Carcass Scores and Measurements . . . . . . . . 136 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Retail Yield from the Round, Loin, Rib and Chuck on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yields and Objective Carcass Measurements . . . . 136 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Retail Round, Loin, Rib and Chuck Yield on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Flank Retail Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on a Combination of weights of Wholesale Cut Yields and Carcass Scores and Measurements . . . . . . . . . 143 Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yield Percentages and Carcass Scores and Measurements . . . . . . . 146 Multiple Regression Analyses of Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on Objective Carcass Measure- ments and Percent Flank Retail Yield . . . . . . 147 Page Relationships Between L. dorsi Muscle Potassium and Sodium and L. dorsi weight, Area and Total Carcass Separable MUSCIe O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 151 Means and:Standard Deviations of Some Subjective Carcass Scores and Some Chemical and Organoleptic Characteris- tics O O O O O O C I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 152 SWRY O O l O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 155 LITEMTUE CITED 0 O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 161 SIIPHIEMNT O O O O O O O O C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 168 APPENDIX 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 189 vii Table 3a 4a 10 11 LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of carcasses within weight and fat thickness groups C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 26 Characteristics and scores used in the subjective carcass eval‘lation I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 28 Means and standard deviations of weights of carcass separable components, retail and fat trim.yields,.l. dorsi muscle area and average 12th rib fat thickness . . . . . . . . . 37 38 Means and standard deviations of percent carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields . . . . . . . . . . 39 40 Simple correlation coefficients between subjective carcass scores and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim.yields for the combined weight groups . . . . . . . . 43 Simple correlation coefficients between subjective carcass scores and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . . . . . 44 Simple correlation coefficients between subjective carcass scores and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim.yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . . . . . 45 Simple correlation coefficients between linear fat measure- ments and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . . . . . . 48 Simple correlation coefficients between linear fat measure- ments and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . . . . . . . . 50 Simple correlation coefficients between linear fat measure- ments and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . . . . . . . . 52 Simple correlation coefficients between some linear carcass measurements and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . . . . 57 viii Table Page 12 Simple correlation coefficients between some linear carcass measurements and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 1b. and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 13 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . 60 14 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . 61 15 Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 62- 16 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 63 17 Coefficient of determination between weight of external fat trim.from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combin- ation of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 18 Coefficient of determination between weight of external fat trim.from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 19 Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim.and a combination of objective carcass fat measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . 66 20 Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass fat measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each measurement (500 to 550 lb. Weight group) . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 67 21 Coefficient of determination between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass fat measure- ' ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . 68 ix Table 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Page Coefficient of determination between weight of separable carcass muscle and combination of objective carcass measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . 69 Coefficient of determination between percent separable carcass muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . 70 Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 71 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 72 Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . 74 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable muscle and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . 76 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable muscle and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . 77 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable muscle and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . 78 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable fat and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . 82 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable fat and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . 83 X Table 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Page Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable fat and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . 84 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable bone and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . 86 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable bone and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . 87 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut separable bone and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . 88 Simple correlation coefficients between percent separable components of some wholesale cuts and separable components Of the carcass O O O C O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 91 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separ- able muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components, and the regression coefficient for each variable (combined weight group) . . . . . . . . . . 98 xi Table 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Page Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . 99 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable 'muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight group) . . . . . . . 100 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . 101 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 102 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and flank separable components as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and flank separable components as predictors, and the coefficients of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . 104 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and flank separable components as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . 105 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable fat using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable fat as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable fat using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable fat as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . 108 xii Table 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Page Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable fat using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable fat as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . 109 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable bone using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable components as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 111 ‘Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable bone using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable components as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . 112 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent total carcass separable bone using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable components as predictors, and the coefficient of detenmination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . 113 Simple correlation coefficients between some individual muscle and muscle group weights and carcass separable muscle and bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 115 Simple correlation coefficients between individual bone and bone group weights and carcass separable muscle and bone I O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 116 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Coefficient of determination between weight of separable carcass bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 xiii Table 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Page Simple correlation coefficients between weights and percents of total carcass separable muscle, fat and bone for the combined and individual weight groups . . . . 122 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut retail yield and carcass separable components, retail fat trim.yields for the combined weight groups . . and 124 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut retail yield and carcass separable components, retail fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . . . 125 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut retail yield and carcass separable components, retail fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . . . Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut trim and carcass separable components, retail and fat yields for the combined weight groups . . . . . . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut trim and carcass separable components, retail and fat yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . . . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut trim and carcass separable components, retail and fat yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . . . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut bone yield and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups . . . . . . . . .'. 133 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut bone yield and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group . . . . . . . 134 Simple correlation coefficients between wholesale cut bone yield and carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group . . . . . . . 135 Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . 137 Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of percent wholesale cut yields and carcass scores and measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . 138 xiv Table 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Page ‘Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield using objective carcass measurements and percent flank retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight groups) 140 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed round, loin,rib and chuck retail yield using objective carcass measurements and percent flank retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield using objective carcass measurements and percent flank retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Coefficient of determination between pounds of boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of 'wholesale cut yields and carcass scores and measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of ‘wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 ‘Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield using objective carcass measurements and percent flank retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight groups) . . . . . . 148 Table 82 83 84 85 Page Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield using objective carcass measurements and percent retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . 149 Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and/or percent boned, trimmed total carcass retial yield using objective carcass measurements and percent flank retail yield as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 150 Simple correlation coefficients between muscle potassium and sodium and 1. dorsi muscle weight and area, and total carcass separable muscle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Means and standard deviations of several subjective carcass scores and some chemical and organoleptic characteristics 153 xvi Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page Illustration showing fat thickness measurements taken at the 12th rib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Illustration showing the pattern of the fat probes taken 4, 8 and 12 in. from the midline on the carcass . . . . . 3O Illustration showing the measurement of fat depth over the brisket . . . . . . . . p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 xvii LIST OF SUPPLEMENT TABLES Table Page A Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 168 B Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 168 C Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 169 D Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 169 E Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . 170 F Coefficient of detenmination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 170 G Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from.the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression co- efficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 H Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression co- efficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 I Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) 172 xviii Table Page Coefficient of determination between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim.and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Coefficient of determination between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 1b.'weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . 175 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . 175 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separ- able bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 176 xix Table AB Page Coefficient of determination between percent carcass sep- arable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 176 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass sep- arable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements and weight of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separ- able muscle and a combination of objective carcass measure- ments, flank separable component weights and kidney knob weight, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . 177 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Coefficient of determination between.weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (7000to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . . . 179 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . 179 Table AC AC AH AI AJ Page Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . 180 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of wholesale cut weights and yields, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . 182 Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements, carcass scores and flank yield and fat trim weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . 182 Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass scores, measurements, foreshank bone weight and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 183 Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 xxi Table AN A0 AP AQ AR AT AU Page Coefficient of determination between percent round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements, foreshank bone weight and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . 183 Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass ‘measurements, scores and percent flank yield, and the re- gression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Coefficient of detenmination between percent round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass measurements, scores and percent flank yield, and the re- gression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Coefficient of detenmination between weight of carcass retail yield and carcass weight, flank yield and fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of kidney knob weight and flank retail yield and fat trim weights, and the regression coeffi- cient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail- yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . 186 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass measurements, scores and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups) . . . . . . . . 186 Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . 187 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group) . 187 xxii Table AV AW Page Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass weight and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each variable (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . 188 Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass weight, percent flank yield and percent kidney knob, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 xxiii Appendix I A I B I C II A II B III A III B III C IV LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Carcass evaluation - subjective scores Carcass evaluation - objective fat measures . Carcass evaluation - objective measurements . Right side - wholesale cut yield . . . . . . . . . Retail cutout - right side Physical separation of wholesale cuts - left side . Separable muscle, fat and bone of 6-7-8th, 9-10-11th, and 12th rib sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muscle and bone weights . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical and organoleptic data List of variables on data cards . . . . . . . . . . xxiv Page 189 192 207 210 216 222 237 240 246 249 INTRODUCTION Consumer research studies have repeatedly shown that the American consumer selects beef primarily for maximum quantity of muscle with a minimum amount of fat and/or bone. Today's retailer reflects consumer demand for well muscled, trim retail cuts in his purchases of carcass beef. Additionally, retail cut yield grade is an Optional feature in the present U. S. Department of Agriculture beef grade specifications. Thus,the producer must market cattle with a high quantity of inherent ‘muscling and a minimum of trimable fat to provide the retail cuts demanded by todays beef industry and consumer. Beef carcasses commensurate with these specifications should have at least minimum U. S. D. A. Choice quality, external fat thickness between 0.25 and 0.5 in. and yield a 'minimum of 65% boneless trimmed retail cuts. Such cattle exist today, but many beef carcasses have excessive fat or deficient muscling and combinations of these two factors. Objective, yet practical, methods are needed to accurately identify and measure carcass quantitative and qualitative differences. When such methods become available, it is anticipated they would be applicable for characterizing these same differences in live cattle; thus, providing more objective criteria for selection of breeding stock to meet today's consumer demand. The most accurate methods to date for measuring carcass quantitative differences necessitate destruction of at least a portion of the carcass (physical separation and chemical analyses). Non-destructive methods -2- currently used involve various combinations of objective and subjective criteria, but none accurately measures quantitative differences and/or value. Breidenstein (1962) reported as much as a $13.54 per hundred- weight difference in value within the same carcass grade. Previous beef carcass composition studies have consistently indicated that degree of fatness has a very marked effect upon yield of boneless, trimmed retail cuts. Yet fat thickness as conventionally measured at the 12th rib has repeatedly been found to account for less than 40% of the variation in total carcass fat. Likewise,indices of muscling such as area of longissi- m £191.81 as well as other muscles account for less than 40% of the variation in yield of boneless, trimmed retail cuts. Thus,this study was initiated in an attempt to more accurately pre- dict total physically separable fat and muscle as well as yield of bone- less, trimmed retail cuts using a rather comprehensive number of objective measurements. The specific objectives of this study were: 1. To develop a repeatable, accurate and practical method for measuring total separable fat and muscle in beef carcasses. 2. To study the variation in percent trimmed wholesale round, loin, rib and chuck from steer carcasses of approximately the same weight and degree of fatness. 3. To study the variation in actual boneless, trimmed retail yield among steer carcasses of approximately the same weight and degree of fatness from estimations by several existing regression equations. 4. To develop a regression equation in an attempt to more accurately account for the total variation in boneless, trimmed retail yield. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Early Beef Cattle Evaluation Studies Research studies during the last half-century have revealed the tre- mendous variability in production traits and carcass characteristics which exists within the beef cattle population. The investigations of Lawes and Gilbert (1860) and Henry and Sanborn (1883-1890) were among the first reported studies of carcass composition following the growing and fattening period. Trowbridge gt 31. (1918) conducted an exhaustive study of the chemical composition of gains made by three year old steers during the fattening process to determine what changes take place in the form of the animal. They observed a marked increase in fat during the fattening period. Robert Bakewell is credited with being the first great improver of cattle. He developed a low-set, blocky, quickdmaturing type of cattle through selection. As quoted by Ensminger (1955), "His objective was to breed cattle that would yield the greatest quantity of good beef rather than to obtain great size." In the ensuing years, "beef-type" cattle have become identified with selection for increased quantity of muscle relative to other cattle types. Wilson and Curtis (1893) reported limited data comparing performance traits and carcass qualities of beef- and dairy-type steers. Dairy- and beef-type steers had approximately equal gains and percent of high priced cuts. These workers concluded, however, that the carcasses from the dairy-type steers were deficient in conformation or shape of the high priced cuts, as well as having less marbling. Moreover, they reported excessive internal fat in the carcasses from some of the dairy-type steers. Knapp and Nordskog (1946a, b), using data from the U. S. Range Livestock Experiment Station, presented the first known heritability estimates of quantitative traits in beef cattle. Heritability estimates have been determined for most of the economically important performance traits in beef cattle (Black and Knapp, 1936; Black, 1938; Knapp £5 31., 1941; Knapp and Black, 1942; Knapp and Clark, 1950; Warwick, 1958; Carter and Kincaid, 1959; Shelby £5 51., 1960; Gregory £5 21., 1961). These early studies were primarily concerned with production traits and type studies (Knox and Koger, 1946). More recently, other traits such as length of calving interval, maternal ability, dressing percent, 1,‘gg£§i ‘muscle area, tenderness, and other carcass quantitative and qualitative characteristics have been studied. Heritability has been established for many of these traits (Knapp and Clark, 1950; Clark, 1954; warwick, 1958; Gregory st 21., 1961). Growth The recent emphasis upon dietary weight control as well as the con- troversial incrimination of animal fats in cardiovascular diseases has precipitated much interest in body composition studies. Before attempting to study composition, a knowledge of animal body growth and development is necessary. Meek (1901), Brody and Ragsdale (1924) and Lush (1928) were among the early workers who studied post-natal growth. They studied external body measurements and live weight and concluded that the latter increased at a faster rate than any other single body measurement. In addition, they found that linear skeletal measurements such as measurements of the skull and height measurements over the shoulder and rump increased at a slower rate than did measurements of fat and muscle mass. These workers determined that the skeleton was better developed at birth than were muscle and fat masses which constitute the greatest proportion of total body mass at nonmal slaughter weight. The conclusions of these early workers were supported by the findings of Hammond (1932), MeMeekan (1941), wallace (1948) and Palsson and Verges (1952) resulting from complete dissection of swine and sheep carcasses. These latter workers concluded that a primary growth wave occurs from the cranium to the facial parts of the head and posteriorally to the lumbar region. A secondary growth wave starts in the metacarpals and metatarsals and continues down toward the digits and upward along the limbs to the lunbar region. These findings led to the measurement of area of the 1, $233; muscle in the middle of the back as an index of muscling. Palsson (1939) reported that muscle development could most accurately be determined from the cross-sectional area of the l, dgrgi muscle at the last rib, since this area of the animal body is the last to reach full development. Luitingh (1962) observed from dissection studies of cattle that the cut, "the loin" was not the latest developing part of the animal. This agrees with the findings of Butterfield (1963b) who concluded from his studies with beef cattle that muscles along the spine were constant in their rate of development when compared with the rate of deve10pment of total carcass lean. In an extensive dissection study, he determined the rate of proportional increase in muscle groups in different breeds of cattle using as a control the proportion of these muscle groups from pre-natal, but near full-term calves. He classified the different muscles as early deve10ping, late developing, very late developing and average deve10ping muscles. Muscles which he classified as early developing were those muscles which at birth had a weight-relation to total carcass muscle that was greater than the same weight-relation in the mature animal. These were the intrinsic muscles of the forelimb and the distal intrinsic ‘muscles of the hind limb. Late developing muscles were those which had a weight-relation to total carcass muscle at birth that was less than that in the mature animal. Late developing muscles were abdominal muscles and poximal muscles of the hind limb. Very late developing muscles were those which had a weight-relation to total carcass muscle at birth that was less than that in the mature animal and which do not increase relative to total ‘muscle until late in life. The intrinsic muscles of the neck and thorax and muscles of the neck and thorax which are attached to the thoracic limb were classified as very late developing. Average developing muscles were those whose weight-relation to that of total carcass muscle did not change during post-natal life and included only those muscles surrounding the Spinal column. Fattening Hankins and Titus (1939) stated that in young growing animals weight gains are composed largely of protein and water; whereas, those of the mature or nearly mature animal consist primarily of fat. These workers reported that one of the best known and most obvious changes which accom- panies growth and fattening is the increase in the ratio of carcass weight to the weight of the entire body (dressing percent). warner £5 21. (1934) reported that as the hog grows and fattens, the percent ham, loin, shoulder and head decrease. They also reported an increase in the percent bacon and fat trim. Hankins and Titus (1939) found that in beef, the percent rib, short loin, plate and flank increased as the animal fattened and the percent round, sirloin and foreshank decreased. The chuck and rump showed very little change. Physical Methods for Estimating Carcass Composition Physical Separation Studies. Physical separation data of entire beef carcasses are limited because such studies are laborious, time consuming and involve economic loss of product. However, physical separation of wholesale cuts or parts thereof has been used rather extensively to measure beef carcass composition. 9-10-11 Rib Section Separation. The most widely used method of esti- mating beef carcass composition is physical separation of the 9-10-11 rib section as described by Hankins and Howe (1946). They reported correla- tion coefficients between the percent separable muscle, fat and bone from the 9e10-1l rib section with the same components from the entire carcass of 0.85, 0.93 and 0.83, respectively. The conclusions of these workers were supported by the findings of Crown and Damon (1959) who reported correlation coefficients of 0.94, 0.98 and 0.73 for muscle, fat and bone, respectively, between these components in the 9-10-11 rib section and the same components in the carcass. 12th Rib Separation. Crown and Damon (1959) also reported correla- tion coefficients between the percent separable carcass muscle, fat and bone and the same separable components of the 12th rib section of 0.82, 0.96 and 0.75, respectively. They suggested using the 12th rib section to predict carcass composition for greater economy of time and labor since results were comparable to those from the 9-10-11 rib section. Round, Chuck and Foreshank Separation. Cole gpugl. (1960) reported high relationships between separable muscle of the round, chuck and fore- shank and total separable muscle of the carcass (0.95, 0.93, and 0.81, respectively). Separable muscle of these wholesale cuts was associated with 90, 87 and 66%, respectively, of the variation in total separable muscle of the carcass. These workers suggested the use of either the round or foreshank as an index of carcass muscling due to their high pre- dictive value and relative ease of separation. Flank Separation. Hankins and Howe (1946), Hedrick gt a1. (1963) and Miller.et_al. (1965) reported that retail yield or separable muscle and fat of the flank is highly related to total beef carcass muscle and fat. Hankins and Howe (1946) reported that the correlation between per- cent separable fat in the flank with percent ether extract in the carcass was high (0.95). 'Miller‘g£.gl. (1965) reported that the percent yield of muscle from the wholesale flank showed the second highest relation to percent total carcass retail yield, the round being the most highly related. These workers concluded that yield of muscle from the flank was relatively constant but that it was a fat depot and the amount of fat in the flank was highly related to total fat trim or total separable fat. Relationship of Individual and Groups of Muscles to Carcass Composi- .pigp. The relationship between several individual muscles and total carcass muscle has been shown to be quite high by several workers (Orme .gplgl., 1960; Dumont gpngl., 1961; Butterfield, 1963a; and Miller pp al., 1965). These workers reported a high correlation between 1. dgggi muscle weight and total separable carcass muscle (approximately 0.90). weight of the biceps femoris muscle was reported by Orme g_t_:_ 31. (1960) and Butter- field (l963b) to be highly correlated to total carcass muscle (0.96). Orme $5.31. (1960) also reported high correlation coefficients between total separable carcass muscle and the semimembranosus plus adductor (0.92), semitendinosus (0.83), quadricepg muscle group (0.93), ppoas major (0.82), triceps brachii (0.84) and infraspinatgs (0.80) muscles. RelatiOnship of Individual and Groups of Bones to Carcass Composition. Orme.g£”gl. (1959) reported that live weight, chilled carcass weight, primal cut weight and estimated carcass muscle (from 9-10-11 rib physical -10- separation) in almost all instances were significantly and positively related to measures (weight and linear measurements) of the fore and hind cannon bones. These workers found that when the effects of live weight were removed, width and circumference measurements of the hind and fore cannons were associated with 15 to 25% of the existing variation in area of l, gg£§i_muscle. These same workers concluded that even though cannon bone measurements and radiographs of the lumbar vertebrae are related to muscling, these relations are too low to be of any predictive value. Henderson 22 El. (1966) reported significant correlations (P < .01) between total carcass bone and percent separable muscle (0.77), and percent separable muscle from the four major wholesale cuts (0.73). Butterfield (1963a) observed high correlations between the weight of various bones and total carcass bone weight in beef steers. He re- ported correlation coefficients between total bone weight and weight of the scapula (0.96), humerus (0.99), radius and ulna (0.97), radius and ulna plus carpus (0.98), or coxae (0.97), femur (0.98), tibia (0.97) and the tibia plus tarsus (0.96). Orme (1963) reported highly significant correlations (P < .01) between total lamb carcass muscle weight and weight of the following bones: radius and ulna, metacarpal, metatarsal, tibia and the femur. He also reported highly significant correlations (P < .01) between these same bones and total carcass bone weight (r = 0.80) as well as between weight of bones from various wholesale cuts of lamb and total carcass bone weight (total carcass bone with leg-bone 0.90, loin-bone 0.52, rack-bone 0.69, shoulder-bone 0.82 and foreshank bone 0.84). -11... Relationship of Linear Measurements to Carcass Composition. White and Green (1952) reported that various live animal measurements were highly correlated with weights of major beef cuts (0.5 to 0.6) and linear measurements of the live animal were of value for estimating weight of various wholesale cuts. Cook 35 31. (1951), Green 23 31. (1955), Dawson .S£.£l- (1955), Tallis'gpmgl. (1957) and Orme (1958) reported similar results. Orme (1958) and Allen (1963) reported simple correlation co- efficients (0.3 to 0.8) between live animal measurements and weight of various wholesale cuts. Orme (1958) reported that when the effect of live weight was held constant, most of these relationships were markedly reduced. Cole SE 31. (1962) reported that carcass weight, carcass length and l, dg£§i_muscle area were related to total carcass separable muscle (r = 0.75, 0.23 and 0.39, reSpectively). With carcass weight held con- stant, Cole t al. (1960) stated that l. dorsi muscle area accounted for 5% of the variation in pounds of separable lean in the carcass. Specific Gravipy. Pearson (1965) stated that the major problem in determining specific gravity is that of accurately measuring volume. He stated that this could be done by one of two methods: 1) gaseous dis- placement and 2) water displacement. Morales gghgl. (1945) reported data for guinea pigs which provided the basic information for the calcu- lation of equations giving the density of the fat-free body. Brown g; 31. (1951) and Whiteman gpngl. (1951) used the underwater specific gravity method for estimating the composition of carcasses and cuts from farm animals. Gnaedinger g; 31. (1963) using the helium dilution technique -12- for determining specific gravity of market weight pigs, obtained poor agreement between this value and chemical analysis. Chemical Methods for Estimating Carcass Composition Research workers have used various chemical methods for the deter- mination of body composition. Among these are the antipyrene (Brodie pp .31., 1949) and tritium (Pace 25.21., 1947) methods. Moore (1946) pre- sents an excellent discussion of the principles involved in the isotope dilution techniques for measuring total body water. Relationship_between'Muscle Content of Potassium and Sodium and Carcass Composition. Kirton and Pearson (l963a,b) reported that potassium and sodium content of muscle tissue, as determined by flame photometry, was significantly related-to carcass composition in sheep and hogs. With a group of 10 lamb carcasses, these workers found that the potassium content of muscle tissue when measured by flame photometry was signifi- cantly related to carcass composition but not when measured from K40 content. In another group of 20 lots of ground pork and 15 lots of ground lamb, potassiun content by both methods studied by these workers gave approximately the same results. However, the flame photometry method was more closely related to % water, fat and protein content of the samples. These workers concluded that a degree of precision at least equal to the flame photometry method was needed in a non-destructive method before it would become useful. Similar conclusions were made by -13- Kirton gpugl. (1961) for the K40 method of predicting carcass composition in live lambs. Correlations determined by these workers were higher be- tween measured potassiun content of muscle and total muscle than between measured sodium content of muscle and total muscle. Kirton and Pearson (l963a) reported a species difference between sheep and swine with the relation.between potassium and total muscle being higher in swine than in lambs. Gillett pp 31. (1965) further reported a significant differ- ence in potassium and sodium content among various muscles of the pig. They also reported a significant difference in potassium and sodium con- tent between the two breeds of swine studied. It was therefore concluded by these workers that due to the variations in potassium and sodiun content (especially potassium), constancy does not exist between the muscle-element ratio and this is an important source of error when using this method of estimating composition. Linear and Multiple Regression Equations for Predicting Carcass Com- position. Numerous linear and multiple regression equations for predicting carcass composition have been developed. Hankins and Howe (1946) were among the early workers to develOp linear regression equations from the percent separable muscle, fat and bone of the 9-10-llth rib section: for predicting beef carcass composition. Cole ggngl. (1960) developed regression equations to predict total separable muscle in beef carcasses from the pounds of separable muscle in each of several wholesale cuts (round, sirloin, shortloin, rib, chuck and foreshank). -14- Butterfield (l963a) calculated multiple regression equations for the estimation of total muscle, fat and bone weight from separable com- ponents as well as from some linear measurements. Orme 25 El. (1960) developed linear regression, prediction equations for total separable carcass muscle using weights of individual muscles or groups of muscles as predictive factors. The latter authors stated that the fraction of the total sum of squares for separable muscle in the beef carcass associated with the degree of freedom for linear regression ranged from 63 to 91%. They reported that the four heavier muscles seemed to be the best predictors but the four lighter muscles also account for a large fraction of the variation in total carcass muscle. Cole 2; 21. (1962) developed a "simplified method for predicting pounds of muscle in beef carcasses". They reported that carcass weight was more closely related to total separable muscle than any other single measure and therefore should be included in the prediction equation. When they combined one fat measurement taken at the 12th rib (described by Ramsey ggngl., 1962) with carcass weight in a regression analysis, they were able to account for over 70% of the variation in total separable carcass muscle. Kirton and Pearson (l963b) presented regression equations for the prediction of % water, ether-extract, and protein in empty pig carcasses using potassium content of ground samples as predicting factors. They concluded, however, that the accuracy with which composition could be pre- dicted from potassium content was unsatisfactory under the conditions used. -15- Beef Carcass Retail Yield Studies In recent years, numerous studies have been conducted to determine the variability and factors influencing variability of beef carcass re- tail yield. These have been concerned with quantitative factors as they may be related to carcass value. Variability of Beef Carcasses Retail Yield. Research data reported by Butler (1957), Cole pp 31. (1960), Murphy ggngl. (1960) and Butler E; ‘gl. (1961) have shown that great variability occurs in the retail yield of beef carcasses. These data indicate that carcass value differences exist within as well as between grades. Kropf and Graf (1959) reported that total carcass boneless, closely trimmed retail yield varied from a high of 68.71% to a low of 57.63% among U. 8. Choice, Good, Commercial (Standard) grade steer, heifer and cow carcasses ranging in weight from 400 to 900 1b. Breidenstein (1962) found a range of 19% in retail yield and $13.55 per hundredweight value difference among 105 steer sides and both sides of 94 heifer carcasses within the U. S. Good and Choice grades. He eliminated the extremes from the study above, thus leaving a range of 14.4% between the low and high yielding carcasses which still included 95% of the original sample. This represents a value difference between the low and high yielding carcasses of $10.32 per hundredweight or approxi- mately $60.00 for a 600 pound carcass. Brungardt and Bray (1963) conducted a similar study on 99 left sides of U. S. Choice steers. These were selected at random within three weight -15- groups (260 to 288 pounds, 300 to 325 pounds and 332 to 360 pounds). The light to heavy weight groups yielded an average percent boneless, trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib and chuck of 50.8%, 49.7% and 48.5%, respectively. The range in percent retail yield was 47.0 to 54.6% in the light weight group, 46.3 to 53.0% in the middle weight group and 45.5 to 51.5% in the heavy weight group. The ranges included only those 22 of the 33 sides in each group closest to the average retail cut-out for the group. The ranges in value per hundredweight were $6.56, $5.52 and $5.25 for the light, middle and heavy weight groups, reSpectively. While these values were not as large as those reported by Briedenstein (1962), this study included only the four major wholesale cuts of beef and one-third of the extremes were not included in the ranges reported. Factors Influencipg Variability of Retail Yield. Since carcasses are composed of three major tissue components, muscle, fat and bone; the prOportion of these three components influences retail yield. Retail cuts as referred to in these studies consist of muscle plus fat trimmed to approximately 0.3 in. Thus, any increase in the amount of fat and/or bone results in a decrease in the percent retail yield. Influence of Fat ppon Retail Yield. Kropf and Graf (1959) reported total carcass fat trim ranged from 10.78 to 27.16% among U. S. Choice, Good and Commercial (Standard) grade steer, heifer and cow carcasses ranging in weight from 400 to 900 lb. Ramsey.ggngl. (1962) reported that external fat thickness at the 12th rib varied from 0.1 to 1.1 in., kidney fat from 1.8 to 8.9% and -17- separable fat in the carcass from 14.3 to 42.8% for carcasses within the U. S. Choice, Good and Standard grades. Brungardt and Bray (1963) re- ported that among carcasses grading U. S. Good and Choice, fat thickness at the 12th rib varied from 0.35 to 1.60 in. and kidney fat from 2.4 to 7.8%. Cole 23 El. (1962) stated that, holding carcass weight constant, external fat thickness at the 12th rib accounted for 34% of the variation in separable carcass lean. Lewis ggngl. (1964) reported correlation coefficients between the third fat measurement over the 12th rib (described by Ramsey gpflgl., 1963) and percent retail cuts and bone-in, closely trimmed retail cuts of -.26 and -.04, respectively. These workers also reported that a number of probes of subcutaneous fat over the rump and clod showed little relation- ship to the third fat measurement over the 12th rib, yet were negatively but highly significantly correlated with both percent bone-in and bone- less, closely trimmed retail cuts. Carpenter 35.31. (1965) reported that each of several measurements of fat taken on the exposed surface between the 12th and 13th rib in lamb carcasses were significantly related (P < .01) to percent fat trim. These same measurements were also highly, negatively correlated with the yield of leg, loin, rack and shoulder. Hedrick 35.31. (1963) and Miller.§;H§1, (1965) reported significant (P < .01) negative correlations between fat thickness at the 12th rib, and several other carcass fat thickness measurements and retail yield. The latter workers reported higher correlations between subcutaneous fat thickness measure- ments and percent retail cuts than with weight of retail cuts. They found -13- that subcutaneous fat thickness measurements (probes) were nonsignifi- cantly correlated with weight of retail cuts except those measurements and probes over the 11th to 12th thoracic vertebrae which were signifi- cant (P < .05). All correlations between fat thickness and percent boneless and partially boneless retail cuts were negative and highly significant (P < .01). These same workers reported that probes taken in the 11th to 12th thoracic vertebrae area were more closely related to retail yield than fat thickness measurements at the 12th thoracic verte- bra. They stated that degree of fatness has a greater influence upon retail yield than 1. Qgggi muscle area and an increase of 0.16 in. in fat thickness at the 12th rib resulted in a 1% decrease in partially bone- less retail cuts. Zinn g; 31. (1963) reported a negative correlation (-.81) between percent fat trim and boneless round, loin, rib and chuck in beef carcasses. With multiple regression analysis, they found that each 1% increase in carcass fat trim, resulted in a corresponding decrease of 0.34% boneless round, loin, rib and chuck. IMiller‘gp 31, (1965) reported negative and significant correlation coefficients (P < .01) between fat trim.from the right and left sides with retail yield of the round, loin, rib and chuck and with total carcass retail yield. The latter workers concluded that variation in percent fat trim accounted for more of the variation in bone- less and partially boneless retail yield of the carcass than any other variable studied. They stated that an increase of approximately 1.10% in fat trim decreased partially boneless retail yield 1%. Butterfield -19- (1965) reported that when separable fat is increased above 20%, the proportion of expensive muscles in a beef carcass is markedly reduced. Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported correlations between external fat thickness measurements taken at various points on the carcass and percent retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck ranging from -.63 to -.73 Retail yield was also negatively correlated (-.54) with percent kidney and pelvic fat. Percent kidney and pelvic fat were also reported to be negatively correlated to retail yield by Butterfield (l963a). ‘Murphy gp.gl. (1960) reported high negative correlation coefficients between retail yield and a single fat thickness measurement at the 12th rib and with percent kidney knob (-.83 and -.66, respectively). Brown ggugl. (1962) reported on a study involving 453 steer carcasses. They observed a high negative correlation coefficient between estimated (physi- cal separation of 9-10-11 rib) separable lean and fat (-.84). Breiden- stein (1962) reported that for each one pound increase in kidney fat there was a decrease in partially boneless retail yield of 0.37% for steers and 0.44% for heifers. Kropf and Graf (1959) also found more trim fat among heifer carcasses than for the same weight and grade steer carcass. The above results agree with those of Callow (1947) who reported that fat is the most significant variable in beef carcass composition. Influence of Carcass weight Upon Retail Yield. Many research studies have shown that carcass weight is negatively related to retail yield, Cole ggngl. (1960), Butterfield (l963a), Breidenstein (1962), Cole‘s; 31. (1962, -20- Brungardt and Bray (1963) and Swiger‘gp 31. (1964). Kropf and Graf (1962) observed that increased carcass weight had a significant depressing effect upon total carcass retail yield. Cole 25 31. (1960) reported that carcass weight was more closely re- lated to total separable muscle (0.77) than any other single variable studied. Butterfield (l963a) also found that carcass weight was more closely related to pounds of separable carcass muscle than any other variable. Swiger g; 31. (1964) reported that the simple correlation co- efficient between carcass weight and percent retail yield was -.48. These workers stated that carcass weight alone accounted for 93%» of the varia- tion in retail yield. Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported that heavier carcasses contained significantly more fat per unit of carcass weight than lighter carcasses. Cole 35 31. (1962) found that as carcass weight increased, the average percent steaks decreased and the percent waste increased. Breidenstein (1962) reported that a 100 1b. increase in carcass weight resulted in a reduction in retail yield of 1.42%. 'Murphy ggugl. (1960) also reported a a negative relationship between carcass weight and retail yield. Influence of Conformation Upon Retail Yield. Briskey and Bray (1964) reported that although conformation has long been included in grading standards, its inclusion is based upon the supposition that it is related to yield of retail cuts, especially those from the round, rib, loin and chuck. They stated that this trait is related primarily to the shape and fullness of the round, loin, rib and chuck. They concluded that confor- mation is related to muscle deve10pment, i.e., thickness, depth and length, -21- but that it is also largely influenced by fat deposition both subcutan- eous and intermuscular. Breidenstein (1962) reported no significant relation between confor- mation score and yield of retail cuts in steers grading primarily U. S. Good and Choice. However, they observed that a one-third increase in conformation score in heifer carcasses was accompanied by an increase of 0.34% in partially boneless retail yield. Butler (1957) reported data from beef carcasses with a wide range of conformation scores, but the percent of individual wholesale cuts was very similar. This agrees with findings of Wilson and Curtis (1893) and Branaman pg 21. (1962) comparing retail yield of dairy- and beef-type steers. Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported that while variation in un- trimmed wholesale cut yield is small, when the cuts were trimmed to approximately 3/8 in. external fat, the yields of these trimmed wholesale cuts between beef carcasses were markedly different and closely related to boneless, trimmed retail cut yields. In a study involving 96 carcasses, Zinn g; 31. (1961) reported signi- ficant (P < .01) correlations between conformation score and carcass fat thickness at the 12th rib (0.50) and with percent trimable fat (0.69). This agrees with results of Miller 23 El. (1965) who reported that dressing percent and confOrmation score were not related to retail yield but slightly related to fat thickness at the 12th rib and to trimable fat. The latter ‘workers concluded that higher conformation scores were due largely to excess fat which was subsequently trimmed off. These data agree with -22.. Hedrick 25421. (1963) who concluded that it is difficult for superior muscle development to compensate for excess fat deposition. In a study involving British, Zebu and dairy breeds of cattle, Cole 35 31. (1964) reported that Holstein steer carcasses had the highest per— cent separable muscle in all wholesale cuts, except the chuck and plate. Brahman steer carcasses had the highest percent separable muscle in these two wholesale cuts. Holstein carcasses had the lowest percent total separable carcass fat and were lowest in percent separable fat in all wholesale cuts, except the chuck where Brahman carcasses were lower. These authors found that the British breeds yielded the lowest percent muscle in all wholesale cuts except the foreshank where they yielded a higher percent muscle than Zebu cattle. The British breeds yielded the highest percent total carcass separable fat as well as percent separable fat from all wholesale cuts. These workers concluded from their results, that any effect conformation might exert upon percent yield of separable muscle (wholesale cuts or carcass) was overcome by the depressing effect of fat upon yield of separable muscle. Kirton (1964) stated that intensive selection of breeding ewes for and against conformation had little influence upon the amount and value of the meat produced by their lambs. He concluded that carcasses with better conformation had less muscle and more fat than carcasses with poor conformation. Briskey and Bray (1964) stated that it is difficult to determine muscular development in heavily fatted carcasses, since a heavily finished carcass is more likely to be scored higher in conformation than one with less finish. They stated that from the literature available it seemed safe to conclude that conformation influenced retail yield to a far lesser extent than did degree of fatness, especially external fat. Influence of l. dopgi Muscle Area Upon Retail Yield. The ease with which this measurement can be obtained has led to extensive use since it is recorded in almost all beef carcass research studies. Cole 35 21. (1960), Brungardt and Bray (1963), Butler $5.31. (1961), Hedrick EE.EL- (1963), Gottsch 35.31. (1961), Cahill pg 31. (1961) and Breidenstein (1962) have reported significant, positive, correlation co- efficients (0.40 to 0.60) between 1, dpggi muscle area and retail yield. However, these same authors showed that on a carcass weight and fat con- stant basis the correlation coefficients were significantly reduced. Since area of l. dgggi muscle is at least partially a function of weight, this would be expected. Field 35 El. (1963) reported that although the area of il.ldg£gi‘muscle~weight relationship existed, it was a nonlinear relation- ship in their study. Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported that 20% of the variation in retail yield could be accounted for by differences in area of the l, dgggi muscle. They also reported that with carcass weight, per- cent kidney fat and a single fat thickness measurement at the 12th rib held constant, the standard partial regression coefficient of boneless, closely trimmed retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck on area of the l, dggpiymuscle was only 0.16. Briskey and Bray (1964) concluded that although the influence of area of l. dorsi muscle upon retail yield is small compared to that of fat, -24- emphasis upon size of this muscle may be justified because it comprises a large proportion of two of the high priced cuts of the beef carcass. Influence of Bone Upon Retail Yield. wythe'gp‘al. (1961) and Hender- son 35 El. (1966) reported positive relationships between the amount of bone and retail yield. wythe g; 31. (1961) studied the weight, length, and lengthrweight ratio of the metacarpus, metatarsus, tibia, femur and the radius-ulna in relation to the yield of trimmed retail round, loin, rib and chuck. They observed significant (P < .01) and positive relationships between bone measurements and retail yield. Henderson 25 31. (1966) reported signifi- cant correlations (P < .01) between percent total carcass bone and percent total retail yield (0.64) and percent total retail yield of the four major wholesale cuts (0.68). Good g5 31. (1961) reported significant correlation coefficients between circumference of cannon bone and muscling score (-.32), circumference of round (0.30) and l, dorsi area (0.13). Regression Equations for Measurinngifferences in Retail Yield. Mur- phy gpugl. (1960) developed a regression equation from data of 169 cattle varying widely in grade and weight. This equation was developed to pre- dict the estimated percentage of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib and chuck. They compared predicted retail yield with actual retail yield and obtained a correlation of 0.906 with a stan- dard error of the estimate of 1.9%. Palmer gp‘gl. (1961) conducted studies with 138 cattle varying in slaughter weight, breeding and quality grade. They reported a correlation coefficient between actual and estimated re- tail yield (Murphy gpugl., 1960) of 0.76 which accounted for slightly less than 60% of the total variation in retail cut yield. -25- Comparison of actual boneless, trimmed retail yields with those esti- mated by the equation of‘Murphy pp 31. (1960) ranges from a low of 35% of the variation in retail yield accounted for to a high of 80%, Briskey and Bray (1964). In a review of the literature, the latter authors stated that the equation of‘Murphy e; 31. (1960) probably accounts for 50 to 70% of the variation in the boneless, trimmed retail yield from the four major wholesale cuts. Brungardt and Bray (1963) developed a regression equation designed to measure variation in percent boneless, trimmed retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck. Using this equation, they were able to account for 81% of the variation in boneless, trimmed retail yield. Kropf and Graf (1959) and Breidenstein (1962) reported marked retail yield differences between steer and heifer carcasses and the latter author developed a separate regression equation for each sex. He was able to account for 72% of the variation in retail yield of steer carcasses but that for heifers, although similar, was slightly less accurate. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Source of Material: Eighty steer carcasses were purchased from several beef packing companies in central Michigan. Selection was made pre-slaughter to insure procurement of steers of the three major British beef breeds. Carcass selection involved the following two criteria: 1) chilled carcass weight and 2) average fat thickness (12th rib measure- ment) as described by Naumann (1952). Cropping: In an attempt to minimize the effects of carcass weight and fat thickness upon composition and cutability, the carcasses were equally divided into two weight ranges; 500 to 550 pounds and 700 to 750 pounds. The two weight ranges were further subdivided into four fat thick- ness (av. at 12th rib) ranges: .26 to .50 in., .51 to .75 in., .76 to 1.0 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in. Ten steers were selected within each of the resulting eight groups as shown in table 1. Table 1. Distribution of carcasses within weight and fat thickness groups. Average fat thickness (12th rip) Carcass weight .26" to .50" .51" to .75" .76" to 1.0" 1.01" to 1.25" Gropp I Gropp II Gropp III Gropp IV 500 to 550 lb. 10 carcasses 10 carcasses 10 carcasses 10 carcasses Gropp V Gropp VI Gropp VII Group VIII 700 to 750 1b. 10 carcasses 10 carcasses 10 carcasses 10 carcasses -25- -27- Slaughtering Procedure. Conventional slaughter procedures were followed except the carcasses were not scribed or the necks pinned. Subjective Carcass Evaluation. Following selection of the carcasses, each was subjectively scored for the characteristics shown in table 2. Conformation was scored with a conscious effort to evaluate degree of muscling irrespective of quantity of fat. Linear Carcass Measurements Lipear Fat Measurements at the 12th Rib. The fat thickness measure- ments obtained at the 12th rib are shown in Figure 1. In addition to average fat thickness as previously described (av. of A, B and C), four other fat thickness measurements were taken at the 12th rib (D, E, F and G). The site for measurement D was determined by extending a perpendicu- lar from the ventral tip of line w-x to the fat seam over the l. dpgpi muscle. A perpendicular line was drawn to the outer edge of the subcutan- eous fat from the point at which the previous perpendicular bisected the fat seam, Measurement of the latter perpendicular was recorded as fat measurement D. Line Y-Z which is the same length as line W-X, was drawn from the point where the perpendicular of measurement D bisected the fat seam to the fat seam at point Z. Measurements E, F and G were made from perpendiculars drawn from the outer edge of subcutaneous fat to points located on the fat seam.at one-fourth, one-half and three-fourths the length of line Y-Z. Fat Probes. Probes of subcutaneous fat were made on the left side of each carcass at the sites shown in Figure 2. The following vertebrae -28- Table 2. Characteristics and scores used in the subjective carcass evaluation. Characteristic Score Carcass conformation Hindquarter conformation Forequarter conformation Round conformation Maturity score Marbling score Final grade Estimated kidney knob weight O-DOO'JDDSDNO} Characteristic Score Low Av. High aConformation and/or grade U.S. Standard 1 2 3 U.S. Good 4 5 6 U.S. Choice 7 8 9 U.S. Prime 10 11 12 __le3tur1t .-'_. 3L. .i- A 1 2 3 B 4 5 6 C 7 8 9 ____S°Marb11n _"_ £7;- L. Devoid l 2 3 Practically devoid 4 5 6 Traces 7 8 9 Slight 10 11 12 Small 13 14 15 Modest l6 17 18 Mederate 19 20 21 Slightly abundant 22 23 24 Mederately abundant 25 26 27 Abundant 28 29 30 dWeight in lb. Figure 1. Elustration showing fat thickness measurements taken at the th rib. b , 1 '-' J - ‘1“ . aliifiiix‘ . -. a. O . a- J“ r" 1”,) Figure 2. Illustration showing the pattern of the fat probes taken 4, 8 and 12 in. from the midline on the carcass. -31- were used as skeletal reference points for the location of these sites: The 5th, 8th and 11th thoracic, the lst, 4th and 6th lumbar and the 3rd and 5th sacral. Fat probes were made with a.$ca1p$1and metal ruler per- pendicular to the anterior edge of these reference vertebrae, 4, 8, and 12 in. laterally from the dorsal tip of the vertebral cartilage. All probes were recorded to the nearest mm. Lepgth and Circumference of Round. These measurements were made with a flexible steel tape in accordance with the procedures described by Naumann (1952). Depph at 10th and 12th Thoracic Vertebrae. These measurements were taken with a sliding T-square as described by‘MacLeod. (1964). Depth of Fat over ghe Episket. This measurement was taken, with a sliding T-square, perpendicular to the first sternebra as shown in Figure 3. Cutting Procedure Both right and left side of each carcass were cut into conventional wholesale cuts according to the procedure described by wellington (1953), with the following two exceptions. The plate was removed from the whole- sale rib cut by measuring 10 in. ventrally from the spinal column, at both the loin and blade ends of the rib, and removing the plate along a line connecting these two points. The brisket was removed from the chuck, by extending the out where the foreshank was removed, on a line parallel ‘with the dorsal side_of the chuck. -32- Figure 3. Illustration showing the measurement of fat depth over the brisket. -33- Left Side. The wholesale cuts from the left side were individually physically separated into the components: muscle,fat and bone with two exceptions. The wholesale round and rib were further sub-divided. The rump was removed from the round according to the procedure described by wellington (1953), and the wholesale rib was cut into three sub-parts; the 6-7-8 rib section, the 9-10-11 rib section and the 12th rib section following the procedure described by Hankins and Howe (1946). All three rib sections and the rump and rumpless round were then individually separated into muscle, fat and bone. All physically separated components were weighed and recorded to the nearest 0.05 lb. Bone and Muscle Study. Weights of the following individual and bone groups from the left side were recorded to the nearest 0.05 lb.: radius plus ulna, humerus, scapula, tibia plus fibula and the femur. 'Muscle weights were recorded for the following individual and muscle groups: semitendinosus, semimembranosus, bicepswfgmoris, rectus femoris, .ppigepsrbrachgl, supraspinatus,jp§oas major, longissimus dorsi, semimem- branosus plus adductor, and the quadricepg muscles. Right Side. The four major wholesale cuts from the right side (round, rib, loin and chuck) were trimmed of external fat to approximately0.3 in. Weight of tmtrimmed and trimed wholesale cut and fat trim from each was recorded to the nearest 0.05 lb. All wholesale cuts were then cut into closely trimmed (approximately 0.3 in. external fat) boneless retail cuts. weight of retail cuts, fat trim, and bone from each wholesale cut was recorded to the nearest 0.05 lb. -34- Tenderness Studies The section of the left 1. gppgi muscle from the shortloin of each carcass was frozen and stored at approximately -10°F for subsequent chemical and organoleptic analysis. The frozen muscles were removed from the freezer 24 hr. prior to organoleptic analysis and four, 1 1/4 in. steaks were removed from the anterior end of the muscle and numbered 1 through 4 with l designated the most anterior steak. Steak number 1 was rewrapped and replaced in the freezer for subsequent chemical analysis. Steaks 2, 3 and 4 were then allowed to thaw overnight at approximately 38°F. A thermometer was placed in the steak through the dorsal edge of the muscle to the approximate center of the cross-sectional area of the steak. The steaks were cooked in deep fat (lard) at a temperature of 300 i 2°F. The steaks were removed and allowed to cool for 20 min. Four, one inch cores were removed from each steak parallel to the muscle fibers. The four cores from steak number 2 were used for warner-Bratzler shear values. One shear value was determined from each core and the four values were averaged and recorded as shear value for each steak. Cores from steaks 3 and 4 were cut into two equal portions perpendicular to the orientation of the muscle fibers and served to a trained, eight-member taste panel. Evaluation of flavor, juiciness and tenderness was scored by the panel on a nine-point hedonic scale with nine designated as most desirable. Position of the cores within each steak was kept constant for each panel member. -35- Chemical Analysis Steak number 1 was removed from the freezer, allowed to thaw over- night at 38°F and then ground to obtain a sample for chemical analysis as outlined by Orme (1958). Percent moisture and protein were determined by procedures as outlined by Benne pp 51. (1956). Ether extract was deter- mined by the method described by Orme (1958). Potassium and sodium analysis were determined on each muscle sample using the TCA extraction procedure of Mounib and Evans (1957) as modified by Kirton and Pearson (1963). A Beckman DU spectrophotometer with a model 9220 flame attachment was used for the analysis. Potassium and sodium content of each muscle was calculated by use of a standard curve determined by plotting the percent tramemittance against the ppm of these electrolytes in standard solutions. Statistical Analysis The statistical procedures followed were described by Snedecor (1956). A 2 x 4 x 10 factorial analysis was calculated to determine treatment and interaction effects on several measures of carcass composition and cuta- bility. The multiple range test of Duncan (1955) was employed to evaluate significance of individual differences. Simple correlation coefficients were calculated on a total, within.weight and within weight-fat thickness group basis. Where applicable, multiple correlation coefficients were calculated on a total and within weight group basis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The means and standard deviations for the carcass traits which were correlated with all objective and subjective measurements are presented in tables 3, 3a, 4 and 4a. These means are presented for the combined and individual weight groups, within fat thickness ranges and within weight and fat thickness groups. Effect of Carcass weigpt upon Pounds and Percent Carcass Separable Compon- entsL Retail and Fat Trim Yields. Carcass weight had a highly significant (P < .01) effect upon pounds of all the carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields (table 3). Carcass weight also had a highly significant (P < .01) effect upon percent retail and fat trim yields but not on the percent separable carcass fat‘muscle and bone (table 4). It is interesting to note that the 200 1b. increase in carcass weight from the 500 to 550 lb. weight group to the 700 to 750 lb. weight group resulted in an 88 lb. increase in separable muscle and a 94 lb. increase in total retail yield. Bone accounted for approximately 20 lb. of the total 200 1b. difference in carcass weight. Fat accounted for the remain- ing portion of this weight difference. Carcasses of the 500 to 550 lb. weight group were obtained from steers weighing approximately 850 lb. alive and those from the 700 to 750 1b. group from 1150 lb. steers. Thus, less than one-third of this live weight difference between these two car- cass weight groups was separable muscle or total retail cut yield. It is also of interest that the percents separable fat, muscle and bone as well as percents retail and fat trim yields between the two car- cass weight groups (table 4) are markedly similar. -35- .mmmoxoenu umm mo muummmo mnu ou use use nummmep Aao. V mv mauomoHMHGMHm hanwws mum mumenomuomsm unsymmmem woe>m£ mafia memo mnu no momQmemao .uswem3 ammoumo mo muommmo use on use nomummmwp Aao. V mv mauamoemeowem edema: mum mueenomuodsm uamuommem wae>mc mafia mama one do namesake .30950 new new «aeo~ «venom u uquN .soeume>op mummamum u .m.mH em.HN -.me ea.oe e~.mH ee.aH Hm.eu mm.ma .n.m - oo.emo mo.ome om.m~s mm.¢ue mm.eue ~q.emm mm.m~o cams .na .us ammonmo mo.o mo.o mo.o oo.o o~.o 0N.o e~.o .m.m .au -mmmcsueeu mo.i ow.o se.o Ne.o he.o ee.o me.o new: use out enwe .>< No.e oo.e mm.u Hm.e ee.e em.e ee.e .a.m .ae .um .moum :. mm.oi me.oe ae.cH Ne.HH ew.ue oo.oH mm.oH new: «Homes sauce.e Ho.e w~.m ee.e ee.q e¢.m so.o no.9 .n.m .nH .umem acne oom.ea eem.- one.a oam.o an.mH a-.w me.HH cum: sets new Huanmuxm Ne.HH om.eH ww.ma me.wu mm.~H mm.oe me.mH .a.m .ns mso.oe mm~.we com.em oe~.me nom.me www.me em.~e use: -Eeuu use Hence . as.mm ma.m~ eo.¢~ sa.m~ mm.me Ne.me a~.- .n.m .nH -eemes Mu emm.mwe e-uoa.amH oma.mmH ome.amu awm.mH~ www.moe mm.~aa as»: Henna» Hence . em.e~ we.am sm.o~ mo.o~ Nm.oe Hm.oH e¢.- .o.m .nH .mumee eHm.HmH e-oss.eme oem.oee u¢H.eoH nem.eee m~m.mm~ e~.wme can: scum wise» assume mm.m w~.e wo.o m~.m e~.e we.m mm.o .n.m .nH eme.~m eae.mm one.em one.mm pHH.o¢ mum.om HN.mm ago: .oaon menmumemm o¢.H~ ee.a~ me.e~ He.em Ho.eH no.5H m~.m~ .n.m .pH m~¢.o~e meo.mNH eem.HHH omo.ea nme.~mH mmm.em we.mHH new: -umw menusmeom Hm.¢m No.N~ ea.m~ s~.mN mm.~H NH.HH ae.n~ H.n.m .nH «Ne.ame m-eqm.emu eHo.HeH omm.eea nee.eme men.eme oo.mme use: «saunas «Hamnmaom mN.H-Ho.H oo.H-ee.o me.o-Hn.o om.o-e~.o .nH one .pH omm masoum sunny Awesonw “amass escapeowv -ooe -oom names: mnwomu mmmnxoenu umm pmoenaoo .mmwdmu mmooxownu now was menoum umems Hmnmw>wmaw new escapees mau How mmmnxownu new new numa mwmumbm was some saunas “whom .H «meamem Baku pom pom Hemumu amuamsoeaoo canmummmm measure mo munmeos.mo maoeumw>um pumpsmum new menu: .m menus u 1.1 - unurvaunu-qguvnu.1 :' - A-Ii 1 Its- o.- It 0.. O! .l I I\. Inn-l I a!!!- -33- .30550 use new «aHoH «venom u umAMN .Goeum«>mp mumpnmum u .n.mH mo.s~ we.mH mm.ma mm.me we.mH mH.oH em.me we.oH .n.m - os.mme om.mae oo.eme o~.wo~ os.mmm om.o¢m oe.~mm oe.o~m new: .aH .us ammonmo oH.o mo.o so.o mo.o so.o no.o so.o mo.o .m.m .ae -mmoaxueen oH.H em.o me.o me.o so.a om.o ee.o os.o new: use any name .>< mm.o mm.e Hm.e mm.H eH.H oe.o mm.e me.H .a.m .ae .am :mosm .. -.HH mm.HH ee.HH eu.me mm.m mo.oH ~m.a mo.oH amaz- «Homaa_smuoe.a m¢.~ mm.¢ mN.e oH.m so.e eo.e we.~ ma.e .n.m .nH -umem scum No.ai sm.ee eo.se mm.o~ mm.mH oe.m mw.e so.~ name aanu.umm Hmaumnxm mm.m «m.e ma.~e m~.oH mm.w w~.mH mm.c mm.e .e.m .pe ee.mw em.om mm.me Nm.¢o ee.mo ea.mm om.He ~o.~m cams -eHsu use emcee No.eu me.oH e~.mi em.mH ee.oa H~.mH ~¢.e 05.5 .n.m .nH -eamem ow.mHN as.~H~ NB.~HN mm.mHN eo.¢mu Nm.aee we.¢ee ee.mee emu: Hausa» Hence mm.HH HH.oH mo.HH ma.oH H~.m ae.m e~.m mm.“ .a.m .nH -omam oe.meu we.mee m~.mei om.HwH oa.e~e ee.ema om.HeH we.eee can: ease eases assume oo.m me.e mo.m mm.~ em.e am.e e~.~ me.m .a.m .ne me.em Nm.mm mm.us Ha.~a -.e~ so.wm oe.Hm oo.qm cum: .oaon menmuuamm Gm.m em.me a~.mH mn.HH ~w.oe em.m mm.a e~.~H .a.m .ne sm.ese eH.HeH Ne.m~H me.see oo.moH ew.eoe em.ma ma.me amoz .umm munanaamm s~.a mo.HH ee.a me.oH e~.oH an.e oe.e Na.oH e.a.m .ne ee.mhe oo.¢ee oe.mme Ne.mme oe.¢~H mo.¢m~ «m.eme mm.wee cam: -muom=a_mupasmaom :WN.H :OO.H :mfi.o :Om..o .umN.H =°°oH :mN.° :omoo UHNHH I:HO.H I:©N.O Izfim.o I:©N.C I&HO.H I:©N.O I:HM.O I:®N.O HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H macaw gnome moose Queue noose gnome gnome gnome macaw “euros .nH one-ooe macaw “ewes; .pH omm-oom .mnomwruswwo3 Sumo defines mmwcmu mmoaxoenu umm HmomH>Hpuw onu How mmmoxoeau own new numa was some saunas «whom .m.«mnsme%-Efiuu new new HHQUOH «quOGOQEOO Ofinmhwmmm mmflokflu MO mufiwHOs-w HO mGOHumflwamu muHm-mufifium “yum mflflmz .MM. OHQOH -39- .mmmaxuesu new no muoommm meu on one uconmmmwm AHo. v mv manomoemaawem edema; mum mumenomummsm uamummmep wae>m£ maeaoamm can so mommZMKmapao .unmemz mmmonmo mo muommmm onu ou one use unommep AHo. V mv hauamoeweawem edema: mum mumwuomuoanm uuouommep wow>m£ mafia 08mm one so mammznum .xoseo was any -aeoe -ea:om n omemw .aowume>om mumpomum n .o.mH om.H m¢.H ae.H Hm.H em.u a~.~ mo.~ .n.m e .omem acne mew.m eme.q oHa.~ o¢o.~ nem.e ame.m Ne.m use: sauna use Huanmuxm mi.m sw.m aa.m o~.q em.m mo.e ma.m .a.m mme.¢~ mam.a~ umm.mi oem.mH nme.e~ mma.wu He.oN awe: e -aeun use Hence ma.~ Ha.m as.m em.e so.m em.n em.e .n.m e -eemea «No.mm m-ems.ee wee.me ooe.os nwu.es «mH.so Ne.~e cam: arenas Hmuoa ~o.~ so.m os.~ wq.m am.~ so.e em.m .a.m e .mumem use.mq m-ess.om e-.~m ume.¢m amm.om nee.~m mm.em can: ease was a assume He.o em.o em.o m~.H mH.H mn.e em.a .m.m mom.oH mum.oH eme.eu uoe.~H uo~.HH «oe.ee om.HH game. e .maon menmuaamm ~m.~ mm.m -.m qe.e Ne.e em.m H~.m .n.m we~.oq «Ho.am eam.mm oam.om «so.em mem.mm a~.em ago: X -umm supermamm me.~ me.~ ~e.~ e¢.m ms.m mm.¢ HH.¢ H.n.m e mmm.me moH.as emm.en omm.mm mee.om «he.em -.Hm cams .oeomsa.minmuaamm m~.H-Ho.H oo.H-ee.o me.o-em.o om.o-e~.o .pe one .nH onm seesaw sauna Ammooum ucwwos moawneomw. noon noon “amass mamas» mmmaxoenu umm noaweaoo .mmwamu mmosxoeeu umm pom menouw armamB HmopH>Hpae use poneneoo can now meameh aqua umm was Hemuon aspam-someone menopause museums mo unmouoe mo meowume>mp pumpamum can name: .q manna .mwmaxoenu now was cameos «mousse mo cowuomumuoe can on one uamummmep AHo. V mv zHuamoemecmem haemwn mum maneuomumesm econommwp wee>ms mafia seen one so mGmewamnmquaram .xunno was new «cHoa «venom u QMAMN .aowuaw>mm puppamum n .Q mH Hm.o m~.H we.u ~a.o ~e.e ae.H so.H ae.o .a.m e -umem gone e-moe.m e-a-eme.e e-oea.m ornmo.m mmo.e e.u~o.m p-mew.H m~o.~ can: sets new Haaumuxm ma.~ w~.~ we.m Hu.m He.m Hm.e mm.~ m¢.~ .n.m m-eum.m~ m-eem.- e-oee.o~ o-neo.ma mem.m~ e-oum.o~ n-amo.me u~e.~H cam: e -aesu use sauce mm.~ oo.~ oe.m mo.m ae.~ mn.¢ om.e mm.~ .m.m e -eemes -w e-oia.mm e-oam.oe e-ome.eo u.nee.me e-.mm o-nem.~e pee.eo «om.me an»: Henna“ Haney A. . so.~ em.m Ne.~ me.~ mm.e em.m H~.H m~.~ .n.m e -umem e-om~.ms e-owm.ae e-omm.om o-nmq.~m ew~.we era-noq.am nem.mm moo.sm mama acne eases unease mm.o NN.H ma.o se.c mm.o oo.o mo.o me.H .n.m e¢.oe me.ou mm.ea HH.NH he.oe Hm.ou mm.ee w~.me any: x .maon menaumamm mq.~ em.m mm.m oH.m m¢.m w~.m oo.m me.e .a.m e~.os Hm.mm mo.em em.~m mN.o¢ Hm.wm NH.mm NN.m~ cam: N .umm ounmumamm aa.H he.~ oe.~ om.~ o¢.m He.~ He.~ oe.m H.n.m e e~.mq He.we he.Hm we.em He.me me.ms mm.em ee.em use: .muomsa.munauaamm =m~.H zoo.H =me.o =on.o =m~.H :oo.~ =me.o zom.o sauna I:HO.H |:®h.o I:Hm.o 1:0N.O I2HO.H I:©h.o Izam.o I:©N.o HHH> HHs H> > >H HHH HH H moose moose moose macaw moouw moose moose moose asouw “ewes: .pe one-ooe aaommvuamewa .nH omn-oom .qoouw uanmz some Gesuws_momamu mmoqxowsu umm Hmsmw>wpae onu pom mpamam BHHu mom was Hemumu «muumaoaaoo manmummmm mmmuumo mo muamoumm mo maoeume>om muovcmum was mama: .me manna -41- Effect of Fat Thickness upon Pounds and Percent Carcass Separable Compon- ents, Retail and Fat Trim Yields. Fat thickness had a highly significau: (P < .01) influence upon pounds (table 3) and percent (table 4) carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields. These results were as eXpected since the fatter carcass yielded significantly more separable fat, and fat trim than trimmer carcasses and lower yields of separable muscle, bone and retail cuts. Even though the range within each of the four fat thicknesses was equal (0.25 in.) variation in yield (pounds and percent) of separable muscle, fat and bone was greater between the first two groups (0.26 to 0.50 in. and 0.51 to 0.75 in.) than between the second and third (0.50 to 0.75 in. and 0.76 to 1.00 in.) and was least between the third and fourth fat thickness ranges (0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in.). These data provide further evidence that 12th rib fat thickness is not a good indicator of total separable carcass fat. Similar findings were reported by Cole 33 2.1. (1962), Ramsey pp _a_1_. (1962), Brungardt and Bray (1963), Hedrick gpgl. (1963), Lewis 3311.. (1964), Butterfield (1965), Carpenter pp pl. (1965) and Miller 25 El. (1965). Carcass weight and Fat Thickness Interaction upon Pounds and Percent Car- cass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields. Only the percent retail and fat trim yields (table 4a) were significantly (P < .01) effected by carcass weight and fat thickness interaction. The mean 12th rib fat thickness of the eight carcasses within corres- ponding groups (I and V, II and VI, III and VII, and IV and VIII) (table -42- 3a) are similar but percents separable muscle and bone were higher, while fat was lower, for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than the corresponding fat thickness ranges of the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (table 4a). As previously discussed, these separable component (pounds and percent) differences were greatest between the first two fat thickness ranges (I and II, and V and VI) than between the third and fourth fat thickness ranges (III and IV, and VII and VIII). Pounds and percent total retail yield varied more widely within the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (approxi- mately 25 1b. and 11.5%) than in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (approxi- mately 5.75 lb. and 3.2%) (tables 3a and 4a). Relationships between Subjective Carcass Scores and Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Correlation coefficients between subjective carcass scores and car- cass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups appear in tables 5, 6 and 7. In general, correlations between these characteristics were very similar for pounds and percent comparisons. Low negative correlation coefficients were found between subjective conformation scores and pounds and percents separable muscle and measures of retail beef yield in the combined weight groups and within the two weight groups (range, -.11 to -.38). Significant (P < .05) negative cor- relations were found between percent total carcass separable muscle and percent retail yields with marbling score and carcass grade in the combined weight groups and the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, -.39 to -.51). .00000 000 000 .0000 000000 n 00000 .AHo. V mv unmofimwswwm mum Nm~.o A maoeumamuuoo .Ano. V mv oomoemeswem one o-.o A mooeumamuuou 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 50.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 50.0 50.0 00.0 50.0 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 50.0 00.- 00.0 0000000: 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000002 L. "mmmoumu .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 50.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000000000 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 50.- 50.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 50.- 00.- 0000000 "mo soeumauomooo N .nH N .cH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .AH muoom .qum.eoum Sena Benn pamezxwemumu Humqm Hemumu neon 0mm saunas. m>wuoohe=m 0mm Hmoumuxm 0mm Hmuoa poeaeuu venom muaawuu venom manmumaom manmumamm canmummmm .masouw uanmB pmueeaou can you mpHm0% Beau 0mm mum Hamumn 0mucoaoeeoo manmumemm ammonmo was mmuoom museums o>Huomnnom essence muanonmooo nowuoauuuoo oHaEHm .n @0909 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 n 0000 .AHo. V mv unmoemeawam our mo¢.o_A mooeumamuuow .Amo. V my unmoemeswem one Nam-o A maoeumamuuoo Nq.o 00.o mm.o mm.o m0.- mm.- 00.- mm.- mn.- Hm.- «0.0 00.0 0m.- mm.- opmuw mmmoumo 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 05.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0000000: wH.- NH.- mH.- oH.- ma.o o~.o oH.o NH.o mm.o 0m.o NN.- o~.- m0.o 00.o 00009008 0000000 NN.o mm.o 0~.o m~.o 00.- mo.- HH.- 00.- mm.- 00.- N~.o om.o 00.- mo.- venom 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 50.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 50.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000000000 om.o Hm.o om.o Hm.o H~.- 00.- oa.- mo.- Nm.- w¢.- om.o mm.o o~.- mo.- unnumovpoem mm.o wm.o cm.o mm.o N~.- 0~.- NN.- wH.- mm.- 0m.- 0m.o om.o N~.- oH.- mmmoumo “mo a000080omsoo N .50 N .nH N .nH N .90 N .00 N .ca N .nH whose mean 300m 5000 3000 vfioeh,awmumn Human 000000 anon 0mm saunas. o>0uoofiesm 0mm Hsoumuxm umw Hmuoa passage venom moaawuu mason uHAmHmQum manoumeom canmumomm .goouw ucm003_.n0 omn on com can now peace» saga now use Hannah 0muoosoasou censusemm mmmuumo was 000000 0000000 u>euomne=0 consume muaoeofimmmoo soeumasuuoo maeaem .0 seems .00000 000 000 00000 .00000.- 00000 .A00. V mv 00000000000 000 m00.0 An080000000000 .Amo. V my 00000000000 000 N00.0_A 080000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000002 . 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00000000 %. 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0000000 000 000008000000 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 00000 0m0m 8000.8000 8000 0000N-000000 0000M 000000 0000 000 000008. 0>00omfin=m 000 00000000 000 0000B 0088000 00000 0088000 00000 000000000 00000000m 000000000 .mso0w 050003 .00 0mm 00 000 0:0 000 000000 8000 000 000 000000 00000000800 000000000 0000000 000 000000 0000000 0>00000000 0003000 000000000000 00000000000 000800 .N 00009 -45- Correlation coefficients between marbling score and carcass grade with percents separable muscle and retail yields for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group were considerably lower than in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, -.21 to -.35). The relationships between pounds of separable 'muscle and retail beef yields were also negative but in most instances lower than for percents, on both a combined and within weight group basis. These low relationships between conformation scores, carcass grade and marbling with retail yields support the findings of Cole gt 31. (1964) and Kirton (1964). Positive correlation coefficients were observed between conformation scores and both weights and percents of separable carcass fat and fat trim yields in the combined and individual weight groups (range, 0.18 to 0.48). While carcass and forequarter conformation scores were more highly related to percent separable fat and fat trim yields than round and hind- quarter conformation scores, little difference in thernagnitude of these correlation coefficients existed between the two weight groups and com- bined weight groups. These data indicate that conformation score is influenced by degree of fat even though a deliberate attempt was made in this study to evaluate degree of muscling without regard for fat. This was accomplished onthe ribbed carcass after measuring fat thickness at the twelfth rib. These results substantiate the statement of Briskey and Bray (1964) that evaluation of conformation is influenced by fatness, especially in very fat carcasses. These results also agree with the find- ings of Cole 35 £l° (1964) and Kirton (1964) and support the statement of -47- Hedrick‘gg El! (1963) who stated that "for a carcass to have a high cut- out, it is difficult to compensate for excess fat deposition with superior ‘muscle deve10pment." Carcass grade and marbling score were also positively correlated with carcass separable fat and fat trim yields in the combined and indi- vidual weight groups (range, 0.09 to 0.66). Highly significant (P < .01) correlations between these characteristics were found in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, 0.45 to 0.66). Carcass maturity score was positively related to measures of carcass muscle and bone (range, 0.10 to 0.64); whereas, it was negatively related to percent separable carcass fat and fat trim.yields in the combined weight groups and to both pounds and percent separable carcass fat and fat trim yields within weight groups (range, -.06 to -.56). Relationships Between Linear Fat Measurements and Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Simple correlation coefficients between the fat probes and fat measure- ments at the 12th rib with pounds and percent separable components, retail beef and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups as well as within weight groups appear in tables 8, 9 and 10. Correlation coefficients between fat measurements and percent separ- able components and retail yields were considerably higher, in most instances, than weight comparisons in the combined weight groups (table 8). This difference in magnitude of correlations was not observed for pounds and percent between fat trim yields and the linear fat measurements. -43- oo.0 oo.0 Ho.0 no.0 0¢.: m~.0 n¢.n 0H.0 Nq.n no.0 o¢.0 oo.0 ¢¢.u oH.0 .aw NH no.0 no.0 0o.0 no.0 no.u o0.u Ho.u o0.u 00.- NH.: Ho.0 no.0 Ho.n 00.- .GH 0 oo.0 0n.0 no.0 no.0 Ho.s NH.0 0o.u «H.0 no.u H0.u oo.0 no.0 do.u oo.0 .nH q Honaaq nuo 0n.0 qn.0 oo.0 no.0 oo.- o0.0 no.u o0.0 o¢.n 00.0 no.0 no.0 0o.n «0.0 .GH NH Ho.0 no.0 No.0 No.0 00.: NN.- «o.u n~.- 0o.- nn.u no.0 «n.0 mo.u n~.- .aa 0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 no.u 00.0 0o.u 00.0 0o.u HH.- no.0 no.0 oo.- «0.: .aa 0 . w .- . . .. , . . . . goofing soc no.0 on.0 no.0 on.0 oo.u nn.0 oo.u oN.0 Ho.- NH.0 qo.0 on.0 mo.n 0H.0 .a« Na no.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 no.0 no.u o0.a @o.: n0.u 00.: da.n oo.0 oo.0 no.a 00.: .nH n no.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 0o.u no.3 oo.u 0a.- no.u H~.- no.0 no.0 0o.n HH.- .GH 0 goofing uma no.0 nn.0 no.0 no.0 mo.u nH.0 no.u NH.0 mo.u o0.u no.0 oo.0 0o.u n0.0 .na NH no.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 no.n 00.- Ho.n o0.u mo.u NN.: oo.0 oo.0 no.u 0a.- .na 0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 uo.u oH.- no.. «a.. no.: 0n.n oo.0 ~¢.0 no.- N~.n .nH q oqomuosy suHH no.0 no.0 no.0 no.0 oo.: nH.0 0o.u NH.0 oo.u o0.u no.0 0o.0 oo.n n0.0 .GH NH oo.0 no.0 no.0 no.0 ~o.- «0.0 oo.u n0.0 Ho.u HH.- 0o.0 oo.0 no.. «0.- .na 0 no.0 oo.0 no.0 H¢.0 Ho.u 0n.u No.u 0n.u ~o.u 00.. no.0 nn.0 no.u nn.n .n« q uaowuosa nun mm.o am.o mm.o sm.o om.- o~.o m¢.- -.o oo.. oo.0 em.o mm.o om.- mH.o .aa NH nn.0 on.0 00.0 qn.0 on.u n0.u nn.: n0.u o¢.n 0N.- o¢.0 nn.0 Nq.u NH.: .oH n oo.0 oo.0 no.0 oo.0 no.1 H0.n «o.. 00.0 on.. on.. nn.0 oo.0 an.u n0.- .GH 0 afloouonk Suo n .AH n .nH n .nH n .nH n .na n .nH n .nH monouowumm umqm scum Egan aauu oHoHN‘Hamuou Humqm Hwouwu moon pom odomna umm Huaumuxm umm Hmuoe ooeawuu ooaaauu manquomwm manmummom manmuooom «venom «omcom .mmdouw uswaoB noawnEoo on» How moamwm_afiuu pom van Hfiouou «monocomeoo manouomom munchmo wad mucoEGMSmooa uom hoocaa Gmosuon munowowmmooo Goaumaouuou magaflm .m manna -49- .xuaao can any -nsoH «venom u umqma .AHO. v mv unmoHMHanm mum nnN.0 A mnOHumHmuuoo .Hmo. v mo unquamaawam mum o-.o.A maoqumfimuuoo «muaoaooaoo MHnmuomom mmoouoo 0am munmestmmoa uom HooGHH noosuop muaoHowmmooo aOHuoHouuoo mHnEHm «o.0 no.0 no.0 0o.0 0o.- No.0 0o.u «0.0 N«.a H0.0 oo.0 oo.0 No.a o0.0 umm umxmguo mo enema Nn.0 no.0 Hn.0 no.0 «o.u nH.n on.u oH.u nn.u H«.u nn.0 oo.0 nn.u oN.- .oqmq< .>< «o.0 no.0 0n.0 No.0 n«.u 00.0 ««.n 0H.0 oo.n nH.n no;._.o.0 no.n n0.: 0 Ho.0 n«.0 n«.0 N«.0 0«.u n0.« 0n.u N0.n oo.u oN.a oo.0 o«.0 no.u oH.u m Ho.0 oo.0 oo.0 Ho.0 Ho.u o0.a Ho.u o0.u oo.n nN.a no.0 0n.0 0o.u oH.u m «0.0 so.o mm.o mm.o «m.- oo.- om.- oo.- om.- H~.- «o.0 mm.o «0.- «a.- a oo.0 no.0 oo.0 Ho.0 no.u oN.w 0o.u oN.u «n.n n«.u Nn.0 o«.0 wo.u nn.: 0 no.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 o«av «o.u «N.u oo.u «N.u 0n.u .n oo.0 0«.0 0o.n 0N.n m «o.0 oo.0 n«.0 n«.0 o«.u n0.0 o«.. «0.0 o«.n nH.u oo.0 o«.0 no.n n0.n < muaoamunmmmz ooh mam nuNH n«.0 no.0 o«.0 n«.0 o«.: «0.0 n«.: «0.0 n«.: 0H.n No.0 0o.0 Ho.u H0.u .aH NH oo.0 0o.0 no.0 no.0 No.u 00.0 no.- 0H.0 H«.n No.0 oo.0 no.0 no.n «0.0 .aH w 0o.0 no.0 0o.0 No.0 No.- «0.0 oo.u «0.0 n«.: n0.u Ho.0 Ho.0 0o.u «0.0 .nH « Honoow nun no.0 ««.0 oo.0 nn.0 No.r «n.n no.. on.: n«.: nn.n oo.0 0n.0 Ho.u 0n.u .QH NH oo.0 oo.0 no.0 oo.0 «o.- n0.0 oo.- no.0 nn.u H0.0 no.0 oo.0 No.- H0.- .nH n no.0 no.0 no.0 no.0 0o.- no.0 mo.- m0.0 n«.- o0.- no.0 No.0 oo.- n0.- .aH « Hmuoom can N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .AH N .AH monouolwmh exam eoum EHHu Egan oHlo HHoumu HUMAN HHMuoH moon umm oHomnE pom Hmnumuxm 9mm kuoa ooaaHuu ooaaHuu oHpmummom mHnmumnmm anmumnmm «venom «wonom AvonnHunoou .mmnouw‘uanm3 omaHnaoo man now memHN;BHuu now new HHMuou .w «Home -50- No.0 No.0 No.0 No.0 Ho.u n«.: w«.. 0«.n oo.a Ho.u n«.0 No.0 o«.: «n.. .aa NH «o.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 no.u o«.u No.n «o.u no.u oo.u Ho.0 No.0 Ho.u oo.- .aH n no.0 no.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 no.u oo.u No.u «o.u «o.u No.n oo.0 oo.0 «o.u no.u .aH « nooasq nuo oo.0 0n.0 oo.0 no.0 nn.u oo.n «n.u no.u oo.u oo.n 0n.0 no.0 Hn.- mo.- .GH NH oo.0 oo.0 no.0 0n.0 0n.: 0o.- no.u no.: no.. 0o.u no.0 no.0 «o.u oo.u .aH n Ho.0 oo.0 «o.0 No.0 oo.: oo.: no.u 0o.u n«.u No.u No.0 n«.0 Ho.- oo.u .aH « Honeoq :u« Nn.0 nn.0 Nn.0 Nn.0 Nn.u «o.u Hn.u No.u oo.u «o.a no.0 no.0 oo.u 0o.u .aH NH oo.0 no.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.u 0o.u Ho.n no.u No.n Ho.a no.0 no.0 no.n oo.u .nH o no.0 No.0 No.0 0o.0 no.n Ho.u «o.u No.u 0o.u 0o.n 0o.0 no.0 no.n no.u .aH « HmnasH umH No.0 No.0 Ho.0 0o.0 mo.u no.u 0o.n «o.- «o.: «o.- oo.0 no.0 No.n o«.u .GH NH Ho.0 No.0 oo.0 oo.0 0o.- ~o.- ~o.- «o.- ~o.- Ho.- no.0 No.0 0o.- «o.- .n« o no.0 no.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 0o.: No.u no.n No.u no.n oo.u Ho.0 no.0 no.u oo.n .oH « oHoouonH nuHH «o.0 oo.0 No.0 No.0 No.u «o.u no.u «o.: no.. no.. «o.0 no.0 No.u no.n .aH NH no.0 no.0 «o.0 no.0 oo.u no.u oo.: «o.- o«.. n«.. oo.0 oo.0 0o.u 0o.u .GH w oo.0 no.0 No.0 no.0 0o.n 0o.n no.n n«.n oo.n «o.n «o.0 no.0 no.. No.. .aH « OHOmHosh sun No.0 No.0 «o.0 no.0 «o.u mo.u no.u oo.: «o.: «o.- no.0 no.0 oo.u no.u .aH NH ««.0 o«.0 oo.0 No.0 n«.- on.- n«.. on.- No.. oo.- «o.0 oo.0 n«.. on.. .aH m mo.o on.o on.o R.o «n.- No.- an.- an.. mm.- Hm.- «o.0 «w.o mn.- mo.- .na e OHUoHonH zoo N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH monoum pom exam Baum Bane aHuu 0Hon‘HHMuoH Humqm HHouou moon now oHomaa umm Hmcuouxm now Hmuoa ooeaauu ooaBHHu oHnouomom oHanmoom mHnmuoomm «venom «canon . cum uanoz .nH 0oo 0» 00o «so now monanmnuu now pom HHmuou «muaoooqaoo «Hawaomom ammoumu woo muooaounmooe uom HmonHH consume munoHOHmmooo coauonuuoo mHeaHm .0 oHan -51- .xoseo can no“ -:aoa -quom u umAMH .AHO. V mv unmoHMchHm who n0«.0 A maOHuoHoHHou .Ao0. V mv unmoHMHcmHm mum NHn.0 A mGOHumHouuoo no.0 No.0 no.0 oo.0 No.a «o.- no.: Ho.u 0o.u «o.n no.0 no.0 mo.n No.1 any uoxmfiun mo sumac Ho.0 No.0 «n.0 «n.0 Nn.u mo.n Nm.n no.u on.n «n.u nn.0 nn.0 on.u oo.n 0ama< .>< n«.0 n«.0 0o.0 n«.0 n«.u N«.. o«.. 0«.u no.n 0o.u no.0 oo.0 no.n oo.. 0 no.0 no.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 0o.u N«.- n«.u 0n.u oo.- oo.- 0o.0 no.0 0o.n «o.: m «o.0 «o.0 no.0 no.0 no.- No.u oo.u n«.u No.n No.u no.0 no.0 oo.n no.n m no.0 «o.0 no.0 no.0 no.u o«.. no.: n«.u oo.u no.u No.0 no.0 0o.u No.u 0 on.0 nn.0 on.0 nn.0 nn.n oo.u on.- no.1 Hn.u nn.u nn.0 nn.0 Hn.a 0o.. 0 No.0 no.0 0n.0 Nn.0 no.a Ho.n no.u 0o.u on.u Nn.n nn.0 on.0 no.u no.u m oo.0 «o.0 oo.0 no.0 Ho.u No.u no.u 0o.u Ho.n oo.s no.0 n«.0 n«.u 0o.u < unoemusmooa pom pom nuNH «n.0 «n.0 on.0 on.0 H«.u nn.- n«.u nn.u o«.: o«.. No.0 Ho.0 «o.u 0o.u .aH NH N«.0 N«.0 N«.0 N«.0 o«.u 0«.u m«.. n«.: o«.- ««.u oo.0 no.0 no.u «o.n .aH n H«.0 H«.0 o«.0 o«.0 0o.u n«.u «o.u Ho.u n«.u 0o.n oo.0 Ho.0 no.1 0o.u .aH « kuowm coo no.0 oo.0 «o.0 oo.0 no.u No.u no.: no.. on.. «n.. 0o.0 no.0 «o.n No.n .oH NH n«.0 o«.0 Ho.0 n«.0 no.u no.- no.. 0o.u nN.u Hn.n «o.0 0o.0 0o.u oo.u .GH 0 ««.0 ««.0 ««.0 ««.0 o«.u H«.u n«.u H«.u ««.u ««.a no.0 oo.0 «o.: no.: .oH « kuoom own N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH monouo pom QMAM scum aHuu aHuu onHh HHmuon HumHm HHouma moon uom mHomna new Hookqum uwm Hmuoa woeaHuu omaEHuu mHnoummom oHanmoom oHanmnmm ovaom «oocom AwasaHucoov .dmwouw.ustms .nH 0oo cu 00o ago you moHoHn\aHuu now won HHuuou Kmuse-30860 oHowuumom mmwuuao was musmeauomuoa_uum nmmcHH consume muanonmooo aOHumHoHHoo oHoEHn .0 oHan -52- n«.0 n«.0 nn.0 on.0 0N.u nN.n Hn.u 0N.n oN.n nN.u nn.0 nn.0 H«.u o«.u .aH NH no.0 no.0 No.0 oo.0 no.u H«.u «o.u H«.n no.1 nN.u no.0 no.0 0o.n «o.- .GH 0 0n.0 0n.0 «o.0 no.0 n«.u nn.u Ho.u on.. no.- no.: oo.0 oo.0 no.n oo.n .aH « amassH nuo Hn.0 Hn.0 «o.0 oo.0 no.. on.. no.u n«.0 nn.u «n.u Ho.0 n«.0 Ho.u 0o.u .nH NH No.0 no.0 No.0 oo.0 ««.u nN.u no.n nn.n o«.u N«.u Ho.0 n«.0 m«.: n«.. .GH n 0n.0 Hn.0 oo.0 No.0 Ho.n mn.- oo.u o«.n «o.u No.a no.0 no.0 No.n «o.u .aH « Honesq nu« no.0 no.0 «o.0 oo.0 n«.u NN.- o«.a oN.u 0«.a Hn.u No.0 «o.0 «o.. «o.. .aH NH Ho.0 No.0 n«.0 No.0 0n.u NN.u H«.u oN.- 0n.u 0N.u o«.0 ««.0 w«.. m«.. .:H n on.0 on.0 no.0 nn.0 «o.- «n.. no.u ««.u no.: Ho.u oo.0 oo.0 «o.. no.. .GH « HmnaaH umH 0n.0 Hn.0 No.0 no.0 No.: 0n.u Ho.u 0«.u 0o.u «o.u 0n.0 no.0 0o.u no.u .aH NH nn.0 nn.0 «o.0 oo.0 n«.- on.- oo.- ««.- no.- 0o.- no.0 «o.0 oo.- no.- .aH o no.0 0o.0 «o.0 No.0 N«.u «H.- m«.: HN.- n«.n 0«.u no.0 Ho.0 mo.n Ho.- .nH « oHomHonH nuHH oo.0 no.0 0o.0 oo.0 nn.u nH.- o«.u oN.u no.u o«.u No.0 n«.0 n«.. n«.. .nH NH Ho.0 No.0 0o.0 no.0 n«.n wN.u Ho.n nn.u 0o.u oo.n Ho.0 no.0 no.: no.: .nH n 0o.0 oo.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 No.u N«.. no.: n«.u mo.u no.u Ho.0 oo.0 no.u Ho.u .GH « oHumuosh nun on.0 nn.0 0N.0 nn.0 «H.u H0.- nH.u N0.- nN.u NN.u on.0 on.0 «n.a 0N.u .nH NH 0n.0 Hn.0 nN.0 0N.0 0N.n 0H.u oN.n oH.u «N.n 0N.u on.0 on.0 on.u Hn.u .nH n Ho.0 Ho.0 no.0 «o.0 on.u 0N.n n«.n on.. no.: no.- «o.0 Ho.0 mo.n 0o.u .nH « oHomuonH ayo N .0H N .0H N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH mucosa umm umqm scum BHHu aHuu onHanHmumu HumHm HHmumu moon umm oHomoe pom Hmaumuxm pom Hmuoa omeaHuu ooeaHHu oHnuHmmom anouoaom oHnoummom Kwoman «wonom 11w .mmouwwustmz .nH 0on ou 00n ago you meo N EHuu pom pom HHmuoH «mom ammuumu 0am munmamuomooe uom HmmcHH cowsuon muamHonmooo aoHuuHmHuoo oHaEHm .0H oHan «monocoaeoo «Hoa .385 08 £3- 603 .0H-amt Home: .AHO. V mv uanHmHomHm mum n0«.0 A meHumeunou .Ao0. V my uanHMHame who NHn.0 A «GOHuoHoHHou -53- 00.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 N«.0 00.- 00.- 000 umxmaun «0 .0000 “0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- o~.- Nn.o on.- 00.- u-m-< .>< 00.0 00.0 00.0 m0.o n~.- 0H.. 00.0 n0.- 00.- o n«.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 H«.. 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- m 00.0 00.0 ~0.o 00.0 00.- 0~.- 00.0 00.- 00.- m 00.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0 H0.- 00.- «0.0 00.- n0.- a 00.0 “0.0 00.0 $0.0 00.- 0~.- 00.0 00.- 00.- o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.- 0a.- 00.0 «0.- «0.- m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0~.- «0.- 00.0 00.- 00.- < "mUfiUBOHHH wave 000 one ouNH 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 00.- mm.- «0.0 00.- «0.- .a0 NH n0.o 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- .aa 0 00.0 H0.0 H0.0 00.0 00.- H0.- «0.0 00.- n0.- .as 0 Hmuomm 000 N0.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 nn.. H«.. 00.0 00.- 00.- .aa NH H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- -.- H0.0 00.- ~0.- .a- 0 -N.o Hn.0 00.0 00.0 00.- mm.- 00.0 00.- on.- .a- 0 Hanan-m HuHm s .0H e .00 x .0H e .0H N .0H N .0H e .0H manage “an HUM-HM SPHM EH-Hu EH-Hu Him-Tm .anumh Hana HHQUm-H 0.3.03 umm wHomflE Ham HwG-Huu—Mm uwm kuO-H Humghu HUME-“Mu mHn—demmm anm-Hdmmm mHn—whmmmm «ooaom Nvenom .JNVoocHunooM. .nwonw-ustwa .0H 0on ou 00n mnu you monHnJaHuu now won HHmumu «mucmaomeou mHnmummmm ammonmo 0am muaoamunmwoa umm ummnHH nmmsumn muanOHmmmoo GOHumHmuuoo mHmaHm .0H «Home -54- These data suggest that linear fat measurements, in similar fat thickness groups but different weight groups, were similar in magnitude; whereas, the pounds separable components and retail beef yields were widely differ- ent between weight groups (table 3). However, fat trim yields were similar between weight groups and the relationships between the linear fat measurements and pounds and percent fat trim yields were more constant. In contest to the combined weight groups, the within.weight group (50 lb. weight range) correlation coefficients (tables 9 and 10) between linear fat measurements and pounds and percent separable components, retail and fat trim yields were similar. These differences in correla- tions between weights and percents on a combined weight group basis agree with the results of Orme (1958), Orme (1963), Allen (1963), Hedrick gt El- (1963) and Miller 93; _a_l. (1965). The fat measruements most highly related to percent separable com- ponents and retail yields for the combined weight groups were: the 5th thoracic fat probe at four inches, fat measurement C over the 12th rib and the average of fat measurements A, B and C (range, -.57 to 0.78). These three linear measurements of fat also showed the highest relation- ship to both pounds and percent separable components and retail yields in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, 0.69 to -.86). However, in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, most of the relationships between these fat measurements were markedly reduced (range, -.36 to 0.73), but all correlations involving percents and most for weights remained highly significant. These findings support those of Lewis ggngl. (1964) who -55- reported significant (P < .05) correlations between fat probes and mea- surements and percent retail yield of the round, loin, rib and chuck. Since correlations were higher within the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, it appears that linear measure- ‘ments of fat are more accurate indicators of separable muscle, fat, bone and retail yields for lighter carcasses than for heavier, fatter carcasses. Within the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, the fat probes in the lumbar region were more highly correlated (range, -.22 to 0.76) with separable components than the same probes within the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, -.34 to -.74). These data indicate that in the heavier carcasses, covariances between fat probes in the lumbar region and separable com- ponents, retail and fat trim yields were greater in most instances than those in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group. Correlation coefficients be- tween fat probes and measurements and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups as well as within weight groups were highly significant (P < .01) in most instances (range, 0.27 to 0.84). Depth of brisket fat was negatively correlated (P < .01) with percent separable muscle, bone and retail yields for the combined weight groups (range, -.42 to -.60), but positively correlated with pounds of these components (range, 0.01 to 0.06). Within the two weight groups the depth of brisket fat and separable muscle and bone and retail yields were negative but significantly (P < .05) correlated when expressed as either pounds or percent. Depth of brisket fat was highly significantly corre- lated (P < .01) with pounds and percent separable fat and fat trim yields for the combined as well as the two individual weight groups (range, 0.42 to 0.63). -55- Relationships Between Some Linear Carcass Measurements and Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim.Yields Simple correlation coefficients between linear carcass measurements taken and separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the com- bined weight groups and for each weight group appear in tables 11 and 12. Correlation coefficients between depth of rib measurements and separable components, retail and fat trim yields were generally lower (range, 0.00 to 0.36) than those between other measurements and the same components. This was true in the combined weight groups as well as the two weight groups. Length of round was highly correlated to pounds of separable muscle, bone and retail yields in the combined weight groups (0.82 to 0.92). However, these relationships were reduced when calculating correlations between this measurement and percentages or for pounds and/or percentages on,a within weight group basis (range, 0.02 to 0.61), except for percent bone. In the case of bone, the correlation coefficients were still large enough to be useful for predictive purposes (range, 0.43 to 0.82). Length of round was negatively related to pounds and percent separable fat and fat trim yields within weight groups (range, -.47 to -.70). These findings are similar to those of Orme (1963) who reported measurements of carcass length and length of fore or hind legs in lambs was negatively related to measures of carcass fat. Cole ggngl. (1962) also reported a negative relationship between length of carcass and separable carcass fat. Circumference of round generally showed a higher relationship to ‘measurements of carcass fat than to bone or carcass muscling for the -57- .muomummaauuHo u .ouHoN £85 05 an :52 .0H-om u 95: .AHO. V mv unmonHome mum nnN.0 A maOHuaHmuuoo .Aoo. V mv unmonHanm one 0NN.0 A mGOHumHmuuou N0.- 0H.0 o0.- 0N.0 no.0 oo.0 NH.0 No.0 H0.- n«.0 nH.u oN.0 oN.0 no.0 mono oHomna.HmHev.m. N«.0 oo.0 0n.0 oo.0 0«.- oo.0 0«.- oo.0 oN.- n«.0 Nn.0 no.0 0N.- no.0 mason mo N.ohHU HH.- HH.0 oH.- oN.0 no.0 No.0 No.0 nn.0 n«.0 N0.0 nN.n nn.0 0H.0 Nn.0 mason mo nowawH N0.- oo.0 00.0 nH.0 «0.0 Nn.0 oo.0 nn.0 o0.- 0H.0 oo.0 NN.0 n0.- nN.0 HHH nuNH Samoa 00.0 0H.0 n0.0 NN.0 «0.: on.0 «0.- on.0 HN.- oH.0 0H.0 on.0 oH.- oN.0 HHH nuoH sumo: N .nH N .nH N .nH N .nH N .HH N .HH N .0H unoamunmmoa HoocHH 0MHm Baum EHH» eHuu oHowN-HHMumu Humqm HHmumH moon umm «Hanna umm Hmahmuxm uom Houoa wanHuu oanHuu oHnoumaom mHnonmom oHnmumomm «modem «omnom .manouw usmHoB Hum-3&5.» 2.3 How moHoHn 5.3 now can :33 «munoaoaaoo «Hnmummom mmmuumo one munoaounmmoa_mmmouwo umoaHH mean ammsuop muanuHmmooo nOHumHmHuoo oneHm .HH mHan Juno-Homeboy? n .ouHoN .xussu 0cm nHu .30. v .5 E8320: «.8 .Ao0. v mv unmonHamHm mum oHOH venom" QMHM n0«. 0 A mGOHuoHouuo NHn.0 A mGOHumHmuHou 0«.- H«.- n«.- 0o.- Ho.0 Hn.0 n«.0 0n.0 0n. 0 oN. 0 n«.- m«.- 0n.0 o«.0 «use mHomss.Hmuoo.m. o«.0 o«.0 n«.0 0n.0 o«.- Nn.- n«.- on.- «n. - 0n. - o«.0 n«.0 Ho.- n«.- pesos mo .ouHo - No.- a«.- no.- o«.- 0N.0 nn.0 nn.0 o«.0 Ho. 0 No. 0 oo.- n«.- n«.0 No.0 oases mo concuH ”w «0.- H0.0 oH.- «0.- nH.0 o«.0 nH.0 N«.0 N0. - m0. 0 HH.0 0N.0 nH.- «0.0 nHH :uNH comma - 00.0 nH.0 oo.- no.0 HH.0 Hn.0 No.0 oN.0 0N.- HH.- nN.0 0N.0 «N.- NH.- 0H» suoH comma adouwwuawwms .nH 0on on 00n 2.- 2.- 2.- 2.- NN.0 0N.0 on.0 00.0 02.- 2.- 2.- 2.- 220 3.0 030 208-.- 23804 NN.0 NN.0 nN.0 NN.0 oH.- oH.- nH.- nH.- oN.- mN.- oH.0 «H.0 NH.- nH.- oases mo N.uuH0 oo.- oo.- mo.- 0n.- Ho.0 no.0 oo.0 n«.0 Nn.0 00.0 mo.- Ho.- n«.0 on.0 ounce mo cuwcmH HH.- 0H.- N0.- 00.0 00.0 oH.0 nH.0 NN.0 o0.- n0.- n0.- 00.0 n0.0 nH.0 AHH nuNH enema n0.- n0.- No.0 no.0 n0.0 HH.0 no.0 nH.0 0N.- «H.- 00.0 NH.0 n0.- 00.0 pHn cuoH comma macaw ucmes .0H 0oo ou 00o N .oH N .0H N .0H N .nH N .nH N .oH N .0H uamsmasmmwe_ummnHH umHm aoum.EHHu BHHu wHoHn-HHmumu HomHm HHMuoH moon umm oHomna uMm Hmnhouxm “mm Houoa veaEHnu ooEEHHu anoummmm mHnoummom mHnmuomom «venom «voaom .mmwouw uanoB .HH 0on ou 00n can .HH 0oo ou 00o man How mmHoHN,BHHu now mam HHS-.0.H .muno -aomaou oHnmuomom unmouoo can munoamuomooa.mmmuuoo HoooHH meow consume munoHonmmoo nOHuoHouhoo mHeaHm .NH oHan -59- combined weight groups. In the500 to 550 lb. weight group circumference of round showed low relationships to both weight and percent separable components, retail and fat trim yields (range, -.12 to -.29). L, dorsi muscle area was highly significantly (P4< .01) correlated with pounds of separable muscle and retail yields for the combined weight groups (range, 0.60 to 0.67). Correlations between l-.§2E§i muscle area and percent separable components and retail yields on a combined weight group basis as well as within weight group correlations were markedly lower. Cole 23 31. (1962), Field 25 31. (1963) and Henderson 35 El- (1966) show the same relationships between 1. ggggi muscle area and weight and percent measures of carcass muscling. Multiple Regression Analyses of Objective Carcass Measurements on Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim.Yields Only those multiple correlations which were high enough to be useful for predictive purposes and include a practical number of independent variables will be reported in the results and discussion portion of this manuscript. Other regression analyses which were calculated will be found in the supplement. Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Fat on Objective Carcass Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 86% and 94% of the variation in percent and pounds, respectively, of separable carcass fat could be accounted for with a combination of carcass weight and seven probes and fat thickness measurements (suppl. p. 168). -50- In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 90% of the variation in weight of separable fat and 89% of tine-variation in percent separable fat could be accounted for using the combination of variables in tables 13 and 14. Table 13. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R7-1 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -143.153 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.348 0.338 0.00 0.82 Probe-5th Thor.-4 in.2 1.826 0.445 0.00 0.81 Probe-6th Lumb.-8 18.3 0.383 0.200 0.01 0.88 Probe-6th Lumb.-12 in. -.379 -.l75 0.03 0.88 Fat depth over brisket 4.718 0.207 0.01 0.87 Fat measurement D 0.699 0.223 0.01 0.87 R2 = 0.90 Standard error of estimate = 5.91 1Value of the coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Thor. = Thoracic vertebra. = Lumbar vertebra. 3Lumb. -61- Table 14. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -8.412 0.54 Carcass wt. 0.045 0.127 0.09 0.88\ Probe-5th Thor.-4 in.2 0.742 0.538 0.00 0.78 Probe-lst Lumb.-8 in.3 -.l78 -.254 0.03 0.87 Probe-3rd Sac.-12 1n.4 0.180 0.271 0.00 0.84- Fat depth over brisket 1.812 0.232 0.00 0.86 Fat measurement D 0.400 0.371 0.00 0.83 22 = 0.89 Standard error of estimate 1Value of the coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Thor. = Thoracic vertebra. 3Lumb. = Lumbar vertebra. Sac. = Sacral vertebra. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, 88% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass fat could be accounted for using nine variables (suppl., p.1159). These same nine variables were responsible for 89% of the variation in percent separable carcass fat (suppl., p. 169 ). These results indicate that accuracy can be attained with a combination of ob- jective carcass fat measurements to predict either percent or pounds of separable carcass fat. The standard error of estimates, for the prediction of percent separable fat, in the combined weight groups, 500 to 550 lb. weight group and 700 to 750 lb. weight group, were 2.10, 2.10 and 1.66%, respectively. These compare favorably with the standard error of estimate -52- of 2.34% found by Hankins and Howe (1946) for their prediction equation for percent separable carcass fat from percent separable fat of the 9-10-11 rib section. In the combined weight groups, using only the five variables listed in table 15, 92% of the variation in weight of total carcass separable fat was accounted for. It can be observed from this table that carcass weight has the greatest effect in this prediction equation. Using essen- tially the same variables minus carcass weight and including one more fat measurement, 81% of the variation in percent carcass separable fat was accounted for (table 16). Using only these five independent variables Table 15. Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurementsg1pombined weightggroups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -35.266 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.159 0.590 0.00 0.68 Probe-5th Thor.-4 in.2 1.686 0.271 0.00 0.87 Probe-lst Lumbar-12 in. 0.424 0.123 0.02 0.91 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacra13 0.914 0.178 0.00 0.90 Fat measurement D 0.588 0.133 0.00 0.91 R2 = 0.92 Standard error of estimate = 7.58 1Value of the coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Thor. = Thoracic vertebra. 3Av. of 3 probes taken at 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. -53- Table 16. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R2i Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 21.678 0.00 Probe-5th Thor.-4 in.2 0.626 0.488 0.00 0.67 Probe-8th Thor.-8 in. -.282 -.262 0.00 0.79 Probe-lst Lumbar-12 in. 0.134 0.189 0.01 0.79 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral3 0.393 0.372 0.00 0.74 Fat measurement D 0.276 0.303 0.00 0.77 R2 = 0.81 Standard error of estimate 2.34 1Value of the coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Thor.“ = Thoracic vertebra. 3Av. of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. resulted in a standard error of estimate of 2.34% carcass separable fat, which is the same standard error of estimate reported by Hankins and Howe (1946) using their prediction equation for carcass separable fat involv- ing separable fat of the 9-10-11 rib section . This same multiple regression analysis in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group was responsible for 85% of the variation in percent carcass separable fat with a standard error of esti- mate of 2.46% (suppl., p.170 ). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, 83% of the variation in percent carcass separable fat could be accounted for using these five fat measurements with a standard error of estimate of 1.93% (suppl., p. 170). -64- Multiple Regression Analyses of External Fat Trim from the Round, Loin, Rib and Chuck on Objective Carcass Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 79% of the variation in external fat trim from the round, 10in, rib and chuck (RLRC) was accounted for using two fat probes, carcass weight and length of round (table 17). It can be observed from the data in this table that weight is the most important variable in the regression equation. These same four variables, in the combined weight groups, accounted for 71% of the variation in percent external fat trim.from the RLRC (suppl., p. 171). Table 17. Coefficient of determination between weight of external fat trim.from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coeffi- cient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of RZL Independent variables coefficients ‘weights Sig; deletes Constant 11.933 0.08 Carcass wt. 0.050 0.700 0.00 0.64 Probe-4th Lumbar-12 in. 0.320 0.332 0.00 0.73 Probe Av. 3rd Sacralz 0.416 0.307 0.00 0.73 Length of round -1.498 -.434 0.00 0.73 R2 = 0.79 Standard error of estimate = 3.13 1Value of the coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from.the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes taken at 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 3rd Sacral vertebra. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 83% of the variation in the exter- nal fat trim from these same four wholesale cuts could be accounted for -65- using the independent variables shown in table 18. It should be noted from the data in this table that when the analysis was calculated within weight groups, carcass weight had little effect upon the weight of exter- nal fat trim.from the RLRC. Ninety-three percent of the variation in percent external fat trim.from the RLRC in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group could be accounted for using 15 variables, all of which had a sig- nificant (P < .05) effect upon percent fat trim (suppl., p. 171). Table 18. Coefficient of determination between weight of external fat trim from.the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coeffi- cient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight granni- Regression Beta Level of R2.1 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -8.324 ' 0.62 Carcass wt. 0.004 0.10 0.88 0.83 Probe-3rd Sacral-12 in. 0.199 0.290 0.00 0.77 Fat measurement A 0.238 0.297 0.01 0.79 Fat measurement C 0.509 0.494 0.00 0.74 Fat measurement E 0.367 0.526 0.00 0.77 Fat measurement F -.320 -.490 0.01 0.79 R2 = 0.83 Standard error of estimate = 2.71 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, 96% of the variation in pounds or percent of external fat trim was accounted for using the 22 variables given in the supplement p. 172. -66- Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Retail Fat Trim on Objective Carcass Measurements. The six independent variables given in table 19 were re- sponsible for 87% of the variation present in weight of total retail fat trim for the combined weight groups. Eighty-one percent of the variation in percent of this same trait could be accounted for using the 12 indepen- dent variables presented in the supp1., p. 173. Table 19. Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass fat measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measure- ments<(combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R2T Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -2.572 0.87 Carcass wt. 0.158 0.762 0.00 0.72 Probe-4th Lumbar-12 in. 0.438 0.156 0.01 0.85 Probe-Av. of 3rd Sacral2 0.709 0.179 0.00 0.85 Fat depth over brisket 3.810 0.169 0.00 0.85 Length of round -2.748 -.273 0.00 0.85 Fat measurement C 0.562 0.161 0.02 0.86 1 E1 = 0.87 Standard error of estimate = 7.41 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 3rd Sacral vertebra. Within the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, the coefficient of determina- tion for weight of total retail fat trim.was 0.85 using the five indepen- dent variables presented in table 20. Eighty-four percent of the variation -67- Table 20. Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass fat measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each measurement (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 42.998 0.51 Carcass wt. 0.119 0.119 0.15 0.84 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacralz 0. 725 0. 385 0. 00 0. 73 Length of round -3.243 -.237 0.02 0.83 Fat measurement A 0.663 0.302 0.00 0.79 Fat measurement B 0.432 0.282 0.01 0.82 R2 = 0.85 Standard error of estimate - 6.80 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 3rd Sacral vertebra. in percent total retail fat trim could be accounted for in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 21) using five carcass measurements. Carcass weight showed little effect on either pounds or percent total retail fat trim within weight groups. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, 80% of the variation in weight of total retail fat trim was accounted for using eight variables (suppl., p. 173). Using six variables (suppl., p.174-), 73% of the variation in percent total retail fat trim could be accounted for in this weight group. These results indicate that estimating yields of separable fat or fat trim from objective measurements was more difficult in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group than in the 500 to 550 1b. carcasses. However, comparable -68- Table 21. Coefficient of detenmination between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass fat measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements 41500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sigpi deletes Constant 34.189 0.16 Carcass wt. 0.012 0.032 0.70 0.84 Probe-3rd Sacral-12 in. 0.272 0.393 0.00 0.72 Length of round -1.246 -.247 0.02 0.82 Fat measurement A 0.264 0.327 0.00 0.77 Fat measurement B 0.168 0.296 0.01 0.80 R2 = 0.84 Standard error of estimate = 2.58 1Va1ue of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. accuracy to the 500 to 550 1b. carcasses could be attained in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group by increasing the number of variables in most in- S tance S . Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Separable Carcass Muscle on Objective Carcass Measurements. For the combined weight groups, 93% of the variation in weight of total separable carcass muscle could be accounted for using the five independent variables listed hitable 22. As can be seen from the data in this table, carcass weight was the most important variable in pre- dicting separable carcass muscle. This agrees with the findings of Cole .eE.§1. (1962). Carcass weight, 5th thoracic fat probe 4 in. off the car- cass dorsal midline, average of 3 fat probes at the 3rd sacral vertebra -69- Table 22. Coefficient of determination between weight of separable carcass muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weightggpoups)- Regression Beta Level of Rif— Independent variables coefficients weights Sig, deletes Constant 25.362 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.241 0.896 0.00 0.49 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.779 -.126 0.01 0.92 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral2 -1.l75 -.230 0.00 0.91 Fat measurement C -.501 -.111 0.01 0.93 .L-.§2£§l muscle area 1.407 0.093 0.03 0.93 R? = 0.93 Standard error of estimate = 6.78 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 3rd sacral vertebra. and fat measurement C were responsible for 73% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle (suppl., p. 174). These data indicate that car- cass weight contributed much less to determining percent separable carcass muscle than to weight. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, three variables accounted for 71% of the variation in weight of total separable carcass muscle (suppl., p.174 ). These same three variables accounted for 78% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle (table 23). The multiple correlation coefficient between these three objective measurements and percent separable carcass muscle (0.88) compares favorably with the correlation of 0.85 between per- cent separable muscle of the 9-10-11 rib section and percent separable carcass muscle determined by Hankins and Howe (1946). -70- Table 23. Coefficient of determination between percent separable carcass muscle and a combinationcfiiobjective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weightggroup). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 86.511 0.00 Carcass wt. -.046 -.168 0.08 0.76 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.436 -.407 0.00 0.70 Probe-Av. 3rd sacral2 -.437 -.491 0.00 0.63 R? = 0.78 Standard error of estimate = 2.20 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 3rd Sacral vertebra. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, low coefficients of determination were observed for pounds and percent separable carcass muscle using ob- jective carcass measurements as the independent variables. Three variables; 1) carcass weight, 2) probe 4 in. off the carcass dorsal midline at the 5th thoracic vertebra (figure 2), and 3) the average of 3 probes taken at the 3rd sacral vertebra were responsible for 68% of the variation in pounds and 65% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle (suppl., p. 175). These data indicate that it was more difficult to predict pounds or percent separable carcass muscle in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group than in the 500 to 550 lb. carcasses. This may possibly be attributed to greater intermuscular fat deposition in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group than in the 500 to 550 1b. carcasses. -71- Multiple Regression Anaiyses of Total Carcass Separable Bone on Objective Carcass Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 91% of the varia- tion in pounds of separable carcass bone could be accounted for using the independent variables listed in table 24. This equation is a practical and accurate method for prediction of separable carcass bone as it employs four easily taken measurements and has standard error of estimate of 1.94 lb. Table 24. Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the measure- ments (combined weight gpoups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -21.423 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.032 0.468 0.00 0.87 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.292 -.l87 0.00 0.90 Length of round 1.499 0.457 0.00 0.87 Fat measurement C -.197 -.l73 0.00 0.90 R? = 0.91 Standard error of estimate = 1.94 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Using these same four variables, 80% of the variation in percent separable carcass bone was accounted for in the combined weight groups (table 25). -72- Table 25. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (com- bined weightggroups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 4.209 0.02 Carcass weight -.008 -.575 0.00 0.73 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.103 -.306 0.00 0.76 Length of round 0.503 0.712 0.00 0.70 Fat measurement C -.063 -.256 0.00 0.77 R2 = 0.80 Standard error of estimate = 0.63% 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 78% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass bone was accounted for using carcass weight, 5th sacral fat probe - 4 in. (figure 2) and the length of round measurement (suppl., 9. 175. These same three variables accounted for 83% of the variation in percent separable carcass bone in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (suppl., p. r75). Carcass weight, average of 3 fat probes at the 3rd sacral (figure 2) and length of round accounted for 80% of the varia- tion in pounds of separable carcass bone (suppl., p. 176.) and 77% of the variation in percent separable carcass bone (suppl., p. 176) in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. On a combined or within weight group basis, the largest standard error of estimate for the prediction equations presented was 0.68%. This compares favorably to the standard error of estimate of 1.29% associated -73- with the prediction equation for percent separable bone of Hankins and Howe (1946). Multiple Regression Analyses of Retail Yield Measures on Objective Carcass Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 91% of the variation in pounds of boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield was accounted for using the variables listed in table 26. Table 26. Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measuremente_(combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -5.504 0.76 Carcass weight 0.206 0.860 0.00 0.76 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.303 -.055 0.33 0.91 Probe-8th Thoracic-8 in. 0.242 0.521 0.34 0.91 Prdbe-4th Lumbar-12 in. -.579 -.l78 0.00 0.89 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacralz -.746 -.l64 0.00 0.90 Length of round 1.925 0.166 0.03 0.90 R2 = 0.91 Standard error of estimate = 7.06 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable were deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Using these same variables, 88% of the variation in total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield could be accounted for in the combined weight groups (table 27). On a percent basis in the combined and within weight -74- Table 27. Coefficient of determination between weight of total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (gambined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -2.973 0.87 Carcass weight 0.247 0.851 0.00 0.74 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.510 -.076 0.23 0.88 Probe-8th Thoracic-8 in. 0.425 0.076 0.22 0.88 Probe-4th Lunbar-12 in. - . 739 - . 188 0. 00 0. 87 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacralz -.867 -.157 0.01 0.87 Length of round 2.262 0.161 0.07 0.88 R? = 0.88 Standard error of estimate = 9.66 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Av. of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. groups, accuracy was poor in the prediction of percent of either retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck or total carcass retail yield. Also, on a within weight group basis, prediction accuracy of pounds of either of the retail yield measures was poor using only objective carcass measurements as independent variables. Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Separable Muscle and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim.Yie1ds In this study, pounds of separable components, retail and fat trim yields were correlated with pounds of separable wholesale cut components, retail, fat trim and bone yields. Percent separable carcass components, -75- retail and fat trim yields were correlated with percent wholesale cut separable components, retail, fat trim.and bone yields. Percent whole- sale cut separable components, retail, fat trim.and bone yields were cal- culated as a percentage of each individual cut rather than as a percentage of the entire carcass. Simple correlation coefficients between pounds and percent separable wholesale cut muscle and pounds and percent of total carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for each weight group as well as for the combined weight groups appear in tables 28, 29 and 30. Correla- tions between pounds and percent separable wholesale cut muscle and pounds and percent total carcass separable muscle, bone and retail yields were highly significant (P < .01) for the combined weight groups (range, 0.48 to 0.98) except those for pounds and percent of brisket muscle in most instances and percent foreshank muscle (range, 0.02 to 0.61). While with- in weightgroup correlations were lower than in the combined weight groups, those between pounds of separable rump, foreshank and flank.muscle with pounds of total carcass separable muscle, bone and retail yields were 'markedly reduced. Correlations between pounds and percents total carcass separable ‘muscle and pounds and percents wholesale round, loin, rib and chuck separ- able muscle indicate a high relationship (P‘< .01) exists in the combined and individual weight groups (range, 0.67 to 0.98). Pounds of separable chuck muscle showed the highest relationship to pounds of total carcass separable muscle for combined weight groups (0.98) as well as within ~76- .xooao 05 £2- .32 .039.- .- one: .HHO. V mv unmoHMstHm mum nnN.0 A maOHuoHouuoo .Ao0. V my osmonHamHm one 0NN.0 A mGOHuonuuou nn.- oH.0 0n.- Hn.0 on.0 on.0 0n.0 on.0 on.0 on.0 N0.- o«.0 H0.0 on.0 xsth Hn.- 00.0 on.- nN.0 nn.0 on.0 nn.0 on.0 oo.0 nn.0 nw.- nn.0 nn.0 00.0 oumHm nH.- 00.0 n«.- n«.0 n«.0 Ho.0 nH.0 nH.0 n0.- o0.0 n0.- NH.0 N0.0 NH.0 nomeum oN.- oH.0 nH.- «n.0 nN.0 on.0 «N.0 on.0 o0.- nn.0 nN.- o«.0 0N.0 nn.0 xamnmoHOh No.- oH.0 «o.- Hn.0 0o.0 0n.0 no.0 H0.0 «o.0 nn.0 nw.- nn.0 No.0 00.0 309:0 nn.- HH.0 on.- nN.0 nn.0 Nn.0 on.0 «o.0 no.0 Hn.0 nm.- on.0 on.0 on.0 nHm 0o.- «N.0 0o.- 0«.0 no.0 oo.0 0n.0 nn.0 no.0 «0.0 00.- N«.0 nn.0 «0.0 GHOH oo.- 00.0 No.- oN.0 No.0 H0.0 oo.0 Nn.0 no.0 nn.0 00.- Hn.0 nn.0 nn.0 canon uoounH Nn.- 0H.1 Nn.- N0.- on.0 no.0 on.0 oo.0 o«.0 oo.0 no.- 0H.0 oo.0 oo.0 035m No.- nH.0 no.- 0N.0 no.0 Nn.0 Ho.0 «n.0 oo.0 00.0 0w.- 0N.0 «n.0 nn.0 venom mmmHmeam N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H umqm scum aHuu Sana 0H0 h HHmuou HQMHM HHmuoH moon umm oHomsa. oHomna uom Hmauouxm new Hooch onEHuu ooEEHHu oHnoumeom mHnmuoeom oHnouoeom oHnmumoom avenom «venom use mHomoHoez -Gooaou OHAmHmeow monopoo mam oHomDE oHHoneom use onmmHons.aoosuon mucoHonmooo aoHumHouuou mHeEHm .mewoww.uamHmS omnHAaoo man How monHh,aHuu new one HHmuou .muao .wN oHan -77- .3350 can 0.? asHoH «Ho-50m - QMHMH .20. v .0 088002020 one 000.0 A 23328-80 .Ao0. V my unmonchHm mum NHn.0 A mGOHuoHouHoo 0n.- o«.- nn.- o«.- 0n.0 no.0 00.0 oo.0 «n.0 0n.0 «m.- 0n.- H0.0 no.0 3amHm no.- «o.- nn.- oo.- «n.0 0o.0 on.0 0o.0 no.0 0«.0 on.- oo.- nn.0 oo.0 oumHm 0N.- nN.0 on.- NN.0 ««.0 oN.- o«.0 0N.- nn.0 0n.- 0o.- n0.0 «o.0 N0.- ummeun «H.- on.- «0.- 0n.- oH.0 o«.0 nH.0 o«.0 0N.- N«.0 n0.- 0n.- 00.0 «n.0 xaonmouom Ho.- oo.- «o.- no.- oo.0 no.0 «n.0 no.0 no.0 No.0 on.- Nn.- no.0 «0.0 30:50 Nn.- on.- nn.- on.- 0n.0 o«.0 Nn.0 0o.0 no.0 00.0 «m.- nn.- on.0 no.0 new no.- H«.- 0n.- nn.- Nn.0 N«.0 «n.0 o«.0 oo.0 N«.0 00.- No.- «0.0 nn.0 nHOH oo.- «n.- oo.- mn.- «n.0 nn.0 nn.0 0n.0 oo.0 0n.0 Nn.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 pesos uumuoH on.- oo.- «n.- no.- nn.0 no.0 00.0 no.0 No.0 «o.0 «n.- 0o.- on.0 no.0 035m «o.- oo.- oo.- 0o.- «o.0 no.0 no.0 oo.0 N«.0 Hn.0 on.- Hn.- «0.0 00.0 annoy mmoHeesm N .0H N .HH N .0H N .HH N .0H N .-.nH N .nH umam scum eHuu EHuu onWNwHHoumu Humqm HHouou moon new mHomsa mHomse new Honumuxm uom Houoa panHuu ouaaHuu oHnouoeom oHnmuoemm 0Hnauoemm oHnmueeom avoaom avenom use oHMmmHonz -aoeaou oHnuuomom monoumu mam «Hanna mHnoummom uno oHMmoHo;3_soosuon muaoHUHmmooo GOHuonuHoo oHoaHm doom-£0012- .2 000 on 000 of no.6. 00202 53 one one :38 .38 .mN «Hams -73- .xooeo one 2..- .fioa 6853- n 82 .AHO. V mv unmoHMHame one n0«.0 A mnOHumHouuow .Ao0. V mv unmoHMHame one HNn.0 A mnowuonuuoo on.- ««.- nn.- n«.- on.0 0o.0 on.0 no.0 Ho.0 ««.0 mm.- on.- H0.0 No.0 xanm Nn.- 0o.- nn.- No.- no.0 oo.0 oo.0- oo.0 no.0 n«.0 on.- oo.- nn.0 nn.0 muon no.- Nn.- nn.- on.- No.0 HH.0 «o.0 n0.0 oo.0 0H.0 on.- 0«.- 00.0 0«.0 nomeum o«.- m«.- n«.- n«.- N«.0 00.0 0n.0 no.0 0N.0 0n.0 no.- Ho.- oo.0 on.0 xnmnmouom nn.- 0o.- nn.- Nn.- «o.0 no.0 no.0 «o.0 on.0 0o.0 n0.- nn.- No.0 No.0 30:50 00.- no.- on.- no.- 0n.0 oo.0 Nn.0 no.0 0n.0 o«.0 Hm.- 0o.- nn.0 no.0 AHM «n.- n«.- 0o.- 0o.- No.0 n«.0 oo.0 Ho.0 Hn.0 «o.0 00.- no.- Nn.0 on.0 GHOH 0n.- on.- oo.- on.- «o.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 n«.0 nn.- «w.- nn.0 00.0 pesos uomucH no.- 0H.- no.- oN.- No.0 oo.0 no.0 oo.0 0«;0 0H.0 Ho.- 00.0 o«.0 nH.0 095m nn.- oo.- no.- oo.- no.0 nN.0 No.0 on.0 nn.0 «n.0 00.- on.- 00.0 0n.0 Hugo-.— mamas-m N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .AH N .0H QMHm some eHuu aqua oHon.HHmuou HumHm HHmumu anon new oHomsE oHomsa mam Hangouxm new Houos ooaaauu pmeaHuu oHnwuoemm mHnmuommm oHnonemm oHnmummmm «venom «venom use oHomoHon3 .esouw unwwws .0H 0on ou 00n man How mmHofiN.aHHu new one HHmumu amuno -aoeaoo oHanomom mmooumo one mHomsa.mHnmuoeom use onmmHo53_ooosumn muaoHonmoou QOHumHmuuoo oHeaHm .on oHHmH -79- weight groups (0.94 and 0.92 for the 500 to 550 and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups, respectively). Orme_e§.§1. (1960) also found that of all the wholesale cuts,pounds of separable chuck muscle showed the highest rela- tionship to pounds of total separable carcass muscle. Correlations between wholesale round separable muscle and total carcass separable ‘muscle were next highest (0.97, 0.88 and 0.90 for the combined, 500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups, respectively). These findings also coincide with those of Orme e; 31. (1960). The percents separable muscle of these same wholesale cuts were as high, or more highly related to percent total carcass separable muscle within the two weight grOUps as in the combined weight groups (range, 0.83 to 0.93). The highest correlation in the combined weight groups between per- cent wholesale cut separable muscle and percent carcass muscle was the rib (0.95). In order of decreasing magnitude of correlation coefficients between the above two traits were the loin (0.93), chuck (0.92) and flank (0.91). All correlations between percent wholesale cut separable muscle and percent carcass separable muscle were highly significant (P < .01) for the combined weight groups except for that of the brisket. Within weight group correlation coefficients between percent whole- sale cut separable muscle and percent carcass separable muscle showed percent rib, loin, chuck and flank muscle being most closely related to percent total carcass muscle (range, 0.91 to 0.96). All of these correla- tions have excellent predictive possibilities. High negative correlations were found between the percent separable 'muscle of the rib and flank with percent separable fat and fat trim yields -30- in the combined and within weight groups. Within weight groups, separable muscle of the rib and flank also showed the highest relationships to percent separable retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck and percent total retail yield (range, 0.79 to 0.82). Hedrick 95 gl. (1963) and Miller £5.31. (1965) also reported very high correlation coefficients between percent retail yield of the flank and retail yield measures. In their studies, however, neither the flank nor the rib showed the highest correlation to retail yield but instead percent retail yield of the round was highest. The high relationships between percent separable flank muscle and percents of the seven carcass yields compared in this study, suggest the use of flank muscle for predicting these carcass yields. These relation- ships were high for both weights and percents in the combined weight groups as well as within weight groups (range, 0.16 to 0.94). Correlation coefficients between pounds of wholesale cut separable muscle and carcass separable fat and fat trim yields were positive but lower than for pounds of separable muscle and retail yields (range, 0.00 to 0.47) on a combined weight group basis, except for correlations between pounds of rump muscle and fat trim yields (-.02 and -.10). However, correlations between percent wholesale cut separable muscle in the com- bined weight groups as well as weights and percents within.weight groups became negative but were highly significant (P < .01) in most instances. -31- Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Separable Fat and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Simple correlation coefficients between pounds and percent wholesale cut separable fat and pounds and percent of carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups appear in table 31 and those within weight groups appear in tables 32 and 33. In the combined weight groups, pounds of wholesale cut separable fat showed the lowest relationships to pounds of separable carcass bone (range, 0.18 to 0.36) and low to moderate relationships to pounds of carcass separable muscle and retail yields (range, 0.22 to 0.55). Highly significant (P < .01) positive correlations were observed between pounds and percent wholesale cut separable fat and carcass separable fat and fat trim yields (range, 0.61 to 0.96), except for kidney knob (range, 0.32 to 0.62). When percent wholesale cut separable fat was correlated with per- cents carcass separable muscle, bone and retail yields on a combined weight group basis, these correlations (range, 0.54 to 0.94) were highly significantly (P < .01) negative. On a combined weight group basis, the percent wholesale cut separable fat most closely related to percent carcass separable fat was that from the rib (0.96), followed in order by the loin (0.94), chuck (0.94), plate (0.92) and the round and flank (0.91). Within weight group correlations were also highest for these same wholesale cut percents separable fat and carcass separable fat though not in the same order of magnitude (tables 32 and 33). Percents separable fat from the kidney knob and foreshank showed the lowest relationship to carcass separable fat on a within weight ~82- .xoooo one one .aaoe .onoom - omens .HHO. v no noooeeeameo one 000.0 A oaoeooaonnoo .Aoo. V mv uGMOHmHGme who 0NN.0 A meHuoHouuoo Nn.0 0o.0 N«.0 No.0 no.- «n.0 «o.- on.0 n«.- oN.0 no.0 Nn.0 no.- Hn.0 coax nonoHM nn.0 on.0 0n.0 on.0 nn.- o«.0 nn.- o«.0 0n.- oN.0 H0.0 «0.0 00.- on.0 xdon «n.0 Nn.0 nn.0 on.0 on.- no.0 on.- oo.0 nn.- on.0 Nn.0 nn.0 00.- o«.0 mumHm No.0 «n.0 oo.0 00.0 «o.- Nn.0 oo.- nn.0 o«.- 0N.0 00.0 «n.0 0n.- 0n.0 ummeum oo.0 Ho.0 no.0 Ho.0 n«.- 0n.0 «o.- 0N.0 n«.- 0H.0 Ho.0 oo.0 0o.- «N.0 xnmnmouom nn.0 nn.0 on.0 «n.0 0o.- No.0 «n.- no.0 no.- Hn.0 «0.0 «0.0 N0.- o«.0 Joann nn.0 Nn.0 Hn.0 on.0 nn.- Hn.0 00.- Nn.0 0n.- 00.0 on.0 Nn.0 «m.- NN.0 0H0 nn.0 «n.0 nn.0 nn.0 0o.- nn.0 nn.- 0«.0 Hn.- nH.0 «0.0 nn.0 n0.- 0N.0 oHOH nn.0 0n.0 on.0 0n.0 Hn.- n«.0 on.- n«.0 No.- 0N.0 H0.0 00.0 00.- nn.0 venom uouunH Nn.0 nn.0 Nn.0 «n.0 0n.- o«.0 00.- o«.0 no.- «N.0 on.0 nn.0 Nn.- nn.0 082m Nn.0 0n.0 no.0 0n.0 no.- o«.0 no.- n«.0 oo.- 0n.0 nn.0 nn.0 on.- nn.0 mason mmoHeesm N .0H N .0H N .nH N .IwnH N .nH N .0H N- Amw umHM scum aHuu EHuu 0H0Hn HHmuou Humqm HHuuou moon uom 0Homaa new new Hmnuouxm new kuOH ooeaHnu omaaHuu oHnmumeom oHnouonom oHnuuamom oHnmuummm avenom «venom use oHommHosz emuaoaonaoo oHnuuoeom «mousse one new oHnouoeom use oHomoHon3_aoosuon muGoHonmooo aOHumHouuoo oHeaHm .mesouw uanoa wonHeeoo ago you mvHoHNImHuu uom one HHmuoH .Hn oHan -83- .08006 one one .oaoa .0ooom - amaze .AHO. V my unmoHMHanm mum n0«.0 A mGOHumHmuuou .Aoo. V mv unmonHanw mum NHn.0 A mnOHumHonuoo ««.0 o«.0 oo.0 oo.0 Ho.- N«.- no.- N«.- «o.- no.- «n.0 nn.0 Hn.- «o.- Hoax nmaoHM no.0 Ho.0 nn.0 Hn.0 on.- m«.- on.- 0o.- 00.- on.- Nn.0 00.0 00.- 0n.- xGmHm Hn.0 Ho.0 nn.0 «n.0 nn.- 0o.- nn.- 0«.- on.- mo.- No.0 No.0 mo.- 0o.- oumHm «o.0 oo.0 no.0 0n.0 No.- no.- Ho.- no.- no.- no.- nn.0 nn.0 Hn.- no.- nomeum no.0 «n.0 oo.0 nN.0 no.- oN.- Hn.- «n.- Ho.- oH.- oo.0 0n.0 oo.- o«.- xnonmouom nn.0 no.0 on.0 Nn.0 on.- Ho.- Hn.- No.- mn.- no.- on.0 00.0 «m.- no.- 305:0 on.0 nn.0 Hn.0 nn.0 Nn.- «o.- «n.- No.- Hn.- Hn.- nn.0 on.0 om.- on.- AHM Hn.0 on.0 on.0 Hn.0 on.- oo.- 0n.- oo.- on.- on.- oo.0 no.0 om.- on.- aHOH on.0 «o.0 nn.0 Ho.0 Nn.- no.- no.- oo.- Hn.- no.- H0.0 nn.0 Hm.- on.- canon quuGH «n.0 «o.0 «n.0 oo.0 on.- 0«.- no.- Ho.- nn.- No.- nn.0 oo.0 on.- Hn.- 055% oo.0 0o.0 Hn.0 no.0 on.- no.- nn.- «o.- oo.- No.- no.0 no.0 nn.- Ho.- meson nmoHoesm N .nH N .0H N .0H N .0H N .nH N .0H N .AH umqm scum anu aHuu 0H0 m HHouou Humqm HHmumu once one oHumsB. uom new Honnmuxm new Houoa vanHuu woeaHuu 0Hnmuoeom oHnoummon oHnoumoom oHnmuueom avenom aHow-Hon use onmoHonz .asomw-ust03 .nH 0oo cu 00o ecu mom moHoHn aqua umM-oso HHmuoH amusoooneoo 0Hnmumnmn unwouuu one use mHemnmemm use 0HmmmHons awesome muanOHmmooo noHumHmunoo oHeaHm .Nn 0Hnma -34- .30500 new 0H9 acHoH «venom a QMHmH .HHO. V mv unoOHMHome one n0«.0 A meHumHouuoo .Ao0. V mv uaoonstHm mum NHn.0 A mGOHumeuuoo nH.0 oH.0 oH.0 HN.0 0«.- oH.- N«.- 0H.- nH.- n0.- Nn.0 nn.0 on.- oN.- coax nmsoHM nn.0 0n.0 nn.0 nn.0 on.- on.- on.- H«.- No.- o«.- 00.0 00.0 00.- on.- xanh on.0 no.0 Hn.0 no.0 0o.- nn.- no.- on.- no.- n«.- 00.0 nn.0 H0.- oo.- mumHm on.0 oo.0 Nn.0 no.0 no.- No.- mo.- 0o.- 0o.- «o.- nn.0 0n.0 00.- mo.- ummeum 0n.0 no.0 oo.0 no.0 no.- o«.- oo.- Ho.- oo.- no.- 0o.0 no.0 oo.- No.- xsosmouom nn.0 no.0 nn.0 no.0 0o.- oN.- oo.- nn.- on.- No.- Nn.0 Hn.0 on.- no.- guano nn.0 Hn.0 nn.0 nn.0 mo.- 0n.- Nn.- on.- 0n.- oo.- «0.0 on.0 N0.- nn.- nHm Hn.0 nn.0 on.0 nn.0 no.- nN.- oo.- Nn.- nn.- oo.- «0.0 «0.0 Nm.- mo.- aHOH nn.0 00.0 on.0 «n.0 0o.- 0N.- oo.- on.- on.- «o.- nn.0 on.0 mn.- nn.- canon uomuaH on.0 no.0 nn.0 no.0 oo.- nN.- oo.- nN.- nn.- no.- 00.0 «0.0 on.- Nn.- 085m 00.0 00.0 0n.0 Nn.0 «o.- 0N.- No.- on.- Nn.- 0o.- 00.0 00.0 no.- nn.- pesos mmoHeesm N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .nH N .0H . UMHm scum aHuu eHuu wHoHn-HHouou Humqm HHouou moon umm oHomsa. now use Honsouxm new HquH nanHuu oceaHuu oHnmummom oHnouwemm oHnouooom oHnoHumom avenom «venom use «HomoHon3 .eoouw uawHos..nH 0on cu 00n map How mpHon,aHuu new one HHouou emusonoeeoU oHnouoeom unwoumo was new oHanmeom use oHomoHoaa consume munoHonwooo aoHuoHouuoo oHQEHm .nn oHan -35- group basis (0.58 and 0.61, respectively). As was shown for percent car- cass separable fat, percent kidney knob separable fat had the lowest relationships with the fat trim yields in the combined weight groups and within weight groups. These data indicate kidney fat deposition is not entirely consistent with total carcass fat deposition. Comparing the correlation coefficients within weight groups, the relationships between percents wholesale cut separable fat and percents of the seven carcass yield characteristics were higher in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (range, 0.44 to 0.94) than in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (range, -.13 to 0.94). However, the differences were not great and most correlations were highly significant (P < .01) and sufficiently high to be of predictive value. Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Separable Bone and Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Correlation coefficients between pounds and percent wholesale cut separable bone and pounds and percent carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups and for each weight group appear in tables 34, 35 and 36. Highly significant (P < .01) positive correlations were observed for the combined weight groups between pounds and percent of carcass separable muscle, bone and retail yields (range, 0.36 to 0.98) except for pounds and percent flank bone and per- cent rump bone (0.12 to 0.27). Also highly significant (P < .01) negative relationships were found between percent wholesale cut separable bone and percent carcass separable fat and fat trim yields for the combined weight groups (range -.41 to -.80) except for percent flank and rump bone (range, -86- .xooao one one .naon .oooom - omen .AHO. V my unmoHMHGme one an.0 A msoHuoHonuow .Ao0. V mv unmonHcmHm one 0NN.0 A mGOHumHouuoo oH.- No.0 nH.- «0.0 oH.0 no.0 NH.0 no.0 Nn.0 oH.0 nn.- H0.- nN.0 NH.0 xaon «o.- no.0 mo.- oN.0 0n.0 Nn.0 «o.0 nn.0 nn.0 nn.0 «n.- Hn.0 Nn.0 no.0 oumHm oo.- nH.- oo.- 00.0 0n.0 o«.0 o«.0 n«.0 oo.0 no.0 No.- 0H.0 nn.0 o«.0 uomeum H«.- «0.0 H«.- HN.0 Nn.0 nn.0 on.0 0n.0 0o.0 Nn.0 «o.- nN.0 H«.0 00.0 xsmnmmuom no.- «0.0 oo.- nH.0 o«.0 00.0 n«.0 Nn.0 N0.0 nn.0 00.- «N.0 oo.0 nn.0 30:50 oo.- «0.0 Hn.- 0H.0 no.0 Nn.0 Ho.0 Nn.0 H0.0 00.0 00.- 0N.0 0n.0 «n.0 nHm o«.- nH.0 Ho.- nN.0 N«.0 on.0 n«.0 Nn.0 on.0 «0.0 0n.- Hn.0 no.0 on.0 GHOH 0«.- oo.0 m«.- HN.0 on.0 Nn.0 0n.0 «n.0 nn.0 00.0 on.- nN.0 no.0 nn.0 meson nonunH «n.- H0.- nn.- NH.0 HN.0 00.0 nN.0 Hn.0 «n.0 nn.0 «n.- «N.0 No.0 Hn.0 085% no.- 0H.0 No.- «N.0 N«.0 0n.0 o«.0 Hn.0 nn.0 on.0 Hn.- 0N.0 o«.0 on.0 vouch mmonasm N .nH N .HH N .0H N .0H N .nH N .nH N .HH umqm scum EHHu EHHu pHoHn HHmumn Humom HHouou moon uom oHunsa_ anon new Honhouxm uom Houoa vuaaHuu onEHuu oHnonmom oHnmuoemm oHanommm oHanomom evenom «venom use oHomoHonz .mesoum newnes omaneoo men now mpHoHn aHHu new one HHmumu «musmsoeeoo mHnmumeom mmmouoo new moon mHnmuomom use 0HommHoes.noosuwn mucmHOHmmoou nOHuwHouuoo oHeaHm .00 means .xooao 0oo e2n .o2o2 .oaoom - umam2 .AHO. V mv unmoHMHamHm mum n0«.0 A mnOHumeuuoo .Aoo. v.00 unmoHMHame mum NHn.0 A mnOHumHmuuoo -37- o0.- «0.0 n0.- oo.0 oo.0 o0.- H0.0 0H.- Nn.0 NH.0 oN.- n0.- HN.0 n0.0 xauHh Ho.- Ho.- no.- m«.- «o.0 0n.0 oo.0 0«.0 00.0 nn.0 on.- oo.- no.0 n«.0 ouuHm No.- nn.- n«.- nn.- ««.0 NN.0 nn.0 oH.0 No.0 Nn.0 nn.- nN.- 0N.0 «0.0 uomeum o«.- 0o.- Ho.- «o.- ««.0 No.0 o«.0 0o.0 no.0 00.0 «o.- no.- o«.0 o«.0 xsmsmouom no.- No.- No.- oo.- no.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 nn.0 «0.0 Nn.- nn.- 0o.0 no.0 305:0 «o.- oo.- Nn.- 0o.- no.0 no.0 oo.0 «o.0 nn.0 «n.0 No.- 0o.- Nn.0 No.0 nHm 0o.- mn.- oo.- N«.- oo.0 nn.0 Ho.0 o«.0 nn.0 00.0 on.- no.- no.0 oo.0 GHOH oo.- «o.- 0o.- Hn.- oo.0 0o.0 no.0 oo.0 nn.0 on.0 no.- on.- No.0 oo.0 oases uoouoH «0.- 20.- n0.- 2a.- 00.0 nn.0 0«.0 00.0 0n.0 n0.0 00.- 0n.0 00.0 n0.0 ease no.- 0o.- 0o.- oo.- oo.0 no.0 oo.0 no.0 0n.0 No.0 0o.- Nn.- n«.0 no.0 pesos mmoHeesm N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H exam scum eHuu aHuu 0H0 % Hkuou Humqm HHmuou anon new oHomna soon now Hosumuxm new Houoa ooeafiuu woeaHuu oHnoumeom mHnmuonmm oHnouoemm oHnmuoeom «venom venom use mHomoHosz .omoam umw2oz .02 000 on 000 one now 00202» none one one 22ooon amucwoogeoo oHnoumnom mucouoo was soon oHnonoeom use oHumoHons_s003uon mucoHOHmmooo GOHuuHouuoo oHeaHm .on oHnoB 026226 one 02-- .582 .0832 - 92022 .AHO. V my uanHmHsmHm use n0«.0 A meHuoHouuou .Hoo. V mv unmonHame one NHn.0 A meHumeuuoo -88- on.- oH.- 0«.- oH.- on.0 0n.0 0n.0 oN.0 nn.0 oN.0 ««.- oH.- o«.0 on.0 xnuHm no.- «o.- Nn.- «o.- oo.0 no.0 oo.0 No.0 nn.0 on.0 on.- oo.- 00.0 Nn.0 oumHm no.- N«.- 0n.- 0«.- 0o.0 nn.0 oo.0 on.0 Hn.0 Ho.0 0n.- nn.- oo.0 no.0 nomeum m«.- oo.- o«.- ««.- Nn.0 nn.0 nn.0 ««.0 No.0 on.0 n«.- w«.- o«.0 «o.0 xnmsmmuom n«.- No.- o«.- Ho.- NN.0 o«.0 0n.0 oo.0 nn.0 «0.0 no.- no.- o«.0 Nn.0 39:50 No.- «o.- oo.- No.- ««.0 No.0 n«.0 «o.0 nn.0 nn.0 «n.- ««.- oo.0 «o.0 nHm mo.- «o.- oo.- No.- o«.0 Ho.0 Ho.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 «n.- oo.- «o.0 0n.0 nHOH 0o.- 0o.- Ho.- no.- nN.0 on.0 nn.0 o«.0 on.0 nn.0 mo.- oo.- oo.0 oo.0 pesos uomunH 0o.- No.- no.- 0o.- Nn.0 «o.0 o«.0 No.0 on.0 on.0 Hn.- No.- on.0 no.0 085M «o.- No.- o«.- m«.- nN.0 NN.0 «n.0 Nn.0 00.0 on.0 oo.- no.- N«.0 no.0 venom mmmHnesm N .0H N .0H N .nH N .0H N .0H N .nH N .0H umqm scum BHHu aHnu oHoHNIHHmuwu Human HHmuou soon you 0Hon=a_ moon one HmnHMuxm new kuOH ooaaHuu ouaEHuu mHnmuoamm oHnmuomom oHnoumoom oHnunomom «venom «venom use oHomoHonz .esoumxuanoz .AH 0on ou 00n man now moHoHnJaHuu umm was HHoumH «musoaonaoo oHnouoeom mmoouoo one soon oHnoumeom use oHommHosa consume mucoHonmooo GOHumHoHuoo oHnEHm .on oHan -89- -.16 to -.34) with carcass fat yields. Within weight groups, high nega- tive correlations were found between pounds and percents of wholesale cut separable bone and pounds and percents of carcass separable fat and fat trim yields (range, -.39 to -.78) except pounds and percents brisket and flank bone and percent rump bone (range, -.08 to -.49). These correlations indicate that carcasses with heavier bone and/or higher percent separable bone also had more pounds and/or percent total carcass separable muscle and retail yields. wythe e; 31. (1961) and Good 'e£.§l. (1961) also reported this positive relationship between size and/or quantity of bone and amount of carcass muscle. Highest relationships were found between pounds of round separable bone and pounds of carcass separable bone for the combined weight groups as well as within each weight group (0.98, 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). The next highest correlations were between pounds of separable chuck bone and pounds of carcass separable bone both within weight groups and on a combined weight group basis. Percent separable bone in the chuck showed the highest correlation with percent carcass separable bone in;the combined weight group and in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (0.92 and 0.93, respectively). Following the chuck were percent separable bone in the rib (0.91 and 0.93) and plate (0.88 and 0.90) for the combined and 500 to 550 lb. weight groups, reSpectively. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group the percent separable bone of the loin showed the highest correlation to percent carcass separ- able bone (0.90) followed by the chuck (0.89), rib (0.87) and the plate (0.87). Although correlations were not consistentlyanshigh as percent rib or chuck bone, percent wholesale round bone was highly significantly -90- (P < .01) correlated with percent carcass separable bone in the combined weight groups and the 500 to 550 and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups (0.83, 0.87 and 0.86, respectively). Due to the ease of separation of total round bone compared to the other wholesale cuts which were highly corre- lated to total carcass bone, it is logical to suggest its use for predic- tive purposes. Relationships Between Percent Separable Components of Some Easily Separated Wholesale Cuts and Percent Separable Carcass Components The 9-10-11 rib section, the flank, intact round and the rump were selected to study their possible predictive value of carcass composition, due to their ease of physical separation. Simple correlation coefficients were calculated between the percent separable components of these cuts and the percents of these same components of the entire carcass for the combined and individual weight groups as well as on a within weight and fat thickness group basis. These correlations appear in table 37. The 9-10-11 rib section was choosen not only because of ease of separation, but also to determine the reliability of the regression equations reported by Hankins and Howe (1946) between percent separable components and separable carcass components within a group of carcasses of limited weight and fat thickness ranges. The relationship between percent muscle of the 9-10-11 rib section and percent separable carcass muscle was very high in the combined weight groups and within weight groups (0.92, 0.94 and 0.90, respectively). Crown and Damon (1960) re- ported correlation coefficients of similar magnitude between percent separable muscle of the 9-10-11 rib section and percent carcass separable -91- .moeoum ufiMHoB HeeoH>HoeH .moeouw newHoz HeeoH>HoeH .moeouw newHoS ooeHeEoo .moeouw nemeB woeHnaoo men Mom AH0. V mv nemoHMHemHm one n0«.0 A meOHumHousoo can you Ao0. V 00 uemoHMHeme one NHn.0 A meOHueHmuuoo man How AH0. V mv ueeoHMHeme one nnN.0 A meOHueHouuoo meu you Ao0. v mv ueooHMHeme one 0NN.0 A meoHuonuuou 0n.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 0n.0 0«.0 00.0 0n.0 00.0 0n.0 0n.0 nae-M2 0n.0 H0.0 ,«0.0 oo.0 oo.0 on.0 No.0 «n.0 on.0 nn.0 nn.0 venom o«.0 Nn.0 0H.- «0.0 «N.0 o0.- no.0 «n.0 nn.0 Nn.0 Nn.0 xeeHm «n.0 no.0 0n.0 00.0 «o.0 o«.0 no.0 nn.0 on.0 nn.0 on.0 eOHuoom 0H9 HH-0H-m "neon 0n.0 n«.0 nn.0 «o.0 no.0 «n.0 0n.0 Nn.0 00.0 nn.0 on.0 035m no.0 00.0 no.0 0n.0 on.0 nn.0 0n.0 0n.0 no.0 H0.0 H0.0 oeeom nn.0 0n.0 nn.0 Nn.0 Hn.0 nn.0 00.0 no.0 no.0 Nm.0 H0.0 xemHm on.0 Nn.0 nn.0 on.0 00.0 oo.0 on.0 Nn.0 H0.0 on.0 «o.0 eOHuomm AHH HH-0H-0 "non 0o.0 HH.0 no.0 Hn.0 Ho.0 No.0 nN.0 oo.0 n«.0 on.0 oo.0 085% oo.0 Nn.0 00.0 0n.0 H0.0 0n.0 No.0 nn.0 nn.0 0n.0 nn.0 venom on.0 Nn.0 nn.0 oo.0 on.0 nn.0 on.0 «n.0 H0.0 H0.0 H0.0 xemHm 0n.0 nn.0 Hn.0 nn.0 No.0 «0.0 Nn.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 Nn.0 eoHuoom AHH HH-0H-0 "oHumez HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H meomw,uemH03 eeouw ummwus omonw, uemeooeoo one-0 .02 02-02 .02 000-000 20203 02028-20... ooeHnsoo N new ueo .mmooueo wen mo mueoeoommo oHneHoeom new muse 0HemoHoes mean no mueoeoeeoo 0Hnmumemm uemoumo emosuon muemHonmoou eOHumHouuoo oHoeHm .nn anmH -92- muscle. The correlations on a within weight and fat group basis were slightly lower, eSpecially in group VI (range, 0.71 to 0.94). Percent separable flank muscle showed an equally good relationship to percent separable carcass muscle (range, 0.76 to 0.95). Percent separable muscle of the wholesale round and rump, especially the rump, did not show quite as high or as consistent a relationship to percent carcass muscle (range, 0.30 to 0.91 and 0.11 to 0.76 for round and rump, respectively) as either the flank or 9-10-11 rib sections. Similar results were observed between the percent separable fat of these cuts and percent separable carcass fat. The percent separable fat of the 9-10-11 rib section, flank, and wholesale round were highly correlated with percent carcass separable fat (range, 0.71 to 0.95). When comparing these relationships within weight and fat groups, the per- cent separable fat of the 9-10-11 rib sections and the flank were more consistently correlated to separable carcass fat (range, 0.71 to 0.95) than either the wholesale round or rump (range, 0.30 to 0.93). When comparing correlations between percent separable bone of these four cuts with percent separable carcass bone, the percent round bone showed the highest and most consistent relationships, followed by those of the rump. Correlation coefficients for these characteristics within the eight fat thickness and weight groups ranged from 0.55 to 0.94 and 0.20 to 0.95 for the round and rump, respectively. The percent bone in the flank showed the poorest relationship with percent carcass bone which might be expected due to the small amount of bone present in this wholesale cut (range, -.06 to 0.74). The correlations between percent -93- 9-10-11 rib bone and carcass separable bone were also comparitively low and not consistent within the eight fat thickness and weight groups (range, 0.09 to 0.87). These data support the accuracy of Hankins and Howe (1946) equations and these observations and those of Crown and Damon (1960) indicate that the percent separable components of the 9-10-11 rib sections were good predictOrs of carcass components, particularly muscle and fat. However, these data also indicate that the percent separable muscle and fat from the flank were essentially equally as good as the 9-10-11 rib section for estimating percent carcass muscle and fat. Hankins and Howe:(1946) reported that the percent ether extract of the flank showed the highest correlation (0.95) to percent ether extract of the edible portion of the dressed beef carcass. Because of the ease of physical separation of the flank as well as for economic reasons, this cut could be used with essen- tially the same degree of accuracy as the 9-10-11 rib section separation which today is the most widely used method for estimating total carcass muscle and fat. Multiple Regression Analyses of Separable Carcass Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields on Objective Carcass Measurements and Wholesale Cut Separable Components Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Muscle on Objective Carcass Measurements and Weight of Wholesale Cut Separable Components. In the combined weight groups, 98% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass muscle could be accounted for using the six independent variables presented in table 38. Of these six independent variables, carcass weight, -94- weight of separable flank fat and weight of separable flank muscle appeared to have the greatest effect on separable carcass muscle. These data support the findings of Cole 25 31. (1960) who reported a simple correla- tion between carcass weight and pounds of separable carcass muscle of 0.77. These authors also reported multiple correlations (ranging from 0.85 to 0.97) using carcass weight and weight of wholesale cut separable muscle. The prediction equation shown in table 38 had a standard error of estimate of 3.91 1b. which was less than the most accurate prediction equation of Cole 22 31. (1960). The most accurate equation of these authors involved separable round muscle as the independent variable for predicting pounds of carcass separable muscle. This equation had a stan- dard error of estimate of 4.38 lb. Table 38. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separ- able muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight)group). 1 Regression Beta Level of R“ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 1.634 0.68 Carcass wt. 0.282 1.052 0.00 0.79 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral2 -.718 -.140 0.00 0.97 Wt. sep. flank muscle3 3.302 0.215 0.00 0.96 Wt. sep. flank fat -2.412 -.401 0.00 0.94 Wt. kidney knob-1.8.4 -.643 -.093 0.00 0.97 'L.dorsi muscle area 0.779 0.052 0.03 0.98 R2 = 0.98 Standard error of estimate = 3.91 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. 3Sep. = separable. .S. = left side. -95- The six independent variables listed in table 39 were associated with 90% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle in the com- bined weight groups. The prediction equation given in table 39 showed a standard error of estimate of 1.33%. This compares favorably with the standard error of estimate of 2.51% for the prediction equation of Han- kins and Howe (1946) who used percent separable muscle from the 9-10-11 rib section to predict percent carcass muscle. Table 39. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variable coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 54.012 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.014 0.315 0.00 0.89 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.143 -.141 0.01 0.89 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral2 -.229 -.274 0.00 0.87 Wt. sep. flank muscle3 0.883 0.352 0.00 0.87 Wt. sep. flank fat -.690 -.703 0.00 0.80 Kidney knob wt.-L.s.4 -.266 -.234 0.00 0.87 RZV= 0.90 Standard error of estimate = 1.33 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Sep. = separable. 4L.S. = left side. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 89% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass muscle could be accounted for by the following five variables: 1) carcass weight, 2) average of three fat probes at the third sacral vertebra, 3) weight of separable flank muscle, 4) weight of separable flank fat and 5) weight of the kidney knob from the left side of the carcass. The multiple regression analysis of separable carcass muscle weight on these five variables is given in the supplement, p.177. -95- Using these same five variables, 92% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group can be accounted for (table 40). The effect of carcass weight on percent total carcass separable muscle was relatively unimportant in these regression analyses. Table 40. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight 4:01:13). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variable coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 58.876 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.007 0.025 0.72 0.92 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -.289 -.324 0.00 0.86 Wt. sep. flank muscle3 0.942 0.201 0.00 0.89 Wt. sep. flank fat -.806 -.516 0.00 0.82 Kidney knob wt.-L.s.4 -.351 -.228 0.00 0.89 R? = 0.92 Standard error of estimate = 1.39 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Av. of 3 prdbes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. 3Sep. = separable. 4'L.S. = left side. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight grOUP, the independent variables given in table 41 were responsible for 93% of the variation in pounds of separ— able carcass muscle. The prediction equation presented in this table showed a high degree of accuracy with a standard error of estimate of 3.74 lb. These same six variables were responsible for 91% of the varia- tion in percent separable carcass muscle in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (suppl., p.177-). This equation showed a standard error of esti- mate of 1.18%. -97- Table 41. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable ‘muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight groutp) . , Regression Beta Level of R2I Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 80.178 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.177 0.267 0.00 0.88 Probe-5th Thoracic-4 in. -.444 -.126 0.04 0.92 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral2 -.775 -.279 0.00 0.90 Wt. sep. flank musc1e3 3.918 0.336 0.00 0.85 Wt. sep. flank fat -2.079 -.507 0.00 0.83 Wt. kidney knob-1.8.4 -.635 -.151 0.00 0.91 R? a 0.93 Standard error of estimate = 3.74 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Av. of 3 probes 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. 3Sep. separable. 4L.s. left side. Ninety-six percent of the variation in weight of total carcass sep- arable muscle in the combined weight groups could be accounted for using the three variables presented in table 42. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, only 79% of the weight of total carcass separable muscle could be accounted for using these same variables (suppl., p. 177) and 86% in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (suppl., p 178 ). The standard error of estimates associated with these equations were 5.19, 5.29 and 4.96 lb., respectively. It is of interest to note that, in contrast. with other equations reported in this dissertation, the equation predicting weight of total carcass separable muscle in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group was more accurate than that for the prediction of this same trait in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group. -93- Table 42. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components, and the regression coefficient for each variable (pgmbined weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -3.193 0.44 Carcass wt. 0.284 1.060 0.00 0.75 Wt. sep. flank musc1e2 4.409 0.287 0.00 0.93 Wt. sep. flank fat -3.394 -.564 0.00 0.83 fiZ*= 0.96 Standard error of estimate = 5.19 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Sep. = separable. Using carcass weight, weight of separable flank muscle and flank fat, 81% of the variation in percent of total separable carcass muscle could be accounted for with a standard error of estimate of 1.81% in the combined weight group (table 43). These same variables accounted for 83% of the variation in this traitinthe 500 to 550 lb. weight group (suppl., p. 178) and 86% of the variation in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (suppl., p. 178 ). These equations had standard errors of estimate of 1.97 and 1.42%, respectively. Thus, greater accuracy was also attained in the 700 to 750 1b. carcasses than in the 500 to 550 lb. carcasses . -99- Table 43. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of weights of wholesale cut separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of _RZI Independent variable coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 50.345 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.012 0.267 0.02 0.80 Wt. sep. flank'muscle2 1.266 0.504 0.00 0.73 Wt. sep. flank fat -l.100 -1.121 0.00 0.31 Rzr= 0.81 Standard error of estimate = 1.81 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from 2the analysis. Sep. = separable. Multiple Regression Ana1yses of Total Cereass Separable Muscle on Ohjective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Seperable Muscle. .The 9- 10-11 rib section is used rather extensively for predicting carcass com- position because oftfie high relationships to total carcass composition and the ease of separation of this section. Prediction equations for estimating carcass composition from the wholesale flank and round were calculated and were compared to the 9-10-11 rib section. In the combined weight groups, using carcass weight, length of round and the percent separable muscle of the respective cuts, pounds and percent total carcass separable muscle could be most accurately predicted using the 9-10-11 rib section separable muscle, followed by flank separ- able muscle and then round separable muscle (table 44). Differences were small between equations 1, 2 and 3 for predicting pounds of total carcass separable muscle. It should be noted that in using equations 4, 5 and 6 to predict percent carcass separable muscle using 9-10-11 rib -100- section or flank separable muscle gave similar results, but using round separable muscle in the equation decreased accuracy. Table 44. Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and per— cent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (combined weight groups). Standard Equation Coefficient of error of No. Estimating equation determination estimate 1 9 = -103.986 + 0.2390(1) + 0.470(x2) + 2.192(x3) 0.96 5.28 2 ’1? = -78.232 + 0.252(x1) + 0.438(X2) + 1.880(X4) 0.95 5.77 3 ‘?‘= -200.864 + 0.222(x1) + 1.978(X2)+ 2.660(X5) 0.94 6.32 4 ”if 16.767 - .006(X1) + 0.212(x2) + 0.705013) 0.86 1.57 5 ’1)? 25.052 - .002(x1) + 0.1980(2) + 0.6060(4) 0.83 1.74 6 4'} -12.531 - .013(x1) + 0.744(x2) + 0.814(X5) 0.74 2.14 ’9 = Estimated pounds of total carcass separable muscle. ,9 X >4 U N I II >4 p~ I - Estimated percent total carcass separable muscle. Carcass weight (1b.). Length of round (in.) Percent 9-10-11 rib section separable muscle. Percent flank separable muscle. Percent round separable muscle. ’ In contrast to this, round separable muscle used in the equations shown in table 45 was the most accurate predictor of these three cuts in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, while flank separable muscle was least accurate. However, differences among these equations were not great. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (table 46), these equations showed -101- Table 45. Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and per- cent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Standard Equation Coefficient of error of No. Estimatingjeguation determination estimate 1 4 = -42.462 + 0.1800(1) - .375(x2) + 2.033(x3) 0.85 4.50 2 ’1} = 16.929 + 0.167(X1) - 1.138(X2) + 1.691(X4) 0.80 5.17 3 '9 = -125.147 + 0.0630(1) + 1.3030(2) + 3.094(x5) 0.86 4.25 4 41:— 35.418 - .028(X1) - .096(X2) + 0.736(X3) 0.89 1.59 5 4% 57.036 - .034(x1) - .356(X2) + 0.606(X4) 0.84 1.90 6 ’91: 5.896 - .071(x1) + 0.516(X2) + 1.113(x5) 0.89 1.55 4 = Estimated pounds of total carcass separable muscle. .317 Estimated percent total carcass separable muscle. Carcass weight (1b.) >4 H II - Length of round (in.). N to I Percent 9-10-11 rib section separable muscle. N (a) ll X4 = Percent flank separable muscle. >4 U1 ll Percent round separable muscle. flank separable muscle as the most accurate predictor of weight or per- cent total carcass separable muscle. In this weight group, round separ- able muscle showed relatively low prediction accuracy for either pounds or percent total carcass separable lean. -102- Table 46. Multiple regression equations for estimating pounds and per- cent total carcass separable muscle using objective carcass measurements and percent wholesale cut separable muscle as predictors, and the coefficient of determination for each equation (700 to 750 lb. weight group). Standard Equation Coefficient of error of No. Estimating equation determination estimate 1 /Y\= -87.434 + 0.178(X1) + 1.183(X2) + 2.3300(3) 0.81 5.79 2 ’Y\= -33.168 + 0.116(X1) + 1.7630(2) + 2.2360(4) 0.87 4.77 3 ‘9 = ~153.699 + 0.210(x1) + 1.170(x2) + 2.434(x5) 0.70 7.34 4 41} 19.892 - .014(x1) + 0.388(X2) + 0.646(x3) 0.82 1.59 5 1= 35.084 - .032(x1) + 0.5620(2) + 0.613(X4) 0.87 1.38 6 49f 2.305 - .006(X1) + 0.407(x2) + 0.663(X5) 0.70 2.08 4 = Estimated pounds of total carcass separable muscle. Estimated percent total carcass separable muscle. 24> ll ‘ Carcass weight (1b.). N I" I Length of round (in.). N M II X = Percent 9-10-11 rib section separable muscle. Percent flank separable muscle. >4 in II Percent round separable muscle. N u- I iMultipie Regression Analyses of Separable Carcass Muscle on Combinations of Objective Carcass Measurements and Flank Separable Components. Due to the ease of separation of the wholesale flank and the economy both in time and economic loss of product, regression equations using the flank separable components for prediction of total carcass separable muscle were calculated and appear in tables 47, 48 and 49 for the combined weight groups, the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, and the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, respectively. These euqations show a high degree of accuracy for -103- .uom oHaoHooom xeon ueouuom u .oHowea_oHaouooom xeon ueooumm u .AEEV oeHHoHE Hmmnoo mmmouoo one mmo .eH NH new 0 a« «ounouuo> Henson can oeu on n mo .>< - onoum u .Aeav oeHHoHE.Hmmuoo mmooueo woo woo .eH NH «ounouuo> HaneH umH - onoum n .Aeav oeHHoHe Homuoo amouuoo oeu moo .eH « «ounmuuo> oHuonoeu euo - oaoum n 20.2 «0.0 20.2 00.0 20.2 00.0 H0xv002. 02.0 00.0 02.0 00.0 02.0 00.0 n0xv000. .A.AHV ueMHoz mmoouoo n .oHomeE.oHaouooom mmooueo HouOu neooume ooueBHumm .oHoer oHnouoeom mmoouou Hence mo moeeoo wouoEHumm H0x0000.0 + H0x0022. - H«xv002. - n2x00000.0 + 002.00 H0x0«n0.0 + H0x0022. - H0xv«00. - H«xv002. - H2x0200.0 + 0«0.n0 - H0x000«.0 + H0x00«2. - H0xv200. - H«xvn02. - H2xv200.0 + 002.00 a0x0000.2 + H0x0000.- H«x00n«. - H2x000«.0 + 000.00- A000000.2 + H0xv0a0. - fi0x00«2. - H«x020«. - a2xv00«.0 + «00.00- - a0xo000.0 + H0xv000. - a0x0022. - H«xv00«. - A2x000«.0 + 02«.«2 oumeHumm eOHuoeHanuoo mo House mo oneneoum neoHonmooo eoHuomoo weHueaHumm dNnmaouw uewHos omeHaeooM-eOHumaom some now eOHuoeHeuouoo mo ueoHonmooo one new «mucuoHooue mo mueoeoeeoo oHaouooom xeeHw new mueuaouemooa_mmooaoo 0>Huoonno weHme oHomeE oHnmuooom mmoouoo Hmuou ueouuoo wee moeeoo meHuoaHumo Mom meoHumeoo eOHmmmuwou oHeHuHsz .n« oHaeH —1o4- .oeHHoHE Hmmuoe mmouuoo new moo .eH NH new 0 «« «ouaouuo> Houoom van um monouo n mo .>< - onoum n .oeHHoHB Homuoo mmoouoo oeu mmo .eH NH «eunouuo> nonseH umH - onoum u .oeHHoHB Homuoo mmoonoo oeu «mo .eH « «ounouuo> UHUoHoeu nuo - ononm u .uom oHaoHooom xeon ueouuom u .oHomea.oHnoHooom xeon ueoonom u .A.aHv newHos 0000000 0 .oHomeE oHeouooom mmouuoo Hence ueoouoo woumEHumm n .oHomeB.oHanooom mmoouoo Houou mo moeeoo wouoaHumm u II <>~<>~<><<>7<>7<>7 (>4 (>7 >'<" >5?I >2“ >3?r ><:In x0 \O 00.2 00.0 n0x0«00.0 + 00xv«22. - 0«x0002. - 0200020. - 000.00 20.2 00.0 H0xv000.0 + 00xv«22. - 00x0000.0 + 0«x0002. - 02x0020. - 200.00 u 0 00.2 00.0 00x000«. - 0000002.0 + 00xoo«2. - 00000000. - 0«00202. - 02x00«0. W 0«0.00 u 0 00.0 00.0 000000«.2 + 00x0200. - 0«0000«. - 020002«.0 + 002.02- - 0 00.0 00.0 000000«.2 + 0000000. - H0x0000.0 + n«xv0«0. - n2xv02«.0 + 000.02- a « 00.0 00.0 0000000. - fi0xv020.0 + 0000000. - H0xv0«0.0 + n«xv0«0. - 02xv«0«.0 + 200.00 - 2 oumaHumm eoHuoeHEHouoo eOHueeoowweHuoBHumm .oz we woman no eoHumeom oueoeeum ueoHonmoou .Aoaouw,uewHoB .0H 0oo ou 00ov eOHuomom some now eOHuoeHEHouoo mo ueoHUHmmoou use new auscuoHooue mo mueoeoeaoo oHanoeom xeon new mueoaouemeoa mmoouoo o>Huoohao meHme oHooea.oHnoHoeom ammuumo Houou ueoouoo new moeeoo weHuanumo pom meOHuoeoo eonmouwou oHeHuHez .m« oHamH -105- .uem oHnouooom xeon uemouom u ox .oHomeB oHaouoeom xeon ueoouom u ox .oeHHoHE Hmmuoo mmmonmo woo woo .eH NH wee n 0« «ounouuo> Heuoom wan oeu no 000000 n mo .>< - onoum n «x .oeHHoHB Hemuoo mmouuoo one mmo .eH NH «ounouuo> HoeaSH umH - onoum n nx .oeHHoHE.HMmHoo mmooumo oeu mmo .eH « «espouuo> UHOoHoeu euo - ononm u Nx .A.AHV ustoB mmooumo n Hx .oHomeE «Houseman mmoouoo Houou neoouoo wouoaHumm u H <3“ .oHomeE.oHnmuooom mmoouoo HouOu mo moeeoo oouoaHumm u o 0«.2 00.0 30000.0 + 2000022. - H«20«02. - 020020. - «0«.00 «20 0 0«.2 00.0 00000000 + 0000002. - 000000. - 30002. - 0200020. - 000.00 «220 0 0«.2 00.0 $002000 + 00002000 + 000082. - 30000. - 30002. - 0200020. - 00«.0 «20 0 02.0 20.0 30000.2 + 30020. - 30000. - 30202.0 + 00.0.02 - 0 0 02.0 20.0 00000002 + 0000000. - 30002. - 0«00000. - 02000020 + 200.02 "20 « «2.0 20.0 00xo«00.« + 00000000 + 0000000. - n0oc«0«. - 30000. - 250020 + «20.202- - Q 2 ouoBHumo eoHuoeHeuouoo eOHuomoo weHuoaHumm .02 we scene we eOHuoeom whooeoum ueoHonmooo .NowOHMIerHoa .0H 0on cu 00Nv eoHuoeoo some now eOHuoeflauoumo mo ueoHOHmmooo oeu new amHOuOHoouo mo mueoeooeoo oHHeuooom xeon one mueoaouemooa mmoouoo o>Huoohno weHme oHomeB oHnoumeom mmoouoo HouOu uemouoe new moeeoe meHumeHumo pom meOHueeom eOHmmonou oHeHuHez .0« oHan -106- predicting either pounds or percent carcass separable muscle (coefficient of determination range, 0.88 to 0.96). Slightly greater accuracy of pre- diction was obtained in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group,which is in contrast with most other prediction equations presented. These data suggest that the separable components of the flank are of greater pre- dictive value in heavier carcasses than in lighter carcasses. Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Fat on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Separable Fat. Carcass weight, fat probe at the 5th thoracic vertebra (4 in. off the carcass dorsal midline) and separable fat from the 9-10-11 rib section, flank and round were used in multiple regression analyses as shown in tables 50, 51 and 52. In the combined weight groups (table 50), 9-10-11 rib section separ- able fat included in the equation was the best predictor of carcass separable fat (pounds and percent) followed closely by flank separable fat and round separable fat (coefficient of determination range, 0.85 to 0.95). This same order was observed in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 51),but in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, flank separable fat was essentially comparable to 9-10-11 rib and round separable fat for predicting percent total carcass separable fat (coefficient of determina- tion range, 0.85 to 0.87)(table 52). The coefficients of determination were very similar within weight groups, but it can be seen from the equations shown in tables 51 and 52 that greater accuracy can be obtained in predicting either pounds or percent carcass separable fat in 500 to 550 lb. weight carcasses as opposed to 700 to 750 lb. weight carcasses. .umm oHnouoeom venom ueouuom .uom oHnouoeom xeon ueooaom .uom 0Hnmuooom eOHuoom AHH HH-0H-0 ueoouom .A.eav oeHHoHa Homuop mmouuoo moo .eH « aOHUouoeu euo - ononm II II II II 0: o) V- X >4 X >< II N A.AHV newHoB mmoouoo H .uom oHaneoom mmoouoo neoouoe omuoEHumm w /\ .uom oHnouooom mmooaoo mo moeeoe oouoEHumm u,w\ o ll -4 m. 00.« 00.0 00500.0 + 30000.0 + 0200200. - 000.22 LQ a. 00.2 00.0 00000000 + 30000.0 + 220000. - «00.0- LQ 0 00.2 20.0 00500.0 + 300000 + 22000000. - 000.0 Lav 0 0«.0 00.0 00020000.« + 300000 + 02000020 + 000.00- a Q 0 00.0 00.0 00520.2 + 30002.2 + 02000020 + 000.««2- - O « 00.0 00.0 00000002 + 30000.0 + 02000020 + «2.0. - A20 2 oumeHumo eOHuoeHEHouoo eOHuuaow-weHuoaHumm .02 no women mo eOHuoeom oueoeoum ueoHonmoou .Amoeouwuemwwz ooeHeeouu eoHueeoo soon you eoHueeHeuouoo mo ueoHonmooo mew new «mucuoHooae me new oHnouoeom ueu oHomoHoes ueoouoe new mueoeoaemooa_mmoouou 0>Huoonno weHne new oHneuoeom mmoouou Houou ueoouoe wee moeeoo weHuoaHumo Mom meOHuoeoo eonmouwou oHeHuHez .oo mHan .uom 0Hnouooom venom ueoouom n ox .000 0Hnouoeom xeon ueoouom u «x .000 0H0000000 e0H0000 0H0 HH-0H-m ueoouom .A.eev 0eHHoHE Hm0uoo 0000000 050 moo .eH « 00000000> 0Hoouoeu euo - 00000 .A.nHv uewHoa 0000000 .000 0Haouooom 0000000 Heuou uemuuoo oouoaHumm w < .000 0Haoueoom 0000000 Houou mo 0oeeoe 0000800 0 numv o II II N N X II II H H >4 w 00.2 20.0 00200000 + 3020.0 + 02000000 + 000.0«- n2? 1.. . 20.2 20.0 00000000 + 00500.0 + 022200.000 + 000.0«- -2/0\ 0 00.2 00.0 30000.0 + 300000 + 30000.0 + 0«0.02- L? 0 20.0 «0.0 00000000 + 30000.0 + 30000.0 + 000.002- - 0 0 00.0 «0.0 00000002 + 30000.2 + 02000020 + 000.002- - Aw « «0.0 00.0 30000.2 + 0«002000 + 02000020 + 20002. - AV 2 0008H000 eOHuoeHeuouoo eoHuoeoo weHuoeHumm .02 no 00000 mo eOHuoeom oueoeoum ueoHonmoou .0980 £0203 .02 000 o..- 0000 820800 5000 How eOHuoeHeumuoo mo ueoHonmmoo 050 new «muouoHooue 00 00m 0H0000000 0:0 0H000Hoea 0e00000 new 00e080000008.0000000 0>H000nno meHme new 0Haouooom 0000000 H0000 ueoouoe wee moeeoe weHuoaHumo How 0e0Huueoo eOHmmouwou 0HeH0Hez .Ho 0Hnma .000 000000000 00000 0000000 .000 000000000 00000 0000000 .000 000000000 0000000 000 00:00-0 0000000 .0000008 000000 0000000 000 000 .00 0 00000000> 00000000 000 - 00000 .m.00v 00w003 0000000 .000 000000000 0000000 00000 0000000 000080000 0 /\ .000 000000000 0000000 00000 00 000000 000080000 u w\ 0 II II II II II 0 N <0 <1- In :0 >4 :x: X N W 00.2 00.0 00580.0 + 00000000 + 02000086 + 000.02 LQ 1 . 00.2 00.0 30000.0 + 005006 + 02000200 + 000.00- «200 0 00.2 00.0 00000000 + 00000000 + 02508.0 + 000.0 a «v 0 00.0 00.0 00000000 + 00000000 + 02000020 + 000.20- u 0 0 00.0 00.0 30000.0 + 30020.2 + 02000005 + 000.02- a 00x 0 00.0 00.0 00000020 + 00508.2 + 02000020 + 000.00- .- Q 2 00080000 0000000800000 00000000 M00008000m .oz 00 00000 00 00000000 0000000m 00000000000 1 .3200 0000003 .02 000 3 80% 800800 0000 000 0000000800000 00 00000000000 000 000 00000000000 00 000 000000000 000 000000003 0000000 000 000080000008 0000000 0>0000H00 w0000 000 000000000 0000000 00000 0000000 000 000000 w000080000 000 000000000 0000000w00 00000002 .00 00008 -llO- Multiple Regression Analyses of Total Carcass Separable Bone on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Wholesale Cut Separable Components. Per- cent 9-10-11 rib section bone, percent round bone and percent flank separable muscle were used in canbination with carcass weight and length of round to calculate multiple regression equations for the prediction of total carcass separable bone. Flank separable muscle was used rather than flank separable bone since the percent of flank separable bone was low and showed a very low relationship to total carcass separable bone. In the combined weight groups (table 53) there was little difference in the predictive value of any of the equations for either pounds or per- cent separable carcass bone (coefficient of determination range, 0.91 to 0.92 and 0.79 to 0.83 for pounds and percents, respectively). In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 54), the equations for predicting pounds and percent carcass separable bone using flank separ- able muscle showed the most accurate predictive values (0.87 and 0.89 for pounds and percents, respectively). The coefficients of determinations and standard error of estimates for the 700 to 750 lb. weight group were similar to those of the combined weight groups. These data indicate that pounds and percent carcass separable bone can most accurately be pre- dicted in lighter weight carcasses. .oaon oHnmummom mason unmouom .oHomsa_oHnmummom xGmHm udoouom .oaon manmumaom cowuoom AHH HHuoHnm udoomom .n.aav canon mo summon II II II 4 N 3*: II N N .A.nav uawwo3 ammonmo H ex .oaon manmumnom ammoumo unmouom woumaaumm «a» /\ .oaon manmumaom mmmoumo mo amazon woumEHumm u,w\ o 1.. $5 and Anxvemmd + 3003.0 + 938. - 2%? «HQ 1 1 . $5 $5 332:5 + 3335 + 2x38. . $9.»- L? m 85 $5 3325 + 33%.“. + 938. - 3:- "HQ c $4 3.0 30:34 + 3308; + 9386 + 30.3. r. o. m 34 25 3382. + 3%.}; + $385 + $9.3- "Q N 34 $5 3333. + 30254 + $02.55 + 8.23.. n Q H muuBAumo sowuoaHEQouov aofiumnmolwwHumauumm .02 mo nouns mo cowumsvm pumpcmum uaowowmmoou .Amaaouwrunwwoa woafinaoov nowumado comm pom coaumaqauouov mo uaoaowmmooo osu can «muouoawoun mm muaonomaoo oanmummom uoo mammoaosz unwouom can mandamuammoa muooumu o>auoohno mafia: moon manmummom mmooumo kuOu unmouom pom amazon waaumaaumo How maowuusvo nowmmouwou onHuaaz .nn oHan .mcon manonmmom mason unmonom a mx .maom=a_oanmnwmom xaonm uaoonom u «x .oaon manmnmmom nonuoom Ann Hanan-m uaoonom n mx .A.awv wanon mo summon n «x .A.AHV unwnoa ammonmu u ax .ocon manmnamom ammonmo Hmuou uaoonom woumanumm n mw\ .maon manmnwmom ammonmo Hmuou mo munsom pennanumm «.mV 9.. 35 £5 Anxvammd + 3335 + $38. - 8.; nn/n\ o 1|. 1 . 8.5 $5 33026 + 3335 + 938. - 8nd- nn/n\ m 3.0 $5 Anxvmomd + 30205 + 25 8o. .. mm: Lav e on: $5 333mg + 33305 + $38. - «3.3- a Q m a: 36 30.55 + 3334 + $385 + $98.. «av N 34 35 3333. + 30804 + 3385 + «8.3- u 0 n oumanumo conuocnanoumv conumsdo manumanumm .oz «0 nonno mo Gowumsvm cnupnmum uaononmmmoo .nammww\uswno3 .nn own an oomv conumSUo sumo nom conuacnanouov mo uaononmmoou can can aunauonvonn no muaonogaoo manunumom uso onumono:3.uaoonom can muaoafinsmmoa_mmoonmo o>nuoonno wanna ocop manmnumom mmuonao Hanan unmonom can amazon manuqanumo nom muonumsvo scammonmon mamnuaszfl .«m manna .oaon manonmmmm vauon ucoonom . m ll >4 .oHomse manmnomom xcoam uaoonmm ¢x .oaon manmnmmom nonuoom Ann HanoHum uamonom u mx .A.anv canon mo Suwaoa n Nx .A.nHv unmnoz ammonou u ax .ocon manmnmaom ammonmo Hmuou unmonon wouoanumm u m&\ .oaon manonwaom ammonoo HmuOu mo amazon nonmawumm numv q.. $0 5.0 3020.0 + 330000 + 3300.0 + 02.0- “6 0 1 1|. . 3.0 :0 3300.0 + 3320.0 + 3300. - 08.07 "HQ 0 2.0 00.0 $530.0 + 3300.0 + 25000. - 30.? «HQ 0 mm; 00.0 300004 + 30304 + 25000.0 + 02.00.. «X? m 00.0 $0 30000.0 + 33000.0 + 2530.0 + Sufi- nznx N 004 00.0 330004 + $30004 + 25000.0 + 03.00.. "Q n oumanumo acnuoananwuow nonumSUowwdnuqanumm .02 mo nonno mo acnuusvm unawamum uaononmmooo .Amdomw.umwno3 .nH omn on COMM donummdo sumo now downwananouop mo uaononmmooo can mam «mnouonvona mo muaonomaoo manmnmaom uso mammoaonz.uaoonom paw muaoaonSmmoa ammonmo m>nuoohno wanna oaon manwnmaom ammonwu Hmuou uaoonom was mpcsoa wanumanumo now muonumpvo nonmmonwon mamnunaz. .nn maan -1l4- Relationships Between weight of Certain Entire Muscles and Muscle Groups and weight of Total Separable Carcass Muscle and Bone weight of the l, ggggi muscle showed the highest relationship to pounds of total carcass muscle in the combined weight groups and in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (0.90 and 0.70, respectively) (table 56). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, however, the highest relationship to total carcass muscle was shown by the semimembranosus plus adductor (0.71), followed by the biceps femoris (0.63) and the l. doggi muscle (0.61). Correlation coefficients between muscle weights and total carcass muscle weight were markedly lower when calculated on a within weight group basis, particularly for the guadricepg muscles (range, 0.20 to 0.40). All other correlations between individual and muscle group weights and total carcass muscle were highly significant (P < .01)(range, 0.45 to 0.90). Although correlations were slightly lower than for individual and muscle group weights, essentially the same relationships were observed between these muscle weights and total bone weight. Relationships Between weights of Certain Entire Bones and Bone Groups and weight of Total Separable Carcass Muscle and Bone Highly significant correlation coefficients (P < .01) were found be- tween weight of the radius plus ulna, femur, tibia plus fibula, scapula and humerus and total carcass bone weight for the combined weight groups and within weight groups and are shown in table 57 (range, 0.62 to 0.91). Correlations between individual and bone group weights and total carcass muscle ranged from 0.24 to 0.85 and with the exception of the radius plus ulna and tibia plus fibula in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group all were highly significant (P < .01). These correlation coefficients were similar to those reported by Orme (1963) in lambs. .mgsonw uswno3 Hmavn>nvcn mun now AHo. V mv uaaonmnawnm onw mo¢.o A mGOnumHonnoo .mgsonw uswnoB stvn>npan mun now Amo. V mv ucoonmnnwnm onm Nam.o A anonumnonnoo .mmsonw unwnoB pocnnEoo onu now Aao. V mv uauonmnawnm onm nmN.o_A anonuoaonnoo .mmbonm unwnoa confineoo mun nom Amo. V mv uauonmnamnm and o-.o A mfiOnuoHonnoo «m.o Ho.o on.0 on.0 nn.0 oo.0 «anon .A _r o¢.o Nn.0 NH.0 n«.0 «o.0 mn.o nOnmE mmOmm 1 n. 00 .0 m0 .0 0m .0 00 .0 00 .0 8 .0 335m 383 wo.o Hn.0 mm.o oo.0 «n.0 mm.o nanoswp< was mumocmn nfiofinfiom oq.o «m.o HN.0 o~.o mo.o «o.0 mmwonnpmno «n.0 NN.0 wN.o nn.0 on.0 ow.o mamocnwaoufiaom maon saunas. onon onomaa moon saunas. “monomsz manonmmom manonmmom oHpmnwmom oHnmnwmom oHnmnwmom manwnmmom HmnOH annoy Houoy kuoe Hmuoa kuoa anonw uswwm3 .nn own ou ooh aflonw‘uswnoa .nn own on com mauonw uswnoa vocnnaou .oaon can oHomse.mHnonomom ammonuo was muswnos msonw oaomsa_wam oaomsa.am=pn>npan @800 newsman muaononmmooo nonuuaonnoo unmanm .on oHan .mmsonw usmwos wuauw>wnaw onu now Awe. V mv unmowwwcwwm onw mo¢.o A unowumHonnoo .mmaonw ugwwoa Hospw>wwaw mun now Amo. V mv uamowwwnwwm onm NHn.0 A maowuowonnou .mmnonm unmwoz poawaaoo man now Awe. V mv unmowwwawwm onm ~w~.o A maowumwonnoo .mgsonw uuwwoz pocwnaoo can now Amo. V my unmowwwamwm onu 0NN.0 A maownwwonnou ,m n _ No.o o«.o qn.o om.o #w.o wn.o manoeum nn.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0 unsaaom ww.o Nn.0 wn.o mm.o om.o nn.0 wasnwm + «wane Nn.0 Nn.0 um.o H«.0 oa.o on.0 naaom No.o ««.0 mo.o «N.0 mw.o mn.o saw: + gswvwm anon owom=e_ anon owomna econ owom=e_ "woman ownmnumom ownmnumom ownonaaom ownmnumom ownmnwmom ownonuaom wmuoa wuuoa Hmuoa wwuoe Hmuoa Huuoa abonw umwmoa wadonwlwmwwoa unwonw usmwos_voawnaoo .nw own an ooh musmwoz @sonw oaon paw .nn omm Ou 00m .oaon wan owomsa.ownmnomum ammonuo new oaon wmsvw>wwcw nooanon munowowwwooo nowumwonnoo ongwm .nn wanna -ll7- The highest relationship in the combined weight group and the 500 to 550 lb. weight group was observed between scapula weight and total bone weight (0.91 and 0.88, respectively). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, the highest relationship was observed between tibia plus fibula weight and total bone weight (0.81). Relationships between weights of these bones and total carcass bone weight were sufficiently high for use in prediction equations. These data support the findings of Butterfield (1963b) who developed several prediction equations for separable carcass bone using the weights of various bones as the independent variables in his equations. Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Separable Carcass Muscle and Bone on Individual and Groups of Muscle and Bone weights Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Separable Carcass Muscle on Muscle and Bone Weights. In the combined weight groups, 94% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass muscle could be accounted for using the independent variables shown in table 58. The same five variables only accounted for 78% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle in the combined weight groups with a standard error of estimate of 1.98% (811991” p.179)- Eighty-eight percent of the variation was accounted for in pounds of separable carcass muscle in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group using the same variables that were included in the combined weight group analysis plus weight of the femur, tibia and fibula and the humerus (suppl., p. 179)). However, in this weight group, when the five variables used in -118- Table 58. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups). , Regression Beta Level of RZI Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 4.978 0.31 Carcass wt. 0.049 0.184 0.00 0.93 Semitendinosus wt. 10.055 0.259 0.00 0.92 Biceps femoris wt. 5.934 0.247 0.00 0.92 .L. ggggi wt. 2.899 0.202 0.00 0.94 Scapula wt. 12.652 0.189 0.00 0.93 R225 0.94 Standard error of estimate = 6.21 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. the combined weight group analysis were included, 88% of the variation in percent separable carcass muscle was accounted for (table 59). Using the multiple regression equation presented in this table to estimate per- cent separable carcass muscle resulted in a standard error of estimate of 1.65%. Weight of the l; ggggi muscle had the greatest effect upon percent separable carcass muscle of any single variable in this prediction equation. This is probably attributable to the part to whole relation- ship. Estimation of pounds and percent separable carcass muscle from muscle and bone weights in the 700 to 750 lb. weight groups resulted in reduced accuracy. Carcass weight and those variables with a significant (P < .05) effect on pounds and percent separable carcass muscle resulted in coeffi- cients of determination of 0.73 for pounds of separable carcass muscle ~119- Table 59. Coefficient of determination between percent of carcass separ- able muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). A Regression Beta Level of R2r Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 51.336 0.00 Carcass wt. -.086 -.312 0.00 0.80 Semitendinosus wt. 2.748 0.229 0.00 0.84 Biceps femoris wt. 2.154 0.256 0.00 0.83 L, ggggi wt. 1.870 0.360 0.00 0.78 Scapula wt. 6.236 0.335 0.00 0.80 RZ*= 0.88 Standard error of estimate = 1.65 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. (suppl., p.11“)) and 0.77 for percent of separable carcass muscle (suppl., IL.180). These results support those of Orme ggugl. (1960) who presented simple linear regression equations for the prediction of pounds of separ- able carcass muscle from muscle weights. The standard error of estimate of the multiple regression equations presented here were less in most instances than those presented by Orme gt El- (1960). Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Sgparable Carcass Bone on Muscle and Bone weights. In the combined weight groups, accurate pre- diction equations for either pounds or percent separable carcass bone were calculated from muscle and bone weights. Six independent variables, listed in table 60, were responsible for 94% of the variation in pounds of separable carcass bone. -120- Table 60. Coefficient of determination between weight of separable carcass bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the re- gression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups). _p Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -.814 0.53 Carcass wt. 0.0002 0.002 0.91 0.94 SemitendinosuS'wt. 0.961 0.098 0.04 0.94 Biceps femoris wt. 0.806 0.133 0.01 0.94 Femur wt. 1.779 0.172 0.01 0.94 Tibia & Fibula wt. 3.843 0.302 0.00 0.92 Scapula wt. 6.036 0.359 0.00 0.91 R; = 0.94 Standard error of estimate = 1.58 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. With one less variable (Semitendinosus weight), 88% of the variation in percent separable carcass bone was accounted for (standard error of estimate of 0.50%)(tab1e 61). In contrast to the analysis for pounds of separable carcass bone, carcass weight has a highly significant (P < .01) effect upon percent separable carcass bone in the combined weight groups. Ninety-five and 96% of the variation in pounds and percent of separ- able carcass bone, respectively, can be accounted for in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group. These prediction equations had a high degree of accuracy with a standard error of estimate of 0.92 lb., using five varia- bles, to estimate pounds of carcass bone (suppl., p. 180) and a standard error of estimate of 0.33%, using six variables, to predict percent separable carcass bone (suppl., p. 181). -121- Table 61. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight_groups). . Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 11.172 0.00 Carcass wt. -.018 -l.239 0.00 0.31 Biceps femoris wt. 0.224 0.172 0.03 0.87 Femur wt. 0.806 0.362 0.00 0.85 Tibia + Fibula wt. 1.200 0.437 0.00 0.83 Scapula wt. 2.175 0.600 0.00 0.78 R2 = 0.88 Standard error of estimate = 0.50 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. In the 700 to 750 lb. group, the prediction equations were less accurate. For pounds of separable carcass bone, 85% of the variation was accounted for using four independent variables (suppl., p. l81).with a standard error of estimate of 1.73 lb. For percent separable carcass bone, 88% of the variation was accounted for using five independent variables (suppl., pm 181) with a standard error of estimate of 0.42%. Relationships Between weight and Percent Total Muscle, Fat and Bone Correlation coefficients between weights and percents of total car- cass separable muscle, fat and bone for the combined and individual weight groups appear in table 62. Correlations between percent muscle and per- cent fat were very high (-.98) on a combined and within weight group basis. The correlations between percent fat and percent bone were also high (-.84). -122- Positive correlations were observed between percent muscle and bone (0.74, 0.73 and 0.75 for the combined, 500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups, respectively). Table 62. Simple correlation coefficients between weights and percents of total carcass separable muscle, fat and bone for the com- bined and individual weight groups. Separable Separable Separable Weight group ‘muscle fat bone A§gparable component lb. % 1b. % lb. % Combined wt. group Muscle 1.00 1.00 0.40 -.98 0.90 0.74 Fat 1.00 1.00 0.28 -.84 Bone 1.00 1.00 500 to 550 1b. wt. group ‘Muscle 1.00 1.00 -.82 -.98 0.65 0.73 Fat 1.00 1.00 -.79 -.84 Bone 1.00 1.00 700 to 750 1b. wt. group Muscle 1.00 1.00 -.85 -.98 0.78 0.75 Fat 1.00 1.00 -.65 -.84 Bone 1.00 1.00 Correlations > 0.220 are significant (P < .05) for combined weight groups. Correlations > 0.287 are significant (P < .01) for combined weight groups. Correlations > 0.312 are significant (P < .05) for individual weight groups. Correlations > 0.403 are significant (P < .01) for individual weight groups. Correlations involving weight of separable components were lower than for percents; however, all, except that between weight of total carcass fat and bone for the combined weight groups, were highly significant (P < .01). These relationships are similar to the results reported by Brown 3531. (1962), Hedrick .EE _a_1_. (1963) and Miller 33; _a_1_. (1965). These authors reported high negative relationships between carcass fat and muscle and positive relationships between carcass bone and muscle. -123- Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Retail Yield and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Simple correlation coefficients between pounds and percent wholesale cut retail yields and pounds and percent separable components, retail and fat trim yields on a combined and within weight group basis appear in tables 63, 64 and 65. The highest relationships between pounds of wholesale cut retail yields and pounds of carcass separable muscle, boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck yield and total retail yield were the chuck and round yields (range, 0.60 to 0.95). These relationships existed for the combined as well as for the within weight groups. In general, pounds of wholesale cut retail yield was positively correlated with pounds and percent carcass muscling and bone and on a within weight group basis, negatively related to pounds and percent separable carcass fat and fat trim yields. On a percent basis in the combined weight groups, the relationships between wholesale cut retail yield and separable carcass muscle and bone ‘were lower than for weight. Correlations between percent wholesale cut retail yields and carcass separable fat were negative and higher than weight correlations. However, correlation coefficients between percent and weights of retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck and total retail yield were quite similar. Correlations between percent retail yield of the flank and percent round, loin, rib and chuck yield (range, 0.72 to 0.82) and total retail yield (range, 0.84 to 0.89) were higher than those for weight. On a per- cent basis in all groups, correlations between retail yield from the -124- £800 05 an .33 .0890 u 2.2 .Awo. V m0 unmowwwawwm mnm Nw~.0 A maowumwonnom .Amo. V m0 unmowwwawwm onm 0NN.0 A maowuowonnoo mn.u 00.0 mm.u 00.0 00.0 nn.0 H0.0 no.0 Nn.0 00.0 mh.u 0n.0 nn.0 0n.0 Japan 00.: 0N.0 00.- 0N.0 no.0 NN.0 Nn.0 nn.0 w~.0 nn.0 «0.: 50.0 N«.0 no.0 oumHm 00w! No.0 00.: 00.0 Hm.0 no.0 on.0 00.0 00.0 nn.0 N0.n 0N.0 Ho.0 mm.0 noxmwnm 00g! 0~.a mo.u ow.u 00.0 Nn.0 Nn.0 m¢.0 «n.0 Hn.0 mm.u m0.a oN.0 00.0 xcmnmonOh Nn.0 0N.0 00.: mm.0 00.0 mm.0 H0.0 No.0 00.0 «0.0 N0.n Nn.0 mm.0 ~0.0 30:50 mm.u no.0 00.: 0H.0 00.0 mm.0 00.0 00.0 0n.0 no.0 00.: 00.0 0n.0 nn.0 nfim mw.u 0H.0 00.: 0N.0 00.0 nw.0 mw.0 00.0 Nn.0 nn.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 H0.0 awow mw.u HH.0 mm.u 0N.0 nm.0 mm.0 00.0 00.0 ««.0 50.0 Nn.u mm.0 nn.0 00.0 wanom N .nn N .nw N .nn N .nn N .nn N Inna N .AH twowN umqm eonw Bwnu umw Hmuoa pawn» kuuon wumqm meumn anon now owomsfi meuon uno now Hmanouxm voaawnu vuaawnu ownmnunom ownanwnom ownunaaom owmmowonz apoaom «venom HauOH Hmuoa kuoa .mnmonwluawwo3_0ocwnaoo can now mpwowmlawnu umw 0am meuon Kmucononeoo ownmnmaom mmoonoo was unowm meuon uao mammowosa noosuon muaowowwwooo cowumwonnoo magawm .mo candy -125- .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 n 0000 .AHO. V mv UGNUHMHGWHM 0H“ mo¢.° A mGOHUQHOHHOW .Amo. V my unwowwwcwwm wnc NHn.0 A maowumamnnoo 55.- 50.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 05.0 00.0 50.0 50.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 05.0 00.0 00000 00.- 00.- 05.- 00.- 05.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00000 05.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 0000000 00.- 00.- 05.- 00.- 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 000000nom 50.- 50.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 05.0 00:00 00.: 0m.: «0.: 0m.: «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0n.0 00.0 mo.: H~.: No.0 00.0 00% 00.: mo.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 nn.0 Nn.0 «0.: 0m.: NN.0 00.0 awed 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.- 05.- 50.0 05.0 00:00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 x .00 0 .00 x -:n00 N .00 00000 000.000 Eonw Ewnu umw 030.0. 33.00033 0000.00 00003 0:00 00w 0009000 Hwaumn uno 00w Hmcnmuxm 00800:“. win”. mfinmnmmom own—0.000000 man—0.030000 0000000003 .00000 000000 00000 00000 00000 .nnonw,u£ww03 .00 0mm 00 00m 000 now 0000001m0nu 00w can meuon K000000000800 wwnmnmaom ammonuo 0am 00000 meumn uno 000000o53.amwsuon mquwowwwsoo cowum0mnnoo owmanm .00 00009 -126- .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 n 00000 .000. V 00 unmoww0awwm 0n0 000.0 A 0a000000nno0 .000. V 00 uaao0w0awwm 0n0 000.0 A 00000000nn00 00.: 00.: 05.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 x0000 00.: 00.0 N~.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00000 00.: 0a.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 u0300n0 00.: 00.: 0a.: 00.: 00.0 «0.0 NN.0 00.0 00.: «0.0 00.0 00.: N0.0 0N.0 xa0£00nom 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00:00 50.: 00.: N0.: 00.: 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: mm.- 00.0 00.0 000 00.: om.- 05.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 5000 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00:00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 0000.0 000M eonw Ewnu Ewnu 000AN,00uu0n 0000M 00000n 0non 00w 00omflfi 00mu0n uno 00w 000n0uxm 00w 000oH 00eawnn 00eawnu 0000n0000 0000n0000 0000n0000 000000os3 .00000 .00000 00000 00000 00000 .QUOHw 000003 .00 000 on 000 0;» now 000uwN-awnu 00w 0am 00000n 00000000800 0000n0000 mmmonuo 0:0 00000 00mu0n 0:0 000000o03 £00300; 00000o0ww0oo cO0uw00nnoo 009800 .00 0000H ~127- flank and the seven carcass compositional components were essentially as high or higher than those from any other wholesale cut. These findings are similar to those reported by Hedrick ggngl. (1963) and Miller gt 2;. (1965) who found the flank retail yield and carcass retail yield rela- tionship quite high and included retail flank yield as an independent variable in some of their prediction equations. In contrast to these data, Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported that percent trimmed round and round retail yields were most highly relatedtxncarcass retail yields. However, correlations between separable muscle from the round and carcass retail yields differed greatly when comparing them on a combined and within weight group basis (tables 28, 29 and 30) while those between separable muscle of the flank and carcass retail yields were much more consistent in all groups. Thus, because of the ease in obtaining flank retail yield and/or sep- arable components and the economics involved, the wholesale flank (Welling- ton, 1952, cutting procedure) should be considered for use in estimating retail and/or fat trbm yields. Percent retail yields of the wholesale cuts in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group showed higher relationships to percent carcass retail and fat trim yields than those in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. Relationships Between Pounds and Percent Wholesale Cut Fat Trim and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Correlations between pounds and percent wholesale cut fat trim yields and pounds and percent carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields appear in tables 66, 67 and 68. Pounds and percents of separable -128- 000000 000 000 .0000 .0860 n 0000000 .000. V mv ua0o0m0aw00 0H0 mm~.0 A 080000000000 .000. V 00 00000000000 000 0NN.0 A 00o00000uuou 0N.0 00.0 mm.0 00.0 00.: 00.0. 00.: 00.0 00.: 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 0N.0 coax 000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 30000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00000 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 0N.0 00.: NN.0 «0.: 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 0N.0 0030000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 0N.0 080000000 «0.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 0N.0 00.: 0N.0 00.: 0N.0 NN.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 30:00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.: ~0.: 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00m 00.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: N0.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 0n.0 00.: 00.0 8000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: N0.0 00.: 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~0.: 0N.0 00:00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 8000 000 0000 000M 8000 8000 8000 0000m:00000u 00000 000000 0000 000 000088 000000003 000 00800uxm 000 00009 0088000 0088000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000800 000000 00009 00009 00009 .mmwoum 00w003 00800800 000 How 00000h,8000 000 080 000000 00080800860 000000000 0000000 080 8000 000 0:0 000000onz.a003000 000000000000 80000000000 000800 .00 00009 -129- .00000 000 000 «0000 «00000 n 0000 .000. V 00 00000000000 000 000.0 A 00000000000w .000. V 00 00000000000 000 000.0 A 000000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 0~.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0000 000000 00.0 Nn.0 00.0 00.0 mm.- 00.- 00.- 00.- N0.- 0N.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 00.0 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.- mm.- 0N.- mm.- 00.- 0n.- 00.0 00.0 mm.- ~0.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- ~0.- 00.- m0.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 NN.- 0N.- 0000000 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- mm.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 ~0.- 0m.- 000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0m.- 00.- 00.- N0.- 00.- 00.- nN.0 00.0 00.- m¢.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.- 00.- 00.- 00.- m0.- mm.- NN.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 000 00.0 0N.0 ~0.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0000 Nm.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0~.- 00.0 00.0 ~0.- 0~.- 00000 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 N .00 8000 0000 8000 8000 8000 00000 000000 00000 000000 0000 000 000008. 000 000 000 00000000 000 00009 0088000 0088000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000003 .3000 60000 00000 00000 00000 .00000 000003 .00 000 00 000 000 000 000000 8000 000 000 000000 00000000800 000000000 0000000 000 8000 000 000 000000003 0003000 000000000000 00000000000 000800 .00 00009 -130- 38% can flu K£3 «83¢ n 8.3 .Aao. v mv uanHMAGme mum mo¢.o A maoaumamuuow .Amo. V my uamoHMchHm mum NHn.0 A maowumHmuuoo NH.0 nH.0 oN.0 om.o m¢.- Nn.u N«.u 00.- m~.- mo.u wm.o ~w.o N«.u mN.u coax mmawwx oo.0 oo.0 ow.o mm.o «m.u mq.n mn.u Hm.n mm.u n«.u Ho.0 mw.o mo.a HN.- xnmah ma.o nH.0 ««.0 nn.0 o«.u mH.a qm.- 0H.u NN.- oH.u H«.0 N«.0 m¢.u mm.: madam on.0 N«.c mm.o nn.0 on.u H«.u no.u m¢.u q¢.u wH.n no.0 ¢¢.o no.u w¢.n umxmfium Hn.0 m~.o Hm.o mm.o Hm.u m¢.- o¢.u ¢¢.n mH.n wo.u ¢~.o oo.0 mH.u oH.u xawnmouom mo.o ~¢.o ow.o no.o mm.u mo.a mm.. 00.- 00.- ««.u oN.0 Hn.0 wo.u «m.. 30:30 NN.0 ~¢.o mw.o Ho.0 oN.n mo.u Hw.n No.u mo.- Nm.a mo.o H«.0 «0.: w¢.u nwm Nw.o Nn.0 #w.o n¢.o oN.- o«.n HN.- mm.n mo.n ma.n «N.o #N.o mo.u «H.u :aoq mm.o oH.0 om.o on.0 NN.: om.u wo.n NM.: «0.: HN.: oo.0 oo.0 #0.- no.n waaom N .na N .nH N .nH N .AH N .AH N .na N .AH AEHHu qum scum afiuu Baku vamuhxawmumu Humqm awwumu mcon uwm maomsa. uwm uno umw Hwaumuxm uwm Hmuoa vmeaauu vaaawuu manmumamm vacuummum vacuummmm «Hummaonz qwmnom «canon annoy HauOH amuoa .muouw uanmB .AH omn ou con mnu How mvamflhlaauu umm vac Hamumu Rmuamaomaoo wanmummmm ammuuuo can aauu mum usu uawmmHoaz.amm3uwn mucoaoammmoo aoaumamuuoo maaaam .wo wanna -l31- carcass muscle and bone were negatively related to pounds and percents wholesale cut fat trim within weight groups (range, -.07 to -.78); whereas, in the combined weight groups the relationships between pounds of these characteristics were positive but low (range, 0.08 to 0.55). Percent wholesale cut fat trim was highly significantly (P < .01) negatively related to percent carcass muscle and bone both in the combined and within weight groups except those between percent fat trim.from the foreshank and separable muscle and bone and percent plate, flank and kidney fat and total carcass bone in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. 7 Among the wholesale cuts, pounds of fat trim from the kidney knob and flank showed the highest relationships to pounds of total separable carcass fat for the combined and within weight grouPs (range, 0.70 to 0.91). When compared on a percent basis, correlations for kidney knob and flank with total carcass separable fat were lower, with the greatest reduction in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. The relationships between percent fat trim of the other wholesale cuts and total carcass separable fat were highly significant (P < .01) with the exception of the percent foreshank fat in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (0.14). These data indicate that foreshank fat deposition is not consistent with total carcass fat deposi- tion. Highly significant (P < .01) correlation coefficients were found be- tween percent wholesale cut fat trim yields and percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and total retail yield in the combined and within weight groups, except for plate fat trim in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (range, -.40 to -.93). The lowest relationships -l32- for all wholesale cuts with retail yields were noted in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (range, -10 to -.85). In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, percent fat trim from all wholesale cuts except the kidney knob and fore- shank showed correlations with retail yields of -.76 or higher. Percent flank fat trim.was also highly related to retail yields (range, -.73 to -.89) and would again suggest use of the flank for predictive purposes. Percents wholesale cut fat trim, except that from the kidney knob, were positively and highly significantly (P < .01) related to percent total fat trim yields for the combined weight groups (range, 0.54 to 0.93). With the exception of the kidney knob, foreshank and plate, correlations between percent fat trim yields and percent carcass fat trim yields were highly significant (P < .01) within the two weight groups (range, 0.59 to 0.96). Correlations between pounds and percent wholesale cut fat trim yields and pounds and percent carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields were generally higher in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Bone Yield and Total Carcass Separable Components, Retail and Fat Trim Yields Simple correlation coefficients between pounds and percent wholesale cut bone yields and pounds and percent carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields for the combined and within weight groups appear in tables 69, 70 and 71. These relationships were similar to those previously discussed between separable bone and the seven carcass compositional com- ponents. Both pounds and percents wholesale cut bone yields were generally -l33- .3023 as flu .53 .saom u as: .AHo. V mv uam0fimaawam mum Nmu.o A mnowumfiounoo .Amo. V mv unmoamwnwfim mum ONN.o A mnoauoamuuou mm.- Ho.u mm.u mo.u om.o nN.o wN.o a~.o on.0 H~.o N~.u mH.o «H.o oH.0 xaoam mm.- oo.o oo.u Na.o wm.o nN.0 Ho.o wN.o NN.o mm.o NN.: ««.0 No.0 on.o muoam mm.u oH.- 00.: 0a.: wm.o o«.0 mm.o ¢¢.o aN.o No.o HN.: No.- mo.o w¢.o poxmfium nH.u oo.o 00.- o«.0 qo.: Hw.o No.0 ow.o oH.0 ww.o mo.n Nm.o do.o on.0 xawnmonom mm.- mo.o N0.. ««.0 w¢.o mw.o ««.0 «m.o on.0 Nm.o 00.- Hn.0 mm.o omgu 30:50 ¢¢.- oH.0 ~m.- «N.0 o«.o mo.o wm.o oN.0 oo.0 mn.o om.u Hn.0 um.o oN.0 nflm o«.u «H.0 o¢.u nN.0 mm.o «N.o mN.o «N.0 Hm.o om.c o«.n Nn.0 nn.0 ¢N.o :Hoq m¢.u mo.o w¢.n NN.o am.o Nn.0 on.0 mm.o no.0 mm.o m¢.n um.o wm.o «n.0 vnaom N .nH N .na N .nH N .nH N .na N .nH N .AH wHofiN umAM aoum Egan Ewan vaofihlawuuou Human Hamuou anon uum saunas. moon_u=u uom Hunuouxm uom HmuOH voEEHHu woeafiuu wanouoamm manoumnom manouummm mammoaoma «bosom acmaom HouOH kuoa Houoa .mmsouw,unmw03 woawnaoo onu pom mvaowm,awuu now can Hannah «muaocoaaoo manmuomom mucouou poo vamah moon use oHumoHonsvcomsumn muamaoammooo coauuaouuou ngEHm .mo manmfi -134- £85 Bu flu .33 .253” n 913 .AHo. V my udmuwmaawam who mo¢.o A mnowuwaouuow .25. v 5 “.833:me 9:. find A ".8323qu mm.u NH.: mm.u HN.- Nn.0 mH.o HN.0 oo.0 o«.0 nn.0 mm.. «0.- «H.0 HH.- xGmHm mm.. mm.- mo.u mm.u mm.o o«.0 oo.o H«.0 NN.0 mm.o 00.: m¢.n wm.o Hn.0 madam mm.. o«.. no.u w¢.u no.0 Hm.o oo.0 nN.0 ow.o om.o mn.n Nm.u «o.o om.o umxmfium oH.u mo.. 00.- oN.u ao.o nn.0 No.0 N¢.o ~H.: wo.o oo.0 oo.- oo.u mm.o xawSmouom 00.- 00.- N0.: mo.u Nn.0 on.0 Nn.0 Hm.c NN.0 «5.9 ~o.- 00.- qm.o mm.o 309:0 m¢.n -.u on.. am.u n«.0 -.o a¢.o o~.o mm.o mm.o w¢.u ou.n n«.0 om.o cam mm.u Nm.n N«.u m¢.u mm.o o«.0 om.o oH.o wm.o om.o mm.u HN.- HN.0 No.0 ofioq om.u $0.- mm.u HN.- n«.0 Hm.o Nn.0 n«.0 mm.o on.0 n«.u on.s on.0 n«.c mason N .AH N .AH N .nH .nH N .AH N .na N .nH pHoHM umqm scum Baku Baku vHoH%,H«oumu Human H«muou anon umm canons. moon uso pom amauouxm pom kuoa poaaauu woaaauu oHanoaom manmuonom manmuomom mammoaonz «bosom apoaom HouOH Huuoa Houoa .asouw powwoa .AH omm ou com «5» you mvaofiw.aauu umm vow Hanna» Kmuaoaomaoo manuummom mmoouoo vow mama» moon uso mammoaonz.aou3uon muamauwmmooo aoauuaouuoo ngEHm .oN oHAoH -135- .xoanu van nan .aHoH .ennom u omen .AHO. V mv UfiGOHMHd—wflm 0H“ moauoo A mfiOHUQHQHHOW .Amo. v m0 unwoundamfim mum «Hn.0 A mnoaumamuuoo mH.- 00.0 mm.- ao.- Nn.0 ¢¢.o Nn.0 H«.o 0H.0 no.o NH.- mH.o oH.0 oo.o xamam ~0.- mm.- mm.- ~0.- «0.o 00.0 N0.o m0.o 0N.0 nn.0 mm.- Nn.- mN.o HN.0 oumam mm.- Nq.- mm.- ~¢.- No.0 No.0 «0.0 m¢.o 05.0 00.0 00.- ¢¢.- N0.o 0n.0 umxmanm H¢.- om.- mm.- on.- 0H.0 ««.0 on.0 0¢.o on.0 0N.0 0m.- 0¢.- NN.0 Nn.0 xaonmmuom mm.- m0.- Nm.- 00.- Nn.o mm.o 0m.o 00.0 «0.0 00.0 0N.- N0.- 00.o ow.o 30:50 om.- m¢.- qm.- mm.- Nn.0 0N.0 mm.o Nn.0 NN.0 H0.0 oN.- m0.- HN.o m0.o Aflm m0.- N«.- «0.- mm.- H«.0 N«.0 ¢¢.o 00.0 00.0 NN.o mm.- mm.- 00.o ~0.o GHOA «m.- om.- om.- 0n.- NN.0 H«.0 Nn.0 m¢.o 0N.0 mw.o mm.- mm.- 0«.o wn.o vase“ N .0H N .nH N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H N .0H vaowh umqm Baum Beau aauu 0H0H%,Hwouou Humam Haouou anon umm odomaa moon use umm Hoanouxm uwm Huuoe voaawuu vmeaauu manmuomom manonomom manonmamm mammmaon3 .uuaom .uoaom Huuoa Hmuoa Haney .nwouw unwaoa .AH own on can mnu now mwaoah,aauu pom paw Haouou «mucosomBOo ofinmuwmmm mmwuuoo was vaowh moon use mammoaoss.cm03umn munofiowmmooo nowumHouuoo oanfiam .HN maan -136- positively related to measures of carcass muscling and bone and negatively related to carcass fatness. As would be expected, in the combined weight groups the highest relationships were noted between pounds and percent wholesale cut bone yields (except pounds and percent flank bone yield and percent foreshank bone yield) and pounds and percent total carcass bone (range, 0.51 to 0.92). In the combined weight groups, the highest relationships were observed between pounds of bone from the round (0.92), chuck (0.92) and foreshank (0.88) and pounds of separable carcass bone. On a percent basis, these same relationships were markedly reduced (range, 0.10 to 0.76). Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Retail Yield Measures on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yields and Carcass Scores and Measurements Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Retail Yield from the RoundLgLoin, Rib and Chuck on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yields and Objective Carcass Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 95% of the variation in pounds of boned, trimmed retail yield from the round, loin, rib and chuck (RLRC) could be accounted for by the six independent variables listed in table 72. The prediction of weight of retail yield from the RLRC using this equation resulted in a standard error of estimate of 5.28 lb. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 85% of the variation in retail yield from the RLRC was accounted for by seven independent variables (suppl., p. 182). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, only five variables had a significant effect on weight of boned, trimmed RLRC yield and they were associated with 76% of the variation present in this variable (suppl., p. 182). -l37- Table 72. Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of Rff Independent variables coefficients weights 813; deletes Constant. -75.841 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.217 0.906 0.00 0.84 Round score2 1.535 0.104 0.00 0.94 Length of round 4.028 0.347 0.00 0.93 wr. foreshank bone-R.S.3 -4.945 -.157 0.02 0.94 Wt. flank yield-R.S. 2.198 0.201 0.00 0.92 Wt. flank fat-R.S. -2.197 -.407 0.00 0.89 (RE—é 0.95 Standard error of estimate = 5.28 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. See table 2 for scoring system used. 3R.S. a Right side. When the wholesale cut yields were expressed in percentages,94%. of the variation in pounds of boned, trimmed retail RLRC yield was accounted for combined weight groups using six independent variables (suppl., p. 183 ). In the combined weight groups, 79% of the variation in percent retail yield of the RLRC was accounted for by the six variables listed in table 73. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 79% of the variation in weight of boned, trimmed RLRC yield could be accounted for using carcass weight, length of round,.l. dorsi muscle area and percent retail yield of the flank (suppl., p. 183 ). Eighty-three percent of the variation in percent -138- Table 73. Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of percent wholesale cut yields and carcass scores and measure- ments, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (gombined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 10.953 0.09 Carcass wt. -.023 -.600 0.00 0.72 Round scorez 0.417 0.179 0.02 0.77 Length of round 1.439 0.786 0.00 0.71 Wt. foreshank bone-R.S.3 -1.670 -.336 0.02 0.77 .L.‘dg£gi muscle area 0.394 0.185 0.01 0.77 % flank yield-R.S. 0.301 0.696 0.00 0.52 R?r= 0.79 Standard error of estimate = 1.70 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from 2the analysis. See table 2 for scoring system used. 3R.S. = Right side. retail yield of the RLRC could be accounted for using these same four variables plus weight of the foreshank bone (suppl., p. 183. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, only 76% of the variation in pounds of retail yield of the RLRC (suppl., p. 184) and 67% of the varia- tion in percent of the same trait (suppl., pm 184) could be accounted for using carcass weight, round score, length of round and percent retail yield of the flank. -139- Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Retail Roundi LoinL_Rib and Chuck Yield on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Flank Retail Yield. In the combined weight groups, 94% of the variation in pounds of RLRC yield and 76% of the variation in percent RLRC yield can be accounted for using the variables listed in the equations shown in table 74. In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 75), some- what greater accuracy in predicting percent of RLRC yield was attained. The coefficients of determination for equations 1 (0.78) and 2 (0.81) in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group were lower compared to equations 1 (0.94) and 2 (0.94) in the combined weight groups. The coefficients of deter- mination for equations 3 (0.78 and 4 (0.81) in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group were greater than the corresponding equations for the combined weight groups (0.76 and 0.76, respectively). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group (table 76), less of the total variation in either pounds or percent RLRC yield could be accounted for using these multiple regression analyses than in either the combined or the 500 to 550 lb. weight groups (coefficient of determination range 0.67 to 0.75). These data indicate that as beef carcasses get heavier (fatter), more difficulty in accurately estimating pounds or percent of RLRC yield is encountered. These regression analyses were slightly less accurate with somewhat larger standard errors of estimate than those reported by Murphy $5.31. (1960) and Brungardt and Bray (1963). II ~o >4 .naowh Hanuou xaoam unmoumm .A.aav canon mo sumac; - mx .A.EEV < uaoamaammma_uwm u «x .A.EEV mafianae Homuon mooouoo mau mmo .GH NH «munouuo> Houoom nun - onoum n mx .A.a_5 0:33,: 3880 $3.23 as» «no .5 a .303“? 03393 50 - 3on n «x .A.AHV ufimama mmoouoo u ax .n~ow% gonna now can KGeo." «pooch meuwu noeaauu «cocoa unwound nmuqaaumm -140- H» < .naoah 30950 now 0H9 «aeoa “peace Hannah noaawuu K0280 mo mosooo wounaeumm "lax 0 ma.a on.o onvmm~.o + Amxvm~¢.o + Aqxvemo. - Amxvmua. - Aexvaao. - «Ho.0q ".mv om.H 05.o onvom~.o + Amxvaoq.o + Amxvm~a. - Amxvmec. - Aaxveao. - mom.o¢ ufimx m 0m.m em.o onvoma.o + Amxvoam.a + Aexvqmo. - Amxvnom. - Aexvoo~.o + mmh.aq- “.mw N 0m.m «a.o onvhma.o + Amxvoeo.a + Amxvqam. - Auxvauo.o + Aaxvqo~.o + Hom.¢e- - m. H ouoaaumo aoqumGHEumuon maowumsdo-wdwumawumm .02 mo Houuo mo ucowofimmooo nowuosvm nuownmum .AmNUOHw-usmaos noawnaoowidoauondo some now ooHuoodBuouov mo uawwoammmoo can now «muouownoud mm naoflh deacon xamam unwound new mandamunmmoa.mmoonoo o>wuomhno magma name» Haouou 30550 new be» K30H «canoe noeaguu «wagon unwound can mnaoom wawuoaaumo pom oaowumswo scammouwou vanguanzw .nn manna -141- .naowm Hannah xaoaw unmouom .A.a«v pouch mo cuwcou .A.EBV < unnamHsmooE uom .A.EEV mangoes Hmmuon mmmoumo man mmo .ofi NH «mnnouuo> Hmuuom nun - onoum .650 8:38 $32. $353 9: moo .E a .303“? 3098;”. as .. 38m .A.0Hv uswfioB ammonoo .0H0H% 305:0 now new «aon «mason meumu nmeafiuu «mason unwound nounaaumm II II II II II N m \1' In \0 >4 >4 1*: N M II --I x II <54" .0Hm0% Joana now may «sacs «capo» Hamuon noaaeuu «vocab mo amazon nonmaaumm n.w\ $4 8.0 3225 + 3082. + 33:. - 33.6.3. - 30890 + 3~.~m aw. a Sn who $5036 + 33305 + 332. - 33:. - 30305 + 30.3 a Q m .53 8.0 @5220 + 33934 + 333:... .. 333. .. 3235 + 80.3.. no. N is who 33936 + Arcana + 333. - 308m. .. 333:. + 83.3- a «V H ouoawumo aowuoofieuouon Gowumnmo wmauoaaumm .02 we gonna mo uaoHonmooo noeumsvm nuwnnmum .Amwoum uquos .0a 000 cu oomv nowumum6 soon How nowuoawanouon mo unmaoammooo onu 0am «muouownond mo waowm meuou xGme unwound woo muauaousmmua mmmoumo o>fiuumhco wagon oaowh Hannah 30950 new new «swag Knose noeaauu «canon unwound 0am nuance wawumaaumo How mooaumnvo scammouwou ofimwuasz .mn manna -l42- .naowm Hanna“ xcoam unmoumm n 0x .A.:Hv canon mo panama u 0% .A.EEV 4 uamBoHSmuoE now u «x .A.EEV onwanwe_aomuon mmuuuou mnu mmo .GH NH «aunouum> Houomm nun - onoum u mx .A.BEV mafianwa.ammnon ammoumo onu mmo .on d «ounouum> o«omuonu nun - onoum n ax .A.nHv unwwms mmmohmo u ax .naowm xonno 0cm 0H9 «nHoH «venom H«muou noeaeuu «cocoa unwound nouoEHumm n fiaV .naoflh xosno now new .aHoH «nosou Hwouou noaaguu «woman 00 apnoea nounfigummnn.mv mm; 85 35890 + 3335 + 3335 + 339:. - 1x38. - $93 - Q a an; 3.0 “05830 + 3335 + 332. - $3.28. - 2x008. - 89? "av m in who 33%; + 33.x: + 338:. + 332a. - 332:. + «8.3.. u G N .35 id 333...; + 33:4 + 3303. - 3385 + 3333. + 30.:- u o. a ouweHumo cowumawauouon maowumndm-mm«umefiumm .oz 0 mo Houuo mo unmfiowmmoou noauoovm numnaoum .Amsonw.uanm3 .nH omN ou OONV coaummmo some now Gofiumawaumumn mo uaoaoemmooo osu now-dmnouOfin -oum no naowh H«ouou xnoam unwound nan muaoeauomwoa monouno o>Huommpo mafia: naoflh Hannah 30930 new new KaHoH «nosey noeaeuu “vocab unmouom Ho\nao mnqsoa wawuoaqumo How maoauosvo aoqmmouwou onHuHoz. .0m manmg -l43- Multiple Regression Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on a Combination of Weights of Wholesale Cut Yields and Carcass Scores and Measurements. In the combined weight groups, 96% of the variation in pounds of total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield was accounted for using six independent variables (table 77). Table 77. Coefficient of determination between pounds of boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weightggroups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -25.066 0.08 Carcass wt. 0.189 0.651 0.00 0.93 Depth of 10th rib 1.992 0.061 0.02 0.96 Length of round 1.493 0.106 0.03 0.96 w:. untrimmed round-R.S.2 0.542 0.204 0.01 0.96 Wt. retail flank yield-R.S. 3.692 0.278 0.00 0.91 Wt. retail flank fat-R.S. -2.089 -.319 0.00 0.93 R278 0.96 Standard error of estimate = 5.70 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2R.s. = Right side. Estimating percent total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield in the combined weight groups, “84% of the variation could be accounted for using the five independent variables shown in table 78. Greater accuracy was found in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group as 87% of the variation in pounds of boned, trimmed retail yield was related -144- Table 78. Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and carcass scores and measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weightpgroups), Regression Beta Level of R2I Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 41.717 0.00 Carcass wt. -.024 -.494 0.00 0.80 Round scorez 0.602 0.201 0.00 0.81 Length of round 1.118 0.474 0.00 0.79 Wt. retail flank yield-R.S.3 1.116 0.502 0.00 0.67 Wt. retail flank fat-R.S. -.788 -.718 0.00 0.64 RZ’= 0.84 Standard error of estimate = 1.91 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. See table 2 for scoring system used. 3R.s. = Right side to the five independent variables shown in table 79. This prediction equation, involving five variables, would be useful for the prediction of pounds of boned, trimmed retail yield in 500 to 550 1b. carcasses. These same five variables accounted for 90% of the variation in percent boned, trimmed carcass retail yield in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 80). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, 80% of the variation in weight of boned, trimmed carcass retail yield could be accounted by carcass ‘weight and weights of retail flank muscle and fat (SUpp1., p. 185). Sev- enty-six percent of the variation in percent of this same variable could be accounted for using these same three independent variables plus the weight of the kidney knob (suppl., p. 185). —145- Table 79. Coefficient of determination between weight of boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -130.465 0.01 Carcass wt. 0.312 0.376 0.00 0.77 Length of round 3.905 0.344 0.00 0.80 Wt. retail flank yie1d-R.s.2 3.557 0.446 0.00 0.70 Wt. retail flank fat-R.S. -2.142 -.518 0.00 0.72 .E-.§2E§$ muscle area 2.085 0.203 0.01 0.83 R2’= 0.87 Standard error of estimate = 5.38 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2R.S. = Right side. Table 80. Coefficient of determination between percent boned, trimmed total carcass retail yield and a combination of weights of wholesale cut yields and objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of Rzi Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sig. deletes Constant 15.513 0.33 Carcass wt. 0.005 0.014 0.81 0.90 Length of round 1.327 0.299 0.00 0.85 Wt. retail flank yie1d-R.s.2 1.230 0.394 0.00 0.77 Wt. retail flank fat-R.S. -.808 -.500 0.00 0.76 .L.'dg£gi muscle area 0.907 0.226 0.00 0.86 RZ‘: 0.90 Standard error of estimate = 1.83 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2R.S. = Right side. ~146- The preceding equations compare favorably with prediction equations of Murphy e; 31. (1960), Breidenstein (1962) and Brungardt and Bray (1963) for accuracy of prediction. The equations of Murphy e5 31. (1960) and Brungardt and Bray (1963) predict only the boned, trimmed retail yield of the RLRC; whereas, those presented here also estimate total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield. Greater accuracy was noted in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than either the 700 to 750 lb. weight group or the combined weight groups. Multiple Reggession Analyses of Pounds and Percent Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on a Combination of Wholesale Cut Yield Percentages and Carcass Scores and Measurements. When percent wholesale cut retail and fat trim yields were used in the prediction equations, the results were similar to those for wholesale cut retail weights in the combined weight groups. Ninety-five percent of the variation in pounds of total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield could be accounted for (combined weight groups) using the following four variables: 1) carcass weight; 2) length of round; 3) l.‘dg£ei muscle area; and 4) % retail flank yield (suppl., p. 18.6). The same variables plus round score, accounted for 85% of the varia- tion in percent boned, trimmed carcass retail yield in the combined weight groups (suppl., p. 18.6)- In the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, 84 and 88% of the variation could be accounted for in pounds and percent, respectively, of boned, trimmed retail carcass yield (sUppl., p. 187). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, -147- 79 and 74% of the variation in the same two variables could be accounted for using the regression equations presented in the supp1., p. 188. These equations, particularly on a combined weight group basis and in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group, compare favorably in accuracy with the prediction equations of Murphy E£.§l° (1960), Breidenstein (1962) and Brungardt and Bray (1963). Multiple Regression Analyses of Boned, Trimmed Total Carcass Retail Yield on Objective Carcass Measurements and Percent Flank Retail Yield. Ninety- four percent of the variation in pounds of boned, trimmed carcass retail yield (combined weight groups) could be accounted for using either equa- tion 1 or 2 shown in table 81. Eighty-three and 84% of the variation in percent boned, trimmed carcass retail yield could be accounted for using equations 3 and 4 (table 81), respectively. Greater accuracy of prediction of percent boned, trimmed carcass retail yield was accomplished in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group (table 82) using either equation 3 or 4. In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, however, only 74% of the variation in percent boned, trimmed carcass re- tail yield could be accounted for using the corresponding equations (equations 3 or 4, table 83). These data indicate that total carcass boned, trimmed retail yield could be quite accurately estimated using a combination of objective car- cass measurements and percent flank retail yield. However, it would appear that greater accuracy of prediction can be obtained in lighter weight carcasses than those of heavier weights. -148- .naofih H«ouou xooam unmouom . A .56 08.5“ mo suwooq II \o >< II in N .A.EEV < ucoaouomwoa uom n «x .A.EEV m:HH0HE.HomHon monouoo man mmo .Gw Na Nonnouuo> Houoom nun - onoum II no >4 .A.EEV onwanfla Homnon monouoo o£u mmo .nfi ¢ Nounouuo> o«uouosu sum - onoum «x .A.nHV unwwoa omooHou H u x .naoam meuou ammonmo Houou noaaauu Nnooon unwound vouoaaumm n mwx .nHoH% Haouou mmouumo Houou voaawuu «cocoa mo amazon nounawumm ".mV no.3 on.o onvnnm.o + Amxvomo.o + Adxvomo. - AmxvoOo. - AHanHo. - Nou.md u ”w. u Na.N nn.0 onvNom.o + Anxvoou.o + AmvaoH. - thvao. - ANxvao. - NNo.do u mo\ m oo.o oo.o onvaoN.H + Amxvdnu.fl + nexvoao. - Amxvmoa. - haxvooN.o + HmN.oo- «Aw. N om.o no.o onvmnN.H + AmvaoN.H + AmxvnON. - fiNxvndH.o + onvmmN.o +_NNH.No- -.Av N ouoawumo nowuoaHEHouon maowumswmxwawuoaaumm .02 mo uouno mo uaowoammooo aoaumsom nuonomum .Nwmmomwwunwwoa meanneoouldoauumdo some now coaumoaauouov mo uaogoflwwooo may now NmHOuofinouo no name» Hannah Madam unwound 0oo ouaoaouamoua monouoo o>Huoonno moan: naoah Hwouo~.mmoonoo Houou noeeauu Nnooon unwound can amazon wafiuoafiumo How moowuoovo aoaomouwou onHuH=2 .Hw manoa -l49- .0Hlo HHouoH xGon unmoumm Add Hudson mo nomads .A.EEV < unoamuomooa umm .A.EEV oaHHnH8_Homuon mmouuoo onu mmo .GH NH Nounouuo> kuoom nun - onoum .A.aav ooHHnHE.Hmmuon monouoo «so mmo .GH 0 Nounouum> oHomuonu nun - ononm .A.AHV ustoB monoumu .nHoH% HHouoH monoumo HouOu nmaEHHu Nnoaon unoUHom noumEHumm II II II II II o: «a In ~o >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 u --i >4 H» /\ .0Hlo HHouoH mmooumo Hanan noaaHuu Nnocon mo weapon nouoaHumm u.@\ q 8H and onVRNd + 33025 + 339:. - HmocmnH. - HHocmood + $92 a HQ SN 85 Hoxvommd + 33234 + 332. - ANxVoNo. - HHocNNod + 83: u H/nv m Nmo Nn.0 HoxvoHnd + AmvanmN + 333. - 33nd. - 33:20 + $93. n9 N So and 3325 + Hosanna + 333. .. Q5390 + 3235 + oqNonH- .- Q H ouweHumo coHuoaHauouon coHuommo wdHuoaHumm .02 mo Houuo mo unoHonmooo aOHumsvm nuonooum .Aewonw ufimHos .0H 000 an 0000 GOHuoodo sumo pom aoHuoaHauouov mo ucoHonmooo one new NmHOuoHnouo mo nHoH% xson HHoumu unwound new muaoaonsmooa monouoo o>Huoonno wnHo: vHoH% HHouou mmmouoo Houou nanHuu Nnooon unwound 0am oneson waHuueHumo How ncoHuoovo GOHmmouwon onHuHozn .Nw oHnoH .nHoH% HHouoH MGon udoouom n 0% .A.GHV mason mo sumaoH u 0% .A.eav < uaoeousmooa pom u «x .A.EEV ooHHvHE_HomHon ammonoo osu «mo .oH NH Nounouuo> Hmuoom nun - aboum 0 mx H.280 3:38 Hanson unsound mfi mmo .3 0 Jeanne? 30393 sum - 003m u «x .A.AHV uanos mmooumo Hx .nHon HHouos mononmo HouOu voEEHHu Nnoaon unwound noumEHumm H W . < W .3on HHouoH monoumo Houou vagina Nnoaon mo monsoon noumEHumm n/w\ 1 . no; in Antone; + 3335 + HoocNNod + 1.5.48. - HHooNHo. .. NnNNd - HAHN d 3H id 332.; + AnxVoNNd + 33mg. -338. - 258°. - Noni .- H® M So Nn.0 onvaonH + anvoumH + 3336 + 30.5. - HHooooNd + Rood- u I? N 2o 85 onvoNnH + HmoomNN; + 3020. - Anymoo. .. HHoooomd + $6.52.. a? H oudEHumo GOHuooHauouon GOHuoaoo deunaHumm .02 mo Hound mo uaoHonmoou cOHuusum unannoum .Amoouw,uanos .0H own on comm aOHuusdo some you noHumaHauouon mo uaoHonmmoo man now NmaouoHnoud mo nHon HHouon xaon unwound nan mandamusmooa mooouoo o>HuooHno wcHo: nHlo HHmuou monouoo Hmuou noeaHHu Nuance unwound new menace onuoEHumo pom maoHuuouo aonmouwou onHuHsz_ .mw oHan -151- Relationships Between L, dorsi Muscle Potassium and Sodium and L, dorsi weight, Area and Total Carcass Separable Muscle Simple correlation coefficients;were calculated between 1. dorsi muscle potassiun and sodiun and l.dorsi .muscle weight, area and total carcass separable muscle on a fresh basis (total ppm of chemically deter- mined element present in the muscle sample) and on a protein basis (ppm of the element/percent protein in the sample). These correlations appear in table 84. Table 84. Simple correlation coefficients between muscle potassium and sodium and.l, dorsi muscle weight, area, and total carcass separable‘muscle. Potassium Sodium Fresh Prbtein Fresh Protein basis basis1 basis basis1 Combined weight groups L, dorsi muscle wt. 0.16 0.09 0.24 0.20 L, dorsi muscle area 0.20 0.19 0.08 0.07 Total separable muscle of carcasses 0.17 0.01 0.25 0.16 500 to 550 lb. weight group L, dorsi muscle wt. 0.04 0.30 -.20 -.02 L. dorsi muscle area 0. 11 0. 24 - . 24 - . 14 Total separable muscle of carcasses 0.18 0.06 -.29 -.32 700 to 750 lb. weight group L, dorsi muscle wt. 0.14 0.06 -.09 -.12 L, dorsi muscle area 0:19 0.26 -.08 -.06 Total separable muscle of carcasses 0.11 0.08 0.00 -.02 Correlations >-0.220 are significant (p < .05) for the combined weight groups. Correlations > 0.287 are significant (P < .01) for the combined weight grOUps. Correlations > 0.312 are significant (P < .05) for the individual weight groups. Correlations > 0.403 are significant (P < .01) for the individual weight 1 groups. Expressed as ppm/percent protein. -152- It is apparent upon examining these data that l, dorsi muscle potassium and sodium content had little relationship to 1. dorsi muscle weight, area or total carcass separable muscle. Correlations reported here showed little if any predictive value for total carcass separable muscle. This is in contrast to the results of Kirton and Pearson (l963a) and (1963b) who found correlations, between potassium content of a sample of entire lamb carcasses and percent protein of the sample, which were high enough to be of limited predictive use. It should be noted however that these workers determined potassiun content of a tissue sample of the entire carcass whereas, in this study a sample of the l, dorsi muscle was studied. Gillett'ggugl. (1965) found considerable variation in potassium content between various entire porcine muscles. Means and Standard Deviations of Some Subjective Carcass Scores and Some Chemical and Organoleptic Characteristics The means and standard deviations for the subjective carcass scores, chemical and organoleptic characteristics discussed in this section for the combined and individual weight groups and fat thickness ranges within weight groups are presented in table 85. On a within weight and fat thickness group basis, the means for car- cass grade and marbling score show a positive relationship to 12th rib fat thickness and total carcass fat content. As fat thickness (12th rib) increased, there was a marked increase in carcass grade and marbling score particularly in groups I through IV (5.20 to 8.00 for carcass grade and 11.70 to 18.30 for marbling score). Maturity score means show a nega- tive relationship to measures of carcass fatness. -153- .ofiumaa «when .m.» .Q.AN .aowum«>ov wumvnoum u .a.ma ¢¢.o em.o o«.0 mm.o m¢.o ¢¢.o Hm.o om.o um.o m¢.o om.o .n.m he.o Hn.0 wa.m o«.0 mm.o m~.o «n.0 oo.c Hn.0 mm.o on.0 cam: Honda uo>a~m m~.o «m.o Nn.0 om.o oo.0 o~.o Nn.o om.o um.o hm.o em.o .n.m Hanna nn.0 n«.0 m~.o em.e om.m wm.o nn.0 mm.o m¢.o Nn.0 m¢.e cam: mmmcuoasa mo.o on.o o«.o no.0 om.o so.o oo.0 mn.o me.o oo.o mo.o .n.m amHmamm mo.n o«.0 ««.0 oN.0 ~a.o mm.o NN.0 mH.o nn.0 oo.0 oo.0 name was menus he.a ow.o wo.a oo.a Hw.o me.a Ho.H ao.~ ~¢.H wH.H om.H .n.m uufiuuaum-umcumz NH.oH mN.oH Hm.oH mm.oH ee.a No.a «H.oa m~.oa am.oH o~.m wo.oH cam: mmoaumeaoa om.~ NN.N mo.~ ow.H so.“ wH.m em.u ¢~.H 00.« «H.m om.~ .a.m .a .u em.wo e~.~o we.on ~¢.oe o~.mo mm.ao em.mo ¢~.m~ o~.ao ee.ao om.mo new: we unaumuoe_x om.c mo.H oo.~ wn.o mm.o mm.o om.o wo.H um.o om.o Hm.o .n.m .n .u mm.u~ mH.H~ ¢~.H~ mm.H~ m~.ou so.o~ H~.HN om.H~ mm.a~ so.H~ wH.H~ cam: mo assuage s mm.~ o«.m um.~ m~.~ oo.m m~.m ~¢.~ on.a Ha.m am.m om.m .n.m m.o .a mo ha.w ~m.oH 05.5 co.“ w~.oH ma.aa mm.h ao.q m5.m cm.m em.m new: pomuux “meow x n«.0 mw.o nn.0 «o.u no.0 m¢.o ~w.o mo.H mo.H He.o wo.H .o.m oo.e om.m oa.m o~.¢ om.~ o~.~ oh.~ o~.m ~o.q ~m.~ N¢.m can: sufiuauqz em.m mn.¢ mn.~ em.~ o~.m em.~ am.m m¢.~ om.m mm.m mm.m .n.m o«.wa om.mH om.nu oN.NH om.mH om.eH on.0H on.HH mm.hu mo.oa oo.0H cam: muoom mauanumz o~.H we.H Na.o o~.H no.H mm.o mw.H mo.H Hm.a m~.a nn.H H.n.m oo.n as.“ as.“ om.o oo.w om.n oo.s o~.m mm.n No.5 o~.h can: wemnm mmuouuo =m~.H =oo.H =mn.o =om.o =m~.H =oo.~ =mm.o :om.o -=Ho.n -=oe.o -:Hm.o -:o~.o -zuo.H -=0n.o -=Hm.o -=o~.o asoum anon» esoum “aqua HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H newuoa sewage unmams guano .nn one .nn onn emaaeeou -oom -oom .mQUOHm unwfio3 Canada mowamu moonxoasu any can mgsouw unwwoa Hmsvfi>avafi was voafinEOo ago How mowumwuouooumno uaunmeonwwno was amowamno meow was mouoom ammuumo o>auomhndm Huum>mm mo mnoauma>ov vampawum was mama: .mw wHAMH -154- Means for percent protein, ether extract and moisture of the l. ggggi muscle showed the expected relationships to fat thickness except for groups III and VII which had greater mean percents ether extract and per- cents protein with less moisture than groups IV and VIII. Mean tenderness scores, both warner-Bratzler and taste panel, indi- cated that as fat thickness, carcass grade and marbling score increased, tenderness increased. There were no marked relationships between panel flavor and juiciness scores and any of the characteristics studied. Within weight and fat thickness group correlations were determined for organoleptic data but are not presented in this dissertation. SUMMARY Ten steer carcasses were selected within each of four fat thickness ranges (average of three measurements at the 12th rib) (0.26 to 0.50 in., 0.51 to 0.75 in., 0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in.) within each of two weight groups (500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 1b.). The carcasses were subjectively scored for each grade factor and some linear measure- ments of fat and muscle were recorded. External fat thickness probes were made 4, 8 and 12 in. off the dorsal midline of the left side of each carcass, perpendicular to the anterior edge of the 5th, 8th and 11th thoracic vertebrae, the lst, 4th and 6th lumbar vertebrae and the 3rd and 5th sacral vertebrae. The left side of each carcass was cut into wholesale cuts and physi- cally separated into muscle, fat and bone with the exception of the round and rib. The rump was removed from the wholesale round and then the two portions individually physically separated. The wholesale rib was cut into the 6-7-8, 9-10-11 and 12th rib sections and each section was indi- vidually physically separated. The right side of each carcass was cut into boneless, closely trimmed (approximately 0.3 in.) retail cuts by wholesale cut. Analysis of variance showed highly significant (P < .01) differences due to fat thickness for pounds and percent of the seven carcass composi- tional and yield characteristics studied. It also showed highly signifi- cant differences (P < .01) due to carcass weight for these same composi- tional and yield characteristics except percents carcass separable muscle, fat and bone. Highly significant (P < .01) interaction effects (inter- -155- -156- action of carcass weight and fat thickness) were noted in percents round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield, total carcass retail yield, total fat trim and external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck. Subjective carcass scores showed little promise for estimation of carcass yield or composition. Despite a deliberate attempt to evaluate conformation independent of fat, subjective conformation scores were more highly correlated with measures of carcass fatness than muscling. The fat probes were highly positively correlated with measures of carcass fatness and highly negatively related to measures of muscling and bone. The most promising fat thickness probe sites for predicting carcass composition, retail and fat trim yields were the 5th thoracic vertebra, 4 in. off the dorsal carcass midline and the average of the 3 probes at the 3rd sacral vertebra. Regression equations for estimating carcass separablg=components, retail and fat trim yields, from the independent variables fat probes and carcass weight were more accurate for the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. In general, pounds of the carcass separ- able components, retail or fat trim yields were more accurately predicted in the combined weight groups than percents. Correlations between pounds and percents separable wholesale cut muscle and pounds and percent total carcass separable muscle, bone and retail yields were highly significant (P < .01) for the combined weight groups (range, 0.48 to 0.98) except for pounds and percent brisket muscle and percent foreshank muscle (range, 0.02 to 0.61). Pounds of separable chuck muscle showed the highest relationship to pounds of total carcass separable muscle for the combined weight groups (0.98) as well as within -1S7- weight groups (0.94 and 0.92 for the 500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups, respectively). Percent rib separable muscle showed the highest correlation with per- cent carcass separable muscle (0.95) followed by the loin (0.93), chuck (0.92) and the flank (0.9l)(combined weight groups). All correlations between percent wholesale cut separable muscle and percent carcass separ- able muscle were highly significant (P < .01) for the combined weight groups except for that of the brisket. In the combined weight groups, the percent rib separable fat was most highly related to percent total carcass separable fat (0.96) followed in order by the loin and chuck (0.94), plate (0.92) and the round and flank (0.91). These same cuts were 8180‘m08t highly related to carcass separable fat within weight groups although not in the same order. Percent separable bone in the chuck had the highest correlation with percent carcass separable bone in the combined and 500 to 550 lb. weight groups (0.92 and 0.93, respectively). In the 700 to 750 lb. weight group, percent loin separable bone showed the highest relationship to percent carcass separable bone (0.90) followed by the chuck (0.89). Percent 9-10-11 rib section and wholesale flank separable muscle and fat had the highest and most consistent correlations with percent total carcass separable muscle and fat for all weight and fat thickness groups (range, 0.71 to 0.95). Slightly lower correlations were observed between the percent wholesale round separable components and total carcass separ- able components for the individual and combined weight groups. Ninety-four to 96% of the variation in pounds and 74 to 86% of the variation in percent of carcass separable muscle could be accounted for by -158- percents separable muscle from the 9-10-11 rib, flank or round, carcass weight and length of round in the combined weight groups. Regression equations including percent round separable muscle were less accurate than the 9-10-11 rib section or the flank for estimating total carcass muscle. From 85 to 95% of the variation in pounds and percent carcass separ- able fat could be accounted for in the combined weight groups by carcass weight, 5th thoracic vertebra fat probe 4 in. off the midline and percent separable fat of the 9-10-11 rib section, flank or round. Seventy-nine to 91% of the variation in percent total carcass separ- able bone could be accounted for in the combined weight groups by carcass weight, length of round and percent separable 9-10-11 rib section bone, round bone or separable flank muscle. Regression equations including flank muscle most accurately estimated either pounds or percent carcass separable bone followed in order by the percent 9-10-11 rib section bone and percent round bone. These results indicate that the wholesale flank separable components could be utilized to accurately estimate carcass separable components. This accuracy, the ease and small amount of time for separation of the flank and small economic loss of product compared to the rib, round or chuck strongly suggest the use of the wholesale flank separable components for estimation of total carcass composition. 0f the muscles studied, weight of the l, §g£§i_muscle had the highest trelationship to pounds of total carcass muscle in the combined and 500 t:o 550 lb. weight groups (0.90 and 0.70, respectively). In the 700 to -159- 750 lb. weight group, the highest correlation with pounds of carcass separable muscle was observed for the semimembranosus plus adductor muscles (0.71). Highly significant correlation coefficients (P < .01) were found between weight of the radius plus ulna, femur, tibia plus fibula, scapula and humerus and total carcass bone weight for the combined and individual weight groups (range, 0.62 to 0.91). Even though regression equations involving muscle and bone weights plus carcass weight to predict pounds or percent carcass separable muscle and bone were accurate, the laborious physically dissection techniques and economic loss of product limit their usefulness. Correlations between percent muscle and fat were high (-.98) for the combined and individual weight groups. Correlations between percent carcass fat and bone were also highly significant (P < .01) (-.84) for the combined and individual weight groups. Positive correlations were observed between percent muscle and bone (0.74, 0.73 and 0.75 for the combined, 500 to 550 lb. and 700 to 750 lb. weight groups, respectively). In most instances, percent retail and fat trim yields of the flank showed the highest relationships to total carcass retail and fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups (range, 0.57 to 0.89). These retail yield data also suggest the use of the wholesale flank . tfor estimating round, loin, rib and chuck (RLRC) and total carcass retail yield. Flank separable components plus combinations of objective measure- ments accounted for 95% of the variation in pounds of RLRC retail yield -160- and 96% of the variation in carcass retail yield in the combined weight groups. Only 79 and 84% of the variation in percents of these retail yields could be accounted for in the combined weight groups by these same independent variables. Greater accuracy for estimating retail yields was observed in the 500 to 550 lb. weight group than in the 700 to 750 lb. weight group. Also, greater accuracy was obtained in the prediction of total carcass retail yield than for RLRC retail yield. Low, non-significant correlation coefficients were found between 1, .dgrgi muscle potassium and sodium and l. dorsi muscle weight, area and total carcass separable muscle (range, 0.00 to 0.30). Means of the organoleptic analyses were not consistent with compositional data. LITERATURE CITED Allen, Deloran, M. 1963. Estimation of carcass quality and composition in the beef steer using live animal and carcass scores and measure- ments. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Benne, E. J., N. H. Van Hall and A. M. Pearson. 1956. Analysis of fresh meat. J. Assn. Official Agr. Chem. 39:937. Black, W. H. 1938. A comparison of several methods of measuring perfor- mance in beef cattle. Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod. p. 103. Black, W. H. and Bradford Knapp, Jr. 1936. A method of measuring per- formance in beef cattle. Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod. p. 72. Branaman, G. A., A. M. Pearson, W. T. Mbgee, Ruth M. Griswold and G. A. Brown. 1962. Comparison of the cutability and eatability of beef- and dairy-type cattle. J. Animal Sci. 21:321. Breidenstein, B. C. 1962. More definite system is needed to predict retail yield of beef carcass. The National Provisioner. 174, No. 14: 77. Briskey, E. J. and R. W. Bray. 1964. A special study of the beef grade standards for the American National Cattlemen's Association. . University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Brodie, B. B., J. Axelrod, R. Soberman and B. B. Levy. 1949. The esti- mation of antipyrine in biological materials. J. Biol. Chem. 179: 25. Brody, S. and A. C. Ragsdale. 1924. The changes of form with age in the dairy cow. 'Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 67. Brown, C. J., J. C. Hillier and J. A. Whatley. 1951. Specific gravity as a measure of the fat content of the pork carcass. J. Animal Sci. 10:97. Brown, Delos D., A. M. Mullins, R. S. Temple, R. F. Boulware and J. S. Sullivan, Jr. 1962. Relationship between certain carcass charac- teristics of purebred and crossbred cattle. J. Animal Sci. 21:388. (Abstr.). Brungardt, V. H. and R. W. Bray. 1963. Estimate of retail yield of the four major cuts in the beef carcass. J. Animal Sci. 22:177. Butler, 0. D; 1957. The relation of conformation to carcass traits. J. -161- ~162- Butler, 0. D., L. E. Kunkle, F. A. Orts, G. T. King and T. C. Cartwright. 1961. Important beef carcass traits easily obtained. J. Animal Sci. 20:914. (Abstr.). Butterfield, R. M. 1963a. Estimation of carcass composition: The anatomical approach. Proc. Symp. Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals: Australia. 4:1. (D. E. Tribe, editor). Butterfield, R. M. 1963b. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. Proc. Symp. Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals: Australia. 7:1. (D. E. Tribe, editor). Butterfield, R. M. 1965. Practical implications of anatomical research in beef cattle. Proc. New Zealand Soc. An. Prod. 25:152. Cahill, V. R., L. E. Kunkle, R. F. Plimpton, Jr. and Earle W. Klosterman. 1961. Edible portion and beef carcass evaluation. J. Animal Sci. 20:914. (Abstr.). Callow, E. H. 1947. Comparative studies of meat. I. The chemical com- position of fatty and muscular tissue in relation to growth and fattening. J. Agr. Sci. 37:113. Carpenter, Z. L., G. T. King and Maurice Shelton. 1965. Determinants of lamb carcass cutability. J. Animal Sci. 24:861. (Abstr.). Carter, R. C. and C. M. Kincaid. 1959. Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters in beef cattle. III. Genetic and phenotypic correlations among economic characters. J. Animal Sci. 18:331. Clark, R. T. 1954. Heritability of beef carcass characteristics. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 7:206. Cole, J. W., L. E. Orme and C. M. Kincaid. 1960. Relationship of loin eye area, separable lean of various beef cuts and carcass measurements to total carcass lean in beef. J. Animal Sci. 19:89. Cole, J. W., C. B. Ramsey and R. H. Epley. 1962. Simplified method for predicting pounds of lean in beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 21:355. Cole. J. W., C. B. Ramsey, C. S. Hobbs and R. S. Temple. 1964. Effects of type and breed of British, Zebu and dairy cattle on production, palatability and composition. III. Percent wholesale cuts and yield of edible portion as determined by physical and chemical analysis. J. Animal Sci. 23:71. Cook, A. C., H. L. Kohli and W. H. Dawson. 1951. Relationship of five body measurements to slaughter grade, carcass grade and dressing percentage in Milking Shorthorn steers. J. Animal Sci. 10:386. -163- Crown, R. M. and R. A. Damon, Jr. 1960. The value of the 12th rib cut for measuring beef carcass yields and meat quality. J. Animal Sci. 19:109. Dawson, W. T., R. L. Hiner and L. L. Mbdsen. 1955. Evaluating beef and dual purpose cattle by the proportion of weight carried on the front and hind legs. J. Animal Sci. 14:1179. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1. Dumont, B. L., P. Le Guelte and J. Arnoux. 1961. Biometric study of beef cattle. II. Estimation of the weight of the musculature in Charolais cattle. Ann. de Zootechn. 10:321. Ensminger, M. E. 1955. Animal Science. The Interstate Co., Dansville, Ill. p. 361. Field, R. A., C. O. Schoonover, G. E. Nelms and C. J. Kercher. 1963. Evaluations of some old and new beef carcass measurements. J. Animal Sci. 22:826. (Abstr.). Gillett, T. A., A. M. Pearson and A. H. Kirton. 1965. Variation in potassium and sodium in muscles of the pig. J. Animal Sci. 24:177. Gnaédinger, R. H., E. P. Reineke, A. M. Pearson, W. D. Van Huss, J. A. wessel and H. J. Montoye. 1963. Determination of body density by air displacement, helium dilution, and underwater weighing. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110:96. Good, D. L., G. M. Dahl, S. Wearden and D. J. Weseli. 1961. Relationships among live and carcass characteristics of selected slaughter steers. J. Animal Sci. 20:698. Gottsch, A. Harold, R. A. Merkel and D. L. Mackintosh. 1961. Relation- ship of muscle, fat and bone and some physical measurements to beef cutability. J. Animal Sci. 20:917. (Abstr.). Green, W. W., G. L. Jessup, Jr. and F. E. White. 1955. Intercorrelations of weights of wholesale cuts of beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 14:1059. Gregory, Keith E., R. M. Koch, L. N. Hazel and Doyle Chambers. 1961. Principles of record of performance in beef cattle. Nebr. Agr. Exp. Circ. 106. Hammond, J. and A. B. Appleton. 1932. Growth and development of mutton qualities in the sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland. Iiankins, O. G. and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bul. 926. -164- Hankins, O. G. and H. W. Titus. 1939. Growth, fattening and meat production. U.S.D.A. Yearbook of Agr. p. 450. Hedrick, H. B., W. E. Meyer, M. A. Alexander, J. F. Lasley, J. E. Comfort, A. J. Dyer and H. D. Naumann. 1963. Indices of meatiness in beef. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 820. Henderson, D. W., D. E. G011 and E. A. Kline. 1966. Relationships of muscling and finish measurements from three different grOUps of beef carcasses with carcass yield. J. Animal Sci. 25:323. Henry, W. A., and J. W. Sanborn. 1883-1890. Pig feeding experiments and feeding for lean meat. Wis. and Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. An. Rep. 4. Kirton, A. H. 1964. How important is conformation. Proc. Ruakura Farmers' Conference week. New Zealand Dept. of Agr. Kirton, A. H., and A. M. Pearson. 1963a. Comparison of methods of mea- suring potassium in pork and lamb and prediction of their composition from sodium and potassium. J. Animal Sci. 22:125. Kirton, A. H. and A. M. Pearson. 1963b. Relationships between potassium content and body composition. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110:221. Kirton, A. H., A. M. Pearson, R. H. Nelson, E. C. Anderson and R. L. Schuch. 1961. Use of naturally occurring potassium-40 to determine the car- cass composition of live sheep. J. Animal Sci. 20:635. Knapp, Bradford, Jr., A. L. Baker, J. R. Quesenberry, and R. T. Clark. 1941. Record of performance in Hereford cattle. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 397. Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and W. H. Black. 1942. A discussion of length of feeding period in beef cattle record of performance tests. J. Animal Sci. 1:65. (Abstr.). Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and R. T. Clark. 1950. Revised estimates of herita- bility of economic characteristics in beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 9:582. Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and A. W. Nordskog. 1946a. Heritability of growth and efficiency in beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 5:62. Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and A. W. Nordskog. 1946b. Heritability of live animal scores, grades and certain carcass characteristics in beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 5:194. IKnox, J. H. and Marvin Koger. 1946. A comparison of gains and carcasses produced by three types of feeder steers. J. Animal Sci. 5:331. Kropf, D. H. and R. L. Graf. 1959. The effect of carcass grade, weight and classification upon boneless beef yield. J. Animal Sci. 18:95. -165- Lawes, J. B. and J. H. Gilbert. 1860. On the composition of oxen, sheep and pigs and their increase whilst fattening. J. Roy. Agr. Soc. 21. Lewis, R.FL, 'V. H. Brungardt and R. W. Bray. 1964. Influence of subcu- taneous fat contours in estimating trimmable fat and retail yield of heifer carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 23:1203. (Abstr.). Luitingh, H. C. 1962. DevelOpmental changes in beef steers as influenced by fattening, age and type of ration. J. Agr. Sci. 58:1. Lush, J. L. 1928. Changes in body measurements of steers during inten- sive fattening. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 385. MadLeod,. John. 1964. The relationship of some linear and area measure- ments to muscling in pork carcasses. M.S. Th6818,'Michigan'State'Uni- versity, East Lansing,Micfiigan, Mc Meekan, C. P. 1941. Growth and deve10pment in the pig, with special reference to carcass quality characters. J. Agr. Sci. 31:1. Meek, A. 1901. Growth of farm Ungulates I. Approach from a study of the external characters. The Veterinarian. 74:335. Miller, J. C., H. B. Hedrick, G. B. Thompson, R. R. Freitag, W. E. Meyer, A. J. Dyer and H. D. Naumann. 1965. Factors affecting longissimus dorsi and subcutaneous fat measurements and indices of beef carcass cut-out. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 880. Moore, F. D. 1946. Determination of total body water and solids with isotopes. Science 104:157. Morales, M. F., E. N. Rathbun, R. E. Smith and N. Pace. 1945. Studies on body composition II. Theoretical considerations regarding the major body tissue components, with suggestions for application to man. J. Biol. Chem. 158:677. MOunib, M. S. and J. V. Evans. 1957. Comparison between three methods used for the preparation of tissues for detenminations of potassium and sodium. Analyst. 92:522. IMurphy, C. E., D. K. Hallet, W. E. Tyler and J. C. Pierce, Jr. 1960. Estimating yields of retail cuts from beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 19: 1240. (Abstr.). Naumann, H. D. 1952. A recommended procedure for measuring and grading beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Ann. Recip. Meat Conf. 5:108. Orme. L. E. 1958. Methods of estimating carcass characteristics in beef. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan. Orme. L. E. 1963. Estimating composition from linear measurements, live probe and body weight. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110:307. -166- Orme. L. E., J. W. Cole, C. M. Kincaid and R. J. Cooper. 1960. Predicting total carcass lean in mature beef from weights of certain entire muscles. J. Animal Sci. 19:726. Orme, L. E., A. M. Pearson, L. J. Bratzler, W. T. Magee and A. C. Wheeler. 1959. The muscle-bone relationship in beef. J. Animal Sci. 18:1271. Pace, N., L. Kline, H. K. Schachman and M. Harfenist. 1947. Studies on body composition. IV. Use of radioactive hydrogen for measurement in vivo of total body water. J. Biol. Chem. 168:459. Palmer, A. Z., J. W. Carpenter, R. L. Reddish, C. E.Murphey and D. K. Hallet. 1961. Estimated and actual yields of boneless retail cuts from Brahman crossbred cattle and carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 20:919. (Abstr.). Palsson, H. 1939. Meat qualities in sheep with special reference to Scottish breeds and crosses. J. Agr. Sci. 29:544. Palsson, H. and J. B. Verges. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part I. The effects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages. J. Agr. Sci. 42:1. Pearson, A. M. 1965. Body composition. Newer Methods of Nutritional Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York (A. A. Albanese, editor). Ramsey, C. B., J. W. Cole and C. S.Hobbs. 1962. Relation of beef carcass grades, proposed yield grades and fat thickness to separable lean, fat and bone. J. Animal Sci. 21:193. Shelby, C. E., R. T. Clark, J. R. Quesenberry and R. R. Woodward. 1960. Heritability of some economic characteristics in record of performance bulls. J. Animal Sci. 19:450. Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods (5th ed.) Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Swiger, L. A., K. E. Gregory, L. J. Sumption and B. C. Breidenstein. 1964. The importance of measuring cut-out in cattle. J. Animal Sci. 23:854. (Abstr.). Tallis, G. M., Earle W. Klosterman and V. R. Cahill. 1957. Body measure- ments in relation to beef carcass characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 16:1027. CErowbridge, P. F., C. R. Moulton and L. D. Haigh. 1918. Composition of the beef animal and energy costs of fattening. ‘Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 30. -167- Wallace, L. R. 1948. Growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. Part I. J. Agr. Sci. 38:93. Warner, K. F., N. R. Ellis and P. E. Howe. 1934. Cutting yields of hogs an index of fatness. J. Agr. Res. 48:241. Warwick, E. J. 1958. Fifty years of progress in breeding beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 17:922. Wellington, G. H. 1953. Recommended procedure for cutting beef. Proc. Ann. Recip. Meat Conf. 6:73. White, F. E. and W. W. Green. 1952. Relationships of measurements of live animals to weights of wholesale cuts of beef. J. Animal Sci. 11:370. Whiteman, J. V., J. C. Hillier and J. A. Whatley. 1951. Carcass studies on hogs of different breeding. J. Animal Sci. 10:638. Wilson, James and C. F. Curtis. 1893. Steer feeding. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 20.-p. 639. Wythe, L. D., Jr., F. A. Orts and G. T. King. 1961. Bone-muscle relation- ships in beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 20:3. Zinn, Dale W., R. M. Durham and Robert Stovall. 1963. Muscle growth and deve10pment in the beef animal during the feeding period. J. Animal Sci. 22:829. (Abstr.). Zinn, D. W., H. Elliott, D. Burnett and R. M. Durham. 1961. Evaluation of U.S.D.A. beef grading methods. J. Animal Sci. 20:922. SUPPLEMENT -168- Table A. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups). Regression Beta R21 Independent variable coefficients weights Sig. deletes Constant -4l.671 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.176 0.655 0.00 0.68 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 1.578 0.254 0.00 0.90 Probe-8th thoracic-12 in. -.931 -.165 0.00 0.93 Probe-lat lumbar-12 in. 0.642 0.187 0.00 0.92 Probe-6th lumbar-12 in. -.346 -.113 0.01 0.93 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz 1.050 0.204 0.00 0.92 Fat measurement B 0.367 0.140 0.00 0.93 Fat measurement D 0.796 0.180 0.00 0.92 ‘§2*= 0.94 Standard error of estimate - 6.67 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table B. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weightggroups). Regression Beta R2I Independent variable coefficients weights SigLf deletes Constant 23.515 0.00 Carcass wt. -.004 -.074 0.20 0.85 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.573 0.447 0.00 0.76 Probe-8th thoracic-8 in. -.274 -.254 0.00 0.83 Probe-let lumbar-12 in. 0.215 0.304 0.00 0.82 Probe-6th lumbar-12 in. -.092 -.146 0.02 0.84 Prdbe-Av. 3rd sacral2 0.358 0.338 0.00 0.80 Fat measurement B 0.100 0.186 0.00 0.83 Fat measurement D 0.249 0.273 0.00 0.82 ‘RZ = 0.86 the analysis. Standard error of estimate = 2.10 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. ll‘lllulll -169- Table C. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable ‘ fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weightggroup). Regression Beta RZ‘ Independent variables coefficients weights Sig. deletes Constant -55.228 0.22 Carcass wt. 0.098 0.115 0.10 0.87 Prdbe-Sth thoracic-4 in. 2.191 0.482 0.00 0.72 Prdbe-8th thoracic-8 in. -1.470 -.434 0.00 0.83 Probe-lst lumbar-8 in. -.702 -.327 0.00 0.84 Probe-lst lumbar-12 in. 1.496 0.559 0.00 0.74 Probe-4th lumbar-8 in. 0.464 0.241 0.01 0.85 Probe-3rd sacral-8 in. 0.839 0.291 0.00 0.84 Circumference of round 1.649 0.176 0.02 0.86 Fat measurement D 0.941 0.334 0.00 0.84 _R2 = 0.88 Standard error of estimate = 6.47 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table D. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measumements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group). \ A Regression Beta RZI Independent variable coefficients weights Siggr deletes Constant 17.367 0.13 Carcass wt. -.018 -.078 0.24 0.89 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.573 0.474 0.00 0.74 Probe-8th thoracic-8 in. -.371 -.411 0.00 0.84 Prdbe-lst lumbar-8 in. -.174 -.305 0.00 0.85 Probe-lat lumbar-12 in. 0.390 0.548 0.00 0.76 Probe-4th lumbar-8 in. 0.120 0.236 0.01 0.86 Probe-3rd sacral-8 in. 0.240 0.314 0.00 0.84 Circumference of round 0.446 0.178 0.02 0.88 Fat measurement D 0.274 0.366 0.00 0.84 4R2 = 0.89 Standard error of estimate = 1.66 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table E. -170- Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 559fi1b. weight group). Level of R21 Regression Beta Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 21.047 0.00 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.852 0.618 0.00 0.67 Probe-8th thoracic—8 in. -.248 -.l90 0.09 0.83 Probe-lst lumbar-12 in. 0.036 0.041 0.72 0.85 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz 0.353 0.308 0.00 0.79 Fat measurement D 0.316 0.293 0.00 0.80 R2 = 0.85 Standard error of estimate = 2.46 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table F. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable fat and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight gropp). _J Regression Beta Level of R‘r Independent vagiables coefficient weights sigp, deletes Constant 19.984 0.00 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.524 0.434 0.00 0.71 Probe-8th thoracic-8 in. -.294 -.327 0.01 0.80 Probe-lst lumbar-12 in. 0.267 0.374 0.00 0.76 Probe-Av. 3rd sacral2 0.411 0.431 0.00 0.76 Fat measurement D 0.212 0.283 0.01 0.80 ‘fi? = 0.83 Standard error of estimate = 1.93 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. -171- Table G. Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight grqppe). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 8.430 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.011 0.524 0.00 0.63 Probe-4th lumbar-12 in. 0.104 0.355 0.00 0.64 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz 0.138 0.334 0.00 0.64 Length of round -.543 -.518 0.00 0.62 ‘R2 = 0.71 Standard error of estimate = 1.12 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table H. Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta .Level of R21 Independent variable coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 4.769 0.43 Carcass wt. -.025 -.183 0.02 0.91 Probe-5th thoracic-8 in. -.081 -.246 0.00 0.90 Probe-8th thoracic-12 in. -.140 -.254 0.04 0.92 Probe-11th thoracic-4 in. 0.148 0.335 0.01 0.91 Probe-11th thoracic-12 in. -.129 -.250 0.03 0.91 Probe-6th lumbar-4 in. 0.114 0.272 0.01 0.91 Probe-6th lumbar-12 in. 0.103 0.354 0.00 0.90 Probe-3rd sacral-12 in. 0.086 0.332 0.00 0.87 Prdbe-Sth sacral-4 in. -.117 -.395 0.00 0.88 Circumference of round 0.230 0.138 0.03 0.92 Fat measurement A 0.118 0.387 0.00 0.89 Fat measurement B 0.053 0.251 0.02 0.91 Fat measurement C 0.177 0.454 0.00 0.90 Fat measurement E 0.162 0.611 0.00 0.85 Fat measurement F -.163 -.660 0.00 0.88 = 0.93 Standard error of estimate = 0.77 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -172- Table I. Coefficient of determination between percent external fat trim from the round, loin, rib and chuck and a combination of objective measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (ZOO to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficient weights sig. deletes Constant 9.229 0.03 Carcass wt. -.019 -.235 0.01 0.94 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.096 0.228 0.01 0.94 Probe-5th thoracic-8 in. 0.062 0.277 0.00 0.93 Probe-8th thoracic-4 in. -.175 -.435 0.00 0.93 Probe-8th thoracic-12 in. -.281 -.796 0.00 0.85 Probe-11th thoracic-4 in. -.272 -.717 0.00 0.92 Probe-lst lumbar-4 in. 0.312 0.837 0.00 0.88 Probe-lst lumbar-8 in. -.139 -.699 0.00 0.91 Probe-lat lumbar-12 in. 0.153 0.618 0.00 0.89 Prdbe-4th lumbar-8 in. 0.120 0.672 0.00 0.92 Probe-4th lumbar-12 in. 0.094 0.430 0.00 0.92 Probe-3rd sacral-8 in. 0.405 1.518 0.00 0.89 Probe-Av. 3rd sacral2 -.641 -1.931 0.00 0.90 Probe-5th sacral-12 in. 0.104 0.289 0.00 0.92 Fat depth over brisket -1.043 -.595 0.00 0.89 Circumference of round 0.216 0.248 0.01 0.94 Fat measurement B 0.051 0.280 0.00 0.93 Fat measurement D 0.265 1.015 0.00 0.85 Fat measurement E 0.109 0.564 0.01 0.94 Fat measurement F -.134 -.750 0.00 0.93 Fat measurement G 0.101 0.531 0.00 0.93 Rzi= 0.96 Standard error of estimate = 0.46 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table J. -173- Coefficient of determination between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sigir deletes Constant 23.525 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.019 0.347 0.01 0.79 Prdbe-Sth thoracic-4 in. 0.241 0.191 0.03 0.80 Probe-8th thoracic-8 in. -.294 -.277 0.00 0.79 Probe-11th thoracic-4 in. 0.212 0.191 0.04 0.80 Probe-lst lumbar-12 in. 0.165 0.237 0.02 0.80 Probe-4th lumbar-12 in. 0.187 0.245 0.00 0.79 Probe-6th lumbar-8 in. 0.096 0.152 0.05 0.80 Prdbe-3rd sacral-4 in. -.212 -.216 0.03 0.80 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz 0.337 0.372 0.00 0.77 Depth of fat over brisket 1.088 0.184 0.01 0.79 Length of round -1.049 -.396 0.00 0.78 Fat measurement G -.115 -.185 0.04 0.80 Rzi= 0.81 Standard error of estimate = 2.41 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table K. Coefficient of determination between weight of total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 1b. weightpgroup). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficient weights sig. deletes Constant 32.886 0.41 Carcass wt. 0.008 0.013 0.85 0.80 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. 0.962 0.285 0.01 0.75 Probe-6th lumbar-8 in. 0.637 0.368 0.00 0.72 Probe-6th lumbar-12 in. -.455 -.274 0.02 0.76 Prdbe-3rd sacral-12 in. 0.622 0.252 0.04 0.77 Probe-5th sacral-8 in. 0.714 0.351 0.00 0.72 Fat measurement D 0.782 0.374 0.00 0.73 Fat measurement F -.377 -.264 0.04 0.77 R2 = 0.80 Standard error of estimate = 6.22 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -174- Table L. Coefficient of determdnation between percent total retail fat trim and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight gioup). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 42.801 0.00 Carcass wt. -.042 -.233 0.02 0.68 Probe-4th lumbar-12 in. 0.144 0.286 0.03 0.68 Probe-6th lumbar-8 in. 0.177 0.357 0.01 0.66 Probe-6th lumbar-12 in. -.149 -.314 0.01 0.67 Probe-3rd sacral-12 in. 0.243 0.344 0.00 0.64 Probe-5th sacral-8 in. 0.219 0.375 0.00 0.64 RZR= 0.73 Standard error of estimate = 2.00 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table M. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (combined'weightpgroups). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 62.175 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.0004 -.008 0.86 0.73 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.289 -.286 0.00 0.69 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -.400 -.479 0.00 0.59 Fat measurement C -.173 -.234 0.01 0.70 RZV= 0.73 Standard error of estimate = 2.20 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table N. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 1b.‘weight_gioup). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 96.744 0.01 Carcass wt. 0.128 0.190 0.09 0.68 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -1.144 -.438 0.00 0.61 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -1.231 -.566 0.00 0.51 Rzfié 0.71 Standard error of estimate = 6.23 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. -175- Table 0. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separ- able muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 111.062 0.02 Carcass wt. 0.149 0.225 0.03 0.63 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.828 -.235 0.05 0.64 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -l.847 -.664 0.00 0.37 R27= 0.68 Standard error of estimate - 7.61 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table P. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable 'muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group). \ -L Regression Beta Level of R‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 77.117 0.00 Carcass wt. -.022 -.121 0.23 0.64 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.275 -.277 0.02 0.60 Probe-Av. 3rd sacra12 -.474 -.607 0.00 0.39 R27= 0.65 Standard error of estimate = 2.23 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table Q. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 1b. weightggroup). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights 813;, deletes Constant. -16.544 0.29 Carcass wt. 0.021 0.090 0.32 0.78 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.474 -.533 0.00 0.64 Length of round 1.501 0.480 0.00 0.66 R? = 0.78 Standard error of estimate = 1.83 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -176- Table R. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sig. deletes Constant 4.603 0.44 Carcass wt. -.013 -.l38 0.09 0.81 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.174 -.468 0.00 0.72 Length of round 0.577 0.442 0.00 0.72 1R2 = 0.83 Standard error of estimate = 0.68 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table S. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight grogp). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -55.665 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.052 0.238 0.01 0.75 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -.358 -. 390 0. 00 0. 69 Length of round 2.096 0.581 0.00 0.57 R2 = 0.80 Standard error of estimate = 1.98 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table T. Coefficient of determination.bmween percent carcass separable bone and a combination of objective carcass measurements, and the regression coefficient for each of the measurements (700 to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sig, deletes Constant -5.973 0.11 Probe-Av. 3rd Sacral2 -.092 -.380 0.00 0.66 Length of round 0.612 0.640 0.00 0.49 R? = 0.77 Standard error of estimate = 0.57 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. -177- Table U. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements and weight of flank separable components, and the regression coeffi- cient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 27.154 0.30 Carcass wt. 0.247 0.366 0.00 0.82 Probe-Av. 3rd sacralz -.777 -.357 0.00 0.82 Wt. separable flank muscle 3.317 0.290 0.00 0.82 Wt. separable flank fat -2.176 -.570 0.00 0.76 Wt. kidney knob-left side -.768 -.204 0.01 0.87 RZV= 0.89 Standard error of estimate = 3.96 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table V. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable ‘muscle and a combination of objective carcass measurements, flank separable component weights and kidney knob weight, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 1b. weight_group). Regression Beta Level of TRZ‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 66.132 0.00 Carcass wt. -.008 -.045 0.50 0.91 Probe-5th thoracic-4 in. -.157 -.158 0.02 0.89 Prdbe-Av. 3rd sacralz -.154 -.197 0.02 0.89 Wt. separable flank muscle 0.973 0.296 0.00 0.85 Wt. separable flank fat -.658 -.571 0.00 0.79 Wt. kidney knob-left side -.167 -.142 0.02 0.89 R21= 0.91 Standard error of estimate = 1.18 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. 2Average of 3 probes, 4, 8 and 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline. Table W. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable 'muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variablespfiSOO to 550 1b.‘weight_g£oup). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights Sig; deletes Constant 27.984 0.40 Carcass wt. 0.214 0.317 0.00 0.73 Wt. separable flank muscle 4.986 0.435 0.00 0.62 Wt. separable flank fat -3.246 -.850 0.00 0.39 R1 = 0.79 Standard~error'Efiestimate = 5.29 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -178- Table X. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable 'muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the independent variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group).‘ Regression Beta Level of RZI Independent variables coefficients 'weights sig. deletes Constant 60.400 0.06 Carcass wt. 0.193 0.291 0.00 0.81 Wt. separable flank muscle 4.321 0.370 0.00 0.76 Wt. separable flank fat -3.231 -.788 0.00 0.39 R? = 0.86 Standard error of estimate = 4.96 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table Y. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable ‘muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 60.932 0.00 Carcass wt. -.010 -.036 0.70 0.83 Wt. separable flank muscle 1.592 0.340 0.00 0.72 Wt. separable flank fat -1.228 -.786 0.00 0.48 R2’= 0.83 Standard error of estimate - 1.97 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table Z. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of carcass weight and weights of flank separable components, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 1b. weightpgroup). Regression Beta Level of R2: Independent variables coefficients 'weights sig. deletes Constant 60.360 0.00 Carcass wt. -.004 -.020 0.79 0.86 Wt. separable flank muscle 1.059 0.322 0.00 0.78 Wt. separable flank fat -.934 -.810 0.00 0.36 R2 = 0.86 Standard error of estimate = 1.42 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -l79- Table AA. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable ‘muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (combined weightpgroupe). 4; Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sig. deletes Constant 53.115 0.00 Carcass wt. -.066 -1.513 0.00 0.14 Semitendinosus wt. 2.932 0.463 0.00 0.71 Biceps femoris wt. 1.832 0.468 0.00 0.72 Longissimus dorsi wt. 0.883 0.378 0.00 0.75 Scapula wt. 5.036 0.462 0.00 0.71 RFT= 0.78 Standard error of estimate = 1.98 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AB. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle and bone weights and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -6.525 0.82 Carcass wt. 0.014 0.021 0.77 0.88 Semitepdinosus wt. 6.310 0.215 0.00 0.85 Bicepe femoris wt. 5.183 0.301 0.00 0.81 lb dorsi wt. 5.811 0.458 0.00 0.75 Femur wt. -8.657 -.330 0.03 0.86 Tibia plus fibula wt. 9.337 0.305 0.01 0.86 Scapula wt. 12.288 0.270 0.03 0.86 Hunerus wt. 8.033 0.204 0.03 0.86 7R? = 0.88 Standard error of estimate = 4.27 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -180- Table AC. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group). j- Regression Beta Level of R1‘ Independent variables coefficient weights sig. deletes Constant -8.902 0.82 Carcass wt. 0.112 0.168 0.07 0.70 Semitendinosus wt. 14.621 0.558 0.00 0.46 Bicepe femoris wt. 8.341 0.483 0.00 0.53 R23= 0.73 Standard error of estimate - 6.94 1Value of coefficient of detenmination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AD. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable muscle and a combination of muscle weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight .group). .1 Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficient weights sig. deletes Constant 40.729 0.00 Carcass wt. -.030 -.161 0.06 0.74 Semitendinosus wt. 3.923 0.532 0.00 0.51 Biceps femoris wt. 2.560 0.527 0.00 0.52 Rzi= 0.77 Standard error of estimate = 1.83 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AE. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of Rzi Independent variables coefficients ‘weights sig. deletes Constant -1.738 0.77 Carcass wt. -.004 -.016 0.71 0.95 Biceps femoris wt. 1.494 0.214 0.00 0.91 Tibia + fibula wt. 3.762 0.362 0.00 0.87 Scapula wt. 5.495 0.355 0.00 0.90 Humerus wt. 4.127 0.308 0.00 0.90 sz= 0.95 Standard error of estimate . 0.92 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -181- Table AF. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight grouP)- ‘L Regression Beta Level of _R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 13.223 0.00 Carcass wt. -.025 -.265 0.00 0.91 Biceps femoris wt. 0.641 0.220 0.00 0.93 Psoas mejor wt. -.465 -.094 0.02 0.96 Tibia + fibula wt. 1.434 0.330 0.00 0.90 Scapula wt. 2.241 0.347 0.00 0.92 Humerus wt. 1.233 0.220 0.00 0.94 4R2 = 0.96 Standard error of estimate = 0.33 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AG. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group)ip .1 Regression Beta Level of R1‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -17.789 0.10 Carcass wt. 0.024 0.110 0.12 0.84 Semitendinosus wt. 2.123 0.245 0.00 0.80 Tibia + fibula wt. 6.853 0.566 0.00 0.61 Scapula wt. 5.060 0.312 0.00 0.79 R27: 0.85 Standard error of estimate = 1.73 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AH. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass separable bone and a combination of muscle and bone weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 2.226 0.45 Carcass wt. -.004 -.064 0.37 0.88 Semitensinosus wt. 0.516 0.225 0.00 0.84 Biceps femoris wt. 0.307 0.203 0.03 0.86 Tibia + fibula wt. 1.604 0.500 0.00 0.75 Scapula wt. 1.286 0.299 0.00 0.83 Rzi= 0.88 Standard errorgof estimate = 0.42 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -182- Table A1. Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of wholesale cut weights and yields, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables £500 to 550 lb. weight_g§oup). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant ~117.856 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.234 0.376 0.00 0.76 Length of round 3.306 0.388 0.00 0.80 Weight of round-right side 0.747 0.258 0.02 0.82 Weight of shank bone-right side -5.740 -.275 0.04 0.83 Weight of flank yield- right side 2.141 0.357 0.00 0.76 Weight of flank fat-right side -1.585 -.510 0.00 0.75 .i. dorsi muscle area 1.642 0.213 0.02 0.82 R2 = 0.85 Standard error of estimate = 4.39 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AJ. Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements, carcass scores and flank yield and fat trim weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 1b. weightigroup). Regression Beta Level of R2‘: Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant —101.832 0.04 Carcass wt. 0.239 0.429 0.00 0.64 Round score 2.387 0.272 0.03 0.72 Length of round 3.382 0.369 0.01 0.70 Wt. flank yield 2.321 0.379 0.00 0.64 Wt. flank fat -2.l44 -.619 0.00 0.50 RZR= 0.76 Standard error of estimate = 5.72 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -183- Table AK. Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass scores, measurements, foreshank bone weight and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (com- bined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -99.978 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.210 0.878 0.00 0.81 Round score 1.986 0.135 0.00 0.93 Length of round 4.389 0.378 0.00 0.92 Circumference of round -1.035 -.105 0.03 0.94 Wt. foreshank bone-right side -4.613 -.146 0.04 0.94 % flank yield-right side 0.946 0.346 0.00 0.87 R2 = 0.94 Standard error of estimate - 5.60 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AL. Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight groupl- _4 Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -73.816 0.10 Carcass wt. 0.249 0.399 0.00 0.67 Length of round 3.390 0.397 0.00 0.70 .L. dorsi area 2.589 0.335 0.00 0.70 % flank fat trim -.689 -.674 0.00 0.52 72 = 0.79 'Standard error of estimate = 5.00 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AM. Coefficient of determination between percent round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of objective carcass ‘measurements, foreshank bone weight and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weightpgroup). Regression Beta Level of R2‘ Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 21.636 0.17 Carcass wt. -.0005 -.002 0.93 0.83 Length of round 1.687 0.503 0.00 0.74 Wt. of foreshank bone- right side -2.402 -.292 0.03 0.81 L. dorsi muscle area 0.957 0.315 0.00 0.76 ‘ZAfT—E—an fat trim -.293 -.728 0.00 0.60 Rzl= 0.83 Standard error of estimate = 1.77 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from -184- Table AN. Coefficient of determination between weight of round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass measurements, scores and percent yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variablesi(700 to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -150.434 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.185 0.333 0.00 0.66 Round score 2.431 0.277 0.02 0.72 Length of round 4.097 0.447 0.00 0.66 % flank yield 1.381 0.689 0.00 0.31 R2’= 0.76 Standard error of estimate - 5.57 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table A0. Coefficient of determination between percent round, loin, rib and chuck retail yield and a combination of carcass measure- ments, scores and percent flank yield, and the regression for each of the variablesg(700 to 750 lb. weight groupl. Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 17.248 0.19 Carcass wt. -.026 -.l99 0.06 0.63 Round score 0.600 0.286 0.05 0.63 Length of round 1.152 0.524 0.00 0.53 % flank yield 0.338 0.702 0.00 0.20 4R: = 0.67 Standard error of estimate = 1.57 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -l85- Table AP. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and carcass weight, flank yield and fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 1b. weightpgroup). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -32.346 0.41 Carcass wt. 0.360 0.523 0.00 0.57 Wt. flank yield 3.467 0.457 0.00 0.60 Wt. flank fat trim -2.749 -.642 0.00 0.42 Rzié 0.80 Standard error of estimate - 6.30 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the’analysis. Table AQ. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of kidney knob weight and flank retail yield and fat trim weights, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables £700 to 750 1b. weightpgroup). 4— Regression Beta Level of ARZL Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 54.413 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.020 0.130 0.17 0.75 Kidney knob wt.-right side -.210 -.238 0.01 0.71 Wt. flank yield 0.677 0.393 0.00 0.62 Wt. flank fat trim -.693 -.712 0.00 0.32 R?:= 0.76 Standard error of estimate = 1.57 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. ~186- Table AR. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (eombined weight groups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -78.712 0.00 Carcass wt. 0.243 0.837, 0.00 0.78 Length of round 1.864 0.132 0.01 0.94 .L- dorsi muscle area 1.282 0.078 0.02 0.94 T flank yield 1.277 0.385 0.00 0.84 Rzl= 0.95 Standard error of estimate = 6.42 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AS. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass measurements, scores and percent flank yield and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (eombined weight_gioups). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 26.430 0.00 Carcass wt. -.027 -.548 0.00 0.78 Round score 0.430 0.144 0.03 0.84 Length of round 1.006 0.426 0.00 0.81 .L' dorsi muscle area 0.389 0.142 0.02 0.84 Z flank yield ‘ 0.410 0.737 0.00 0.46 1%: = 0.85 Standard error of estimate = 1.84 Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -187- Table AT. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R21 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -78.l46 0.13 Carcass wt. 0.323 0.388 0.00 0.73 Length of round 4.059 0.358 0.00 0.76 L. dorsi muscle area 2.360 0.230 0.00 0.80 “/2? f1 a"n""k 'fat trim -1.050 -.773 0.00 0.49 R2 = 0.84 Standard error of estimate = 5.82 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AU. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of objective carcass measurements and percent flank fat trim, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (500 to 550 1b. weight_greep). Regression Beta Level of sz Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 34.099 0.07 Carcass wt. 0.006 0.019 0.77 0.88 Length of round 1.401 0.316 0.00 0.82 i. dorsi muscle area 1.010 0.251 0.00 0.82 Z flank fat trim. -.379 -.713 0.00 0.58 Rzl= 0.88 Standard error of estimate a 2.00 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. -188- Table AV. Coefficient of determination between weight of carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass weight and percent flank yield, and the regression coefficient for each variable (700 to 750 lb. weight group). Regression Beta Level of R2i Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant -85.807 0.03 Carcass wt. 0.320 0.465 0.00 0.58 Z flank yield 1.879 0.758 0.00 0.22 R2;= 0.79 Standard error of estimate - 6.28 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. Table AW. Coefficient of determination between percent carcass retail yield and a combination of carcass weight, percent flank yield and percent kidney knob, and the regression coefficient for each of the variables (700 to 750 lb. weight gioup). Regression Beta Level of R11 Independent variables coefficients weights sig. deletes Constant 47.476 0.00 Carcass wt. -.0002 -.001 0.94 0.74 Z flank yield 0.436 0.774 0.00 0.20 Z kidney knob-right side -.677 -.213 0.02 0.70 R27= 0.74 Standard error of estimate = 1.60 1Value of coefficient of determination if that variable was deleted from the analysis. APPENDIX -189- mum mHNH NHN m.m m.m m.m m.m cmoz.oHauoz ah .HH am ale. mm mm mm as. .mam mo HN m no we no mo H on no 0H N no mo mo oH H aN ac NN m mo mo mo OH H wN mo wH m no no wo wo H NN mo NH N we no no no H 0N no nH m mo mo mo oH H MN mo 0N N mo HH 0H HH H «N no aH N we mo we we H mN 50 «H m mo we we mo N NN mo wH N no mo no mo H HN :OOoHIONo HHH QSOHU 0.5 N.oH N.N ¢.o 0.5 0.0 H.N anus OHMuoz ck. Ath ehN an...» PM. who. Huh 832 .wam ac HH N no no no no N 0N ac HN N no mo mo mo H mH mo mH q me «0 ac no N wH co mH n no no no co m NH mo mH q «o no «o no H 0H no 0H m we no no no H mH mo wH N mo mo mo mo H eH mo HN N we mo wo wo H mH mo ON N mo 0H 0H HH H NH mo NH N No no no mo H HH =na.-Hm. HH asoue N.m N.HH H.m m.o 0.5 w.o H.n anus afluuuz Nhl. nhmw Huh mhm. Ohm. w.o Hhm. one: .wflm so 3 a 8 o .3. o N S no we a «o «o ac «0 N m «o oH a no we no mo N w no HH m «o no no mo N n no «H m mo HH oH HH H o no mH N we mo mo mo H n no ¢H N we mo no mo N a so ¢H N mo mo mo mo H n no NH m oo co co co m N mo mo a co co co co H H omwloN. H nacho venue oncom oncom Hommwmd Houaomd .mnoo ouoom mooam .oz monouoo Hmon weHHenuz mansuuz touch .mooo unaHm .mnoo HHnHo>o venom nooum mmmoum m>HHUMHmDm I ZOHHm mm goon—”U m.0 N.NH N.¢ N.0 m.0 0.0 e.N can: oHHuoz mum NNNH Nhe NNm. euw 0N1. ppm :00: .mnm Ne 0H 0 we Ne Ne Ne N on we eN a we we we me H me me NH 0 0e Ne 0e Ne N we 0e 0H 0 0e Ne Ne Ne N N0 me HN m eH we we we N 00 Ne 0H m we No No we N 00 0e wH a me Ne 00 Ne H 00 Ne eN w 00 No No Ne H we we om m No No No No N Ne 00 0H N me «e me me H H0 :om..0~. > guano e.w w.wH w.N w.N N.w H.w a.N ewe: OHnuoz ohm. mNmH mhw mum Hum Hhm. mum emu: .mam we NH m we we we Ne H e0 me HN m we eH me eH H mm 0e wH N we we we we N wm we 0H 0 we Ne we Ne H Nm Ne NH w No we Ne Ne H 0m Ne 0H N Ne 0e Ne 0e N mm me 0N N we 0e Ne 0e H «w me HN m No we we we H mm me eN m we HH eH eH H Nw we wH m we eH me me H Hm :MN .HIHO 0H B BHOHU sense onoow ouoom scammed Hommlmoe .waoo ouoow Home: ammoumu Hanan wnHHnnmz auauaumzn -muom .maoo «qua: .maoo HHmuoso venom Hooum Heusaauaooe a H xHazmmma -191- 0.N H.wH 0.: 0.N N.N N.N w.N came owemma wk. Him 0... wk. he he w.... 5.3 as. CH 0N a 0H we a- we H ow No 0H 3 No 00 No No N NN mo NN w No we we we N wN No 0H 4 No No wo wo N NN 0o mH e wo wo we we H 0N wo oN a 00 No No No N mN wo ON 4 No wo wo wo N wN No mH w No we No we N mN 00 4H m c we No we N NN wo ON a we No we . wo N HN . sz.HuHe.H HHH> oeonm 0.N m.wH m.m N.N H.w w.N H.w came oHeemx 0ww m.mw m.m Nlm Hnw wn. Hum .seaa.wuw o wH H No No No we N 0N mo 4N w No we we we N m0 wo ON a No wo wo wo N w0 No 0H m we we we No N N0 NH ,N w No HH oH HH H 00 00 mH w 00 No 00 No N m0 No mH N No No No 00 m H0 we NH a we No No No N m0 No 0H m OH OH OH No H N0 N0 0H a we No N0 N0 N H0 zoo.H-wN. He» quote mempe meoom meoow empemey emuemsa .meoo meoom emmhm .oz mmmochU HwCHm mQHHDMwZ hpflhepwz lmhom .MCOO IUQHML .HCOQ HHmchewO gem hmmuw Awoschuoov H H eHnmeNH -192- N.NH w.NH w.mH H.NH N.NH N.OH N.HN 0.N w.NHN ONO; OHNONH NON. HnN. New NON. N5. NNN. NON. ONN. N.NHN cm.u .NON NN.NH N O NH NO.HN ON OH NH NNN ON N0.NH NH mH OH N0.NH ON HN NH NON NN OO.NH ON N NH NN.0 NH NH NH Oem wN N0.NH HH NH 0H OO.NH NH HN NH Hum NN NN.OH wO NH HH NN.NH N ON NO NON 0N OO.NH NH NH NH NN.NN m NN NH ONN NN O.NH NH NH OH N0.0H wH wH NH weN NN N0.NH NH NH NO OO.mH NH NN .O wNm NN OO.NH NH 0H NO N0.NH NH NN HH NHN NN -N.wH NH NH mH N0.NH NH HN NH Nwm HN =OO.H-0N. HHH ONONO N.NH 0.HH N.NH w.HH N.NH N.NH 0.0N m.N NON came OHtwmt ON. ONN. .mh. ONN. O,. New. HO. Nww N.. a..e ..OV N.NH m NH NH NN.NH NH OO.NH HH NH HH O.H NH N0.NH NH NH wO OO.NH NH OO.NH NH NH NO N0.HH NH OJ .4 \0 (fl H U\ 00 LO \0 \O Cu cu (v C» (0 L0 rd r4 r4 r4 0\ O \O H u\ [\- H N.NH HH 0 HH Nw.wH ON HH mam 0H Nw.HH 0O 0H NH OO.NH 0H HH .NH NH OO.NO NO wO NO NO.HH NH NO HON NH O3.NH OH NH NH OO.wH NH OH HON NH NN.NH m NH NH OO.NH NH NO wNm NH NO.NH HH OH NH -O.w OH O HHN HH -. \7 o .- 1 H - .2 :UN th. rH Leek? H.,H O.N N.NH H.w O.HH w.N N.NH N.m ONN came OHOOOH H:. wmw mp. NN. \:. _mw. Hm“. New .NH came .OON N..OH OH NH 0O OO.NH NH NH we HHU OH OO.OO NO NO NO NO.NO NO NO NO 0H0 N NO.N N OH OH N..HH NH HN HO HNN w N0.NH NH w HH NN.0H NH N NO OOm N OO.NO O HH NO Nw.NO O NO HO NH 0 O.wO N OH NO N.N NH ON NO NNN m NN.NO wO H HO NN.wO O HH HO NHN H N0.NH NO HH NH OO.NH NH HN NH ONt N NN.NH NH NH HH OO.OH m 0O NO NN N OO.OH wO HH wO N«.HH OH ON HO w N H .ON.-ON. H OOONO wsH .OH NH .OH O .OH O .Nsa .OH NH .cH w .OH H .He .Oe .NONN EON, .NOON New .NO.N sew .NONN New .HOON SHN .OOON Hem .OOON NON .HOeN HON .OONO HOOOO Nwmrw N. N:N NNNNHNNNO - NONN.:HHON NNOONHO w H NNN.NNNH -193- N.HH H.0H N.HH N.wH N.wH 0.NN N.NH N.wNN came OHOOOH mm“. awn. mfi NN. Nev... mml... emu... E :0an .mum wH ON HH OO.NH NH w wO OON O0 0H NH NH NN.ON wH wN NH 0N0 Nm OH HN NH OO.HN NN HN NH NNN wm HH NH NH NN.NH NH NH 0O me Nm NH 0N 0H NN.HN HN mN NH ONN 0m NH HH HH OO.wH HN HN NH NNN mm N NH OH OO.HN HN HN HH wNN Hm OH OH OH N0.wH wH 0H NN HON Nm HH HH NH OO.wH 0H wN OH NNN NN HH NH m N0.wH NH ,N HH NNN Hm =mN.-Hm. HO OHONO 0.HH O.NH H.HH N.w H.NH N.wH H.NH N.O N.HNN ONOH OHHHON New wa New Hw. NNN we“ .Oww NO ONO; .NHN NH NH HH OO.OH HH NN HH wNw ON 0H NH HH NN.NH OH NH HH wON NH HH NH NO OO.NH NH ON wO NNw wH NO NH 0O OO.HH HH NH NO NNO NH _ OH NH HO NN.NH NH 0H wO HON 0H N0.HH NH NH OH NN.wH 0N NH 0H NON NH OO.N OH NO wO NO.NH 0H NH wO NON HH OO.NH NH mH HH OO.N wN ON N NNN NH OO.OH NH NH mO NN.NH ON HH NO NHN NH N0.NH NH OH OH N0.wH NH NN HH OHN HH =ON.-0N. N NHOHO H.wH H.NH w.NH H.wH N.HN N.HN H.NN N.HH HHN cmma OHNHON NN. N0... w.N..... H.N.... Nw . mw... wOwH. wmh. wINm. OO.OH .NH”... NN.OH NH NH NH OO.ON ON wN NH OHN . OH OO.NH NH NH ON N0.NN HN NN NH NNN NN N0.NH HH NH OH N.HN NN NN mH NN wN OO.NH NH NH NH NN.NN NH NN wH NON NN N.NH wH NH NH OO.ON NN NN mH HHN 0N OO.HN NN HN wH NN. N NN 0N HH NNN NN O .NH 0H NH HH OO.NH NH NH NH HNN HN N0.HH NH HH NH OO.wH NH NN NH ONN NN NN.ON HN .NN HN OO.NN mN ON ON OHN NN OO.HN HN HN wH NN.NN HN wN HH NNN N emN.H-HO.H NH NOOOO .NNH .HH NH .:H w .OH H .N>H .OH NH .OH w .HH H .HH .Oz .HOHN Haw. .HoHN HON, .NOHN HON. .HOHH HON. .NoeN HON .HoHN Hem .HOHN Hem .HOHN.HHN .OHNO HOOHO AOOOQHNQOQV m H Heeewtmq -194- H.NH 0.0N N.ON N.NH N.ON H.HN H.NN N.NH N.NNN cmmz OHNOON HN. Nww Nww th. OH. OM“. Own. Nun. 4NN ONO; .Ncm OO.OH HN HN NH NN.NH ON NH HH NON OO OO.OH OH OH HH OO.HN N ON NH ONN NN NO.N OH N NH NO.OH NN OH NH OON ON NN.OH N ON OO OO.NN NN NN NH ONO NN NO.NH NH NH NH NO.HN N NN HH NON ON OO.HN ON NN NH NO.HN NN NN HH OHN NN NO.NH NH NN NH NO.ON ON N HH ONN HN NN.NH ON HN HH NO.NH OH NH OH ONN NN OO.OH HN HN NH NN.HN NN ON NH ONN NN NO.NH HN NN OH NN.NH NN OH NH HNO HN =NN.H-HO.H HHHN NOONO N.NH O.NH N.ON N.NH O.ON H.NN O.HN O.NH O.NNN ONO: OHNOOE O.NI.. mm... Hmh HO . N mm: M”. Hm“. E SON; . m O NH NH OH NN.HN ON ON NH NON ON OH NN NH NO.HN HN NN NH ONN NO OH OH NH OO.NH NH HH NO HON OO NN NN HH NN.NH NH NN OH NNN , OO NN ON HN OO.HN N HH ON NHN OO OH HN NO N0.0H NN ON NO NNN NO NH HN OH OO.ON N HN NH NNO HO OH NH NH NO.NN NN HN NH ONO NO OH NH NH OO.NH ON NH NH ONN NO OH NN HH NN.NH NN NH NH OHN HO :OO.H-ON. HHN NOOOO .O>O .OH NH .OH O .OH H .ONH .OH NH .OH O .OH H .Os .0; .OOOH HON .NOHN HON. .NOHN HON. .OOON OHN. .NOHN OON .NOHN ONN .NOON OON .NOHN OON .OOOO OOOOO HOOOOHOOOOO N H HHNZNONH -195- O.HH H.OH H.ON N.NN N.NH N.HH N.HH O.OH OHHH OON. WOOOmm NN... 1...: O... OO... NH O. N... NO... NV 3....“ :5 mm cc.ON OH NN NH NN.HH HH NH ON ON HH NO.NH ON NN HH NN.NH NH HH HH NN OH NO.HN ON ON ON NN.NN OH NN NN ON HH OO.NH NH NH NH NO.NH NH HH HH NN NO N0.0H OH NN OH O .OH OH HH NO ON OH NO.NN NN NN NH NO.NH OH NH NH NN HH OO.ON ON ON NH NN.HH HH HH NH HN No O0.0H HH NH No O0.0H HH No 0H NN NH O.ON NN HN NH O0.0H OH OH HH NN NH O.OH OH NH HH OO.OH NH NH HH HN =OO.H-ON. HHH OOOOO O.OH N.NH N.HH N.HN N.HH H.HH N.OH N.NH O.OH OOOO OOOMOO NO“. HO. Om“. Nww Hun. HO. Huh Omw NO“. OOOO .NOw OO NN.HH NH ON OH OO.HH HH NH OH ON OO NO.NH NH N HH OO.NH NH HH NH NH HH NO.NH NH N OH OO.HH NH HH OH OH OH NO.HH OH OH OH NO.NH HH OH HH NH NH NO.HH OH NH NO NO.NO OO OH HH OH OO OO.NH NH OH OH NO.OH OO NH NO NH N NO.OH NH HN NH OO.OH OH HH NO HH O NN.NH NH ON OO OO.OH OO HH HH NH OH NN.OH N NN OH OO.NH NH NH NH NH HH OO.NH OH HN HH OO.HH OH NH OH HH .NN.-HN. HH OOOOO N.OH N.NH N.NH H.NH H.N O.N O.OH N.N H.N OOOO OOOOO: HON. NH. HON. OON. NNN. ON. wa_ Omw Omw_ ONO; .Ovu NH OO.NH NH HN NO N.HH NH NH NO OH NO NN.OO OH OH NO OO.HO HO NO OO N HH NN.NH NH NH OO NN.NH NH NH NH O OH 0.0H HN NH OH NN.HH HH HH NH N OO NN.OO OO NH OO NN.NO OO OO OO O NO NN.HH NH NH NO O0.0H HH OH NO N OO NN.OH NO OH OO N0.00 NO NO O H OH NN.NH NO NN OO N .NO OH NO NO N NN NN.OH NH ON OH NN.HH N HH HH N NO OO.NO OO HH NO NN.NO OH OH OO H zoN..wN. N OOOON .CN m ded .:H NH .:N m .CH : .wbm .GH ma .GN w .ma 2 _ .wz OQHBA 2pm .QEHHJH umH .9534 pmH .Q.H.N9..H pmH .0;ch pmH .hOQH HBHH .92.; HSHH .QOSH NMOHH .HOLB EQHH .me_..m H . 22.23.53 O N O -196- O.NH N.ON O.NN O.NN N.HH O.NH O.OH O.NH O.HH OON; OHNNON Hpr .1NOh. ON“. NO.H. NO“. ..HNh. NNN. Om“. N . NOON .OOO ON NO.ON ON .N HH OO.OH NH OH NH OO N NO.HN ON ON HH N.OH NH OH NH NN NN NO.ON ON NN HN O.OH OH OH NH ON N NO.NH ON OH HH NN.NH NH NH NH NN OH NO. N N ON OH NN.NH NH NH OH ON NH NO.N OH ON NH OO.OH NH NH OH NN NN NN.ON ON NN NH NO.NH NH OH NO ON NO NO.HH NH OH OO NN.OO OH OO NO NN NO NN.NH NN NH OO OO.OH OH OH OH NN OH NO. N ON ON OH OO.NH OH NH NH HN mN.IHL. H> QOOHG O.NH O.NH N.ON H.HN O.N H.NH N.HH O.N ONNO OHNONO .. N OR. NO... O.N... NHN. H NM. 5...; .ONO NH OO.OH NH OH NO OH NH HH ON OH OO.NN ON NN NH NH OH OH NO NH NN.NH HH NN NO N NH OO OO OH OO.ON NN N HH OH HH OO NO OH N0.0H ON OH OO NH OH HH OO OH NN.ON ON ON NH OH HH OH NO OH NN.OH NN ON NO NH OH NO OO HH OO.OH NH OH NO HH NH OO NO NO NN.OH ON HN OO NO OH OH NO NH NO.OH ON NH NO OH OH NO HO =ON..ON. N NOONO H.N N.ON H.NN N.NN O.NH N.OH O.OH N.NH N.O cam: OHNONO NO“. NN. NM“. HNHI. Nwh. NN. Own. Oww mu. QOON .Ocm NH NO.ON ON ON OH OO.NH NH ON NH OO NH NN.NN NN NN NH NN.NH OH NH HN NN ON NO.ON NN NN NH OO.OH NH NH ON ON OO OO.ON NN NO NH NN.NH NH NH OH NN OH OO.HN NN NN NO OO.OH NH NH NH ON ON OO.NN NN HO NN NN.NN ON HN NN NN OH NO.NN ON NN NN NN.HN OH ON ON ON NH OO.ON OH HN HH NO.NH OH OH NH NN NN OO.ON ON HN NH NN.ON NN NN NN N NH OO.HN NN OO NH N0.0H HH NN NH N =NN.H-HO.H NH NOQNO .9... O. .92... .2H NH .:H w .:H O. .mEO .3. NH .5. m. .5 NO .ON .OEOH ONO, .OEOH OOH, .Oesq OOH .OOOH OOH .3554 OOH .NoOH OOHH .NOON OOHH .NOON OOHH .NOON OOHH NOOOO NNNEHONOOO O H HHH._....._NO..._. (”W -2 o O C) 0 LU -197- (\J (\J (\J (x; \‘Q (\J r"! H (\J (“J ONO b\(‘\ N O (\J CL) C) C) .3 \O 0 L“- g‘\ 0 H OMOLAC VMt-4 u (\1 C )0 C 4N NH NN.NH HH mm N.H N.NN H.NN m.m N.NH N.NN H.NH N.wH cam; owppmn NA. Hwa_ NHHH. Hm“. w”. Nun. mm“. mm“. Hum; .mgp N(.LN om wN NH NN.NH HN NN NH ON mm.NN mm mm mH NN.HN NN 0N NN NN Nc.HH oN mH NH ac.mH NH AH HH wN N©.mH mN NN HH NN.NH HN \H 9H NN NO.NN Nm NN HH mN.NH NH NH HH «N NN.Om Nm NH NH NO.NN mN HN NN mN HN.NN MN mm mH mm.oN mN H N 3N mm.nN «N wN mH as.NH NH NH NH mN NN.@N om mm N oo.m m NH rH NN NN.NN mN «N w NN.NH NN NN HH HN g :mN.H-Hu.H HHH> 50pm N.HN N.wN O.NN 0.“ N.NH O.NH m.NH H.NH gawk OHLHm» 3N. oonm. HHuH. Hm“. HN. mww va my. cum: .acm mm.@N - NH HH m“. H 0N NH MH 0N OO.NN Hm N oo.NH HN NH mH my NQ.NH NH mH NN.HH NH mH NH Nw oc.om mm ON N.HN cm mN 0N NQ NN.NN Nm HN oo.NN 0N HN NH «N m mH NH N mN m H m (\waocu rv’xer\r—~10N\ mun—{N rfloqmw than O0.0N 3N HH OO.NH NH no mm.NH 4N NH mm.mH H o mH no NN.HN 3N NH oo.0 NH 0H NH Nw NN.NN Hm 3H mm.mH NH mH 4H Hg :No.meN. HHN msopw ~w>< uH NH .:H w .NH a .m>a .2H NH .cH N .cH H .0; .nadq pwH .gagH mH .3514 pmH .nejq pmH .nogH :HHH .Noga HpHH .NOLH cHHH .gogH ngH gmmgu Acangpgoov n H HHNNFNNH -.l.95- o_\ o) .\ o o>u ..\u .o.\. o. o.) 34v Hm); .3- ,O O M: ONmm NNOH OOMH HNOH HHMH Ome O OH OH H OOMM O wwwfigmwm OH NH OH 0.0N NN NN OO O0.0N N ON OO NO OO OH O0.0H ON HN OH OO.NH ON OH NN OO OH NH O0.0N NN ON OH NO.NH OH ON ON OO OH HH OO.NH NH OO OH OO.ON NH OO NN HH HH OH OO.NH NN NH NH N0.0H NO NN ON OH OH NH OO.ON NN N OH OO.NN ON ON ON HH OH ON OO.OH NO NN OH NO.NH OH ON ON NH OH OH NO.NO HH HH NO O.HH OH NH ON NO NO NH NO.HN ON NN OH OO.ON OO ON NN OH OH OH NO.NN ON NO NH NO.NH OH NN HN =OO.H-ON. OHN OOOOO O.OH O.HH N.OH O.OH N.OH N.OH O.OH O.OH N.OH N.Hc COOS OHOOOO OH OH OH. Ipl, O. NO... ONN. NO... IQ. O.N... OO... :82 .OO: HH OH OH NO.OH OH OH OH O0.0 NH OH ON NO OH OH O.OH OH OH OO O0.0H OH ON NH OH OH ON O.OH ON OH OH NO.OH OH ON OH OH NH OH O0.0H OH NN NH NO.OH OH OH NH OO NO HH OO.HH OH OH NO NO.OH HH HN OH OO NO OH NO.NH OH HN NO OO.HH NO OH OH NO NO O OO.OH OH OH OH NO.NH OH OO OH OH OO OO NO.HH NH OH OO OO.OH NH HN OH OH N NH NO.ON NN OO HH NO.OH OH NN NH N OH OH O0.0H ON NN OH OO.ON NH OO HH :mN.IHmo HM adopt O.N O.N O.OH O.OH H.NH O.NH O.N N.OH O.NH 0.0H COO; OOOOOO 0.0..w NN. N.OH HO. OH: NH NH. O . Om... O.N..n :OOO .Ocm OO NO OH O0.0H ON OH OO OO.NH NH ON OH NH NO OO O0.00 OO OO HO NO.NO OO OH N OO OO OH OO.OH NH OH OH OO.OH OH ON O O NO NH OO.NH OH NN NO OO.OH OH ON N O OO OO OO.OO OO OO OO NO.N HH NH O OH OO OH OO.OO NO NO NO NO.HH NO ON O .O OO HH NO.NO OO OH OO OO.NH OH OH O NO OO OO NO.OO OH OO OO O.NH OO ON O ON N OH OO.NH NH OO OH O0.0N ON ON N O OO NO N0.00 OH OH OO OO.HH HH OH H :OO.+ON. N OOOOO .cH NO .cw w .CO 3 .b>u .CO wi .CH w .cw O .w>m .cw ma .CO w .OA .onm Ohm .omm Ohm .omm Ugm .QEOH Opm .3524 sum, .9554 gpo .DEOH :p0 .9534 saw .p£54 cpm‘ .9534 2pm, pomOn AOOOONOOOOV O N HHOOOONO ”139- a.N N.OH N.OH NO.NN O.ON H.ON 0.0H 0.0H O.ON H.ON CONN OOOOOu Opp. Oww va .Itwww OOuw Ohw Own. .imNh. NO“. Nww OOON .NON NO NO NH N0.0N ON ON NH OO.HN ON HN OO OH NH OH N0.0N ON ON ON O0.0H N ON NO NH ON ON OO.ON NN OO HN OO.ON N ON OO OH NH OH OO.OH OH OH NH OO.HN HN NN NO OH NH HN OO.NO NO OO NH OO.ON OO ON OO OH OH OH NO. N NO ON N NO.NH ON NN OO OH OH ON OO.NN N OO OH N0.0N N ON OO NO NO NO OO.HH OH NO OO OO.HH OH OH OO OO NO HH OO.OH NH NH NO OO.O OO OH NO OO NH OH NO.NN ON NN NN O0.0H OH NH HO :mN.IHm. Hb QSOhO N.O N.N N.HH ON.OH N.HN N.NH O.N N.OH 0.0H 0.0H OOOO ONOOOO Oww Omw On. lumOn Oww Ow“ NOw nuwww: Own mww OOOO .OON OO OH OO OO.HH NH NO ON OO.HH NO OH OO OH OH OH NO.NH ON NH HH NO.ON N HN NO OO OH NH OO.NH ON NH OH NO.OH OH NH OO OO OO OH OO.HH OH NH NH O0.0H NH ON NO NO HH OH OO.NH ON NN OH OO.OH NH OH OO OH NO NH OO.ON NO N NH OO.ON O HN OO OO OO NO OO.HH OH NH NO O0.0H OH OH OO OO NO OH O0.0H NH ON OH O0.0H OH OH OO OO OH OH OO.OH ON OH OO OO.HH OH OH NO HH NH OH N0.0H ON HN NO NO.OH NH OH HO =OO.-ON. N NOQOO O.OH O.OH N.OH OO.HN O.ON H.ON 0.0H O.ON N.NN O.ON OOOO OOOOOO O N.N. wa Om... OO. OH: NM“. Hmh NN. N.O“. NHH. OO.OO .OOO OH N NH NO.NH HN ON NH NO.ON OH ON OO HH NH HH OO.NH OH ON NH NO.NH ON ON NO OH OH NH OO.NH NH OH NH OO.ON NN NN OO HO OH OH NO.HN ON ON NH OO.NH ON ON NO HN HH OH N0.0H OH HN HH OO.ON ON OO .OO ON ON ON OO.OO NO OO ON OO.NN ON OO OO OH OH OH OO.ON NN ON OH NO.NN N ON OO OO OO NO OO.NH ON NH HH OO.NH NH NN OO OH OH ON NO.NH O.N NH NH OO.NN N NO NO OH ON HN OO.HO OO OO ON N0.0N ON OO HO =ON.H-HO.H NH NOOOO .OO NH .OO O .OO O «O»; .OH NH .OO O .OH O .ONO .OO NH .OO O .OO .omm Em. .03, EM .owm, Em 5:.ngpr .QOB4HSQ .953 NEW .2542pr .QOEHQLH .853. £349 5.ng H33 .Hmmpm AOOOOHOOOOO O H OH: OONO -4UU- N.NH O.NH O.NH OO.NN N.ON N.ON .NH 0.0N N.ON H.ON cams OONOOO Om“. OON. mww NO. Opp. ,Ou. ON“. ON. NON“. HHHH. OOOO .OON OH OH NN OO.NH NH NH ON OO.ON NO HN OO OH NH NN O0.0N OO NN NH OO.ON NN ON NN HH OH OH OO.ON NH ON OH OO.NH NN OH ON OH OH HH O0.0H OH OH NO OO.OH OH HN NN NH NH NN OO.N OO HO NH OO. N NN NN ON NO OH NN OO.ON N NN NN O0.00 OO HO ON HH ON OH OO.ON O ON NH NO.OO O N ON NH .N N N0.0N ON HO N O0.0N N OO ON OH ON ON OO.N HN NN N N0.0N ON O NN N ON N OO.N ON OH ON OO.NN N NO HN =ON.H-HO.H HHHO NOONN 0.0H N.NH H.ON OO.NN 0.0N N.ON N.NH N.NN O.NN O.NN ONO: OONOOH Hm“. Opp Oww ON. OOH nflnw opp ON. Own. OOuw OON; .OO; OH OH -N OO.NN N NO ON N0.0N ON .O ON OH NN N OO.ON N OO ON NO. N ON HN NO NO NH OH OO.NN N NN NH NO.OH OH OH OO NN NH ON OO.NN HO NN NN N0.00 NN OO NO ON N OH O0.0N OO NO NH NO. N ON HO OO NO NO OH NO.O OH NN HH OO.OH ON OH OO OH ON N OO.ON LN O NH OO.ON ON OO OO OH O N O0.0N ON N ON O0.0N ON NH OO HH OO OH N0.0H OH ON HN OO.HN ON OO NO OH ON NN 0.0N ON OH NH OO.HN ON ON HO . :OO.H»ON. HON OOONO .OH NH .OO O .OO O .ONO .OO NH .OH O .OH O .O.O .OH NH .OO O .OO .030 6va .omm 2m .owm fieHm. .ONOBNH HBOW $.qu NEW .9854 OEM . E51, £pr .953 ELF .QOSOH OO.NH .Qraq npqri NO.OH m \ .... <1 . n4“ . O. M. I,..‘.H. l 4.! rfadcwwLCOv m N. N.NH, .fOflH... -201- N.NH Womw Nod» \...0\.1 T «WW mmww Huh. \mww Ome mwmm O.Hm O.OH OOOH OOLOOu Aw ma mH WHWJM mm. Val. gwh. mu. amen .mcm m JO HO NO.OH OH OH OH OO.wH .m Ow OH HO O0.0H OO OH Om NO.OH mm HH ON ON NO.OO mO OH mm mm.HH OH O» NO Ow OO.OH NO MO NH m.m NO Nm HO HO OO.HH OO H N OO.HH OO a w w mx.OH OH mm O0.0H mm LH mm a pH mH NH . a 4» NH OO.HH OH u we 4H am Mg OH ,N OO.OH OH OO HH OO.OH MO H mm OH OO.OH OO Hm NO.NO JO m0 @H HN mmoJH MM H.NH ©.Hu .1 :cg.HuoN. HHH QOOHO mm“ mwm mmmm mmuw m.m H.Q CN.HH cam: oprm- m m a m. mm: mm. L? . E J Ow N3.u v Hr . N: \ C CC WM W NO Hm mm NH OO.HH OH OH c OO OH NH Hm NO.HH OH OH mm mm NO HO Om OO.NH NH mH ”c JH mo 0 mH mm.mo 0H HH Mw HH No 0% oH oo.mo mH w NH \ , NH oo.mo :H 3H ow no ac mH . OO mH OO O OO OO mH Fm JH m0 mH 0w mmojH NH O OH NO.HH HH .\ n .u . ‘ mach» N m mom o :1 Hm PH ( . . O OH . . E. E i 2 a E . O I 1 No ml. Hm m . Ou. Jx. m w cam; umhamz HO OH OH NO.OO _mm mu «m1. HO. OOOH .OOO OO mO OH O0.00 OO O mH OO.NO OH OH. Mm mH NO.OO HO mm OH OO.OO O mO Om NM MO.MH HH NO WM MOnww W o J Mm OH OO Om.mw Wm mO OH OO.HO O 4 No. NH No.00 mo mo mo mm.mo m OH OH OH OO.HO HO m HH OO.OO H HH OH HH OO.HO OH H OO OO.OO O OO OO NO.OO NO c mm mm.mm O U Hm ow w o N _H\o u. a O .H) .HOHON HOO HOHOO HOO .HOHOH O” . >H \ OH OH .OH O .OH H sm>wlL Avg. H O pa .Hz 9,. 0mm :8 .omm HAw . ) \ O on .LL HpL omu zmu .omm 5pm .omm fig“ hmmpc \III A AOOOOHOOOOV O H HHOHHOOH H.HH m.NH -.HH OH.OH O.H 0.0H 0.00 0.0H O a OHOOO H... OH. OH. R. E.,...” EH. [ll-I lrll. .Illu Illlllrl (IIII hlllll Ill-I mH mH 3H N@.NH CH :H aw 0C.m 00 NH O HH mm.OH HH OH Hm NO.HH Om OH O mH OO.OO O «O Hm NO.;O O\ OH OH O OO.OH O. OH HO OO.OH Nm OH HO mH NO.OO HO OO Hm O0.0H OO O O. OO O0.0H OO H HO N0.0H um HH mH OO N0.0H OO OO OO N0.0H Hm OO m OO O0.0H OO O OH NO.NO mm O OO Om O0.0H NO HH O OO.OO Om OH OH mO mm.O OH HH OH OO.OH m :mN.-Hm. HO OOOOO O.O 0.0H O.OH OO.O 0.0 m.O O.OO NO.“ COO; OOHOOu Om“. Own. Omnu. OH. Nww wa Om“. NO. OOO» .O:« OH Om OO OO.HH OH OH OO OO.N: Om OO O OO O0.0H OO OO Om OO.OH OH OO OH OH OO.HH OO HH mH NO.OO OH OO OO O NO.OH mO OO O OO.HO NO . OO OH NH O.HO OH OO Om NO.OH Wm m. OH O NO O.OO O OH HO OO.OH u. o. OH OH .O O.HH vO NO HO OO.OO OH . OH OH O“ NO.OH NO NO OH OO.HO OH OO mH N N0.00 OO OO HH O0.00 OH HO NO O OO.HH O OH OH OO.HH HO . OOH.-OO. O OOLOO O.HO N.Om O.OO O0.0H O.OH O.OH 0.00 0.0H .Omm OH.OOa Own Nmnm. Our OO. Om“. Omw mmw HO. GOO; .OOO NH Om NO NO.HH O OH OH OO.NH OH OH NO HO OO.OH OH OH Om OO.OH HO OH OH OH O .MH OO OH OO O0.0H Om OO HO HO N0.0H O H» NH O0.00 NO OO Nm OH N0.0H OH OH O. O .OH Om OO NO OO OO.HO HH HO O OO.OO um HO mm OO OO.O O OO OO O0.0H Hm OO OH HO OO.OO HO NO OH mm.mO mm HO OH OH OO.HH HH O OO 0.0H Om mO Om OO NO.NH OO OH Om O0.0 Hm OOO.H-HO.H OH OOOOO \\\\\\\\\\\x“mfla m H .OOO OH OH .OH O .OH O .OHH .Oz .OOHOO OOO .OOHOO .OJHOH .OOO OOm O.O OHM .OOO OHm .OOO OOm .OOO Ohm OOOOO \\\\\\1 H33 O H HH .2... -203- m.mH H.Hm m.mm m.mH ©.mH m.NH H.wm ©.@H COOL oHNOqL Own OONH_ OONN. ON. Oth. OON. HH. H MO. COO: .OOO 3 cm .OO NO.OO OH HO wlm O0.0H OO OH OO Om OO.OO O NO O OO.OH ON OO Om OO OO.OH OO HH NH OO.OH N O OO OO NO.OH NO OH OO NO.HH NN NH OH NO OO.OO OH OO Om OO.NH ON OH OO OO NO.OH HH OH Om OO.OH ON OH Om HO O0.0H HH OH OH O0.0H ON OO OO O: O0.0H O OO OO NO.HO ON 8 OO OO O0.0H OH OH HO N0.0H O OO Om NO O0.0H OH OH OO OO.OO HN OOO.H-HO.H HHHN OOOOO O.OH H.OO O.OO NO.NH O.OH N.OH H.OO OO.NH GOO: oHOOOO OON. OON. OONH. OO. Omv OO. mOww. NO. cmmz .OOO NH Om OO NO.NH OH _H O N0.0H ON NH OO Om NO.HO OH OH Om OO.OH OO OH OO HO NO.OH OO OH OO OO.OH OO OH OO NO NO. HO OH HH mm NO.HO NO HO OO O NO. OH OH OH OO HO. HO OO OH OH HO OO.OH OO OO OH NO.OO mO OH mm NH O0.0H OH OO OO OO. OO HO NH HO OH OO.OH OH OH OO OO.OH OO HO OO OO OO.HH mO OH OH O.HH OO OH OH Om NO. OO HH mO OO O .HH HO ;.O. HHON. HHN OOOOO O O H «OOH .OH OH .OH O .OH O .OOH .OO .OOHON OOO .HOH O OOO .OOHON OH .OOO MOO .OOO OHO .OOO OHO .OOO gum .OOO OOO OOOOO p LOO 5.:OOOOVO H HHO. O: -204- N.HN N.ON O.HN N.NH N.HH mes OHNOO. 9). Huh Huh Om» wwwu Owe: .mNN NO.ON MH OH NH NH Om NO.NN OH OH OH OH ON N0.0N HO OO O mH ON OO.HN mH NH OH OH NN OO.ON ON OH mH HH N mm.HN N NN OH ON mN mm.mm Hm mm om ma 4m No.@H No No mo 00 mN OO.ON mH )N ON NH NN NO.NN ON OH HH OH HN =OO.H-ON. HHH OgopO H.OH N.NH 0.0H H.HH O.NH 2mm: OHNOON q, . awn... mm...- mm. Ami... cam: .wsm O.NH NH HH OO OH ON No.mH No ma gm mm mH O0.0H NH ON NO HH OH N0.0H OH NH HH NH NH NO.mH NH NH NH OH OH OO.N OH OH OO NO mH OO.OH HH mH ON mH OH mm.wH mH mH NH HH mH OO.OH OH HH OH mH NH OO.OH OO OO mH HH HH sz.-Hm. HH NOONO mw.o.m m7: w.m H.m m6 532 02me IIQHP gm“. mm“... 0mm! mm“: cwmz .mcm ~®.QH NH nH mo wo OH No.mo mo mo no we m N0.0H OH OH NO OH O OO.OH ON OH mH NH N OO.NO mO OO OO NO O OO.HH OH OH OH OO m mm.OH mH mo mo No a NO.HH mH mH HH OH O NO.NH mH NH HH NH N O0.00 OO OO NO NO H =Om.-ON. H NOONO ONONH O N m O .oz mmmgm>< .HOHON OON .HOHOH OON .HOHO HON .HOHON HON ummpm HHOOOHOOOOV m H HHOwaufl -205- OO., O.NH O.NH N.OH O.HH CONN OHOOcN .1mww ONw ONw Nww Hmv ng .OOO OO.NH ON mH NH OH OO N0.0H OH NH ON NH Nm N0.0H NH OH m OH Om NO.r OH OO NO OH NO OO.N OH OH NN \N Om OO.NH N OH OH OH mm mm.mH OH q,N Om OH Om OO.NH NH -N NN NO O OO. OH NH NO OO NO NO NO.OH ON Om NN mH Hm 4 mh.IHm. Hp Cd Ohm OO.HH 0.0H N.HH O.O N.N cam; OHOOON OO. Omw Own. Oww Om“. OOOH .Ocm NO.OH O OO mO OH O\ mm. wH QH Ha me we 0: NO.OH OH OH HH HH OO OO.NO O OO OO HH NO NO.HH HH OH OH OH OO OON O NH OH OH mO OO.HH mH OO NO OO OO NO. OH NH OH NO NO OO NO.NH NH N NH NO NO NO. NO NH O NO NO HO :Um. Ou. > 05090 N.ON .NN H1ON N.NN N.NH :qu ONONQ_ OO.H NO“. NO“. NO“. NO“. OOON O1 N0.0N OH OH NH NH OO NO.mN NN NO NN OH NO O0.0N Hm OO mm mH m NO.mN ON OH OH OH NO NO.mN mH O OH OH m OO.NN ON NN mm N mm N0.0N ON NN OH NO ON GO Cm NH w ur NH mm NO. N N NH OH mH Nm OO.NN NN OO HO HO Hm :mN.H-HO. NH OOOOO ONONO O N O O .OO OOOOONO .OOHOE OON .OOHON O N .OOHON OON .OOHON OON OOOON HOOOOHOOOOON HHNONN: -206- 0.0N 0.0N N.NN O.HN O.N OOON OHNOOH on”; arm“. am.“ on“. 3...”. cmmz .mcm OO.ON ON NN NN OH OO N0.0N NN NN NN NN NN mm.ON OH NH HN HN ON N0.0N NH OH OH OH N N0.0N NN NH OH OH ON O0.0N ON OH ON mN ON NO.NN N mN N HN ON OO.mm ON N HN OH mN mm.NN m Nm Om NN NN mm.Om N N ON NH HN :ON.H-HO.H HHHN OOOOO O.NN OO.NN m.mm m.mm NN.OH cmmz 0-75m; O. «OO.NH: mom”. .‘ OH. Own: Coma .mcm mm.ON NN ON ON NH ON NO.mN Hm ON OH mH NO m .NH OH NH OH NH OO m.ON mO Om Om Om NO mm.ON Om OO OO NH OO mm.NH NH Om NH NH NO mm.NN NN OH HN OH OO NO.N Hm ON NH NN mO NO.NN ON NH mH OH NO mm.O NN ON NN OH HO :CO.HI®N. Hmb QSOhw ONONO ; N N O .OO OONOO>< .O HOH ONO .OOHON ONO .OOOON OON .NOHON OON NOOOO \ O HOOOOHOOOOO O H HHOHOOOH -207- mo.mq 4w.ju wo.~© mm. HH a”. ow mm.mH cmmz oprmH mr.0H om.mm H . w m .m MH.m mm.» cam: .mug om.ao O.Nm m.ww 8. a cm.~c Ow.o em mH.OH N.Hm H.mm 0:.m Om.~o cw.w mm mo.mo H.mm m.mm Qw.: cw.wo ow.” mm Om.mo m.mm o.ww oN.m o~.mo om.w NW HH.0H H.Hm N.HN Ow.4 on.mo om.w mm Hm.OH H.Hm H.NN 00.4 ..~o cw.» mm HH.0H m.gm 0.0m oH.m cm.mo ow.w w mm.OH N.Hm N.wH ew.g OH.wo eg.w w Hg.wo m.4m @.om CH.H OO.wo oc.m Hm 0H.HH H.Nm H.HH m:.m Qw.wo m~.© Hm zoo.H-@b. HHH gsogm mm.mo Hw.m® mm.Om Ho.mH No.0m mw.wH cmmz uHupm; ma.m o~.wm mm.NN 45.4 NH.“ ow.~ :mmz .bgm mw.mo m.Hm m.wm om.g mH.Hc oo.0 Om om.mH w.Hm O.Hw 00.4 on.Ho ow.w mH mw.wo H.Nm c.mw 00.4 00.50 oq.o mH H~.~o H.mm m.ww mm.4 mw.mo om.o NH Hp.wo H.Hm “.mm 00.: om.~o om.fi 0H mm.wo m.mm m.ww 05.: om.mo om.~ mH «N.N «.mm O.Nw om.4 om.wo OO.N 3H Hm.mo m.gm m.©m Om.m og.wo og.~ mH mH.HH ©.mm m.@m om.g 0H.mo on.0 NH gm.mo H.Nm 0.9m og.m o\.>o OH.® HH zmm.-Hm. HH Qsopo mm.mo mH.mw «H.HH H:.OH mm.Om am.oH cmmz OHHHmz wH.OH MH.Nm H.3w OH.3 , Hm.u 2mm; .tcp mm.OH H. mm 0.5m OH.H CH.wo cc.» OH Ho.®o 0. mm o.mw Om.m om.®o oo.0 m mm.m H. mm o.mw ow.m CH.Hc on.0 m m4.m m. Hm o.wm 03.; OO.HO ow.o N ww.mH H. mm m.wm oN.m om. o mp.o o mw.HH o. o N.wm 0%.; oN.HH ow.w m Hm.m\ m.mm o.au OH.m 0:.00 on.m a om.mH 0. mm N.HH om.m o~.~o oo.0 m ow.wo m.mm m.ww om.m om.~o m~.m N Ho.mo m.Hm w.~w 0H.m OH.mo om. H om.-om. H macho mmpH n H wagom venom pmxmwgm nHm SHNH nHm gpoH .on mo .opHo mo gpmumq pm gamma pm gamma pm Spams gompw 4.11%“ .@ mNVH firtbm ngefiqu>m mufiom40 o H depmmmm -208- \-.)r-'{ ‘~-)(.\J O H. H 1.1' \_ r {15“ O O '\J\ C) (\J (\J .—4 r~+ (j) .—4 r-4 r-4 0 C H \O C) r4 P’\ (V m [\- f...) f”\ .3 m C.) r~~ Ln H mgr m r-i O O O (\2 w 0.1 01 H Hararara r—V\ . O ;) m % \L)L“—- (W 0 \ ("N ("...A 'J‘\ a (mu) 0 O\\Q 1H 0 O O 0 -+ H4 .....4 F... O o o OWJU\Q3 L’\L‘\H—'JU\ \O MNCOCQQMJQ 041%) O OXUNOWMVHVNIQMC‘Gtfl . _. 0C N... ...H. . ,fl ».( (r\ .\o.-l\ a CH H;u [( a). \V U ...C ,0..un \L (( +103..\ H (6 . .43 3 Ho \0 W N. Ho \0 \ u gm 0 \ © 0w .\.0 l u Hm. w©.w .\..).._1\ ...(_/.\ C.Hm :.mm w.Hm 0. HM H.Oo \O\d L?» H. mm m. on c.mm EC 4 of' \ t: O U\ m J m -3 [\- -."* LIN L‘"\ HT 0 (3 L’\ C <‘T"= (’3 H 041 r! H .H-r NUUJVHW O 0 0 O 0 O o COCO H OH r4 . om \r—l [\‘U\(\C\C) (no 0le 0 O O qumU\\QU\U\U\U\ u\c>c>c>c>c>c>cuc>;> 0;) (\J (k) 0 o C) D (\J .L ) C‘I C) C; O O (D G) t\- O.) OOOC‘ HCMU\t—’ (— \ om.wo oo.mc mumscHHzoov o H .301”..er ,H. mo.H@ NH.HH mH. ow «H.HH Ho.m HH.0H cmm.HoH mm.“ H.mm aw.wu 4 .m NN.H mm.m :mmx mm.mo w.mm m.wm O-.m OO.wC OJ.N OJ mH.HH $.4m m.©m 03.1 ON. 50 om.@ mm oo.0H H.mm m.ON m~.o ow.Ho om.o mm m”. o w.nm m.ow oa.m ow.~o ow.m pm mH.mo q.mm 0.0m 05.4 om.wo om.w om ma.wo m.Om m.©w Ow.\ 0m. o 00.0 mm mo.OH O.Hm n.~w oo.m Ow. om.o mm m.mH m.mm w.mw 0H.m oo.w 00.» mm mm.mo w.mm m.:w om.m ow.mo 0H.0 mm mH.oH w.Hm ©.mw om.m 0H.wo Om.m Hm :mc.HuHo. H 5H Qsopm mmp, .1.H undox annex pmxmwxm nHm guma DH: gpoH .0H .oHH mo cumHmH Hm xpgwa pm gamma Hm spawn Ammpm -209- Cmm .H ....Ca... v} QHHch .0 (l Quoxm «I. U) 0 .LH 1. C _.kaJH ’H (H.HH adopm om.mm mo.mm aw.mw \u.MH mn.Hu ,H.\H can: HN944. 3U0HJW .7). \v .u.\ .H.\o( (tn. u L .3 - ,- H- .. .c H. J a“ H .;.H “20.. ”01‘ H.l.\u. Illuh l." t H c up c .0 OH H gu.Ho oH.H OH Au.) . x \ H t c \ L ‘VC (H 0 mp AQ.). OT\O \O)\. ‘1). \ r I C .H J On “(H C; N AN N .44 M. m \o\ >To\ \ \ LL rH c a u ;w H; u Om.wo Ow.w HH HM.» oWW \ .\ 4 \ . or (m CH 0 Lo u.mw Cw.: om.mo oo.w pm “$.04 ..H «.,q ..x ... -H m o r u . L c On u (m QC (Cow ON .0 _\ O , ) .. \\ ”N.HH m ow m om Cm.m om.wc og.w um . O .\ a my mr H No m c CH.@ o®.wo 0m.o 3H 0) “On/- . \.\ .. \rL mm.CH c (N 0.0m cc.w co.mc oo.w m5 .4‘. W O .«JOAV J O J 7 . W). fl Noqw OoCC CC m CJoCH Guam NP Lu HH 0 tn w am Ou.4 Om.uc Qw.m Hm :mm.H H).H HHH> >1.m~ mw.mm om.m~ mm.nH 3m.Hm mm.m4 :moH oHpgm \JWIOJIH m_.\o_\ur\ QJO\.V ~O.\ 'r...\ . f \ o 4 5‘ .U ..r\ H I ( .Uf ‘31...»4 1|).\ r\\.\.. _OHfl “HI-OIWIPI awn/Ill“ nrmuIIOIhW. “FT- Fr.“ M. Vomm aoCm HH U um 00 Om.® CH CH mH u (g H Cw Om.m OH.DJ Ou.© aw 0 V0 \ \ ) \ 1 N) o-.(H c Fm H.om cg.u Suvau om.” we HH HH H.HH “.HH 0:.H 01.3» ... Mu.4H H.U\ (.nw v. H ,c u u no Hw.mH H.vm m ac On 0 om. MC Gm.w 6% v o T u c Ln m Hm 04.; OO. Om.w m0 HH0\O \oflm H0H\V \o J o ) \o 13. Mo1\ d wt 00 m Cw CC 0U w :6 m HH r Na m.um o@.m om.»o om.w me n v o Jon- ) \ )- H.4H m.@m a .m cm.u c1.wo cc.o mo “H W 41.0 «bx/H.ON. mmofl 03000 OOow HQ 39.4 o %1 sQCH ‘5: O A I‘m—... H.HLJJ. (.4 «-HQMJFKLH D-,—JJILI )41-1 4 Jul. :1 ,.—,. l.. N.” . Orv-p15» Jr.)H ) q H- Of, lsz" . rHC Lump "U AHCH CL Hr -- . H. .H.;yq u HHHHa H1 aHgma o Hpam Hwy)- HHQHHHHHUO, o H HHu H3. ,. -210- Jm.om HJ.Hm mm.n \w.HH JJ.mH JN.~H om.Hm Hm.mw HW.HWH amok JJJJJ. mN.JJ HF.JJ mb.mm J. J NJ.:m 0H.Jm m. m Jm.JJ OJ.JWN mama .JJV om.JJ cm.ow OJ.HJ cm.Ju mo.Jm om.Jm oH.mJ om.JJ cm.sJJ om om.m~ , m: mH.0m og.wm om.Jm m.mm om.wm om.Jm mm.wJJ J“ 09.5J om.JJ oo.m 0J.Jw OJ.Jm 0H.Jm OO.Hm cm.mJ OJ.MJJ J“ om.mJ o~.mJ OJ.JJ om.Jm om.Hm cw.Jm oN.JJ mm.mm OJ.o~w Hm oJ.JJ om.oH OH.HJ og.mm OJ.Jm om.Jm am. am OJ.~m om.me Jm o~.HJ JJ.JJ OH.NJ OJ.mm ow. m oH.Hm o.J.mm OO.Nm mJ.JJw mm OJ.J~ om.Jw ow.4m OJ.JN 0H.0m OJ.Jm om.m J.Jm mH.on JJ OH.JJ 0%. JJ oo.mm OJ.JJ 0H.Jm oN.~m .mJ OJ. m cJ.o mm OJ.JJ om.mJ 0J.w OJ.JJ om..m oo.m J.mm 0H.Nm OJ. HHM mm om.JJ OH.JJ on.mm OH.mm oN.HJ oN.mJ oN.mm o..wx oN.JJJ Hm =CO.H-J9. HHH asopo oN.0H JJ.OH Jm.JH ow.»H mm.mm HJ.JJ NJ.JHH cam: JHJJJ; mm.NJ JH.mw J\.~m J\.Jm mN.Jm mm.mom 2mm: .ch om.HJ om.JJ cm.Hw 0J.Hm om.um cu. Jm cm.Hm om.um mJ.JJJ om OJ.J~ 0H. m9 OJ.mm OH.mm Om.mm CJ.wm OH.mJ cH. Jm mo.me mH om.wJ OJ.JJ oH.mu Ow. mm cJ.mJ mJ on.CJ oN.0J 09.09w JH om.mJ om.mJ OJ.JH em. om.mm OH.Jm ,\.Jm om.Jm 0H.me NH cw.w~ OJ.JN oo.Jm OO.HN 9.Jm co. Jm 0H.mm 0J.mm o~.m~m JH oo.JJ o~.JJ OJ.JH cJ.JH ow.mm om. H4 00. cm o\.Jm oN.0Jw mH 09.05 oN.H~ CJ.JJ ow.mm om.mm oH.~m OJ.~m OJ. m 0J.me JH oJ.oh om.Hm OJ.mm og.mm OJ.mm om.~m OH.Jm oo. Jm OH.NJJ mH em.mJ OJ. JJ mm.Hm OJ.NJ oN.Jm om.wm om.Jm 04.0J OJ.Jmm NH o~.JJ 09.3J o~.Jm oJ.~m OJ.mm o~.mm OH.Jm OH.Nm ow. me HH :mw IHm HH QSOLU mw.om Ho.Hm 09.9 HH.0H NH.JH JmJ mm.>m Ho.Jm mm.JHH cmmz JHHJJ: .P )N. uJon Mcuw ... m\.om , mw.Hm um.NmN Cwmz .wufl CJ.CH 0J.Hw oo.mw 8. mm OJ. Pm ox.JJ om.\m cu.mmc 0H oc.w mp. mp OO.HN oN.Hm J.mm OJ.Jm - .JJ OJ. NJ om. OJN m oo.JJ oN.JJ om.ww oq.mw OH.mm 0H.0J oH.mJ o~.mJ ow.JJw J Om.mJ OJ.mJ om.0m oH.0m om.Hm om.5m oo.mm oo.mm OO.NJJ N om.J~ om.JN om.Hw oc.mw om.mm om.wm J .cJ oo.JJ oN.JJJ J oo.JJ oo.mJ o~.mm ow.Jm oH.mm OH.mm OH.Jm OH. HJ oa.Jmc m om.mJ om.mJ OJ.HW OJ.HN mm. Jm cm.Jm oJ.HJ co.JJ oo. mum J 00.05 00.09 m.mm ow.Jc 0H.mm oJ.mm om.Jm cm.Jm m9.cJJ m oo.m- om.mJ mm.JH 9_. OJ OJ.mm oJ.Jm oJ.\m oc.OJ J.OJJ m om.JJ OJ.JJ OH.NJ ow.mw ow.Jm OH. mm oN.H HJ oo.mJ om.me . H J :rw,.-ow. H nacho JJJJJ JJJJJ pHm pHm :HoH cHOH Jasom Jasom J .0; .JEJH .JH .JEJJJJ .J; .JJJH .Js .oaJJcm .Jn .JEHH .J; JJJJc: .Jx .Jng .J; .JEJJcp .Jz. JHH m .Jm mepm \l‘wHJIlI ...} .J:k> Bro thJmJ :._ I HJHU 8 :km a HH xrflgumm: -211- HTH: \ IL 0 44 \ N.N. \— HM (N. QUONH H.....x. VHJ .\.oW\ L Q“... rH J)..- -... ob nu Q \u Twom 0C Cw .nn U“. \.)O)..\ \; LC Hun. (mu \dojfu \ ©00mm Intl.\ \I-..) Cu Co wafwm vidual: KILL. . \.W. E um 3.7wH cu- . - - u Ha Owomq fifionu CJ mm OmoHJ 3:.Tr H mC.JH MM.M\\ -0? omppq 0:sz 0..-...3. ”5...: ...“.wm 2.x. cc .: um}? mmdrm filfik S...“ .wcH ( IL: ;\ ! .... \| . .) \.\ ft 00.3 _ ..h 3 mm 36 2,. oc an en. m w 852 8 0...). 8 3 0.»..ch 0..» cc 3 03.x... 3.. mw 83$ mmzxm I _.u C, O oT\ L . UN )0? . H ha. 310.... P0 UU .Uo...\ O “U 0H.0/W \.HV0).\ 00 f4. mLMOHm . o F\ __W OQOMAM )\ . 5 8...... c... . 2.3 3 H: _. . a 8......“ ow... c .... owdm ?: 0. DH 81 2.3. UH 9. S --..x. L cu 8.5. ...x :- 0H ONJW , Co 1. 2.2.. x («H nu 0943.1...“ 0.. um 04. :3. ..WL 00.0 OH Omiuw ) N... mm 00on O). ,\ Ch .WC owomv . O\\w o V. mm. ) r“ Ck 40m (\.\ 0...? c H... 3.3 > . . Q 2. 2.? mic... c032. 0H.0: ... C bu OMoHCH O).)\ (.4 Hm .(HCoNQ { o H Ou Hm. 0T0}. \oJLO “U u (a Onowm , DO m£ Ofi. H H Hr y 54m flw . . HH.0m o-.q\ L H om.m~ cm... (L r\ ( hxoo)[ \huo). (b “m “3. O Jog \ F. \ Q \L 04.“ 0 m0“ H_\ (\. r UHON_ Homofi \\\H L _ C I . z ' 9.. 1 f...) m... HH.HH _.:. HL HH. 35”, -...MOJ \ .. . K. \1\ NJ .Jlfi! ._ O . h- My C@.CLH \H.Jc FHIIW ON mm Na.fi \x. \ 0.3? 3 x c. .2. o). H . .3 0A 8: od 3 . -. _. one...“ 2;: c. .....tm... H_.: ..3..... .. Haw Cad.“ .3 4.. c .om H,_._.....-H .2 1. ...»..IL ...... c3H \v. Ow (H PU hi.._m.kwcw O.\... \iCWI CWOHUHNL OWWOWJJIHH \.\\ (m Pm )Wofiu Cuo.u .C Wm OH Hum. OO.ON. OQoHLH CU .OI\.x I . .L 1‘ \_UO..\ \ \ v H \. 0k..m 0H.mw oH.H. Hw.cw r. .H cH.ww om.wmw H oc ma 9:... .. a E m. 2.2 . H. .3 .\O\1 A Lm mOONLN [\03\ I 0 Cr\ _A OVO\.(\\ 0. cc o-.\_ . c. c. CH HH . . ... NH 010\ .\ h Anvw CM..A\ ) . ON. my” ..\+_v~. \.\...I >1 .n luv O#./\r\ a I“ OJ. C“ C0 AN \. I. ‘U— yon 0:. a LG 3 o L CC N )\o \ . ow.HH 3,... cc H. H: mm - CH.mH H Cc Hnm a: __o3.\ .(C .LQ 0,..0H1W )Jo \ o ;\ CPoCN. H...\03H. L. m0 my JN.Nn M.rw CL Mr 7 Gnoww Oa.m Ln Hum JJ b On. (.0 CH0\..\ ...,uH \x\ ODOH‘ _C .Cw O.Homumm W4 WC CWOhffi. z..\. 0 \+1. 1 P. 00.). )HO _“.\ h. CL C. .099) . up Cr 3:. X. k LR OMOV. )OT).\ (p m..\o\. \. \LW HQ. _ . . 9.....- _.cc.-ou. H mic? - x _. r \QoH L s C: .-. , . L...H.w M: r. NH . . .. .c a. .H ...- p.hMc 3.... HH HH cm.mw ..... 0.“.3 ém c E. 0.3.... .....Ikuu 01.8 in.).- 1;. .3 3.03 «...; QC 3 )0 \ QC CW Ovqu-V 0. ”0 CQOHU -o_:)\. LII-I; .(u “00“.“. U.\oj). .a . N.OH.» 0c AH 033 < C ems... 3?? c... \n 3%... I......n...n. FEM 2mm... .....5 )3. U _U (\V ONOm/u1 )-o _C (HM FM. CJ0\.Y\ L HIE“. .bxu ......Ou.\v ..r .L (C FL >\. H . cr (K mu ) . (o .c O_.fl\ )3 .\ CC (LC J: (.0 HP. \1\. ..v (C CU NV )..\.0 (l. CCOQH ) O\ , 3.3.x. ) CU HO O o.\U .L L (L 4mm... )..o:.. .L CJ L)“ \\ C. .i ..H.H 2.6. .. .... S.Hm 8. c. i 83m 2 N on 3. o ... . _. ) , _ . - \ (U HQ OHQOO \nwo U ONoJN O.N-om“ . o CJOHM .3U00:n mfloQHHW Hwfi OH.HH 3H.HH E.H oH.0w 0...“ oc c.H ON.HH 4w.3u ow w.“ Hm 3.33. ... Gnu cw 073$ . .1. c... .HH 1. .1... 0c .3 9.3.13 .1. “w. w 85 em.\. c .5 85m 0. c _: 84...... .NH“. «... cu.cw OH..H ,..m OO.HN HH.0. m CH mm.HH mu..c . H.N mm x v .x O \ L \ I 0.) R. a U3 F - 83. 2Q cm . OH... H .... mo .5.“ H... \ OK Cw CHQOWM x; CDC 09 NW O_MON.\ (\b mHWOHHJ 7:30” . V \7\\. ( Cw Can“ OHomA. \ H. O.Homm Ono...» C; .nn fin. v3.3.3 .3 . o c oflwm cm. ,\ c tn Owimwu mm . :. , Hggro H. . H OO.N. . .- flgkm .93 .vfipqcé .p; .fi_HH+:. DH: GAGA c u OH wa Hm .... .- \PE . ).a . H l O HOWfl \ ' . H UHEHH .HH...” .UHFHH ._ . . L 657$ .... ._ .Ew.H HoH. :MrSch C; p ... .UEQCJ 0‘...» O TIL—LCMH ... ., _. +..- UEHHL UCFHHQ- o. ... . .0.» L p. mUHW .pfi hmwpw \ f - TLC? cc .. 21. : r L 3 .a .HH H.HH r217. -212- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. .Hma 0000 000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0. 0000 .000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 8.00 00. 00 00.00 00. 000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. 00 00.00 00.00 00. 000 00 00.00 00.00 00.0. 00.00 c .00 00.00 00.000 00 00. 00 00.00 ,0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00. 00 00. 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0. 00.00 00. 00 00.000 00 00.0. 00.00 00.c0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 =00.H-00.H 0000 0:000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 H0.0 00.00 00.000 000;.04000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0w 00.0 a 00.0 00.m0 00. 000 0 0: .00. 00. 00 00. \ 00.00 00. 0 00.00 00.00 0r.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.r 00.0 00.0 0\.00 0_.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00. 00 00.00 00.00 00. 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0..H00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.000 00.000 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00. 000 00 000.0-00. H00 00000 00000 00000 000 000 0000 0000 00000 00000 .00 .02 .0000 .0; .000000 .0; .0000 .03. .000000 .00. .0000 .00 .000000 .00 .0000 .00 .000000 .00 0000 .00 00000 3.0023008 00. HH H310... ... -213- or.n Hk.ow Hm.Mm uw.nu Bw.m MH.CH UH.cH nn.u hw.w uni» .Ho; ow.mo mu.th nn.0h pH.HHH NW.HH wH.mW um.ww Hp.hH «H.u‘ L“ .p. u“ mm.NH mo.‘wH om.wp oc.cmH om.c c¢.Hu mu.Hw OH.HH om.wg om mw.0H mu.me 0 .HH mH.HmH on.HH OO.NN OH.HW o“.wo oh.wo aw no.uo mm.OmH oo.mb om.wwH m.mH on. w JF.mH \N.HH og.po MW mm.wH mm.mmH mH.ww mm.HmH cm.qH OW.HN mw.mm oc.~H om.wo NW om.no ow.muH oo.mw m.umH (.HH oH‘HN cw.om )m.mH cc.wo mm om.mo mm.NNH mn.wc N.me (.CH cw. N cm.ww OF. H gm.~o mm on. H nH.NwH my. w ob.mHH mo.oH OO.NN gm.ww ¢m.mo mw.wm um ow.no ob.mpH om.mb om.muH (L .HH ow.wH o”.mm ew.mH em.wo mm ow.m on.m%H cw.mU OH.QQH oN.m oH.mw mm.Hw 0H.0 0m.mH mm ow.H ca.mbH cm.Hw mm.mmH mm.OH oo.ww ”H.mw mm.uH ob.wo HH :oo.H-qh. firm mgggm H.N m\.ww Hw.nr mw.H‘ wu.m Hu.m mm.OH mw.m u‘ .mo: ppuu. mmuHmH @h.mh 2H.HHH ow.H wu.mw oh.ww mw.NH N, .ugm nH.m om.wNH mH.uo ow.HwH om.wo mw.w co.ou cw.wH QQ.OH m OH.W Ow.wwH nH.HF om.pmH ow.nH mH.0w 0¢.HN om.HH om.wo aH nw.H mm.NHH om.Hw 0H.muH oo.m oq.ww 0H.mw aw.wH oo.0 wH OO.N oH.HHH OO.NW gm.wwH 00.3H Om.ww om.Hw on.“ gm.wu NH o .H OO.HHH om.ww m.mmH o«.mH 0H.0H ow.mw OO.HH 0H.0H 0H om.c Ow.m~H ow.ow o .ng OO.OH _m.wm om.ow cm.wH oo.0H mH 0H.m ”.mmH ow.mw o\.m»H 00. H 3m.mw mm.ON o..Ha oc.mo HH om.© 0H.HQH OO.N» OH. oAH ow .mH o .wm om.ww ow.\H OH.~O mH MH.m mH.m~H om.m~ om.HwH oo.~o ,N.OW 0H.Hw Ow.mH Hm.wo NH oo.m OH.HwH OO.NN o~.ow oN.HH o~.wH on.gw cm.HH OH.wo HH :mp.-Hm. HH usage ow.H wq. w mu.Hm Hp.Mm mm.m Ju.a u.m «m. mg. 4 saw .ump :U.w am. HH om.¢o 00.«;H mm.» nH.WH HHJQN NN.NH w.\ umcm .hum 0;.H om.ww gm.m© o».me co. 0 OW.HH oH.wH o \H cfi.wo oH mw.q o~.mmH mm.Hw mm.QMH .40 OH. UH o .wH om.HH om.H m cm.H OH.mmH om.®- 0H.QmH om.no OH.mH on.0w o~.wH c~.w w 0H.0 Ow.o~H on.0» ow.w~H om.» ow.wH om.Hw ow.HH w.mo P om.H mm.mmH ow.Ho oo.mmH cw.mo 04.5H om.wH OH.HH c:.mo o om.m .me om.om og.me oo.mo o~.Hm 05.0w om.oH ow.wo m m©.m m~.mmH og.mw OH.me 05.00 om.wH om.NH OO.HH ow.mo H og.H .me mm.Om om.omH ow.o OO.wH om. N oN.0H \q.wo m mm.m mo.H~H 05.0w oH.0wH cm.OH om.Hm oN.Hw ow.HH OV.OH m om.m ow.mmH oo.m~ om.HwH om.w Ow. 0H om.ww 0H.0H oN.HH H gpm.nmm. H macaw EMHB mudo .me + mgflo wpso flaw).— ..lm xcmam mpw pmxmflhm xumxm .Op Cmmd .fiFHH ..AHHmm .Ho .uz .U_N,H.Hpu.. .Ho 2y)... .92.. .Q3 .93.. .93 .9; .Hmopm H3535 HH HHSEH -214- NN.N NN.NNH HH.NN NN.NHH NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N c:uN No NN.NH NN.NNN NN.HNH NN.NNN NN.NH NH.NN NN.ON NN.NH NN.HH uch .-cm NN.NN NH.NNN NN. NN NN.NNN NN.cH NN. N NN.NN NH.NN NN.NH 0N NN.NH NH.NHN NN.HNH NN.NNN NN.NH NN.HN NN.NN JN.NH NH.. NN NN.NN NN.NNN ,.HNH NN.NNN NH.NH NN.NN NN.NN NN.NH JN.HH NN NN.HH NN.NNN NN.NNH NN.NNN _N. N NN.NN NN.HN NN.NH NN.NH NN NN.HN oN. NNN NN.NJN NN.HNN NN.NH NN.NN NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN NN.NH oN. NJN NN.NNH NN.NNN NN.HH NN.NN NN.HN 0:.NH NN.HH NN NN.NH NN.NNN NN.NNH NN.NNN N.NH NN.HN NN..N NN.NH NN.NH jN cN.NN NN.NNN 0N. NNH NN.NNN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NH NN.N w NN.NN NN.NNN NN.NCH NN.NNN NN.NH NN.NN NO.NN NN.NH NN.NH NN om.Jo NN.NNN NH.NNN NN.NNN cN.HH NN.NN NN.NN NN.NH NN.HH HN =NN.-HN. HN NNONN NN.N NN.NNH NN.NN NHH NN.N NN.H NN.NH NN.N NN.N NNNN .NN. NN.NH NH.NNN NN.NNN NN.NNN NH.NH NN.NN NN.NN HN.NH NJ.NH NNNN ..-n NN.NN NN.NNN NH.NNN NN.NNN NN.NH NH.NN NN.NN NN.NH NN.HH ON NN.NH NN.NNN oN. NNN NH. oxN NN.NH NN.NN NH.HN oN. NH NN.NH NN No. No NN.N:N NN.NNN NN. NNN NN.NN NH.NN NO.NN NH.NH NN. NH NJ NN.NH NN.NNN NN.NNN NN.NNN NN.NH NN.N. NN. N NN.NH No. HH NN NN.HH NN.NNN NNN NH.N:N NH.NH NN.NN NN.HN NN.NH NN NN NN.NH NN.NNN mm .NNN NN.HNN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.ON NN.NH NN NN.Nc NN.NNN NN. NNN NN.NNN NN.NH NN.NN oN. N NN.NH NN.NH NN NN.NN NN.NNN NN.NN NH. NNN NN.NN NN.NN NN. m NN.NH NN.NH NN NH. NH NN.NNN NN.NNH cm. NNN NN.NH NN.NN NN.NN oN. NH Nc.oH NN NN.Ha NH.HNN 0N. HHH NN.NNN NN.NH NN.HN NN.NN NN.NH NN.HH HN :Cm.l.®w .>. QHNOLO NN.NN N.NN NN.NN NN.N NH.cH NH.0H NN.N Nm. N QNNN .NNN NH.HNH HN.NN HN.NJH NN.H NN.NN NN.NN HN.NH NN. N cNNN .sz NN.NNH NN.NN cN.rNH NN.NN NN.ON NN. H NN.HH NN.N ON N.NNH JN.NN NH.JN NN.NH NN.NN NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN NN.NNH NN.NN No. oNH cc .No NN.NN NN.NH NN.NH NN.N NN NN.HNH N. NN NN.ON oN. NH NN.ON NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN NN.NNH NN.NN NN.ON JN.NH NN.NN NN.HN NN.NH NN.N NN ‘. NN.HNH NN.NN NN.NNH NN.N, NN.NH NH. N NN.NH NN.N Nm NN.NH NN.NNH NN.NN NN.NNH NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.N gm NN.NN NN.NNH NN.HN NH.NNH NN.NH NN.HN NN.NN N..NH NN.N mm NN.NH NN.NNH NN.NN NN.NNH NH.NH NN.ON NH.NN NN.NH NN.N NN NN.NH NN.NNH NN.NN NN.NNH NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NH.NH NN.N Hm z H-H .H NH _JNJNN EHNN mNsv .N.N + NNNN NNN” ;:J4 .N.N NNNHN NNNHN NNNNHNN NNNNN oJ NNN .N JNH .H HNN No .J .Hng:, NN .NN .NN .N. .N. .NJ .NH NNaNN HNNT., N a NH nnHNume. -215- OO.N NN.NOH NN.OHH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.N NN.N Oman .NON NN.NH ON.HNN ON.HNN NN.NH NO.HO NN.HN J 1N.OH ONNN .N:O NN.NN NO.NHN ON.NNN NN.NH ON.NN OO.NN ON.NH NN.OH ON ON.HN OH.NNN ON.NNN ON.NH OH.HN NN.N ON.NH NN.OH NN NN.NH ON.NNN NN.NNN ON.NH ON.NN NN. NN NN.NH NN.OH NN NN.NH ON.NNN N.HNN OH.NH OO.ON OO.NO OO.NN OO.NH NN ON.NN ON. NNN ON.NNO ON.HNV ON.NH ON. N ON.NN ON.NH NN.OH NN NN.NH OH. ONN N .NOH ON.NNN ON.NH NN.HN NN.NO NN.NH ON OH NN NN.NH OO. ONN NN.NNH ON.NNN OO.OH ON.OO ON.NN NN.NH ON.OH NN ON.NN ON.NNN ON.NHH ON.HN ON.NH ON.NO ON.NJ ON.NH ON.NO ON OO.HN O..NNN OO.NOH ON. NN ON.NH ON.NN ON.N ON.NH ON.NO NN ON.N ON.ONN OO.JOH NH.ONN OJNJ.1 ON.NO OO.OO OO.NH OO. NH HN NN.H-HO.H HNHN ONOJO NN.N NO.NO NO.NN NN.NHH NN.N ON.OH NN.NH HN.N NN.N ONONN .:O jN.NH NN.HNN N.OOH NN.NNN NN.NH NN.NN NH.NO NN.NH ON.OH NOON .NON O.NH NN.OON NN. NO NN.NNN ON.NH NO.NN ON.ON ON.NH OO.OH ON NN.NH NN.NNN ON.NOH ON. NNN ON.NH OO.HO .NO ON. NH ON. OH NN ON.HH ON.NNN ON.NOH ON. NON ON.ON OH.NN OO.HO OO.NH ON.OH NN ON.N OH.OHN ON.NHH ON. NON OO.NH OO.NO ON.HO ON.ON ON.N NN NH.ON NN.ONN ON.HHH ON.ONN OO.NH NN.NN OO.ON ON. NH ON.O NN ON.NH OO.NNN OO.NOH ON. NNN ON.NH N.NN ON.NN ON.NH ON.OH NN ON.NH ON.HNN ON.HOH ON.NON N.OH NO. HO ON.ON ON.NH ON.OH NN ON.NH ON.NNN O.NNO ON.ONN ON.NJ NN. NN ON.NN ON.NH ON.NO NN OH.NH .N.NNN OH.NOH OO. ONN ON.OH ON.NO ON.OO ON.NH ON.NO NN OH.HH ON.ONN OH.OOH OO. NN ON.NH OO.NN ON.O ON.NH ON.OH HN HON ONONO EHNO ONNO .N.N + ONNO ONNO ONON .N.N :NNHN ONNT NONOHNN NO.NN .ON NNN .NNN OUNH .O.NN NHHON NO .NJ, H:NN O HO .NN .NN .NN .NN .Nm NOONN :6: 295m 4&4 .HH 1.wa it'll -« )1 ‘ ‘ 7A.u4.4~m. Y~._..:~mx, ~..U.».H 11...; n.rn7..p‘~ J ....L VA::‘;~-H N.HLAUT. . I} ‘la .‘ll‘ Done 7‘ 'at Shank Shank J. dnk -eld r ,. 1 1. ‘hnck :Y I J Bone A. Fat buck " I V Lle Yield r11- D“ b 'UT - RT Bone R1 ’\ _J TVT‘( C J. :at 73 0 U. Yield I L % -K II B tone Loin T JD LC; Q 0 DD” L J. I mm H 1'; T 1.; Loin .Plfi V O ‘. Q I o <- onnd I". t 5 Fat eld Found 0 1 Y Steer Round No. -ZLO- 0C) OOmOOOOOw-J LWOCU‘-.OOCCDOC‘C\IO COOOOCDC‘OOCD-xr-i H Cu C\U‘_) cu CC) IAN (\J (n D C; ox 1;qu (\i \C) \L) U'\;“~-L-J L‘-~ C‘fllfi C;\;)1.f\.:JUJ\C) ._»'\\O \C) LN J C"'\ O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O .UgmmmmrvxnmmmH mm cummmmrfiw mrflH mmmm cu Cumwm 01 \JH OOOU\OOOOOOC\JO\ OCJOOC‘DOO )CICDLUUN C‘IOOC‘)Q(T\CC)U\L‘\~-.3 O (\J C) LAN m C) UxCD C) r. H In (L) C‘\\O (Q G 0 Cry :1 cu m H C.) C.) C) Wu) JVLA O G\ «u .\P':J' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O COCOOOCDQHHHC) (_JHCJOOCDOOCJCjC C) C)HOHCT)HHHOC))C> COO CDC‘O OCJOC‘:L_JCD OU‘-.D'\C‘ICJC‘OC3OCJC\J(\J OOOOCDQCD U\&K-) C)Hr—l"\r’iOt—'i (-J L\-\'7 -51—‘30») \J\ C)—T~”J'CV C‘JVLVr‘fi' (C\ \(J.‘-C~JL1"‘\L\L‘\H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O \O U\‘U\LC\,:I U\\OL CL) (~41 Lin (\1 4L3 rm CC\ C‘-\O in) (fix LLW (\J In [H.304 OW MAI OOOC)CD(”>C)C:C1)C)LL)&> OOOOOCCD C 0001:“ ALL. (J r-CJ\O Oxlfxxo H k) ...r (\JCJ C? 1f\(JL\L‘~-\.. —-11“‘.C“\(\J O C: C) CD CD 0 C) O O C‘ W H o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o {\(W\C";\L_)_:J‘U\\.(_;(.C)\C) [‘—‘;_fl'u\ U\C‘*(‘JJ\J\C)\J\ ¢\OC)U\»3 C~"‘L~L,;\C).‘\.r-{(\-C;\Q\(“ g\._:1 o o o o o o o o o o o o H O C) O H C) C) H H (3 CD C“) J C) H C) H C.) C“ C." H C C) D—C\ m Q\l\C\ [\l‘H O\ u- w r \ " 000 0 00100-1 _ OC‘OOO >OOCDCM\C\ V‘OCL\CCJOOLC\C CVLLJ f~C\!C\J——Ir-1C£_)CY\CC\\U (\J£d\') w—ZIE‘TL)\Qr‘l(\JL\L\ "('\U‘\ (.jl-\(,",:,q(}(,\.'( \;)CQ\L)C~(D(\J o o o o o o o o o .L.?- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o L{\LJ’\[\~C1)\{)\()C\JQ\r—<| C; {1.) o (\J .:J c’ .31:- r'\ w LC\L\\U r—f H .4er r-\U:JL .-.} Cu b"\("\1f\ (u C) C) Cr C.) C.) CD H C) H H p 0D OQOIROC)OOOOC\I—3 CDOOCDOCQOOCBAC.‘ OOCOC‘CCOO )WC'} OK \JCL.) H \O {‘01) L0 (\J k.)\ N—j (.5 O\LA\U\C;J PVC) (J‘\ (U .LT' (\1 C‘ H {\U‘\ Q\ (\J ’3"LJ_\ (q r‘l \L) {#1. O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O (\1 LL) N Q (q (x; CD Cu In (“Hm OJ (’1‘ (.3 .3 ON O L"\ ('3 CA L) C; Cu (n m b— to CD C*\(‘\C\1 O (\1 v\ -1 C“\ f‘...:TU\LC\LJ \\f) In fo‘I—HLWLA C.) L\-;j L‘\L\L\‘~.f‘.h\-j L‘-.LXL“.C\J 4.3.111th Ls\.:r ‘u\L\ .LI $.01 OomOEDCOOOQIOCD OOQC OOCDCDOCJLUCA CDOOOOCQ‘LHOLRCJ'A “2H mL\L\n‘\w.:1U\ C H ox H t C C"\ t— “.991 01x19 \J\ C\ Q\ (\J m L\C_) IAN-3w (‘1 IL\ 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ‘TJ—U—J 1.3 mam—:7 3H mrr\..:1w ”* (w '._JC\J CW (CL—”(\H .:J_:IU\._3 (Wm rflm“\.;r \H C) O O Q 0 O O C- O O m ux O .0 0ij (W O c (:3 C‘ C“ PD cg o o o o o ( , mQ o m m \ (\1Hr*\\:)C)0’\U\..:TC"\kaC\1 \O—JJH\;1(\Q\CCQ(“\‘LHC'RVLJ .;:L\-CD (\J-JHCJ\CDHL\J> \ O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O o O o O O O O O O O O O 0 o O O OOOOHOOCDCV‘CJOO CVr".|0\r'l(:7(:)r{C.)HCJI“1C7 C‘JOOCVCum—JNNNHCJ OmCDC‘.OOOOOC_>C\1(r\ CDC)C2CDCCOOC\CNC;-:f (\CooncomL\c..i)r—4 \O H l\-U\ (\1 (Hog) L1"\U\\;')}L.J \C‘» \u (H [\Inxo .:I C) Ln (1": C m L\- c, w (L10) (\1 0 w u.) C; H E-\;) O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O o 0 O 9..-;7 0 m9.) [Hm (\~.:T\O \C) [\- Cd \0 \C: (A-, _.‘Iw Ln [\— Q'\\L’ (x- (\- L‘xxo ~)\ (\w \0 _.TI (I) -it 1:“ r5) [_\- HHwHHHHHHHHO HHHHHHHHHH-{CZ HHHHrH .HHHr-{w OOOOOOOQCQOO C‘OLHCOOCDCJOC‘CJCV C‘CDOC)U\OCDOOC>PJO (CK M (W H C) [\— C\h\ H 0C) (u C"\ L'\ Li.) (\J (\1 OJ (‘1 C.) C\ [‘- .17 H (W L\~ Cu’ 41%) C.) O (\1 Q\»j (H v.1) H O O O O O O 0‘ O O .L O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O. O O O I O O O O O O V\\O ‘ \O\O.—:T\Q LID..:T.:ILJ‘\C\J _3.:r.—:J'L\\O\DU\1:\mln '\C\J 1mm 1434.341“? CC\.:T .3 {I (\l COOOOOOQOOV\-—j _3L"’\C_DC7CDOC_DC>C)C‘.L:J'_;\ OOCDIAOC‘IC.) CC) Ln 'u("“\ mlfl O H (\1 -:T\O \L‘JUJ N C \C) 1&0“ m _.:}ch L’xu) (\. "C: (\1 LUCIJ LAO Cu (u (H (mm om - Cu O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O mmmHHHHmmw‘wa ..frwgfcrmeCflHCxACwa (\ICJHHCUM-:*C*\.:IOC\ JH QCU\U\C>OOC2OC~>O_\ QOC ")COOC‘OLLUCC\ C‘JOODNOOOOOC-uux \J C: [H-JJI cu C.) 0.: C wwu (\J L\ C 1 \C; H H LC. (1?) U- 61) E\— \O U\ Cu-LI—ZI C'\.—:TOLJ \O C‘ —" O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O (\Lfiwvxxoxov\Ht\wt~~Cu \Q \C' t~\.)C‘ Hc-~..;.*C\:£\LJ (\1 01ch L\.1NU\CJCCJU\\ID wm (x. (\1 (\J (u (\4 (\a \1 (”mm m w H (\a 01(qu m ("Wm (G C‘ u. w H (H (\1 (\J (\1 (\J (\J (u Cu (u (\1 ~1 H _-IOCLflCO OOOO J(\l UxCCHCCOO Cpr-i) [‘~ 'v\(\J H O mun: moxcu LwIA CL)(MC\JC\r—1’\;_)G; t~ ("\L - p—x C: C) C) C) O L \ O C, c: C,- L'\ if g\ 00000000000. oo-oooooooooo ('\CLJr-§L1)J\(u\'_)r.4(u(v‘\ixd Q\r-4(»J)C) C-\C) u\ C) C) (J\CD\..:T tum.) GI) _,'\[‘--LL) C) CD 0) ¥\LC_),:1 o o o o o o o A o o o o g H CH » C.) H H C C) O C) C.» C) C_- C: C,“ s . H C: C- C" C.» 9-2 Cu LwLVD-LJ [\h-LU LL; ~1- ("3 OOOC.‘ (DOC OC>CD(\JU\ (DCLHCCC‘) C C.1C‘;C"'C\Jr~’\ CyC~CDOC1M J C) OL" ‘uxs‘. (1J1) FWD-L\\u\0 ()0) ("\O WIND-(AL‘JIJ‘.Q\C\J OJ C' (HP—(U CV\C‘\JL\ \Or-iCLJ Jkdu”) C' ~U'\C; C)OC,)O("7U\LCWLJ 0000000 (DOC) (.ng CH C) CD L\-L"\ u\ CH C‘ C.) Lxx L”\U\.;: H mglxu ‘quCD 11“.;- u.r—~. oxi) u\ C)\C‘)C (\1 H u) H .11 u C, V) o o o o o o o o o [‘ o o o o o o o o o o o o r“ o o o o o o o o o o H: wh—OjCHhx '(J11.(Y\’-C\J\LI'~Jl‘nx-lf13",. 1C)HU\JC\H*‘xt-Hu CJ-\ L\.:I.;._3.:r \erg, H41LJL1.,':*'-:..:T-..:.;:-. t3? (\J \LL'fif—waf—iT—L‘I—ti (WAT r"\.:,. I H L“ U“ (1‘ o a: - m «as C (1‘ r—i C. H m malfno [\w U\ C) IH H OJ (’\"’1J’\\O t~03 QC) 0: :1; H H (\J mglmxo NC“ C’\ C) :3 .1 F1 H r-’ H r-l H H r4 r—i r-l' (\J (1..) H (\ C (\1 (\J (\J (\I (\5 OJ 0.: (C\ C‘) C;- ‘_" C) Q, ' w, 04 "a C1 0 $4 '3 0 524 0 iii-*3 0 ’L'J'J-Z' ‘4 ‘44 (D $4 1:) (5‘ [7" ., CD '7]~ u»....‘. ‘pl...l,. p . -1 . .‘ .4 4.: . .‘ 1:1“ ._.|\\.\\.I‘l‘ .K. 21.. 4.2. ., : *1 Exifzi ‘ ‘ Pit'n‘ } If . \r‘linllllli.“ ‘ lllll lv/Il" |II|I||III 2| llllllll‘l 1",“ I} 1...] (I‘ll. III/lull! , I x I J i ; v ; A .. . J n . I n . ; ‘ u o x x w ‘ 1 l x A n ) I l ‘l ‘ w » : 4 . J ; s ., u -4L/' 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H 00.0 W0.H H .UW 03 . 0H0me flon, 0H.H mm.fl @3014 0. WAou L) fifiou4 Afiovz C60? 0 Cu 00.H mH.H 00.0 00.HH 00.0- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.HH 0H.0 00.00 00 0H.0 00.H 00.H 0m.0H 00.0H 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 0H.0 00.0 0 .00 00.0 00.00 mm 00.0 00.0 00.m 00.HH m\.HH 00.00 0H.0 0H.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00. 0H 00.0 00. 0 00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0H 00..0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 mH.0m 0m 0H.0 00.H 00.0 00.0H 00. 0H 00.00 00.0 0H.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.HH m0.H 00.00 00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0H 00.HH 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.H 00.0H 0H.H :. x mm 00.0 0H.H 00.0 00.0H 00.HH 00.00 0H.0 0H.0 00.0H 00.0 0H.0 00.0H 00.0 00. 0m gm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.HH 00.0H 0H.H0 00.0 00.0 00.H0 00.0 00.H 00.HH 00.0 00.0\ mm 00.0 0H.H 00.0 0 .0H 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.H 0H.00 00.0 )0.H 0H.HH 00.H 00.0m 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 .HH .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 0 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 Hm :m; . IHm. Ht? .Ho 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H0 00.0 00.H 00.0 0H.0 Hw.H 00.0 00.H 00.00 000; 000002 00.0 00.0 0m.m mo. 0H 0.00 .00 mm.m mm.0 00.00 00.0 HH.0 ogucH 00.0 0H.0m 0002..0qm 0..0 00.H 00.0 00.\H 00.0H om .00 00.0 0 .0 0H.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 0H.0 00.0w cm 0H.0 00.H 00.0 00.0H 00.\0 00. 00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.HH 00.m m0.0m 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.HH 00.00 0H.0 00.0 0.0 00.0H mm. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H0 00 00.H 0H.H 00.0 00.0H 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 .m.0H 00.0 00.00 00 0H.0 00.H 00.0 00.HH 00.00 0H.H0 00.0 0..0 00.H0 00.0 00.0 00.HH 0H.0 0H.0m 00 0H.H 00.H 00.0 0m.HH 00.0H 00.00 00.0 00.0 mH.0H 0H.0 00.H 00.0H 00.0 0H. m m: 00.4 00.0 0H.0 0H.0H 00. 0H 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0H.0 00.0H 0H.0 00.00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0H 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00._0 0H.0 00.0 0m.0H 00.H 0H.00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00. HH 00.0 00.00 00 0H.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0H 00.0 00.30 00.0 m0.0 00. 0 00.0 30.0 00.0H 00.0 00.00 H0 :O.m...©w. 0.0 @5090 00.H 00.0 00.H 00.H H0.00 00.0 00.+ 00. H0.H 00. 0H 0000 ngpma 00.0 0H.H 00.0 00.0 00.nH 0000. mH.m 00.0 00.0 00. 00 000:“.000 00.0 00.H 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 0H.\ .3 00 .0 00.0 0H.wm 00 00.0 00.H 0H.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00 00 00.0 00.0 00 n ._ 0.00 00.0 00.H 00.0H 00.0 00. )0.0 00.0 00. 0m 00 00.0 00.H 00.0 0.0 00.HH 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 03.0 00.0 00. mm 00 00.0 00.H 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 0m 00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00. 00. 00.0 0H. 00 mm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0.00 0H.0 00.0 0.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0\ 00.0 m .m 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.00 mm 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00 00.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.0 00.0 03.0 00.0 00.00 Hm 0.H-H0.H 0H 0:000 00000 0000 (Howw 00000 00000 .HCH; Hm 0H0 0H0H0 00.H 0H00 00000 00000 0H000 .00 @900. an 14 3.0.2.0.) 200.00 ‘0 HM. .4 £0331) ucom. #304 DA? dung .NH 0:02 a. ”mm .003 Ow .Hmipu H0q00H00000 0 HH 00000:0H -ZL6- 00.4 00.0 04.0 04.0 00. 00.0 40.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 44.4 00.04 00.0 40.4 00.40 000: o4pwmu 04.0 44.4 0440 44444 44n04 00400. 40.4. 00.0 mm»04 0040, 04.0 :0. 0 00.44 00. 00.00 0004 .000 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.04 00.04 04.00 00.0 04.4 0 .04 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.44 00 00.4 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.00 00.04 00.4 00.00 00 04.4 00.4 00.4 00.04 04.44 04.40 04.0 00.4 00.04 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.04 00 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.04 00.00 00.40 00.4 00.0 04. 0 00.0 04.4 00.00 04.04 00.0 00.00 00 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.04 04.00 00.00 00.4 00.0 00.04 00.0 00. 00.00 00.44 00.0 00.40 00 00.4 00.4 00.4 00.04 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 04.00 00.04 00.4 04.40 0: 00.4 04.0 00.0 00.04 00.0, 00.40 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 00. 0 00.04 00.0 00.00 40 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.04 04.44 00.00 00.4 00.0 00.40 00.0 00.4 00.40 00.44 00.0 00.00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.04 00. 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.00 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.40 00 00.4 00.0 04.0 00.04 00.44 00.00 04.4 00.4 04.04 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.04 00.4 00.00 40 . =00.4-40.4 4440 0:000 00.4 44.0 40.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 44.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 44.4 04.04 00.4 0.4 40.40 000; 040402 04.4 00.0 04.0 04044 00»44 00.00 0. 00.0 00.00 04.0, 04.0 4440 00.04 .0.4. 00400. :00; .000 00.0 04.4 00.4 00.04 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.00 00 04.4 00.4 00.4 00.04 00.00 00.00 04.0 00.0 00. 0 00.0 00.0 00.40 00.04 00.0 00.00 00 00.4 04.4 00.4 00.04 04.04 00.00 00.4 00.4 00.04 00.0 04.4 04.00 04.04 00.0 00.04 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 04.04 00.00 00.4 04.0 00.04 04.4 00.0 04.00 00.00 00.0 04.00 00 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.00 04.04 04.40 00.0 00.4 00.04 00.4 00.0 00.0. 00.00 00.4 00.00 00 00.4 00.4 04.0 00.04 00.00 00.00 00.0 04.4 04.00 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.4 00.40 00 04.4 00.0 04.0 00.04 00.44 00.40 00.4 00.0 00.04 04.0 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.40 40 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.44 00.04 00.00 04.0 04.0 04.04 00.0 04.0 00.40 00.44 00.0 00.40 00 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.04 00.04 04.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 04.4 00.00 00.00 00. 00.00 00 00.4 00.4 00.4 04.44 00.04 00.40 00.4 40.0 04.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.44 00.0 00.00 40 =00.4-00. 440 04000 40040 40040 04040 40400 40440 04044 440 040 04044 0404 0404 04040 00400 00400 04040 .00 mcom 40m 4cmgm 020m 400 #0:40 mcom 400 94m msom 40m 2404 ocom pm; wadom nempm 4000044000 0 4400400: -Z1.9- 00.44 0.00 0..00 0 00. 00.0 04.4 00. 44.0 00.4 00. 04.0 00.0 0000 040000 00.40 00404, 00.004 0 00h. 04.44 00.0 04.0 00.0 0.04 44.4 00.0 4 4000 .040 00.40 00.4w 04.004 .. 0 04. 04.04 04.00 00.0 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0. 00 00.40 00.00 00.004 04.404 0». 04.44 00.00 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.4 00.4 00 00. 0 00.04 00.004 00.004 04. 00.04 00.00 00.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.4 00.0 00 00.00 00.00 04.444 00.044 00. 00.04 00.00 00.4 00.04 04.00 04.4 00.0 04.0 00 00.00 00.04 00.004 00.444 0.. 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.4 04.0 00.0 00 00.00 00.04 0..004 00.004 04. 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.0 00.4 00 00.40 00.04 04.404 00.044 4. 00.04 00.00 00.0 04.00 00.44 00.0 00.0 00.4 40 00.00 00.00 04.004 00.044 04. 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.04 04.04 04.4 00.4 00.0 00 00.00 04.00 00.404 ,0.004 04. 00.04 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.0 04.0 00 00.00 00.00 0 .004 00.004 00. 00.04 00.04 00.0 00.00 00.04 00.4 00.4 00.0 40 000.4-00. 444 00000 00.04 00.0 00.00 00.40 00. 00.0 44.4 00.4 00.0 40.0 00. 4 00.0 000a 040400 00 .0 00.00 000404 00.444 00h. 00.44 00.0 00.0 0040, 00.44 44.4 40 04.0 00040.0:0 0 0 00.40 00.404 0.004 04. (0.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 00. 0 04.0 04.0 00.0 00 0. _0 00.40 00.404 00.044 00. 00.04 04.00 04.0 04.0 00.04 00.4 00.4 04.0 04 0. 0 04.40 0 .004 00.004 04. 00.44 00.04 00.0 00.0 04.04 00.4 00.4 00.0 04 . 00.00 00.00 00.004 04. 04.04 04.00 00.0 04.0 00.44 00.4 00.4 00.0 04 04.00 00.004 0.404 04. 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 04.04 00.0 00.4 00.0 04 00 0 00.00 04.00 00.004 00. 00.04 00.04 04.0 00.0 00.44 00.4 00.0 00.0 04 04.00 00.00 00.404 00.044 04. 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.44 00.4 00.4 00.0 44 00.40 00.04 00.004 00.444 04. 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 00.4 04 00.00 04.04 04.004 00.004 04. 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.04 04.4 00.0 00.0 04 00.40 00.44 04.004 00.004 04. 04.04 04.00 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 44 . :00.-40. 44 00000 00.04 00.04 40.40 00.00 0:. 40.0 00.4 04.4 00.0 40.0 00. 40.4 40.0 0004 040004 04.00 00.00 40.00 .0 0.4 www 0440 00.0 00.0 0040 40.44 00.4 44.0 4r.0 0000 .000 00.00 00.40 00.404 04.044 04. 00.00 00000 04.0 0040 04.04 04.4 04.0 00.0 04 00.00 00.00 04.404 00.044 04. 04.00 04.00 04.0 00.0 04.04 04.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.00 _0.00 04.004 0 . 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.4 00.4 04.0 0 00.00 00.40 0.004 00.004 04. 04.00 00.44 00.0 00.0 00.44 00.4 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.40 00.00 04.004 04. 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.4 00.04 :4.4 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 04.40 04.004 04.044 00. 00.44 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.-0 04.004 00.444 04. 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.4 00.04 04.4 04.0 00.0 4 00.00 00. 0 04.004 00.004 00. 04.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 04.04 00.4 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 04. 0 00.404 00.404 00. 00.04 04.00 00.0 04.0 00.04 00.4 00.0 00.0 0 00. 0 04.00 00.004 00.044 04. 00.00 00.44 00.0 .0.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 04.0 4 :0 . 00. 4 00000 0004 40040 40040 04040 04040 04040 04040 4040000 poxmflpm vammw .cz 44 mcom 004 4c040 0002 400 0404u macfi 400 404mmym 00040 4000244000v m 4H 0000Mm04 L. -ZZU- P 00.00 00.40 00. 00.0 L4.4. 40. .0.0 00.44 _ 0 00.004 HHH. 00.04 Cu.m 00.4 00 0 000$ .mgm 00.04 04.00 00.040 0.. 004 04. 00.04 00.0 00.44 04.04 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 04.00 00.40 00.004 00 004 04. 00.00 00.0 00.04 04.04 00.4 00.0 00.0 00 00.04 00.00 00.400 0 04. 00.04 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.4 04.0 04.0 00 00.00 04.00 00.000 00.001. 00.04 00.0 00.04 00.44 04.0 00.0 00.0 00 00.04 04.00 00.400 00.M04 04. \ 04 00.0 04.0 00.04 00.4 00.0 04.0 00 04.00 00.00 04.000 :4..04 04. 00.44 00.0 00 .04 04. 0 00.0 00.0 04.0 00 00. 04 00.00 00. 40 00.004 00. 00.04 00.0 00.44 00.04 00.4 00.0 00.0 40 00.4, 0 .00 00.040 00 .004 04. 04. 44 00.0 00.04 00. 04 00.4 00.0 04.0 00 00.44 00.00 00.000 00. (04 04. 00.04 00.0 00.44 04.04 00.4 00.0 00.0 00 0.0 00.00 04.000 00.004 04. 00.04 00.0 00.44 00.44 00.4 00.0 00.0 40 :MN. H5 QUOMU 04.40 00.00 40.00 00 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 0004 04040 40.00 00.040 00.404 000. mm“ 4 0040 40.04 00.44 00.4 00. 0000 .004 . 00.04 00.000 00.404 04. 00.44 00.0 00.04 00.04 00.4 04.4 00 00.04 00.00 00.040 00..04 04. 04.44 00.0 00.44 00.0 00.4 04.0 0. 00.40 04.04 00.400 00.404 04. 00.c 00.0 0.00 .04 00.4 00.0 04 00.04 04.40 00.000 00.004 04. 00.04 00.0 .44 04.04 00.4 00.0 04 04.04 00.00 00.000 00.004 04. 00.0 00.0 04.04 00.44 04.4 04.0 04 00.04 00.00 00.000 00.004 04. 00.04 00.0 00.44 04.04 00.4 04.04 0, 04.04 00.00 40.000 00.004 0 . 00.04 04.0 00.44 00.44 04.0 00.0 44 00.00 00.00 00.040 00. 000 04. 00.04 00.0 04.04 0.04 04.0 00.0 04 04.04 00.0_ 00.000 04.004 00. 00.04 00.4 00. 04 00.04 04.4 00.0 04 00.00 00.00 04.000 004 04. 00.04 04.4 00.00 00.04 00.0 04.0 44 . b esopw 04.04 40.00 00.0. 00.00 40. 00.0 00. 00.4 04.40 04. 00.0 4 040004 00.00 00.00 :0.40 00.004 00. 40.04 00.4 00.04 .0400 00.4 00.0 004 .000 04. 00 00.04 0 .404 00.004 00. 00.04 00.4 00.00 00.00 00.: c0.0 04 00.00 00.00 0.004 04.004 04. .44 00.0 00.00 04. 04 00.0 00.0 00 00.00 0.0 00.044 00.0 04. 00.0 00.4 00.00 0.00 00.4 00.0 00 04.00 00.00 04.044 04.004 00. r .44 00.4 \.04 00.00 04.4 00.0 00 00.00 00. 00 00.044 00.404 00. 00.04 00.4 00.44 04.00 00.0 04.0 00 00.00 04.00 04.044 00.044 04. 04.04 04.0 00.04 00.00 04.4 00.0 00 04.00 00.00 00.004 04.004 04. 00.04 04.0 04.04 04.44 00.0 00.0 40 04.00 04.04 00.004 00.044 04. 00.04 00.0 04.44 00.04 00.0 00.0 00 00.00 00.00 00. 004 00.004 04. 00.04 00.0 00.44 00.44 04.4 04.0 00 04.00 00.00 00.004 04.004 04. 04.04 00.0 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 40 . =00.4-40.4 44 00000 0000 0400 44044 0400 0004 40.-.. 40040 04040 04040 04044 404040. 40400 .00 40404 400 .004 440000 04044 0000 400 0000 400 04040 0000 400 00040 44000440000 0 44 04004400 -22L- 73 \l \o) x ‘ x4ovr Cu gm OJ.CU 03.x» .fi. :)o\ _J.\ \\o{ x, - \ nm.h; .*._a >¢.m+d mm.wq4 mu. wg.uu wc u L“ r «u \ um.w ww. 5m.m 4w.» ”c o gpg. JJJH1W MJWLTW kllJlTv kkrhh+r m} «Kw .w am.mH .%m.u ug.+1. AU.M4 34.4 .TU.U $1.: my).. a .p U (40‘... 0» J: ).)0\\ .-1 2 LI C KR r,“ :L ... (L P. . 7‘ V CQpJ: o). ‘ Jr. 1 r ‘L \_. _( k. 0 v .r .(.n\\ ,LH. CF. , .HH. .-...so ‘2. .. 0 V id. ..\:1 .J ‘07... .\ 0.1 LIL-ILL.- lrllr. _.[l at .C If “you”: _..\o..\-.. \..\03 .4. )nior. : (L L ,Lr\ ‘u.(. (C C (TC .0"! CU _.r U.\ .F C(0- . \o\ ..)) it x. f, n? ML u,r Cr ng CH. Cfloux flyoq; v\.m .on ) .\I am . N r (c L (U ng.mm A».Ag \u.\w :x.,, x (c L: cc ro om {a Cw fir cr.w om.o+ oa.~ aw 1L \ , \LC .. .\ \U‘U an-fl CO \\H UJAO .),_0\O m4 .\..\0 A) rH‘\O U I \0 4| )NIOJIJV r n; JA.A3 )...w » .\\ .;. w w «r tr no LC 1n c by mr Cv rr 0H.H AW. N .3 o (... , . Cw «..\..— CW 29“ Pk... VJH Tu. 0.3.0144. )-.0V\ . _ o\. x 0 \al \ r.‘ L W Of. fi..4_ nk.am 3;.an g.¢ c c yr cc ya 0H w aw wr OH.nH oo.m :o.\ o..aa NU (, r If. v; _r:( CFO OH JNLJru ON. “:0 Ufl Q..\zo,\.\ln fizOQU 1.2.044 DO \wqo (\ r. P P. mm.mg mo.ap Jr.qnu as.qoa >4. nJ. - \y.wx g\ c c” .H ob Ha up H 00.H cw.@ mp aw.\3 \4.,\ xw mww ‘\ u\ Cr u, 0“ uw c cg.m nH.0H 03.3 AJ.H \H.~ ix. x (L J... L...- ..\LL ~u.(o_,..urw m‘m‘uoflJWH ..\.flo \.,....A0\Jn Odo4..fl n). ).c\ . \r 1+“. \u Pun; N UN. \ i 1 .. \L r\ \ pl (\ ‘2‘ _ m, ..\ .‘f. OI) \. O \I ..I O.W0n\qm. p,h\ON.N‘ CHOUUN .\.,_N.or\.__.d DH. sto U U \o F /C0¢N HMQWH ”\w 1H Fu— H 030% (NON. AN. No.03 omomfl jflowflfl (gown C 0 CO CC CU HH ON N U0 NH CQoNH Gmofl CWow 03.0 “N \l . L (. . f . M. J ..\..y ...)0) x x: \. ) ( CA.\\ 3 oTV )johuv ,Vomym (& (C (H FHoHH Cuow Cwoflfi CNowH COoH Omom OJ.“ MU \ .0 (0 ”L C, Jcc CU wfiw Hm. OJ.” OH.HH TO.V Ffiou _\.\ )\. J o I f (L r 1. (\ C C ..\ (P LAN CL H (MIN 0 0H.0.H H.N. H-Ho. H4H» agopg .\v\r\..\Jlfi VHO \J . \\O \\ LJ 9 , do 0” wv . mt. J\.J )+.\ \. \\ ) s (x Hx C #(L—u / .N\ r . O . 0." 0., 21.0 \ «)4 .c } A WMoJG Fjoufiu T ;_ “4. LG.)% ivoHH \xom W\oNH M\ w NV mfiom Owom aw? OHMpQE Jeff. .\ . ..-. (r ( ,r ..r( _- PM a (W .n. A o ”11-... RN. _.) . 0. 1. mo .”_ O‘WOJ.M« U“. (N O,WONLOIM NH. \H9N.H \\ ..\ xxx-..“ )1.ML.1| h Omufl H H \L (\ ....» COLD. wu.3 J\.\; ,;.;JA u u no co to a co gr ck ma cm.a cg.\ .U LL..3 cu mg cu com OH.HUH ow. 0,.g ON.HH ca.m om.xa _.cH >4.) ,w.m c 0% m 0300 )Ho JV ..i o )\ a d , _ h P x C. r ON 1 _U 23% 0“an A?“ fin: S. 5.; 5.? S.“ 2.3 5.2 ,3 CE W . ( fir L; PC _ O J o 93.2» I .N )K , \ \ - . : oa.:m m..\» at.\:( M .U\m ca cc cc 0H 0 Cr.“ am.«fi 0 .HH cm.H em.“ ,0 .‘ r 0 Lb ucm Cg (x? a. m».a~ x4.Ha cw.“ JH.o ‘x.: x). . u \ \ToTA flJoU N~o\uu I. \ C r « a C \H Ch .H MC 05.? J\ h— {L 1 gm hr 0(C O; HuH OH. C_omH OJoQH O©.Q flon ) o - ,.o p U oN.04 mw.mc ow.uuu mN.moH CH. o\.UH J:.mH :. 1L c ca mm 03 m ON.» a a. x . (MC (V z c r: o. m m@.1a ox.mH . I .J C;.u. 0n.0r . u .n.. . . \4 , z , L U n ma H Cw u A nu.wm Qfl.mM mw.mmw mm.mwa 0H 0 .Lr mw.mc co.m ow.ma mw.aa mc.H ow.m M 1\ - r «c . p cm. ),.uy \ .x “.9 U. -\ m3: g5 . v . a ,k E by h P c mm 2 5.3 84 2.0 g , u 0 mg “(m cm Qua mH. \Noaa \\.\o ,q.\ ,u.‘ \. x u u no 9 Cc « Cc @H CO mH mm.H Cwom 0 ozon Saga THQHH )‘:> ..\, . . . ascgj :. . .L . nokr Uwr.r‘_ LEC.F .CW r UL“-H V. )3‘11 ) .L. c \ u \-) , rx HdfiOH awn .DJH H4fipoi 14Jfi4 A)_MW A HE «HOwM Q+mr$ Gpvmfl tHQwV paguwhm waxmahm . _ .. or C . 7. ... fl\ - r Q? Q) «Mm: . :1 \Ja ..\: G ‘ o r c ,r r m w‘ xuw m nuou gnu mgwam econ gum hemp, AvodgwpcooU n H AHdmemm . v -222- M; L M). \onH ...r. .om wwNow _.LLCQ mH CWQHH- mwhnwnwww .) ._ ...?)an ”£3.44 ...V.\oL wiln fijowi Ema: .5;th _ .L .llrlrull nrlllr llall. Fill.- oL.mm -L 0L.H em.m Lm.h co.m oL.c_ om om.mm m 0L.H om.L QL.L CH.mH Om.m 2. LL mw mw.mm . m m~.H oo.m mg.» om.LH QL.L on.0L Lw om.Lw om.LL o~.a ow.m oa.m CL.QH ca.m mm.mu cw. L co. Lm Nu 0L.Lm ow.wm ow.a om.L CL.L oa.ma cm.m OO.wo oH.LL m.mL ow om.®m OH.Lm mo.m 0L.L om.L oN.LH cq.m o .L. oL.~w L.NL mm oo.0m oo.Lu CL.H L.L ow.L CL.mH oo.m 0 .Lo mm.NN em.mL LN oo.Lm oL.mm ca.m cm.m om.w oL.mH mm.m CL.Lc oa.~u co.OL mm mfi.mm oL.Lm mL.H OH.L OL.L cN.mH oL.m om.oa mm.L 0H.0; mm Wm.Lm oN.Lm mw.a Hm.L .mo.u QV.LH 0L.m oL.Lo .Lm cm.LL Hm . =oc.H-LL. HHH agape Hm.oa mo.a N Lo.w oo.Lo m~.ma L. La cmmz oapwmm HL.Qm LN.“ om LL L,.u ,_ HH.UN _ amm: .qu MW.Lm ,m.w om.~o cc L; oL.L m .Lo 0 .Hm LN 0w 0. .Lm oo.0m 00.« OO.wo oN.LH cm.m mH.mo oL.om 0L ma oN.0m m .H, mL.m on.LQ mm.NH mm.o OO.OH ex. w on LH mw.Lm mm.Nm mm.“ mL.mo Lc.wa mL.m OO.OH CL. w om.mL NH mm. »m mL.Lm co.m m mw.mo oa.LH 0H.0 oa.Lo OL.LN mm.NL La 0L. om m.Lm oq.w LL.L om.Lo mm.“ aw.L oo.Lo 0L.Lw 0m.mL ma mm. om cw.wm ca.w 0L.m OL.Lo OL.LH mL.m oa.\o oa.rm om.mL La oN.mm oN.mm o~.H mL.m co.mo co.m om.m om.Lc oN.0m oL.cg ma om.Lm OL.Lm mo.w mL.L ow.ho cm.oa oa.m 8. Lo ofl.Lw ca.m ma 0L.1m oL.Lm .w.m mL.L co.LL o .:H oo.L 0L.L 0L.,w oa.w4 HM . 2m”.-fim HH asopm LN.LH Hw.pw LH.H mm.a mm.Lc mc.m mm. m LL.MH 00.0w cmmm OLLLLL NN.OL OH.Hm mm.m mm.m co. 0 L mw.m m». w Na.pm .m: cmmz .mcm mc.~L ,L.HL CL.L cu.m CL..c cm.LH mL.L mfl.pc mu.fim CL.LL OH Om.qm om.LL cm.m mL.w o\.\o Cw.LH oo.L OO.NO og.gm 0H.Hm L om.w 0H.mL om.w m@.m QL.LC -L.HH OL.N co.~o co.Lm mL.Hm m mq.mm oo.LL mH.L o~.m mL.Lo cL.: og.m OH.LC o .LL cw.HL L om.HL oL.wL cm.“ mo.m CL.H- CL.~H QL.L ca.~o cm.cm oN..L L 0L.Lm mo.Lm ow.“ mm.m oc.mc Lr.ma cw.w em. LL oL.LL - L m mo.CL oo.WL 0L.w 00.: mH.cH ow.ma mL.L om .Lc 0L.LL 0L.- L 0 .LM o~.~m ca.m nu.m om.LJc . OL.LH mw.w CL.3 0 .«m o\.wL m om.mm cm.OL 04.“ ca.m .Lc CL.mH cc.~ 01.0H cs. L cm._L m oL.mL ON.HL ow.m ofi.m om.mH c~.LH QL.L og.mo co.flm co .m. H :ph.-ow. . macho mflgm + .6:& Qafim madm masm mgsm Qfirm fiuscm ficzcm vgdom widon .OA Gama 3L... + Idem .9...» 9.3m .94. atom .Q; 2de Sr... 3+... 320$ 3:, gnu .9... J.,. Swag .9... .Hmmpm mqhw nalg - mgno MLu.pL.L. uLHaLm.me snowmwgu HLH m meLLL -223- LL.HL m-.Mm LM.H LL.L .m.. L«.m on.m LH.-H mm.LL .-L OLLMLL ......w...__... %‘.L: J.,...» ..\.x...., .. -..HE ._ ...”... 1....... Ah...“ ..\..HLL 2.2.... .LLW bu.cm uv.wm mm.m ow.x cfl.mx om.ma ovuw cauHH mL.wm on.HL cw CL.NL mm.Om mm.m om.o mo.mg ou.LH cH.L oL.HH mm.mm cu.wm mm mm.mL cm.L om.m om.@ oL.mc LL.LH mo.~ LL.LH mh.Lm ow.mm Lu cm.Hm 00.HL CL.m on.m nL.Lo CL.NH om.m 0H.HH CH.WL ew.Lo Hm 0L.LL om.mm ow.m om.~ om.m» m.w co.» 0H.mH om.mm mm.wm wm mu.om CL. L om.w o_.L 0H.mo 0L.©H m .L oL.mH mL.mL oc.mL mm oL.mL ow. n CL.m 04.0 om.o cm.0m cm.H Qw.mH og.mm 0H.~m gm OH.LL cw.qp mL.w ow.m 0H.0H CL.LH em. mm.OH oo.mm oL.mm mm om.ox 0L._N om.m om.o CL.HH om. w CH.» 0L.0H OH.mm om.mm mm mw.m. 0L..p om.m mm.m mm.HH cm. L cw.L om.HH og.mm 0m.wm Hm zmw.-Hm. H> agogm NH.Lm mL.H mH.m mL.Lo mo.w Hm.m Hm.Lo H L mm.wm cmm: OHHWLL Lm.mw LH.m OH.L 05.09 mm.LH LH.L LL.LO o o .7... mama .ucw cm.m~ oo.m om.m om.Lo om.mH QL.L oL.mo cm.HL OO.OL om 0@.mH 0H.m oL.L mo.wo 0H.0H om.~ oo.0H OH.HL om.mm LL oo.0 mo.m mL.m oH.mo OO.HH Ow.m ow.mo ow.LL oo.mL LL oH.mL ow.w 0L.m OO.Ho ow.mH oo.L o~.Lo om.HL 00.00 LL om.& OO.HN OL.N mm.m 0 .Lo OO.HH om.w 0H.0H OL.HL oo.0 0: om.LL o .on oL.m oN.m om.po 0H.LH m~.~ OO.OH om.©m 0L.Lm m: om.LL o~.o~ cw.m oH.L om.mo L.HH QL.L ON.HH oH.Lm ow.wm LL 04.4m ON.HL mm.m mm.4 am.MH ON.HN ow.” mm.OH 0H.H: oo.0o mg mm.m_ om.n~ mm.m mm.m om.HH co.ow 00.5 ma.Lo mc.Lm om.Lm NL mL.LL 1m.ob o~.m og.m ow.mH oH.mm QL.L og.mo mw.mm mL.mm HL ..Omol.©.w. > QSOHO mo.mH ma. Wm.mc LL.m mm.w mL.Lo NH.NH Lo.mH mama omppmz m .mm HL.H mm.mo ma.wH ow.m mu.flc LL.LW mo.m, cam; .mqm o~.mm 0L.Lm QL.H LL.m 0H.mo QL.OH o».m cm.Lo OL.Cm co.LL 04 o~.mm ou.om oo.m om.L 0 .Fc o~.m om.m om.Lo QL.LN om.mg mm ON.Hm cw.Lm oL.H oo.m cm.,o OL.MH 0H.m 0 .HH o~.Lw om.HL Lm OL.Hm om.mm mL.H ow.L mH.mo om.oH cm.m m\.oH mm.om 0L.LL Hm mm.Hm mm.NM mL.H mL.m om.Lo om.Lo mH.m mm.OH m~.Lw 0L.NL om 0H.Hm ow.mm om.m OH.L om.mo CL.mH ow.m om.oH oo.mw om.HL mm om.mm co. m om.H 00.4 N.wo om.cH ow.m om.Lo ow.mw 0L.HL Lm mm.om 0H.mm om.H om.m me. C ON.HH mo.m om.Lo cw.mw 0L.mg mm om.mm o~.om oH.m oL.m 0 .LC OO.HH om.L OL.OH om.mw 0H.mm mm ON.Hm 0,.4m OH.m 0L.m c~.~o og.mH mm.m oo.mo cc.4m 0:.mm Hm me.H-Ho.H >H adage Qfism + .vcm masm mesm masm mgsm Qasm venom vfiscm quom vasom .oz £de 3.qu op... mtrHCm .9... #wrm op...» Cfimd .9; up...» muofl .9»... add. .93 2w... Emma op3 .Hmmpm mechpuoov H HHH HHQLMmLH T) I [L‘lj ? n": .k-. ' '5 4. T , Au .1. L HID. WP] .t. Lk-L .~ La. 1 ‘LIJ: A}. fit. ‘3 .1n‘ --.‘ .mr, A Round R0 LI {"1 ~-. ”I: 17 n!“ 11 T? ‘. fl. pound A. ..l . \_:\, -~ 0 l V fl rteer‘ T7" '7 v I“ 5.. ‘: U I"? ' ~224- C»CC>COOC)LROO-;TL'\ O \OLWOLWOLROU‘ 0 ~03 Lr‘\1.‘.c~”\(\. 3‘0. r—i UK if H O -.‘1 [‘00 r—{ b-xo O \O \{W o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O L .\O h“. r—i F- C) C. L’xL'N \f) Z? O (\I r"| r'\ mi! U\-‘T CU MIA \ ”14:—3-3 -L‘ -..T-LI-H'J—H'J’ -r (x. 3.3-3“; .L’HLIH’I—H'THH’HU C; C) C; (W C) Q C) ("I t' C ‘ ‘ n) O O C) C? ('1' O C; Ln C: C; O \O (f- r— r—4 H (a -3 r-~J r41;\.w r". 0 C1 b) C) C) L) on. LA) (\1 u; (L- [w— on O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O lixlfl P~~ w -:.T O ...-3'“; -.\ \L‘» :\-:.’ (\J .L‘ a) (3 m [\- L\--:I ..\ ..\ .1‘\.:I c~-- L\< L~- D~ r~ L\- (\- L- L‘w L\- L~ (fl N L\- b-w [\— I'.“- E\* (\- c~~xL [\- ("x 1m 3 H m G r: omc O o C :3 mm C 0 C) r: r' O r -—I" L) (\J m Mus) (\J —:J 'L.‘ MHHJ‘ C. U\ f\- (N O O (\J C QC) 1:C\J r—i ("\ o o o o (”W (\J (\J (\J M(V C O “\(‘ucnwr—i '(\!C\J(’\(\lm(Y\C\J("‘\C\1(\Jr-I C.) ‘(3 C.) (I) C‘ C) U‘ Q ‘ C" ..\-43' C‘ C») r-’ ("x 0‘ . C\ ..1\-_:_' O O O O O \L, \J [\- \0 13.x; «L, \o x.) In C) O C: C) (T‘ (‘7 C 1!". C) O (\J O \O O\ \0 LIME) 1I\ C. o...- r--- C i) C) O O O O O O O O O O \L) N £\-1f\.fl £\\O \C) [‘~\£,I "D (\J C)» (_:v C.“ O O O (‘4 -7) C‘ C: L‘ N C) Ln 0 O C) C") L‘wU: \L) (x. (\- (u H C) ox (\4 ..\ .? OJ u—l [\- w (I: C) o O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O ivx r—‘l L) (4;) -.;x H O (A .-\ [\~ ..\—:3 Q -q\ O H a.) w C_;r4r+C‘¢_Jr—1HH QMC) r-{CJr—{r—{Cr-I CDC-MW; COG. Cilf‘ (Wm 0000000 00 JH u. w r' \ r‘-- C. (\J ..\-L‘i r“. a. [\- r—4 \0 Hum C) L‘\1J”\.1f\\;'| Ln '3 cc 0 o o o O O o o O o o o O O o 0 O o o o o o o o (.2\ H 3 \U (.- J C) O C‘) ‘3“ U". uxtc C». '0‘. H O \0 (\J (\J h- (A19. 9.9L") HCVCVr—fHCUCVCVr‘4r—1r‘4 HHCVCUr—‘IC‘UCVHHr—IH (‘ (..\ C, C) C C" C O C; C) 1 r'\ O C) C) ISL“ C) 1mm f"; C? gym—4 f ~09 -5. (fl (T\ #4 [‘0 H 4T ("‘3 (W U\\\O H U\ H (\J m u\ 0L; m (\J m 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O o O o L‘~\U E- .N—LLJ‘ \O U‘ u.) L1.) l\- ['-— m \3 \Z) (N two; {\- D—\0 r— [\— L\- m ‘LPC)C‘OU\(‘I(3(.T(WC‘ \f.\— OC‘CTO .OOmOCQm \._r "J (x: H r-\;; r—* 14'“. L‘\ H (' \ L". \O \C 0.; [\- v\——:T (fl “\UJ 04 \A m 0 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H (x: mg? C: .3 \Q- r4 1A-: m w :Ih\ 11“ (“x (\1 -2? (\1 .341 (v\\o r‘ir—‘ir'4r4r—4r’1v‘fir‘ir‘ir‘4fi‘i Hr—{r—{Ht—Ir—Ir-{r—lr‘ir‘i C‘: C1 -.‘ C‘ C) (If C: C3 C“ H LU C; L) O U‘\ 0 In C2 (3 C) U\ C) .3 \1”) .u".(".\Q C' UL'HJUJ ('\ -‘~\£> a) UN 0“) (”GP-\O C C: \L) C- [- O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O LXL’N .3 ("W [\- px CT“ .11 L’\ Ox if In r4 (\1 (fl 1‘— \O (\1 1.01—I". f\- L". 41 L". ('\(‘\('\("\("\ (\J ("\(Y"\O\("\('\r-*{ 1:: O"\("\ (”\(‘fl (NOW 0\ ("W “\(‘ROWr—‘l \ (\l O C? (D C)1“-OCOC? C31” :‘~—;3 HF‘CDC‘ C>OOU\OCZ‘ .:.U\ H Ux cm cm 0.2 cu Cu N C) C (*N | ... C\1 L” “J CO \0 n 1“ CV (W mm o o o o o o o o o o o o ,—-{ o o o o o o o o o o o o 10.-.: \O L \\O C (MIA C) H VLF C) (u L'\\O Ox r‘~-...L+1r\\o Cg, ,:.* Q In. 1411.314 \1. .Lf“.]_1\Lt".la‘\\{g \U (v o LP\IJ\U\U\U*.U\L1\LH\Q Lt. (\n C C (13 HI (U C: Q.) F1 C: O) H (.1 (W.,: 1!xe [\ O.) U\ C.‘ 03 ;_-1 H H (\1 (fix: 11\\(> b—LIJ Ox 0 m :11 \‘i_)\.)\1,‘\L3\u\p\£)\£J\OC“G)‘O S‘D-PNF-b-E~L\L\-l¥w~fljo ' or‘. D., F’. ori o L. 23' 0 S4 11:) 44‘ 0 Li) +3 C Q) $4 C Q) Lr' ;-' :3 [r] ;=._.; -225- HHLLLHLLOQL L HHH L.HLm 4 CH.Hm HL.H LH.L Lm.m LL.HH LL.H LL.L LL.. Hm.m LH L ELL; OHLLLH CL.LL um.m mm.CH .H.NH Lm.Lw HL.m Lq.mH 0H.HL LL.H «L mH :mcL .aLm GL.HH mm.m CL.CH co.mH ;H.mm oH.m CL.mH :L.HL cc.Lm CL.L o. LH om oL.LH mH.m mm.Lo cL.mH mH.mw OL.m om.mH 0L.LL cc.CL ow.H c .LH LL oH.m mm.m mo.mH 0L.mH cm.Lm cm.m oo.L nH.0w oo.\m mm.o 0 .HH LL oH.mo om.m mm.mH mm.CH OH.HN oL.m mH.@H om.mw ON. ML CL.© m. «H w om.LL Om.m mH.Ho OH.HH om.mm 0L.m o..H OL.HW CL.Hm oL.H Om. WH w mL.LL cw.m OL.OH ML.N OO.HN om.m oH.mH mw.om 0L.Lm mL.H oH.LH w 0m.wH nH.m mm.HH mm.m QL.HL ow.L om.LH 0L.ow om.mm om.H 3.LH Lu oL.oH mL.m Hn..c_ LL.m am.,w 0H.H om.Lo oo.ww 0L.Hm mL.H mm.OH mm aw.L© mL.m 00. (H oL.HH oH.mm om.m ow.mH OL.HN ob.Lm mL.H CL.LH NW OO.HH oo.m mL.OH om.HH em.mm oo.m 0L.LH OL.NL oo.HL -mH.H Hm.LH Hw =00.H-LH. HHH muggy om.H LL.m mm.HH OL.H mo.m LL.L H oo.m m_ m cam; OHLL LL.m Lo.wH LH.LW Hu.m mL.mH CL.HW .m mo.w H mH cwmz .mcm cm.w m OL.HH oH.cw mm.L oL.Lo QL.mm m OH.L mH.mH ow oo.L Le mm.LH oH.mm mH.L o~.mH mo.Hm m om.H CH.mH mH ow.m Lo mL.oH oN.mm m .m mm.LH QL.LH cm 0L.m o .mH LH mo.m Lo mL.OH mL.mw mm.m NH.mH mw.Hw c mm oH.w mH.mH HH oL.mH om.m H Lo OH.HH om. w GL.m ....o CL.mL 0L.Lm oH.L mu.HH 0H om.m 0L.m co.Lo QL.HH mm.Lw om.m oc.mH mo. m 0H.Hm QL.L OO.NH mH 00.HH oL.m oc.LL mc.mH cw.mw 0H.L oc.mH OH. mm 0L.L mo.H om mH LH om.LL mm.m OO.HH OH.WH OO.HW oN.L om.mH 0L. NW 0L.mm ow.H mH HH mH oo.mo ew.m mo..o mH.m 00.9“ mL.m 0L.mH o\.cm OO.HL mH.H mL.mH NH ow.wo m\.m mw.o m.HH om.Lm mm.m mm.mH em. o..L oL.H mL. mH HH :mH.-Hm. HH asopm wo.mm H mo.m mm.QH Lm.Lo mL.CH mH.HH LH.L L m QLLL oHLLmL HA.HH ‘ m Lm.wH mw.mw LL.\Q LL.mL mw.om HH.L m HH cmmz .Lum QL.LL mL.m om.LH 0L.LL m-H. .c cc.L. 0L.Lm mc.m m; CH OH L.LH Ln.m mH.HH om.aH oo.0 m-.Ho .mm 0L.Lm om.HH m CH L om.MH 0L.m co.m 0L.mw om. m ,m.\o oH.Hw 0m.mL oH.L m CH L LQ.HL om.m 0L.HH mm.NL yL.m .HH Cp.mw cw.mm mH.H 0L.NH H OO.wH oc.L oo.MH ew.Lw cm.m mm.wo o~.ww oL.Lm om.m mH.0H o OL.NH mm.m m.mH om.Lw Hm.m oo.CH om.mw 0L.Lm 0L.L LL.oH m oH.0H m.m om.mH om.mw mL.L cm.Lo mw.mc ON.Hm mL.m cm NH L oN.LH w.m mL.mH OO.wm ow.m oL.\c 0H.H“ om.Hm mh.L oo.m. m om.LL mm.m o..aH Lg.mw ow.m oL.mH om.LH CL.-m QL.L ou.mH m OH.HH mH.m mo.mH oL.ww oc.L om.Lo w.mw cc .Lm oc.m c. we H :mm.I©w. H mzogm LosLo LHL LHL LHL LHL QHOH :HQH CHOH :HoH gasm + .Lum Leda + .ncm 0H .Ls meow .LH Lam .LL, smog .LH .LL meom .LL, LLL .LL cwm ..L .LL meow .LL Lam .Ls p mpm L.1.. l fifti n (u 'T'TT aL-A— ELI-JD. ‘ I ‘v‘. t o nued) wt. ‘l-‘J‘ t: . Bone -Lt h‘ 2‘. v“. t 0 Lean t. h 1\ .- K4 \-. I] b—«i D. t . 30 n e V‘- <31“ <12 .H (Ti ,0 0"“ r AH L1 or; C) 0H C‘ L4 0r l C) ,. J :“fiNIuOInIAOO‘M ‘ J\ (\J (*\\O LA U\ -|>CJ\/ . O . . . O O O o (\J ("W V\ (\J (\J (\i (*‘\(\J f"\ ?.73 14 ‘~ 14". H (is: (..\) UN 0 O O (\1 C. ~L'\ H H C I .‘\ C3 nu 0’.) O O (\4 (\J HJHI ’-C__ .‘ Q ~~J O ,4 z 0.19 58.7”) 3 Ln G H U\ 0 O C) (\J ( H r4 H C.“ x (.x L.,\ [‘—-\Lu 0 O (\l C- H r-I H H Ir “‘3 '1 :\ 1«-\ 0(w A A . 'L/ ‘\_/ 1:-.93 11.6. 1h.2S 13.60 11 11. 10.20 F‘( k In G If. 1H O O O C. In In (\ r4\CJ O‘xC) H H Q\r—4CJ.J (‘x Q 0 0 O O O O O O O c». v.7: \O [\- r~ {\— erH: II‘. c w w m w L\. CU cu m. w ...v QC) C)U\U\OCC Ch"; C) ..--{0.4 t\-\C EVIL. 0.10; C\. . . C O O O C O O * ("x m m m m m m m m 0*“ 1RD“ C; O O C. O C C) C-‘ ox rh--Ifwu v.0 0“ (V (\1 I O O . O O O O 0 O \u L\<\1 CdI—f‘INC‘—Jk\l (\ .3 . HriHHt—{Hr—{Ht—ir. CC CCCIOCOCC ("u H: U\ U\\O (fl H cu ("I (..- O O O O O O O O O O C) (3: H: (*I O (\1 (mo: 01 N (\J ax. (\1 cu cu (x. (\J r‘1 (\1 (x COOC-COCC; H C: (\J \L) L\-...I*\1_)\L, O O O O O 0 O O (\J O H O (”..\ (“Jr‘- HIrHUHL’H'JgfgtHzrmr‘m'. U‘C;IJ\(_>C2C)II‘C\OC‘ QH \QLJu‘In 3V\Ov\11\(‘ L, w 0 O O O O O [\-\U\OL\L\.\O\O\£:[\-L\~t\—m O O O Q C Iern (:3 (3 In. F... (3' 4301* “no H H m w r4 .\ o o o o o o o o o o mung H (\J \1, -3 In“) rm (w . H r H H H H H H H H r! I d (, 0 C: H .T c: a t>H(\1("’\.:IU\\D(\CL2\L\C) <0:- M “\rflc-‘xrfi rd ("\( “HHH—3 (L f: :d: (3 :3 0 $4 0 (19+: L. :3 CD (3.) f1". ::.: l N N O\ I (T(§<'_‘)C~(_)O(IC)CICJ ‘(U H Hrr C x.) (\Lrucu 1.1".r4 (".1 -- r 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C“NUJHC)\0U\C'”\HO.- \('\ C"! -J\ .-\ A Lv'J L'x L‘w C) fl" .\--T H C.) C) C) C.“ C”) C.“ r4 r1 I ) 4” (W {a ‘u'\C) h".‘f\(‘1f\C) 1' L "I [\‘(F-i‘Wrifr-‘N r“! (".I".( (\J \.~ 0 O O O O. O O O O 0 O O —'3H:T.;I——;T.;TH;3 ”LT—J-JIT—‘T —|’r—+ ,, L1". 0 C‘ C"; LN C‘ L C3 In. (‘I C. WMr‘*[\-CC\(‘\W(\.(\.r41\ 0 C O O O 0 O O O O O O (\J L'\ J\ H H C, }\ L\- C: L‘\ C) .1 ["4 L.) Q I“! r“. {—i () C r“! C} l’“"' O U\ C) (_“- C) a") U‘~.1:"~.O ,‘v ’TVQ (31“ H L'\ r". (j: C\.- x.) (\1 r-4 \L O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O \L‘ \D l\-L-'\‘LJ \ [\-\-' [\— L’\\ITJ g) (\- r-iHHHHr—iriflr4r‘4r‘4 CTU\U\OCI JCIOC)C‘ ’jr'\ (\1 [\-C\J (\J “I 'L\ U. r-‘I (W, [\~ u C.‘ O O O O O O O O O O O O MOHF‘lHr"!IJ\‘_IL,IQ ()H‘f (W (”I “I (W ('I C' x w (v . ("W U. ('\ r4 LAC) O C) O C.) J ..3 C: L. -’T \L‘) (d (T 0.1-N r4 C: L1“: II‘. \L; r“ .‘ \) O O C O O O O I O O \OQU\U\\O\OU\\U \L1\J\(»- C) C C‘ CT- C3 C) O O C.‘ L". O- \2’ (Y\ L\. ,3 (no; H M L‘. (N \L. . ,3 v“. O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0" ‘U '17 -_:f U\ \C) -3.' r4 ON C) .I‘\-' Hr‘ir—tl r-{f—‘IHI{f—‘IHI‘I C C In C.) C) U. (f) C) C C; 0*...» (Wu: Cu II'\ (I) w [‘—- (”x W Lu' . ..J V. O O O O O C O O O O I O 01.) (fi‘ (\ OJ H HZ! L\ (‘V C.) C, . ‘~ (r\ (“J 0\ 0”. (V ("x ("\ w rm m (V. (a H COCIOIHCCJCI C} .')\r__\ m 0 0,7141%: C (u v\ t~~ c' H O O O O O O O O O 0 O (5») “\F‘N ('4 ('—\\C) (:3 ('4 v'\ \f.‘ ("1 ('\ HULK LAM“: U\L2\L\I:\ -..T -\L‘J (“NHL-NO C'C‘)L)I.a\oc\ 1;: HUM -L\\'> IflHHTIuJOLTr-xH 0 O O C O O O O O O (\J O C.) riC‘ H r‘IOJ CD. {-1 v-{U\ Hr4r‘ir—‘ir‘1r—{r-‘F‘il—4r‘ir-‘I OCIC)(DC)1:\C‘L\Q(‘. 4J4: (L; L'._) b.) (J\ (A. \1; U .c.) .3 b' g \.._. O O 0 O O O O O O O O Q 5’ (“V-1H.“ U\ Li (W (\J In (‘v\ :1' \L} :‘(ZHH HHrfir‘iffiHr—{P‘i L“. O _l \O L. (\z -.T_E o C. q r—’- (\l “\Lj L1\\L_) (\-u_) V\ (_) (.1 : CT“ 4'41—3 . HIT.H. $-34? 1H CL‘ c: ;“ c, :5 o L. 0 (10+? SH "a v.“ [-’ ~ 4 L." r. U“ \“U P'- --1-::H7_U-LIP\H;:H;H"\ 0. H I:'\.L"‘x(" 1‘. (“‘1 (”'\1t\("_‘)1 (_' :,_‘_T LU [—4 Li“ \LJ H C'\ (M) 1.3: r--1 K k» 0 O C O O O O O O O 0 (\JH _ HH (\JCic (‘x C 4km v—4l-4r'fi'l—{r‘i r'1r‘1r— H I“! 4 1». o C: C. - . 0 c: 01:" 1... . \_;I_.'\r-I.—:J :‘~H£‘~r{1;\_f‘ )( O O O O O O O O O O I O L‘~\;J CxHS-TT (“hi 1.\1".15 .‘\[~ r’HHHHHa-’r4r—1r.i CC) ('7 C> C‘ ('31'.(’“LI\ C.‘ .'.‘~ L. N-.Iv~IJ‘\.L‘\ r-- rm < C H., n‘. O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 H13 (\1 ,_:T C) ( ‘ \_."\ L \ (“1 f‘ ‘\ C --I Hi; (I'\(“\.(‘"\("\(“"\ Vi. (’\(’.('.(‘\[, C? 19.19. C‘; C C’ I ICz (' (“\‘U hi C w-‘j ((‘C "-:-J ‘k \ O O O O O O O O O x.) UIL' \L‘ \L) Um;- 1.- \..l”" C.) C; O C) (1‘0"? (:>I<’\ <’ >t~- (\— r» C c~ [~‘L“\( «L\ If. x. . f' x O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 L1.._‘T-.‘L\~_UUJF"L\\;J ( . .jt- r‘HHrir'lr{Hl‘I.—‘ri'4 COChCZ:((>F‘Cw("\ \ (g V», [n 11.. . 2,1": (~. L‘- In. f~~ H, O O O O O O O O O O 0 (INN. \O C. (‘7 cw N (j . c'. f“\(~.£\1(“\0*.(\J(‘.(» Lu (”ML r—i (:mC C)CC)L CC“ r" ‘—\_; 11‘ ,W HJ \£, .. L\-‘ 13'\ 'v. (-1 {\j 0 O O O O O O O I O O 0 ‘JM\ \4_:\;’ AI (\- (Y'\|1_\“Uf\l K.-:\ 5',“ .3 (V\ ‘.,:3 .— 1 LJ". .LI 1.:\\ Ik\h‘\_—.—_ L ‘ (\J OC‘zUxC'-‘L.f‘.(" C‘OL.1 g-{Lx L‘. (Y'x r-1' (“Cu ("\ ',-.I.‘. ‘U. I. \ ~-'\ 0 o o 0 O O o o I o o o T“ fl.) C (4 (\J ( ' Uqf (J ‘ r 5; r—‘ r4 H H r4 r4 Fl «"4 ( V r! L} C.) L’\ C3 C‘ C.‘ C‘. C“ C C‘ h- L'! C'W NW} (‘WVQ C‘- M. .3." ('J ". O O O O O O O O O O O :. r — .~-IJ\ '3. 1‘» (x. x.) (v .n) I 1\H HHHerflC‘wr—‘r‘l u“? [H.. O l Pi Ln 2; ' (i a; 7; H r-4 (u r x, 3‘1"\: [any 9\ ("a (1 i" :‘Ts 1.. ILXL U‘l-‘1)-,1_=‘L'\L\\‘ " u. C C. - -. C: I i [_I ‘0 .4} L ‘__‘ C') I ‘ r-j \O 1(\(' -.CW‘CICIIW \ (. ( (f3 ( ) o c- ’. (”5 r-. :9- o o 0 1; OK“ g, . \——- I 1.. (‘ -227- swag oflppm: \} n) cmmi .bCfi (Y\ (\J v\ .LT _ 'J\ flow ”A. Wu 0 Hw.wa o~.mm 4m.: NIP. 14(u O 0 J(\J o (\J -.‘3 \x‘i \ -—A- \j‘,“ o u\ “r% r401 O 4\ (\5 J\ H - -\CO O 0’\ r-‘l O V.\.\.I1 _\.~Jl.l . I . Kg vr uh ; 3p. , ow.rx m;.n ‘\.\ w\.rr +Lxlk. .klhn. M .H “3.»u )4.u\ ;.. . Ln . Cu u C. _;m »\.,:‘ ..\- \\ «hilt» uc (J u T4 m ) oh.uu 3,.1 \ . L . hr gn Co u pw.wa n\._\ a..;. KLLKV L cu ; ‘ (p (C A UM NH 0‘. >fl.\u ,.. . Lo ac CC on Ouofiy J o 3 L n J ”C On N oo.gA og.m no.xa \c.«H Cu dc cl ; om.mH pa.wu co.ax mm.na g H Cw - 1 u .u, L 0,.a4. «7.1 \,.\ .c _\ n .u ”r hun.um \ om.mofi ”.7 ..-: v\ ) ‘g F L:.~ LC 9H Jn. u ,.uw xx ) 1 (c ow eq.m\ m\.w o~.mr Uc.q mw.:m 0N.0 oo.\H )u.mw _H.gu hv.ac ON.HN QR ( , \-. ., \ \. , \ fix JN.%W mw.w cm «a om.ma om.Hm oa.a m .wu «d.nw 9% ND mg.ca cm.pa N» (r L CC 4 Ouoda «2.1H 1 .\ x x ( Cc Ow um CO.am mu.OH ,\.n r 0%.:A o .. ..\ Li , CH am cw.m mm.wa m3.;v ,;.m \( cu Hm ow )3..\ 0 4 ca flH 0&.4H 32.mq 3¢.m m..w \U Qg _c pm UM.QH om.~H “N )1 o .. \ ( (( (r. 1‘ . \0 \ u. , cn.mw cw m on.mH ug.wa mq.flu ‘w.« 4n.NH UV mm Cm.wm mH.H ou.\a m OP .7». m‘mon\ AH. 0.. J._\o) )L “C CF 11. OM OH UHoN‘V _Ziuownx \,\.o\) -C :4 ”N. 2.0. ,,- «M. I)“ WH CH. (H CComxm 0&07 )\o\‘ \- C (C (U C; QC Cwufiovx.» MN 05 pm c¢.n om.wfi «o.ma ,».,\ u ; c: ”H mu.mm oa.am xx.o; :\.(w L c\ _a nk.; o\.7a \m.uw >\.\, h. cc cu mm ww : c u «c c: 0; cw.po Cu.Hu .. z\ c ( ML n\.+_ \ o .- :Nm.HIHO.H .4 asap) w r4 ow H mm.w ¢.. fi,.:+ #\.. hwk> \ WfioUA .T.\Vom ~3o_\.1 WAQ. (u .r TU r\.‘\ ”Hod {Mod rwuo\m +1\o+ nkWLFI Liliu "\4 v_ 4 x _.g\ ; \ a ‘L C 7 o ;‘.J ;_.\, \ \ ur:.h L H (s . . .\ J\ + c ,1 ‘ ‘ 4 - \ <0 .R Ln.o ur.wfl Mquu \\.um NHLm .a.>r “H.N“ «N.Hw :w.ma me: owp+qr ow.nw 09.3 nw.3 ;w.nr cw .w CW.L cm.VR ca.su mmqnw ”(.w, ha ewe: .mcm J.\ x“.n a . Cr ha 09.3w oa.r :x.\ ,\ «c x. RF um ac Mw.\H 3‘ n o ,\ , ).- . p 4 \w., ‘ \\ rL U y. w ;.1 . u \10 C — ..\ LI. ( 6\ film .\ \2J.\ (K Vr (V .A( K‘.\ PU. ~/ . f D ..\/x) .,\o\ - x (_v P CL Sk. -..Ho.‘ ‘ [..\J. .\ W- \‘U (H HH _3.40UM x} O\ r; \r . ..\.x | C \L y . 0 IV ..J.\..\O: C” cc J.» amoum CM 0 Ca LH Cw.dm Om.fiw 3 .1 ((.(r On wt Cu K; ON.HH Cn..H .A .zuk xwva . firxom .\\“.N.__JI ‘\. O’.‘ | (..\ IL A m Hr“ .WJOWV ......)_\ x .1 .xl. «t (“Cs r . u .. .. )..o\\ , Lu AC C x. ,4... \s +. \ u \ \\\. r \ . \r. \u . CI 4 ‘10.. ...\ - Q (L C ‘Fm «J. ~. 09.)“ hm.N m“.mfi xg.n r(.um Cr ; FU.HH :V.xw 07.03 ,m.n- m” a“ pg “MOUTA M7om ; 0 LC .L pw yLr.‘ N N. C50,...1 A._ o\..\ [ \\.. C” U‘C C‘UOCW 0W \MO(\\ \l. “(W munfi .\/_.K.H0m mfiocm “\o\l .UOFMP. .r\.r_ n‘r. pkLO/UL CfilmOJP-H .‘:\)O‘\H N C- JJ uw.\ >\. u 11 H OH H ,.; , . mg n «a , (h (L n _( V4 . J.t _ :x _u br~ u 3..“m :\ \) .,\ Duo?) .-....J C( (r L.“ JH Odor? Gino: ..Vo ... -m \LM (C (I. OLQOC O.N-UV 4:; « flea p; , 0;.mfl 03.n7 J.nx ,, M ac kw cu.ch DH.3\ >\.W\ (c ”\ ma.wg sfi.n xé.\4 \\ gr ac (w aa.u cm.JH c .[V n‘.nm my ,c cu.Cm n¢ , ( . to hr uv.MH Ofioflx 9).\ \H.r L ac CC rm U5.\q )qo)+ H) ( (V (M L I? ..\LH W‘O,.u \..\|OJ_\\ \\. ‘( CU CF 01. ,3 1L he Cu on rw.;4 w\.;- \ ;c:.0 Lflh ea 31 1. (r LL QH Aw 0J3 344).; h '.0 «emu» Dram» Crtq C 4 :0 “OWIJWo . ». .3)¢3 okrn” u.fi gnafl .a., 2ma14 .3.. .‘.‘ \ . n k» L" \H c~,vH FVEW.M + . . 4 a, < r rt ++k- Lcr;,‘ - .. g .r 4 .w anAJH. on: pawn. o)... ..\H.U.u4 03.. h N; M\La Cycrnw + omuffir 00 I w ..- .. 4 3.. MWCAJWJ I) . 4J4 O) y \ \. rflu ; 4. p u +, pimpu ATQZmeQCOJ :. {I1 21.3 a \ - . . .. -.rrk ALL? run...“ -228- 00.0 00.0 00.m 00.H m0.0 05.0 m0.m 00.0 00.0 0 00.H 00.m 00.00 05.0 00.H 05.0 00.5 50.00 00 00.0 00.m 00.0 00.00 00.0 05.0 00.m 00.5 05.00 00.m0 00 00.H 05.0 00.m 00.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.5 00.0 00.00 0m.m0 .0 05.0 m0.m 00.m 00.00 00.0 m0.a 00.m 00. 00.0 00.00 00.00 0 00.H 00.5 00.0 00.00 00.0 m0.H m0.m 05.5 00.5 00.00 00.00 50 0.0 00.5 m5.0 00.m 00.0 mm.a m0.0 00.0 00.5 00.00 00.00 00 m .H 05.5 05.0 00.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 05.5 00.00 0 .mm -0 m0.H m.5 00.m 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.5 00.5 mm.NN 00.00 00 00.0 05.0 0m.m 00.00 00.0 ,m.H 00.m 00.0 00.5 m0.00 00.00 mm 00.0 00. 00.0 00.00 m0.m 0H.0 m0.0 0m.m 00.0 00.00 0m.5m 00 00.0 00.m 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0.00 00 000.0-05. HHH 00000 H0.0 00.0 00.0 H.m mm.H 00.0 00.H 00.0 50.0 00.0 mm.0 00. 0,.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.5 00.0 00.00 . a. . 0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 m5.m 00.0 00.0 00.00 m0.00 00 00.0 m0.0 05.0 00.00 05.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 m..0 00.00 00.00 00 00.0 0m.m 00.0 0m.0a mm.m m0.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.50 00.00 00 05.0 00.0 0m.m 0m.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.5 00.5 00.50 00.00 5H 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0m.00 0H 00.0 00.0 m0.0 m0.mH 00.0 m0.a 05.0 m0.5 m5.0 0m.00 mm.0m ma 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.00 00.0 mm.a 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.00 00.00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.5 00.5 00.00 00.00 ma 00.0 05.0 00.0 m5.0a 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.5 m5.00 00.00 00 m0.0 00.m 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.H mm.m 05.5 00.0 00.00 00.0m Ha =05.-Hm. 00 00000 50. 00.0 00.H 00. 05.0 00.0 05.00 0000 000000 mw.H Jo.m mm.m 0w.a 0w.m mm.“ .3.m¢ c000 .mcw 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.03 00 00.0 00.0 5.50 00.0 mm.H 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0. 0 00.H 00.0 0m.00 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 00.H 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 05.00 5 00.H _ 0m.m 05.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.m0 mm.0m 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.50 00.00 m 00.0 m0.m 00.0 05.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.5 00.0 00.00 00.00 0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.00 m0.“ 00.0 00.0 00.5 05.0 00.50 00.00 m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 05.0 m5.m 00.0 00.0 00.00 0m.mm m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.00 00.00 H =00.-00. H 0:000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000 000:0 00000 00000 00000 000 0 .00 0000 .0; 000 .00 0000 .03 .00 0000 .00 000 .00 0000 .00 .00 0000 .00 000 .00 0000 .00 00000 50000000000 0 005 00000000 x - .-ne '7\ (It. Fat 'V} t! 0 Lean -V IL). ‘t. sket V ) ed BORE lnu 1th. (Cont F”t '"t. Lean 'T 't. T W t o I i 1 Bone ‘UA-it 0 Nb. Fat Chuck ean .L. Chuck T O |\ Id Y Steer -229- OOOOOOI‘) (DOC-DUN ‘f\C2C—>IUCC31J\OL\OJO OOCCJOCAAIAH C: 0 LJ H (\l H (\J In (\- H I".- _L xi) 1.4 O 0.0 L‘xr-J u) If) C‘INL!" -.\, C- (*\{J‘..\ \3‘ .IL.‘ C‘-‘:L1\.;3 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O OHOH HHHO"HH HHL‘uHHHHLMHHr-i HHH HHHHHHH r, L”\C) I? L". C) \fx 0‘an C?) C) C.‘ C; C‘. C.‘ C) I \O C C) C.‘ :10: C) C c: c: L‘. C, - Q Q C 1-)\O CJ (3 03 (1') Id L3\\L) \C) rug: I) (\J C.) ‘J\ H 1A-; LL) D~ ‘m C L-' .\-;I \C) \Q Lg (5 Q; L\- ~r (q H ,4 UL.) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 LL; O\1J“\L\L«'> \O L)\;JL"\\L: £‘~- I*"\ (L) LAIL) [\(1‘ 4') C.) x; I~«\L‘» L‘\-- r-‘\ \;) LL.‘ L.) U\UL) LL) )\0 U\ L)\\:, J) (m r. L O O O C C) - ‘U\ C C., J; C!) O C) C C: IRE“. O 1“ O L“. A I‘\ C LAC C O C L’\ O O C: :ng’ C. E‘: (\J l\-.:s L\.‘ I": O L./\ L” in“. L“ Cfl—Z C) \L’) \L‘ -73 UNA! (\. I"\ C'\ U: {SH-(L..- H C.) m (\J CA (\1 C"\ H (U 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 o O O 0 O O O O O I)“\U\U\,:J U\L" \\L/ [V-ZT‘LH L-’\ (\J \O [\- Q\\.’h {HAHN-U} [\- P-L‘~ I"’\ L’\\. L‘—— f~—-UJ \L) (HQ) \0 (‘N L‘— (q C O O C) C C). O C) U\ c. :3 I'\ C) C C.“ IT? 0 C C L‘\ C C. {J50 O I'D C; C? C LUIS) L". C C) C) J\ 41 (\1 *.\Cu H 1.! LL)-:1 \C‘ t‘w L~— (\1 CAL- L - {—4. \U r-4 C‘ L\.' C-‘ L 2-) H‘. U-‘ L\“ [\- (‘u‘ L... ri 4? (A LA r—1' 'LJ'\\-L.i O O O O 0 O 0 I O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 .L-rxo H H In rnx') I"\ H C» I .x.) \O .:.’ LAID. )L- *0.) b-IIN‘L. L.) [\- m 0L run» a; \Q L“. L\-\o I); I; (- HHHHririr-4P{rfir-1c HHHr-{rfir‘r‘ir—{t-{rflfl r4r'4r—ir—4Hr‘4r—‘ir—{r—{r—‘lrfi CFC-COL.“ CLOCQCI’TLJ C) OQCCQII\CCJC3 \;[\- LI\1..\<_ Doom (3 :j'J\ Chm-IT t~\L’) ‘L \\L.‘ 3 L\-\.() Q. r—J [x O 'L-‘ _xLxJ If) (u ._I L;\._'..‘ r"! LL." Lou) (rm—1-- :1 ..va NC Q'\ Li:\ LN- . O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O 0..- (\l CL: (M (\i (L- (\1 LL. OJ LI. Lu r. “3.3 I’.I~‘. Ina. .34.? «Th—'3 -. H m on: :I.:.: C"\ .3 I*\ mm IWH (.7 I) m C C.) INC) 0 L\ (.1 Cu r (I) I.) C,( 1.\L\L\L'\L .CJ «3 (‘~ ‘er O C I‘ L‘\ C) _> ) C) C“ ”\Lfi L’\0_) H H \U (\I \U LEAH (.4 g; u; ,—4 1.. L: ,;.‘o\ ..\. 4; \U 1m") In I". V. _ \ Q C LL) ,) \L’.) (L. C) L‘- O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O I O O Hr—{r—‘IHHHHHHHF‘! r‘ir‘ir-‘iC‘JHr‘iHr—{Hf-i‘l HHHr‘iCV(\JHC\Jr—‘IHH OUL‘I.!‘\C;C‘("C“.)1J\L"CI"TV: (WCJCICICC OCJO(..\\O LxOCDC‘L’ C‘ C‘L\C)C)C\JCL) 1h (Hm; ._. H LNG ) \;) [\- 0. 1L". Iw'LJ‘AL" ..-T‘..‘\\. (N C“\ JL {- ~ Lu L\ J\ L)‘\ L) (\J \0 —-I\C‘) I .‘ CC\ -‘ H O O I O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O Q . on mnxoqmnxfimx. m (“.on H - ',1L\,1.\L;:..;-:IU\.:L\ ‘1 (L. 3.3.3-314 .N L\.—:I.:IU. J Cu V7C£C1"-‘CJ(‘C’)C‘IC“ "TF- -:CC‘:OL’\CDLCUOCI C) ('3 ' L(\C‘ C) C‘ L" (7 (7‘ \1 \O .\L“\-( ‘L J“ r4 [\— (‘AX-IJ‘ J vi!) '.\(~J P--LU C’--'\C) C. LAP-[\- P‘IML)\I‘\L\l~(\JL«r-1('\‘_;..;‘_‘- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Lf)v\ r“! J\" I HC).4 7.3 .-\CIC‘.‘ C‘HC.L\J _‘. CLC' CDCO\OCHL\—E~ULJ\ULJL\~L\~L~J r-{If‘rIr-{C.r~1r—1Hr~lt-i " ZZHr-irlr-{r-{r-IIHCJr—I C) U“ Cl C) (31“ C3 C.“ C) C‘- E» C; C‘ C“, C‘ C.‘ C? C) (‘1 CL D-\O Cl C, C' C3 C) ‘U\1f\b\ C‘ C. ' C\ U\ L\- .I\ - (“H-'1 CI\11"‘.(\J\:) ['4 (“\U‘L-éT-If‘ii‘x v\ C. 43 U“ ‘4' ‘ \H WNW ("\(V\L~o ULJLL,(“\L\J[‘--(.tu o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o O O o o O o o O 0 o o (‘L H C (i C: CT f-{ (‘LJ 7% ("i LF\ (\J H (‘2 H (\1 C: m O 'Q\ P" HU\ (\‘qu’rV‘OQ'l-‘C‘F'f‘n‘. rir-Qr—{Hr-ir4r-{r-1r-ir. HHHHHHHr—{Cr'ir—i O JCCOC)C‘.CECTO 1"-C) C' OC‘L‘JQJL‘CCJOC. I‘.C\J IDOOCJ CALCJC‘: C C C.)O'J‘~ r-1' (“W H .—:T -'J\ one-) -’J\ Ci." U\ -‘\L'\ L“L\Z) JR.) b\ J \CL) (1‘ Ly. J“, .- Li..- H [m- V“ 5.3,:- \I )I' . (\1 (\ L_‘\ (L. o o O o o o o O o o O o o o o o O 0 0 O o o o o o o o o O O O O O o O O (n H 1J\ C H (fl me; [\— C I" \J\ m (\1 Cu 1 .LI\ M (I. .-_;‘..'3 -:.‘ V., C) ,1? H .1; \O (\1 (A H L.) L\ (L. 3 H O- (\1 (\J cu (\i w H H H L . L (\J LL.- Lu 0L1 Lu (N (\J L‘L.‘ L.- H (\1 (\J LL. (\J (L Lu LL. (u (\4 LL LL: H.HH-HO O C. CW1“ C.) (.7 (“2 C: f\ C'”\ C) O C CbL“.‘U\1-"\C) C. C? \5 -L‘ L“. O C C7 C‘. O O C) ( C‘ C' C} (u \C C C.) C.‘ 0) \LJ C L)‘\U‘\ L\- a) U. \0 L“~-L~J 2.x If) [\—": :U\\U (w I.) C.) : C» (\U\ C‘\ C: (\J (\- (\J (\111'..-{ L\ 0000000000000200000000000011‘000000000000 H E\-..:7.:?'U\ [~— Lfl r~(\. 'Lsx CL 2 r— I (A H mt. .-III‘NLL) C) 4‘4) r~— (x. r-1 0-. 1.3’\\L,.\[_‘) LL; (\. ...”: (In. C‘. r—U\ 310“-.CI\.::.:1 (”W w\o\c~\<~"\.:u (V‘. H L‘mep \L) L‘. '\L“\U\\L’J \L)‘ Lu .LL. o \L', L‘.L'.U\L'\L’\\Q ".1. no \Cv r ’ l (D I H . (: ‘O C: h“ C: r“! ('0 (\3 L15 0 G} C " 0 C c» c: 0.? ,- rimmh‘IU‘.\L’)E\-LL 'J\CJ m;_-_. r—iCM'Cr\.~_—IL\\L:C~ODL\C} L13}: f—fir—‘(V (“.4.’ L \Ot‘u’)’ U\C) I‘d}. |~-1 (*\ 0W (“\(‘WPWC‘W 0'\('\(‘\.—'1 C" :>§~14.'44--u —-J———. o-J—L: 1f\ Q) :2- h’.h\L\L"\L.\L\L{\L1\1-H\Q (L‘ ;;0 L10 % 0 OJ Or“ ()4 'r‘i ".4 "—1 :3 ‘ :1 '3 0 L I: 0 L O 10-.) O {:43 C 00+: $4 L. 4.0 L4 £1 0.) :4 C.‘ C.) C”) I "‘ ('3 f‘, :4: 1 ‘; (I) :r_: -230- H.m om.m mm.H Hm. Ho.m No.3 ow.g mm.:w :mmz ngpmz , wm.m ma.m 3H.w 4g.4 Ow.oH gm.oL . 9“ o_.mm smug on.0H cw.” mw.H mg.m om.g ow.mo mo.oH om.qm ow. mu ow cm.OH m.o 00.4 OO.N 04.: on.0H cw.HH om.ow om.om mp om.wo m.o om.m mm.m om.q m~.oH mc.mo m_.cm cm.mm mm om.»o om.® 0H.H oe.H Om.g OO.OH mm. HH oo.0m cg.ow Hm cN.mo oo.o oo.m ow.H 0H.H ow.mo oo.0H 0 .mm cm.wm 0h OO.wo o~.h mw.m OH.N OH.m oH.HH ow.CH om.gm mm. mm om.©o ow.m em.m mm.H em.q o).oc ow.®H cm.wm mm.m\ a” mm.mH 0m.” ow.m cm.m om.q om. OH 0H.0H mw.wm .mm mm om.oo mH.m mm.m oo.w om.m em.mc om.mo om.Hm oN.wm w” om. No oH.0 mo.m om.m cm.g ,m.oH Qw.wc oe.~w c~.om Hp . :MNofllHO.H HHH> OSOMO mm.a No.m NH.H aw. wH.m mm.g mm om.gw mama OHHHmz wm.a mw.m mm.m mm.H mm.q H .CH 0b.». cm.mm smog co.w cm.~ ow.m om.H o“.m om.CH mm.CH om.mm mm.mm ow om.OH mw.o oc.g mw.m Om.m ow.mH om.OH Qw.~m .NT mo 0:.m Om.~ oN.H ow.H oo.m Ow.HH ma.OH 0:. gm om.mm we om.uH om.~ mo.m ow.“ ow.g H.OH 0:.wo mm.mm ON.HH No D HH OO.N oo.m on.m cc.m OH.HH om.wo ow.mm mm.Ng we 00. o om.m om mH mm.; Om.H om.q om.mo oo.mH 0H.0w om.\ mo 05.0H mo.m om.»H m©.m ca.w cm.4 OH.HH om.$c ON.Hm mo.a, so on om.w om.©H om.m 0H.m 00.H om.oH om. OH om.fiw om.mm mo oo.m mH.N og.mH ow.m 0H.H 0H.H ow.m om.HH o”.mm mc.mm we _m. ma.© om.mH mm.m 00.H 03.3 o«.OH OO.HH 04.4w cm. on He zoo.H-w». HH> Qsopc pmHmHHm poxmmgm Hexnmgm x_m:m xgmgm xcm;m xcmgm guano x0 so Hongo .on pg: .pgr camq .HH .9; mqou .HH pdm .HH cam; .HH, .HH mcom .H;, HHH .HH anoH .HH Lampm AHESCHHuoov H HHHHp24mamH -231- Hm.1 mm. mm.m “O.HH Ow. Hm.m Ho.;c mu.cH smug OHOMO: 3...... .7.-. .3... _j ”..\... .44 “.HH a ...»... 3...“-.. cum.“ .....rn. ,H -, r. . _H c _- .. W- - -- _. __ . -..HH OH. . . Ou.w OO.N“ OO.H OO.OH OO.OO Or.OO Om Ow.mH OH. Om.mH OO.N OO.HO OO.H OO.OH OO.OH Ow.mu Ow OO.HH mO. Om.MH mO.N m .OO OO.H OO.HH OO.“ Oh.mu Ow Om.HH mO. OO.mH OO.m OO. O Om.H OO.OH Om. O OO.HO Ow OO.OH mO. OO.OH MO.N OO. O OH.w OO.OH OO.OH om.mw Ow Om.HH NO. Om.OH O0.0 Ow.mm Om.H OH.OH OO.OO O0.00 mw O0.0H m,. O0.0H OO.N OO.NO LO.H OO.NH O0.00 Ow.mw Om OH.OH OH. OO.NH nH.m OO.OO OO.N OO.HH OO.OH Oa.mm mm OO.NH OH. OO.wH OO.N OH.HO m.H OO.HH OH.OO OO.OO «w O .OO OH. mO.OH N.O OO.NO Om.H OO.NH OH.OO OO.OO HO - =OO.H-OO. HHH QOOOO Wm.m OO. Hm.m NO.$ Om. OO.OO HO.O OO.OH cmmz loOmm NO.HH mww m .mH .. . NO.HN OO.N OH.HO Nb.m _H. w swam .mcm OO.OH .H. OO.OO Om.» Om.OH OO.W OO.OO OH.OO OH.“ Ow OO.wH mO. Om.mH O.“ Om.mw O~.H OO.OO Om.OH Om.Hw OH OO.OH OH. OO.OH OO.N OO.NO OO.N OO.HH OO.\O OO.mw OH OO.OH NH. mH.4H OO.N Om.mw OO.H OO.NO OO.HH OO.HN OH .~.NH OH. OO.OH OO.N OO.OH mO.m mO.wO OO.HH OO.ON OH OO.HH OO. OO.OH OO.O OO.NN OH.N OO.OO OO.OO OO.HO mH OH.OH OH. mH.mH mH.O OO.ON OH.N OO.OO OO.OO OO.ON OH OO.OH OH. OH.OH Om.w Om.mm OO.H OO.NH Om.OO OO.mw mH OO.OO mO. OO.OH Ow.m Om.mm Om.H OO.OO OO.OH OO. O NH OO.HH OH. OO.mH OO.N OO.ON OO.N mO.OH mH.OO OW.OW HH zmw.-Hm. HH OOOOO mm.m OO. O0.00 OO.m O0.0 O». Om.m OO.: OH.O cmma OHOOO: OO.N OH. H..mO NO.O OO.OH wH.N NO.» HO.“ Ommz .mcy OH.O mO. mO.QO OO.N OO.OH Og.m my.» mu.OH OH.HW OH OH.m Ow. OL.OO OH.O mO.HH Om.w mH.m OO.“ OH.OH m OM.O OH. OO.OO OO.N Om.OH OO.N OO.N OH.HH OO.HO O OO.N OH. O0.0H om.O Om.mH OO.H OO.N OO.OO m .OH O O0.0 mO. mH.OO OH.O OO.OH OH.w OO.O OO.OO OO.OH O O.N OH. OO.mH OO.m OO.ON mm.H HO.O OO.OO Om.Om m OO.N OH. OH.OH Om.w Om.OH mm.m OO.N O0.00 O0.0H O OO.OH mO. Om.OH Om.w mO.mH mH.H OO.O OO.H OO.OO m OO.O OH. Ow.mH OO.N OO.HO OO.N OO.HH OO.OO OO.NO w OO.N OH. OH.OO mm.w OO.OH OO.N OO.N m~.OH OO.HO H =Om.va. H OOOLO 90cm xumHO xume HamHm xcme OHOHO OHOHO OOOHO mam O .02 HOOOHO .OO mcom .OH O.O .O; cmmH .OH .OO maom .O.. 9mm .OO cme .OO .HH pmmgm HOOOOHOOOOV H HHH HHOhwij -232- .. HHOH% .C. 7%.. LII" \.. L . .a x. O J... \L L fl~..1_041 c... .H m... FL. . ......mH . -. H... j . 0.. 8.... .... ...OH 1L : .... r .- - 2 . .. ...... __ .O .... ... .- - Owome (fie OON-Wu (C. L... Cfiw. kalellvw. N.O-.HH (.(..oh 0-....H CO... OH OO.N. OO.OO OH..O cO.O nmquu. .0.0H .4.0- OOOL OOMO.. N rc OH. (O .H 0).): . or 17.- Co rr .-- kLIkb. cm:: a L OO.wH H mH.OH O OH O .Om (O O OO... O. OH 1...- ..p .... ‘\J. ”.HH. \\ mMJCHJI C ( OAJON C 1\( Mn. 1 xi. KL.“ 0.) no NH Domu ..\ F rxLQ0Jd M “00*..- C “H om0\.\. l .. OH. c O..\- o co mw.m L .H a... no xx C.“ N.wH OMB..\J~ 0 “pr. F24... n. n hum. .‘11. C. C CNN. -..\ zul J0\\ c -. UH C.J0H._. U Mr. “..\.0V L N.N. 01.0 .C CO QX. O. OH OO. OO.OO .-. . OO. O .O . OO.OH . OH OO.Ou On I. Y «“1: \.. I. O 4 L V .\ 0&04U OOO“H ” . H .IZNOJ.\I (U m 1.... \bl‘ 0N.0H fil.\. \Ms [D ) .. 0 HC OH. \ .L A...) 0 .\.1 PW AJHOW U. n. _- 0 1 KC U“ r.-.\ .(...w W... OH. ..fi ..U V... O .V o 9. t n. 3m. .. cm W P C... 0 .. ..- .L . ma. v 31.O+ c 1m Om.u ( UH .a.. o Co a. O3..- -- .. O¢.\O c OH.n. c a ...-- 1L \lu tr ...\.\.l1 . r NW“ \j...\.M \L r P\.... \- _c .n.\ W.....\. .O .(. r 3. o x. C U L ).\ o .\ Ln. DH 0.10 1.\ .U .(( V.,.W \1.\0 Cm. ,PH \1 1 \ . H. .\ ..J\.. C.. U .. 0 fi\ m. CU 0 .U C (410.31. (H OH OU.0.. .- L .....H OO. O... . .. OO.HH a»... O... C I ..1 I. 0 HOW.” NH. .1”. .L «W....0....N HN.0 Cr.\\\/r\\ Hm .O vr , gr 0 c (o u I :r .1 \o R... OH JIM. ....O. 3.....H SH .. L H... H... 9.8., .-.... x .1. w - .. -O. . ..\ .V. o .-O -..c. 0.... .. - .....m..- think. ......w ,t o ...... ..;. ...... -... _. ,1o.\ 1.. r 11.-. LullL 0 ..\. .1 C” \\o ‘lk .I.. r .\ . AIR \04 LH . (.0 {VJ \1.| E I \ .LU H E.MU OO.mH uH OO.O OO. HH OO.ON c”.m OO.OO whhum. p..m. OH OHO.O -..)- OH. , w Om HH L -c OH.m O .r mg.:-. .Oukw. OOO. .c - (U (r Cw.uH C..\u O..fi 1 ,r :p..w L c -1 H.u. - P 03... c hc Jfi.m L .H m\.11 (O Co fin (p.44 cc r3. . OC ..\ fl .3.x. : hr 3O..- uL ..r . ..\ 0H \. .... ow >\. 9.. .OC \ .\ Co 9.. .... OA0I... CH0 ..1“..\ 0 .H I. Ch. .AQ DJ n.1,.» CU. 1W \Hojlfi UN. UH 0.1.. 0 ) H. ... .\ ,7: OH. (L ...L H. .. .. CC Ukc C_H,H...\ L .F .-. 0. 1h .VLW \JI (...): \1...O. . OJ ....r.... .. ...)l .( O \. ..\ F_O jH 1| 0. .(. C..(. s (F ....A. x .(.P\ bk .\ \ fgo—r ...1 . C...0-.1...\ . - Tu. . .. C.,/o)... \ \C U..U 1r ..\ov , rr. .. ”(_.W. _ I\( pd. ..v\-_.| (A. “.../UK 0:14. «U c {\ ”.HH—H. *4 (..1J CH _ .j. \| Al; 1 ~ .I. :cPHO L r. r. _,.. 0 ..-- . PC .\1J.0m. «LP 0...- - .(. .. I—INV .../41 C .. ax.-- .. cr 0..., (r .H.- (a Ow yq.\\ \, L \ fiH. 4L Or O1.O .c we Hw.1 1O m )m.. (c on m: (f INOHJ ..\..OF .(.—I ..I....1.01 v NC h .. ......14. r PH C...I..0.\.\ \L. I C #0.“... ..x QC H 4.....1 (I. C r .... 034. . On. 33 1\ r... (Tu..- Lr r. ...“..-I (1%... C30,-.. w, . C n\( p .0..- (\r. “M. \1...J.O.\. \L Orv h H... 90.x .r r .. r; Lm fi...- r“ ..-. .L. ..-...0 (f DH . -..- - (... Cn. ...... A.,). W...” L( mWoW O» ,(H 0‘ ohm- (.. ..-...uLoJ... IIIL r0 .... o\- Juan” WM.- -- r. 1.,Ho ”Hm WH0.r_c ...._.._0 flip JfloU LC (_.r HN.0 2CD l0“. H., rf. w. O“ OH OH OO. H prnw .O... .OH.. . ,:-s, m.-o\ CU. .. .. CLOU IKIIKIK. .. I M\. L .Dgox ... - r , C .-..r . .O . -. _r o ... - . .o \ - 1.... .3... ......o C. .3. H A. . C, (C . 1 Fr Hr onr HQ U Lmu, ..H O 4.... Wu .*.H \UVK ..-,. \0 [1.” r- I“ N; .1.“ O ..J ., Q H \.. O \ O A. 1”...” C I \I at: +0.4 ,H .L A a- 0 (.n. ”fl .. o \ k? C“ 41 CC ,OC ....l. FIR CTUH on. . C .0HH DH ...... 0.1... - ...O ...-\ 0 -... _r\ H F... 0 .. (V. U. .. O 0 . .(..» ....Law; \I OJ. C 1“ pl ..\ ,4. It \.. r .j.lfil P Hmc .J 1.. \ (F UH ..qlv o ’IO'JI r ‘1 O ..chl hC N. 1 .on. I L w r. n11, ..l fkwlm ”Iv A“... .1.!- -A. C . (r r-l ...CI. (\L Fur . bl!” _m.\. g. C“ .1» 1.. ..\. \\| -1..- ch - _ O2.O ,, .- OO H x- . ms.o O. cw r he :4. C«.:H -m C..ww -..4 nu.;H .\ \ (c.1fi O: ... o ... .r. r \ w C... oC -... .. Cb . ..O o .... ,1. ( ...... mo «H C4. Ln.ud 2..“ (H.Hw Cx.w 0w.HH mu.\ Cu.mm .w UN.M Or O“.wH LO u OO.:V O r ne.d1 (w w OO.4. to .-.) \ U00 - n. F104 k H( Cro 1\ -..F. 3.40» H _.C ..L... C .01.... 2 0.1.. \ OF. .L \,.,.W.0 I. O C C )1”. C... rt 1:...) \O ( \L _r . L v H Cr\ \ .. r\ Hum F. .(. ...U . we. .- c OO.. 1 cc _N.H x Om.\ «a mm Ch._ H t w €0.4O . O\.O O o ?J.\u . \L .L 0_ I {C h.~ .11 .U pH ....)JI (C m.\( «#01 Li... C O.. N. O.-. \u \I r G..\.o.1-... 0% .(. r ..\. o \1 .r «.0 ..H; ....M.4WJF...'..I h\ UC UFOH {L P. r C‘ Ow Kurt ~!r\_\ m.r\ . .14 0x, .. 1, LT...” 1 3 0+1 «L . .1....» 0. C p * H7... 04.. we . 4 .(.}...fii (H fi—H 1. 0 (W “(N U“ w.. x .1 L .IJ . N. N‘ .. \ Cr\ .. OOO .O; .- .. ...H OO.OO .r Ughdlfi o _.: J. L ....nw \ . (C Hm O. .... . . ...... OH. ....OHHO... . .rTQdUJn .03 n. (HOD . A .... f 0». 1H . 1 r >H C50 H1 +. AW 1.1.1.4! 1.-.... I. ,. Jvdwu O a. \ rm“ QHH...1 r rkfl O ... L}... .....- I. ...-..4. .. p .. H.4.n,..mu_1H 09 I C FM 0 02w 1.--! . . 0) .. .4, r rHGmUDfi... L -233- mO. Om.O mm.O OO.OH OH.H H0.0 mm.m H0.0H OOOO OOOWOO HH. OH.HH a...O OO.H- Ox.“ OO.OH OO.OO Omen .OO OO .OH OH. OO.HO O. OO OO.OO OO.O OO.HH OO.HO OO OO. .H OH. OO.OO OO.OO OO. Om OO.N OO.HH OO.HO O O .mH OO. OO.OH _ .OO OO.OO OO.N OO.OH OO.HH OO.OO OO OO.OH OO. OO.OH OO.OH OO. Om OO.O OO.OH OO.OH OO.OO OO O0.0H mo. O0.0H O0.00 O0.00 OO.N O0.00 OO.H- OH.OO OO OO.OH m . OO.HO OO.HH OO.N OO.O OO.OH OH. OH OO.OO mO O0.0H OH. m.O OH. O OO.OO OO.N OH.OH OO.HH OO.HO OO OO.OH mH. O0.00 OO.HH O0.0 Om.O O0.0H Om. OH 0.0. Om mO OO.OH OH. OO.OO mO.OH OO. Om mm.O OH.OH mO.OH O0.00 OO O0.0H OH. OO.HO mO.O OO.HO OH.O OO..H OO.OH OO.OO HO cmO.H-HO.H HHH» OOOOO OO. mm.O OO.; OO.OH OH.H Om.O OO.m OO.OH Ommz OH :OO OO. HO.OO .H.OH OO.Hm OO.“ OO.OH OO.OH OO.HO OOO: .OOO OO.OH OH. OO.OH OO.OO OO.OO OO.O OO.OH OO.O OO.,O OO OO.OH O.. OO.HO O-.OO OO.HO OO.O OO.OH OO.OH OO. .m OO OO.OO OH. O0.0H .OH O-.Hm OO.O O0.0H O .O O0.00 OO OO.OH O . OO.HO OH.OO OO.O- OO.H OO.OH O.OH OO.OO O -O.OH OH. OO.HO O... Om.mm OO.N OO.OH OO. H OH.OO OO OO.HH OH. OO.OH O..OH O.OO OO.O OO.OH OO.OH OO.HO mO OO.OH OO. -O.HO Om. OO OM.OO OO.N OO.OH OO.N OO.OO OO mo..O OO. m.OH O0.00 Om ..Om Om.w OO.m OH.HH O0.00 MO OO.mH O . OO.HO OO.HH OO.OO OO.N OO.OO OO.OO OO.OO OO .O..H OH. OO.OO OO.O OO.HO OO.N OH.OH -O.HH OO.HO HO =OO.H-OO. HHO OOOOO pea. .OOHO OOOHO OOOHO OOOHO OOOHO OOOHO OOOHO OOOHO .OO RCA: ...“ if... ecofi 3w... p.94 .9: COMO; 3w»... .P..... 0Com our... guru. op... Emu...” .P. 3;: .Huopm HOOOOHOOOOO HHH «HOOOOOO ~234- om.H )o.Ho mg.mWH Hm. H“. m mafia UHHHmy L. HHHHKH so.Hm HH.HHN mph. on. HH cmmz HH.¢H .HHH Cm.:H mH.HHm cw. OH. CH em mo.mw H. UOH ,m .wma mm.muw Cm. Om.ma «w OH.HH uw.omH OH.HHH mw.ku ow. OH.:H ww OH.HH OH.HNH mH.uHH ON.HHm Om. co. 0H Hm OH.OH .m.mwc oo.mgH om.wom ow. OH.HQ ow wH.ww mm. HQH o .MmH mw.m W cm. oH.0H mm mc.mw mH. HoH mm.HmH cc.mHm ow. cm.mo Hm mm.wm . m:o «H.HnH ,.ocm mm. mH.HH mm ww.wu W. HOH H.HH cm. CH“ ow. OH.HH mm o«.ww m.coH HH. mmH OH.HHN 0H. nm.mo Hm :oc.Hnmw. HHH cccpm HH.HH Hm.HH OH.HH HH.CHH 0H.o HH.H cwmz oHHHmH mH.Hm .@ .mm HH.H\H HM.M@N Ho.0 mw.oH CWmH uw.ma ®.£NO OjoCzH umofluu Omoo OL.NL Cw mH.om ,m.mwo mo.n. OH.HH“ oc.H OH.HH mH OH.Hm cm.QOH mw.omH mo.mww oo.H cm.mH wH OO.HH Hm.Ha mH.omH oN.mmm 00.H OH.HH HH am.Hm HQ.MHO \H.m:H mm.mxm 00.H CH.HH 0H mw.mm mm.HHo mm.mmH OH.HH“ 00.H OO.OH mH \w.mm mH.ch mm. 3H OH.OH cw.o em.\ HH OO.HN 0H.HOH oo.mmH OH.HHH 0H.0 Ow .HH mH mw.Hm mm.HHo om.mHH ma. on 0H.0 oo.mo NH mo.om mm.m0H cm.HmH 00.How 0H.0 ON.HH HH HH Q50Ho mo.mH Hm.mm om.Ho mH.HHH HH.0 cm H UHHHmH n».nm HH.HH H\.;;H H3.HHH HH.0 - mow .mnm om.mm om.H mo.HUH ,m.mmu cc.H OH.m OH mo. NH H.,m mH. HUH mH.mmm 00.H 00.4 m 0H. Hm mm.uu Ho.\mH cm.wwm cu.H om.H m H.wm mm. mH on. mmH m.wqw om.o 00.H H OH.HH Qw.oo mm.ou \H 0H.wa ,m.o om.m o Hm.Hm mm.mH o,.\mH mH.wa oH.0 00.H m oH.mm OO.NH mw.wHH OO.HH“ 0H.0 cm.o H mo.Hm om.Hw cm.mmH mH.on 00.H Ow.m m mo.mm CH.)H mH.mHH cm.mmm co.H 00.H m ow.nm m: mm.omH mw.mmw oc.H 0H.H H Lam.umm. H acopo ounm Ham anon eru MuH Lac» nmuowu pocm :QLHHH .oz H3904 H«m‘wOa HUQCH. can}? HHNQOH mic/M on), pmrrq o {H «Hmwmwoam. m. Hug:CHHLoo v HHH HHQHHH -235- w”. H HH.HH Hu.mw HH.HWH HH.H. ...H . \H 0 HH. H .04} “10‘11 . )Loxx.._...\ )xo, (O.N..w C u. .- .....qu H..HH c..HHH --.HHH oH.H¢H H..c 0H.HH ,w “H.HH HHVHHH mH.HwH m..HHH 0H.0 «H.HH Hm HH.Hm HH.HHH 0H.HHH .v.mHm on., nH.HH .L oHnw. MH.HWH H@.mnH UH.HHm ,H.H ow.cH Hg m..mm ch.mxH cH.HHH cw.rwm ch.c mH.;H cm cm.¢H (H. HH Ho.0HH OH.HHH m..H CH.HH mm 0H.HH ww.HmH 0H.HHH OH.HHH aw.c «H.HH Hm Ho.0? mH.mHH UH.HHH cm..m« ...H OH.HH HH om.HH mH.mHH HH.H.H oH.0wm oH.H CH.cH (H c«.H: (..HoH CH.HHH c“.mwm HH.H HH.0H HL . =HH.-HM. HH QHCHH «H.HH Hc.mm, nu.Hw or owH mH.p Hw.m {map umpwcz HH.HH mHgnHH “H.HWH :m.jnm c .H HM.HH Lgs..-.p cH.HH (p .MCH .vu.H.H :H.Hum cH.H ow.HH Hm mo.HH uu.mHH HH.HHH aw.mmm HH.0 OH.HH 0H mH.HH .HHQ mH.muH H. 4m oo.H OH.HC w ow.HH «.HHH OH.HHH c .mxm co.H cm.wH H: OH.OH om.\HH HH.HHH HH.0mm 0H.H om.mH wH QU.JH -..: H om.wHH mw.wgm w.c (m.OH m4 OH.HH co. mHH OH.HHH om.omm og.H OH.HH 5H CH. mH cm.m0H mc.H_ H mw.mwm 0H.0 co.wo m: mm.w :.mHH o..H.H mw.wmm mH.o mm.mH Hg H.HH mH. HHH o-..~H mH.HHm Om.H OH.mH H; zom.-cw. H ago Cw.maa CH.mu ..\om om. OH. OH 0m Hm.HH ma. Hg ww.nm Hm.HHH .m. :1.m cmm..H QHHHmH NN.HH cs. HH HH.HHH H..Hmw Luv mo.HH :mc; mum 00.HH mw. Hwo HH.HHH mm.H¢H o\. CH .CH OH mm.ww om. Hgo mg.©mH mo.m,m -m. \m.mH mm HH.QH mwxu‘ mo.mHH m.m_H om mi. 3 mm 00.9w mo.mHH oo.mpH OH.HHH cH. co.HH Hm 0H m OH H ow ow. OH.OH mm .H OH. o..HH :m H OH. 0H.HH mm H mo. oH.HH Hm H Cw. 0H.HH Hm HmH.H-HU.H HH qsopo 0 cc mH.HHH OH.HNH ow ou.mm m-._HH mm.HHH ow. H @ (\JCV OH.HH mo. 0H0 HH.HHH m_ on.mm m4.HHH CH.QmH m HH.HH mH.HHH CH.H. m mucm pmm cmmq ow“) pkcu Luca pquvflx Lcrx pcccpx .oz 6.3 x 4 d _x, O D _. 4| J‘. H.) . . .1134 » _.:. 4.4L. .1 \s H, as Hmpoa HHT..' \\£) .:T\;)t\«lf\\()1f\ ‘~1I\\L)14\ 1 ‘43 F’H"\("""\("\("“.("\(‘\('H‘\ (W r- ("\(‘Wm(fl(”\("\V‘\V“.MC"\(’\H (‘3 C: C) C) ('3 C) C2 0 (I? O (Q (\J O C) C) (D O C) O C) (j, C) .’\C) H a; u: w ...) -.\ [- \4\ GU.) I“: kg) 00 .4) «”an O c.) ... C'\ ‘2 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 HriCT'riflCDCCH—iCOC Or-ICCGOHOC'DC’FLC C‘ C? L’RCJ O C‘ C: O C‘ C) o a) r. a: O C4 C O C? C CI) 0 C‘i- r—4 (\1 x. 0-: 0.: (.4 H (x. r‘—- L". 1A w A.) (‘J I!“ C; u.) h- s-! ..\ (x1 C~L-\ r% r"’ L) \O o o o O o o o o o o o o (\J o a o o o o o o o o o o , (\1 _:.* *1.) r—S H m (\- H cu In (*\ \u nit m c» N". OJ L’xxo (x. \o H": 3%: 'r-{H Ir—ir—iHHCu‘t—{r—{r—‘i Fir-{Hr'ir-‘lr-ir4r—lr—ir—lr—1H r-‘l C\ O H £3 £3 (T5 f. C“ " 0.3 h: C (13 r—1 (\3 m-31=\\£‘L\—£“.‘ LAO a: a“ r: rim mquw (\cr‘) -\ C q; H \(LI\Q\LJ\O\J\..‘\14\O\£4[\03 5N[~[\-L‘~t\E\-L\—L\r~w§) “ .3 .3 H. 2 0 h S o h 1 43 O t) +3 1: C.) 1: C: (U Cd;g (1 9‘21 L) bfi-‘ ~01“ ~f‘ .. mg \ . -J.-..A_\ - L 1 thL (L1 (\_1 I “1th - I _.‘_ . .1 ‘ I. L7 ' A N l ' C I tew I“ f" x C) -237- L; LNLWOOLH CCOOLWPNC; ommooocooom r400 C‘LROO J OCJC IDE— 0 (Yb-if --J -21 (H U‘uZI 1D.._:I 1_-.'\ ‘T (\J ('3 m ('\.3.:3U\ OWL‘x‘Lr\.;I "I r-! .3 PWJ .II .4: (Yb—T? -413 A)” '\H '5‘: .0... o .000 00000000.... 00.0.0000... 19.C'(:L‘\U\C'>U\CU\OL)J\ OlmOOOOO L’\U\oor--H Q‘anoocflnolnc :4. ‘43 P~C\U'\V\HHMHU\HF>_:I (31.”ch (ncug u\.-—wa._c»~. o\U\U\q\Qq/HHOH up ;1) O o o o o o o o o 0 o O O O o o o o o o o o m Cw—iHCDr-«iHHHCWHH HHchHHHHNCDr—i HHHCVCVHNMCVCU \JH E; L’\1f‘~.C;U\.ChOOCC\J C's" OU\OC'OOC‘CO\O (“LH CCC‘L“C OU\OOC"1)C* m H <’\c\. 0M1) 0.wa \O N ‘u‘\U\C\J meUOH HC\U\(\1U‘U\C.:Mt- (1:011 MCUHJJMC‘ “-xJ‘ Q‘WOOooooooooob- on. 000 o o o co. HHCvHHHHHHHHO HHHCxJHHHHijr—{H HHNCVCMHHCM’CUH-‘1 Q CU\L\1J\CIC‘(,C‘[\-C‘HC\J mocooomoownxo C>‘C).C)U\__OC'L:CJC)“’3(\| L H\L’ 1 mnww [\m'; u: (_‘3 ‘JCD Li‘\\U\C, V'x COCAJ‘ \[x-C) n“: u [\- ,zju L\-1’)\L> r—;t\;\0 UNIV -mp- L» o o no. 0.0000000... .00 on L'J CuHHHHr-IHHHCVH HHH HHHHNHH HHHHHHHHHHH .+‘> LHCC'waCICCWMC‘HLH mOC?OOOOCC)C’\L\-L\l C_JOOCCO‘uAglc.on“ as ‘ x1"'L\L.\--1wmt\w.Qm Htwao OxJUDI—{OW uxO U\U\Cu\C)HC~r~U\F>H uq\ (4.. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o (\J (C. (fiCVOxCVCMCV-HCVCUH JC\JMF\(’\MC‘\MC\JU\H ,.:rrmm.:7.. m1DL’\,:,+.:::-‘ L. C'W—QOCLC‘C‘C19\O OCC‘U\OOL{\CI{\C\V “~\C) CmC'CU‘~COmOQ .. -;r\;.H(\.L\ U\L‘\W\Hw ..lrJ‘CDCVCOF-NHC J JVQ Hb-HHP-m©:J\Q\<.u C' 0000.00... oo.0-o ..C... 0000000000 .4 [\-.:I\£_)\O\O\OU\\OU\P~ U\\Q\O\OL 1.01;fo NIH "\(m U\U‘;\O\OU\U\U\C‘-U\U\ Q’ CL’\CC¢CJCT-CCC\J C>C)<"\ OLWCC*OOC.=C.C)\C "\H CCUC'WCOOCJCL"U\.£19'13- st; v’xw (n.3,: L\-L\I L‘\U‘\-;" -;I\O Hm mhno \OH ..‘3Lr‘ .—-4 (“\\Q “Liuncuw (vxcu (mm m “..\ , C, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 'J' HHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHr;v—-1 C C‘U‘xCL-IF-CLq 7019C 0 In 0 O O O OlflO O (\‘L‘NC Uxfi-CLGC U‘xC C C C [533.7 ”+3 (4cm._'JL\-LJ\L\(Y\L=\C~1-t\-C\A L\(1J\O\OL13U\_3L\-OU\[\—[\o C HU\HHHL\-»J ‘ mwagcc _ u" 0 0 o 0 0 o o O o o o O O o o O o O 0 O o O o 0 o o o o o o [:4 meCWCV (umoflcu H (\JH JMJ‘ONW.MMO\JCV (‘\r"l .g‘Jm-U—UmmrrHfl—d TJ‘H :3 CC? 191! C C‘C)C\O . (Sm COOCJCC‘OMC C (.CU‘WOQCCC-L’WC) C! 9.1:} u“. H L\-U\ C~ LA Cw 11 \ [-— [\- cL (\- H : ..3 \O m 3\ U\U\ O (\1 C) (m C -3 «n w H. (\J \O L“ ("\ In ,3 L. ‘J\ (1,: o o o o o o o o o o o 0 U\ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o 0 0 O L; iCf :fm.m.:4,:rL’\.—:r.:1.:f,; :‘m NJJJJJJQ.‘3L\~I r~i{.;’—23U\—’$ ’*'.::("\0\.:I.:I 3H 1\ 0 o I \f) a H [\_ ~O C U\ ‘ o C u o ‘2‘. ('0 . 0 c: m c: o J. 7 c: m C H C» (“n—:1 U\\O [\CLLJ O\ C? m :fi H H (\J (“...-110%) NO) Ox 0 Cd L. H! H (\J (“SI—FAD [\‘JJ 0\ C r; :1; #1; H H ‘3) HHHHHHHHHHCU CU H0: (\1 Lu (\J Cu 610301 N M513 - an; O , ; o ,1: o 5.;— -r1 L). Ir—J, Q 0"1 5" ° 5-4 Z"- 0 $4 :3 0 $4 0 CD +3 O L0 4) 0 hi) 4.3 :4 L: (1:1 L: L. (I: $4 ~« ’1 (I) m p r‘) W L”. c“) J ;. {N L . ‘ T’ch r: I (3— f “-C» 7 S-ld-llth 9-13-1lth I A 1 S -lC)-ll t. n A. tee L) r\ -238- C) ~.‘ OC)1.I\C! 7‘U\L“LC\CDC‘ J[\- OOIHOIJKC lflLflOCW r"\..:j‘ QLNOCDO C) L‘;\C(.I H(r\ C -‘J (‘\(‘C\-.;I.:f("\..'1](‘“\..."T,;T('\r—{ \O U‘\U\II\LI“\\‘U 1I\I_I"‘\lf\..'\ -.\C\J Lk\11‘~.\U ‘LJ‘\(')..:‘JLI\11\:JLJ\ qu‘xj 51.100.000.00... oo.0-oo.0... oooooooooo-o O‘-:.‘|""U\CPOOC)V\U '3 TI OOQOCOOmOC‘ 79x0 U\C\C‘ c) C\COOOC‘ (gm; +3 1.x\\uo\c\. O Lva O (\J \u -;f_‘> . \ [\gc‘xcu (\on r~,:r.:rc~-- O L\- :va 43-—3H N (\1 H w J\ H .\ 3* o o o O O o o O o I o O 0 Q 0 0 O O O O O o 0 O Q o o O o O o O o O o O in (\Jr—h~C\1r—1<\:(\JC\JC\:Hw Hr-JHHHr—{HHHHr—i NLxJC‘uc‘uOqur—Jmcur—«lw L CDC 1J\‘~Z'=‘\C CCN‘OCC C>1C\O 00001ij ‘(j‘w3\ mlflc'OCfiCCC)‘Lf\1.f\c\11;\ 5; QC\HC C:\E\.-C\J("\r—{\U D‘\E\1L\-O\Q,;r \OLS‘~. ‘-_;; “JO _.“"\C (\aLi\(*\E\-\.O C'\r—4("\('\‘ ,....1 o o 00.. 000000000... 00.000.00.00 ‘MI HHCUC‘SHHl—‘Yr—‘ICJH wwwwmmwmr—iwwr—i C\|(\:(".(\JC\Jr--ir—{C\JC\JC\J(\Jr-4 '\ 0.) UKC'OCFCC C) C‘I.OCLCrOU‘\C)C:CJC\J\O C'rU‘xCJC-L‘.OOL‘\OC gm! L1 'Um’fl'Vx} i\' (r‘. C"\C)r".C\J r! O C.) (\i (\J C.,; (" G\ ("\0 “WC.“ H P‘ (\J -.2\ J‘sp‘ {guw 9 one... 000.000.0000 000000000000 (1.: Hr—«lr—lr—{HH NNN N N w ("4 w NNN (‘u‘ (\1 cu Cd cur—{NHHH w +3 CZCC‘CC:C‘OOC_)D’\ OOOCC'UHD C)CJL’\ 3f- CWJNCI‘LACO ”\CCC‘. “1,53 51' CL;- LJ\C‘\,\C\4 (Y‘[\-O._f CW ' JMQ r"! (";\LJ'\Q(C\U‘\LJR\ \u\ C?.J,.:IC‘\‘U'\(\, HALG'V'W C“("\ Dar": LL. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o .::.:Ir|\rv\U\LnU\,:1rqcr\ U\-:I ("\‘an N14: (‘\—:TCC\ Jr—1 -‘f.:I.:;._:J'..:‘ ‘LJKA‘J‘U—\U'\——tf .‘J« c: Cnmcooomocrqmd C)C)CIOOCOOC‘ COR) MOCC CCOCCFHH CU r-‘l'vC l\'[\~ C? JH r—l—‘* r-1 (“‘11 "Wilt“ Car-4 NH C) H (\. 'J\ L5\ CU ':‘\H v\——1 ("W —-\H\U N) \,\- 4 (11.00.0000...- 0000.00.00.- 0.00000... 9 H U\U'\\f) \O\OU\L’\U\\L‘ 1J\LJ“.(‘u t~£\[\-(‘~—LC':D CC.)C1\®[\L"' (W v'J t— u\\0\U\O [\-L\oL\-E~L~t \ (1: U\C( IflC‘CHCDC‘ QC :7“ OOC’CC‘LROCC‘LD L\C \CL‘aOL’XC‘Chumv‘x C; r-1 r-! (C. (\J (\1 C‘ C H ow H H m. on In. m L\L’\ [~1er \O L E\-\O u ‘ \p- n-) -‘J’CU L5H \1A a \3 ix— (, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 CD r—{r—ir-It-ir-{r-ir-{r—GHHH r—Jt-4r-it—ir-‘ir—lr-Ir—1HH r-lr-ir—{r-ir-lr—{r—{r—ir—ir—ir—i U‘OCEC‘-C-LI‘\C-CDC?O:I\CJ (DIROOCC CHOC‘ COCOCPCjCDCJ‘UWk «T 43 «’1 twc) (_) (*LM J. ~..\ {\- L\- u‘ 0 (go ax ('\r~~( \D H m C C» LIV“;- tuck; u .:I r-{ 3 .A L ‘r‘l Q, I O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 I 0 LL. L1\.3(*\..;;TU\.:J‘.3...3 (*er :m U‘xMM-LT—TJ—‘J (“\(‘W .;._J L\..;T (fix: ..;‘L’\.:.“L4\‘~.;\r‘r 4w C1‘\C’,OCUOCU\C.OU'\C\JH OOOOOCUI;'\Q(‘.(>..‘ 1\u\("(_‘;c; _OOCC C» (:1 (v‘ (x. \C -L; c:- C- H N 142 (q Can. u‘\ w Us E\-\Q OJ Lulnr—l “H.N: ‘ : ('W C.- <.. r-4\L} I--<£J LN L-\ Q o o o o o o o o y. o o o o o o o o o o L\ o o o o o o o o a o - ....; r? 53310360,: (firm: cm '1 H O \O U‘xxL; mm LflUxxo LC\\L,' tux. U\\L Luv 1. .L“~.U\U\U\ ucu Ls\ o r”! ' I (1‘ ' H o L; \o S: 11X :3 H (U CV C5 0 . C‘. ’1‘ . (D i‘ ‘ C:1--r-4(\Jh’\.—:7L’.\OL\CIJC\O m;; (‘4 m—‘JL\\: (\QJOxO «5;»; idr—ic» (“\.::L“\\Ot\-Cu (AC! ~“;;J :4 H ‘\("‘.("\(*\W\(*\m¢*\0\ \Jfb 0 bPJJfi‘I—LJ-J.:IRT.:J,JL\ (1. tshxh L‘\L h\‘u”‘U\L\h\\O ‘ o (3, H ..-. 9:. C“ .3 C), ' ‘ .... :3 0 5H '3 I $4 :5 ° 3-1 ,» 3 J -t—’ C“ no 4») O 3 +3 $4 3: m 51 f ), ‘4 \.' C) It" ; r.) m ~ {’3 ’ L. tn Rib ‘F I .Lf 12th Rib “:1 Rib I‘La . I.— .-:I"‘ n o a t. '1 fl 1' :7 r“_\ l i— L, Joprz 5.. ‘ Lz’l "\ ‘1 ‘\ I J“.L..L .0039. '1-1 I , Fat LQCWO() 1 . . . C C‘ 1.! \LI\ (:_‘ 11". U\ (5‘ WUL‘~-)F10‘UI‘\‘*‘\L‘ . . . . O C . (u H m w w ("I (fl. C; LIXLIX Ci 1'.-\ UK (T) w I; 3- c- I'\ (‘3 ‘. <‘\ .~-4 OU‘C) C) C‘- L\C(¢C*<:Ln1er c ..k. ,. ,g‘,‘ \1) Iv,\\() \Q \_‘) (\J \,_j ‘__=‘\ L I L“‘ O O O O O O O o o o x _. A. o o r'4r'4HHr‘1I—‘Ir‘II—‘ir4r‘1. I? C) If; C) (‘5 C I: I C“ C‘ “ (“I -J \ L‘~ L"- C» LAN} (I- (\J ... - *. i“ - O O O O O 0 O O I O O 0 1H \L. \-_- LINN; L’ .L'XM“, 113»; L ICC. I.I\ Cu . . C‘ C“ O (:‘5 I q r. g 1..“ H Cu “If H -'_J\' 2 hi ‘u ( I O O O O O O O O O 4 O r’! 1'. F- v.3 3': (.4 C } r-“ICI(’I..J‘1 L) F-I ’I.‘ C‘ u L. ’r» £‘~:~£\~L\—. ~i-P'-[‘-i -r , C. r. I' 1 a) Z: 0 3»; If) .' kC' .4.” $4 I. ' C'} "1 ‘ Psoas ‘u.I‘ 3“ \ Lracnii "floris \ d l‘ 'Y‘ b . , 33¢ Femoris uicems u L -‘ LJ ‘ ‘JxJ \T 'TQ" I em- 1 M mh. brauusus a (D 0 III C . -' ‘ - A V (X; 4.}- O R' .4 '\ >¢ HQdUCt mem1memb. A A lCE’DS Quadr nitefid- inosus _H.": l ’ V I v»: I.. P. “6-. Q ( -240- OLAOIAOOC OC‘NO C)C)U\OU\U\OCU\OP-.3 0011\0 OQO 01(de HHmmxo—Ler—ier-a “Jr—l (\(T\O\O\U\C‘CD\OH(\C)O\ O(\J~;7‘\HO‘.’3\CJL.‘C\J HCI’)O\ ooooooo coo. co 000.00.. 0000.00. 0° woucuwcumrncfiHmmH (\vaHNHNNHNNwO (\JNHNHHHN ww‘WO 'U\'\U\ 1mm 00.3 OCJCLAUNLALROOLR IJC‘ OIAO QQU\O OC‘ F: r-jO\r—‘ N m OO\ O\(\)G~)HmHL~".‘iO\J\\/uv\ O\U\H[\-<.L)OL.C)UJC V'« oo 00 0.00.000 000000.000”. \Jr—l HNC) HCMHWHNHNHHHO HHNHchHw Hm CDC 0 \H CO IDCOUNOOOG O hNOCuOOLnLnC) CC >0; (\an H m H O\C.‘.' >cuHL\-OHHwH ..3 COO—JOJQLDCVHU\(Y\C :\L\ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' ‘ .3er .1: (\J mgrmgrmmmmmm H (\xmwmmxmmggmr-i OOC>LHC3 O Gmc)L\U\C;U\OU\O 04.3 momoom‘oc \"CL'(Y\UJU\ r" ('\\O\O._:rlf\CQU\(V\‘-f\.:f \r—i \QOJ [\-.—;‘IL\0\C‘J LN O I O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O I O O O O 0 cvmmwm (\Jummmmmmmme cummwmmmm O C) C.‘ C Lfl Mln‘C'x C,» ‘fioom‘w O‘NON OU‘OOCDm‘OLflOLflLf-m $300 0 U\\O O\C\3CU——ITr—l :3: ch HUI: O O .:.:r CL) m‘flP‘O\u\u\OC\J\Qf--JJH ”ECU(*)(‘:.:T JCJO-F‘IC‘Q o (\J O O O -;..:I.:_:r.:r.:r.:r\01n T n\.:.:1.:1-.:°1-:r.:r.:r.:r.3 marry—3.3m '4713'4‘4 CMDOCDO CDCCHDCWROUWDODHfl onwaocnnoc3uw30u\ "-.:;IU‘\<.LJC) Q\.OJ.:JC\1HU\O.:?U\.; u\U\ \OOC‘VG)F~HUJU1.:TL\~ J—J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 O\O\0U\L\ U\\O.:TIAU\U\\OU\U\U\ Cu .jxooqumJLRme \(\J O‘CU\OOOU\CIOU\OL(\ 11\U\OQU\L”U\OOU\W\H owcmo CO CO Hm OHM-:3 ("be L\JHO\1‘\ mum NWNMHUMJOJ anm “—3 a.)Hm.:JU\QU\.—:I.;J\Q ('\ m 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 : J\C1.)CCC3U\C)C>C>C)C)C“Lfl f“~r‘1U\t—‘10\HJ\}.r—1H' r-I(\JC\!(\JHC\JHHC\.IC\: OCLR()(>C_", 1f\1(‘.C’_ " LA‘O\U\(\L‘~U\U\I-- ' ("\J (\J (M (\a (\J ’\ 'L' ‘gQ C) C. r. (‘3 I0 0 C. ’/ t..c> 1.‘\1I\C‘ L\rr\\0 Q 1J\(‘-’\(Y\\LJ \L» (1 LNG C) 1.!‘\1... .1J\1.'"\ CI! C.1.1‘\C) ( T.,? C'\ ("x Cu ca [\- (‘7 O O O O O C C U\ .3 Ln U; L'\ ls’\ \O H \C C?) H «.15 o O o O O 0 (”W m .5} .2; m (*N (”x (’\ ('"\ ..‘J' 3"} L". L’\ 1.: - L 1.:‘\ 1.00013 C)OOOCU\(‘ ”\LJ\J\\OC\J-:I A Cu £\ (\1 (\J (\J (\J (\I (\5 (\J (V A OC CELHCCIC. \C‘ h-C.‘ (L) EN‘ ) "'\ . x I" .‘_’~ O L1\\O L\-\L' P- -\ t— .\f_)14—I\ p- Ln p- .v, 1C1 C) OU\1' \C‘ C _;_. LI: ) '(_,\1\(‘L) r-{ f\-{_JJ ’: C IR C. 1:“. (fx 0 .. T (“\M'T.‘ "H...“f'g ('\ O () O .) r-- [\- ffi L\ C.) [*- uJ .“ N 1:» {\- :~ LU '..J '0 10.8- I / 31.60 in I C71 Hm HH >.20 OC‘OC-OOOO 011‘. (soar—{OJNr-{Px 0 O o o o \O\C)U~JCJ\OE‘-\Q\OCDOJ ‘1 19.80 11.10 1 ~o 1C- ll‘\ 1"); 1T 0- la 1 J. OCJLHCJOC 1_1\O(.Q; .\_1I‘I .1 H. L.\.' ‘ U.) .;3 N {>- o-) [\— \U L .\_‘, \f) 1.:\ [w- 1." f‘ . tend- lDDS‘lS m teer \. K. fl Emir. C Q Q ('\ Q In (j) 0 (' U\\O Lnlmln (j) C 1 C) L: ‘ C: 1K\ C (_ 1.! Ln ( ) (_l1f\('_) C“ .' ,4 (w 0410.30 U\r-i,—J£\J Hauq \.<;>L\ C‘\‘Q-.:;1C;)U.J\(E)f“- (» Ln-NC‘ (M (.1ch {~(.‘) (1 O 0 o O o o o o o o o o o O ;; o o o o 0 o o 0 o . . r‘i‘i CU MMC‘WCM (\J MN “\me H : .‘ZTU‘\.‘J.II-J(*\.ZT.J.’.§ L"\-;‘I-Z. ("\-;‘ (”.43 .45 (“Pd—ff -; r-4 (3 (“~- H L‘“. o C) 0 I 0 H H C: ‘0 C L~ .7: CC, C\.' (:3 ° ...“ ’5?) C G) O I; (1) C H t—1r—4 (\J P’L-fi 19w.) {\UO 0\ O (15;. r! (u m-3‘m\o [\- (.3 \ O a“: ‘r'. 1"! r-{ (m 01-71:.3; b-L-Cz .I\ (1' .. ' -. MMU‘\MO\V\W\W‘.C\.‘J (D 5.7-3 4.3.3.3---W.‘ c .-tL'\1J-.1..'.L.L\bI‘-.U\1i‘\L’\\I "y' .1.. :33 O :1} Q . I... :3 ... C. 0H C; ' ‘ .7 C 0 $4 13’ 0 $4 '3 o 3.. $4 (304-) O (HQ-+3 C" 0,;- cr) . Q) L. c «1) L -,- .1- r21 ;.; -’) ’YJ ; ; ' 1 5 "‘ ~—\ g. \..'1. |_. 1 1.111;: -CLI, El ‘I ~'\‘F . ,A‘ C C. o I‘i f“. 7H U3 . .-\/N (7’1 0 1 .L 1 T") '71 l. 31- I V ~rr‘ up {‘1 _1_1'\1f\ C‘: LR\O C1 C) ’3 1J\( '1 :\\() U\\'.I‘(\-':U\LTI “112on «.HH 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C» (\1 (fl (\1 (\1 (\1 (\J (\J (\1 0. Cd r! 1C) 1:11;“.(‘1 (_1L\ (_1 C ‘j H r—-r'\i Cthnc.L. 3H 0 o o o o o o o o O O (x: (x. (\1 (\1 u. (\1 (\.' (\J (x.- (\1 (‘1 H /. A O ( 'Iv F1!“- '-\ (_A) C" I; \ a“ 1.1'1 1f: (3 1.:\ (I, 1 AI) (:7 0 ( 1 ‘9‘ . I ...—:3 ('II“ (\‘1 t1.) \-_/1 (\. ( (7“ o O 0 o o o O o o . o 0 -:. \O U \. ?\;‘1-;1r-'.:‘--1.:. l- . .1. (\1 (f1‘1V‘1C.('_1C. C (“'f‘_’)1.\._.\(1 ( 1v.) ("1L4\f'\\n ,7? r—1 1‘“ (V (\J "-\v —‘ “a: ((1 (v\ (1“ (‘1’\ (7“ L\J P“ (v-\ (*1 (”—1 {—1 C 1"C)C‘1J\C I-:*C\1 (\1 C\L\—‘f\ '7'.) 1mm ~- ["- ('I\ P~¢ o o o o o o o o 1.1 \ 1..1'I\ 1.; \ \1. 1 V.) ,2} 11‘. L—\ 1.. \\.L:) L; /.\J\J r1 '41 ( o)\ ('1 C1 (3101130 (:1 C.“ ,)1(~..3\ (‘1 (“—1) C”) 3.11; .O’\ (\1' Luv) 1.21. ("1 ~.\ 0 O I O O O O I O O O O C—\O \Q ‘L’\ t ~L‘.ID.U\\O i“ i) (\1 ‘C1CU\CFOU"1C,‘CJ ) _.‘I (__' LJI ‘. (\1 ‘IT\ f“- (~‘-:1 ~13 (:J o o o o o o o o o (‘ \ 9-1-4.) (I; [\~ [\~ 1‘- Ch (L 0 0 1C1(1r—1(j1(_;(;(.r—+.-1-;I C, 1’1 C3 0 1") O O (‘1 1_ ‘ (.1 (‘10.) [Vfij ...\ ,—1 (_3 _;:f (_‘1 C.,) L‘ 11; ("\ u) 0 O O O O O O O O O U\\£L-L‘\\:1\;1 L"\\C1 [\— \'.; P~ Q (\1 -1\L\C C": C C: I C C C1C1."1U\ CJ r .,:r-t3 Cf U~\Q Cu [-\L _J C‘— O O O O O O O O I O O (n.3,: (mm (QU1MU‘1V1W‘1H Cl C 11' fl (\,n\,:r1:\\g (may «.NC’ :11}; \1\_'\g_) \L'.\$'\LI)\U\_)\(’(\“ (D L: OP! 0 354—3 C (I) 1 '31 -242- (“1011\1’ (“L- _ ..:JL\~c-- "\1) .3“ O O O o o (\J (\J (\J (‘M (\1 CU (\ C- (\J(\. C)OCC)OC..‘ (\i ("x ..‘L‘ U'x-J \L ' N (:11 O O O O O (\1 (\J (Id N (In (\1' (\J ( J (\I O (3 C3 C) (T (.1 ‘* (f) C" _.:? (‘IQL --ILNLDIJxLwafilnLflLn (_‘11'\1J‘-.C1C U'\ C. C) C' C1 1 ,- H \(311' 1,41 (‘\‘--C' ("*3 m Cu 0'“. (\1 (\ Cu (‘1 ('W P". LN C1 (‘1 C OLFH'.) -.1\U;) ("1‘43U‘1H C.‘ ...”...ZTL’ \LI‘\{_I1.J\\L_)\Q \u\(I.I. C) 1n C) C‘ (x. p» H L“; u) \0 1: L‘HV.) \u c.) \O V; c... O O O C: U". \U 0’1 (“1 H H -‘ O O O O O 0 Cr. J\ a.) r4 U‘\ LA C? O C: H C -7 C‘ L“ IN C‘ 191 C.‘ 1...1 c; H cu 0.; ax ‘ (1 -. 11‘. \Q U\\L; In fix (\I 0 C1 UC\L’\ c F‘ 0 L \‘Lfl [\- Cu H 5. ,4 o o o o o o 1:: m (”1.3.3 (*1... m r4 0 o H |> 1 1—4 1-1 :3 E'— I‘C up 1" 1- U LEVI L30}; 'I\ O '\ 72 73 71 7s 76 77 75 79 1:1 J ius f‘ R I“ U '.4 "Z- t: 0+ ,4 L , flqur' Hula q 6 U D «'1 if) L. Der Co. 1 firfii! C76,, r-n 1’\ CJ‘LHOP MC) Uni (*\CCI\O\O H O O O O (\JCUCMCVNCVN c In Ux 0 Hum (\J (:7 03 In :3. ..j C-J\CL\<1..1\£) ‘T\£) (THO!) "O" O O O O O O O 0 O O O Hr—{r—ir-Jr—{Nr-{Nmr-Jr-J Inc-00000000001 ['~ N (\.' [\‘u\ L‘—-.;* C LA \I) [\—- (\J O O O O O O O O O O O O (u cu (u (\l (\1 (\J (\J m mm (\J H CJLWC)1_”(1\t\-Lr\mm3()0 H\O C> D—(V\L\-C\JII\L\.U\L7\\C O O O O mmmv‘\mmr*\m.:.rmml—a Q\OC)L{\OOC'C OO C)\OC‘~(\ O‘\(\JC\O~J[\C\! (\J(\Jr"C\Jr—1(\JC\JC\JC\JC\I C U‘\ C U‘;U\U\OO lflu") C“, C) \0 n\ (V .:3 C) J \ Ln (\1 m C C: (J m 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 'J'xCU H C) C H O J\ Jx C‘ 0.3 ,~C:(_‘r-{r—ir—+r-4r—IO r-Jr-J \ O (.1 J G5 0 C} (D r4Cvfifing\(3P~aJChCD(UI£ 1 H ‘00 ..L‘ O Q: '“-m :5 0 $4 O r. +2 $4 L; a. 1’3 [:1 ‘2‘. cf" / -roup II .51-.7 1"”! \a -243- moommwomoc (\J O chu:-J«;,3—:JUHY\ “ H O O O O O I O O O H (\JCMCUNCVNCVNNCVCM F)C3U\F{CZF—C3U\U\C;J\b_ \olflh‘th» Cu U‘xwr—J'Jfl Q 5. O O O O O o O O O O O O c—ir—ir—h—i (MHr—lr-Jr—Ir—i mommo ommo C'.‘ (“no (‘flOXr—i OUXLflme (\3 b— (“\C O O O O 0 O o O O O NHNNNNmmwwcuu—l mmommmm0cuc OCO HCL~U\O (\JJH\O«J\\:(\1.:I o o mmmmmmmmw (”\f”\r-‘| U\C‘OOOC)U\O(‘ U 0“ u\O\OMCJr—{C\JHLDC\JCJJ\ O O O O O O O O HHCVNNNNNI—IC‘JCM mmocolnmomm “In L)\O\\£) IMP—LIV.) (“Cu Q\ \(‘N C C O O O O O O O O O O 030“U\(“C13~J\C¥J U\C 0‘1”“; OCC>HC3C‘C‘Cr-{CJ ‘C C (“'3 _ C10) HNMJLWOb-wuxo «LI HHHI—‘HHHHHCU m g; 0 or-i 0S4 0040 C3 0.} fili: LAC: ON HchLflO "..zs NIH—:3 [\UHT'HJL. . Q C O O O O O Pirir4riririririri OC)OC O MHHHHC‘WHQ o o O O (\JCVNMNCVNHCvcw xClJfiCOLflOC) HHCVC‘:HC\IC\JHC\J u k ’Nf‘.” roup III .76-1.; '2 Pl n ( V 4‘ \A I OLAOOIDOOO \ P~L\-.:J.:TC\I C. (mm id) 0 o o o o o o 0 OJ“ cur-imcmmcvcw 0.: moo OO 0 O (L.¢:._ C.’.(Y\[\'MCJ U\C/. C1 (U C: C? mjm¢~p~co OxC u: L; (\1 (\J N (\J (\3 (V (Q ('~‘\ ‘0) I—W Q 0 $4 {‘0 43‘ L; Q‘ [3'3 :8; bia Ti Radius rteer C L. Jlmarus E , \ ibula h + r Pemur *capula (\J H l d ( Group IV l.p hfi (' r C Hcfl‘JCMH HH—:U\ (oil C\ (\a C (\1 h"\U\LF\LI‘\(" C ;:L ”\C; 14~-:3-:1 \OQJ‘ (”\m—J Jul? . HHHr—{r—Ir’ir—{t—ir—IH CC U‘C ‘woomcm fixL~-0\C\JC CHCr-lkl) (\JC\.r—1C\JC\1(\£C\:(\1(\JI—1 U\ C‘,‘ m. 0 !\ r: U\ Ln 0 Q 001;; C <19pr u: OuJ . o O O O O O O O 0 (“\(GCV “\k‘u NNN mm CU\U\C‘JU\_C 00 C70 0qu O\(\.a OmOmOH CVCVHWCVHNHNN Wfi\o FHIFUWDUfirOUvfi Jé‘NQ‘OCAJCLJWCpt-fl LOCO C) U\Q)CC)CJ NUXOR' H LO .‘ CU\L1\U\U‘\O(D C (\1 r4 (QC). (\JCVCUNCVNNCVC'VCVr—l M\O H O“ (\J .(J ,2 / (\Jr—i 2.00 .9 .ll 9. L I mean ’7 L.) l *1 J ‘l .A .1 vetric Mean OL"(‘ _JUOLRO mm (u [70: mm 0 0 O O (“qucfimmm 1.0 L“\ C) O U'\ C) 1m U 0-r10.C)m (VUJCVNCVCVCU OC‘OOQCDC \OC‘N~)\H-;J- O O . O O “\MMCVMMM m (\- LR C) mux 1D. ('7 O CO 0.] (TM: 0 O 0 O o 0 o o JJJJJJJJJJ H 0 L1 L2 Group V .26-.50" L3 ‘ I -244- L} )o 2.60 9.35 2.LO 1.5L L5 L6 L8 L9 go I L7 0 O 0 (Mo ’. U\ CLJ (fl (\J 43 O O 0 mm (amt—1 _ -3 NW.) CD 0 (\J OW U\ Q . 3 r4 ean 4' J .- an ' “Hf‘l .0 J ~.g. Nefric L V“ W 'J ijDC/IJOOC oom L"\HM\:Q\OFJr—io—. 0 O 0 O O O 0 MW ("\r*\r"\r’\.::‘mcu ("\ COOLD.C1JM}\m -\l’. H “—3 \JLflCJQ ) O O O C C O NCVCVNCVCUCUNCVCM U\(\JQOC)OCC:J‘II\(‘ Um) mmeHb-g m H O O O O . W\C\i (\J MMMW\mC\J (‘"\ Inc: C) O‘Lfl ,J 01;ch U'xc main U\r--1 H (v (n O 0 O O O O O O O O .1; «wan—n M.S.;IM-J U‘xC. C) U‘xm U\. U\ C) U\ r"~ QOCJNH—jr‘fCVCWO\ r. o o o o o o o o o o L“ 0’". (\J (\J (\J 4? ON (‘V (\J cg (\‘I [\‘t—‘IHHHr—‘IHHI—‘lr-{r-f o I H UN 0 z I In _ . I l'. L‘W o,-'\' i \ U ,‘\f\ j/ .. C. o C.‘ .1 —'-O . ' '2' ,z' 0 -‘-_.4 ‘ r o Hf J '.3"\ (..\: :~~~ cm 0 o (\J Li \ n C 0;? K mad) firtl I I \ \ C.) J 5"" _ '1 Q |' \J-..L . r-I .’ rvT VA; l nu TQL {’1 {J ICC‘C‘r‘rL (‘1..\C‘vlf\ \j(\, (\J ('xr-{H\L) [\LNP‘J—‘l r4 -\(" o o o o o o a o o o o o C J C d P] UK ("s (\3 (\J ("\ ("1 (‘W (U V“. CC %f(’;C‘J(‘)(“‘Lr\("-.L.Q,* C‘NC ‘ (2;) u." [\- Ox r--+ H (‘ «g C \ o 0 o 0 o O I o o o o 0 Cu (\aCu r-{C‘u r-Or-4 (x: (J (‘9 (u 1"O-.’:~C‘C OCCQCC OJ C)\(JC:CLJ.' C:L’\P"'C\._'TLJ\L‘\J\("\ (flu.- (‘\(\3 r" \C‘u (\1 (mono; an H ( m0 000 C (JLWQr‘ \o <:\\O HCJ (HA3 0:.) H ( g, x.) (Y\ (Wm (“h—IT m (‘N (”KAI—if (W «--l L‘OLACC: QC‘ U‘xOC‘C -ij‘ux L (“Cm bug) Punme _\ AJ (\. (\J OWN (\J (\J (\J‘ (\J (”'\ “\(U (U H C“. 1J'\L’\ L’ \ UK C) C)\ C; C L" (\1 *LJ [Mr—1 01.3} cu (U m (\1-.-\c-1 C, oo.0-000.0011“ Cu CU (fiCC‘flHCdr—(CV r—ICM‘ . r-ir-{r—iflr‘i {—1. r-*.r'ir-".r--1'r-‘l U‘. \L)\J\LJ‘\LJ\LJ\p \U\U\L {*- G: -245- C:ng;c:Jc CZCTC L c:> NC‘) C , (d ”V; ~:\.--J r. . O . O O . O O . . (\J (‘J C' \ CM ('4‘ (‘W (‘\ (“u (’ \ (\- (7" C) C I I: \ IJ‘ L“. \11 \ L\ 1““ UJ L ‘. (7' '2. ' \ I \ O\1 ‘L‘ \ I 4 U \ . O O O O O I . C . r4 (\A’ r“ (x. (‘4 H (\J r4. (“\J r-". 11W C L" If“ L’\ C) (\J L'\ C‘ I; . (“2.3% (C\. C r‘, «4. L‘~- r4. 1“ O O C O O . C O O 0 Cu C‘u‘ Ck! 0"\ C' \ (G ("X (\J' (”K (x. C) IR C‘ Ifl, C ("j C‘ L LR CT; (7) A" C -.‘n‘ C‘“ V-'\..3 \-.J (u F~ O O 0 0 O O O O O a ..J (*‘\ (Y‘\ .‘4 -2? ("NAT (“N—SJ (H C C) r. (i) C: C (>14. '\ (._, (\1 ~-;‘\ ...:T fiJ‘; (\J (\J C“ O O I O O O O I O (\J 0. 0“ (fl («1‘ (\J (fl (\2 ("‘3 (\; .OO ,4: L’\ (‘JNU\1 ~L".(_J1i 1;ij (‘yh‘x 0:1 H (\J c.2- ,- ..L‘ C‘. C"\ t~~ r-: H O o o a o o O o o o ' H C\. #4 C“- (N r‘ C‘) (\i F! C‘. {flHHHV'§r—4r—’Hr—ir—ir—{ J. H (\J (\J ‘1 \C‘ ’\ (r\ (“u r“! rvi \O r“? U\ 0 0 (~..' I‘\- O ,_r, ‘\ Lk. O O c {-\| H F4 14 ‘\ r4 (3 0) CI 0.) -246- E; H {\~ 0 cg ( m»? Imp-1. \ [x mm m (L, [\m r-— nco r: n—m :7 J v- r, U\L\-\O a) H m N\O ".- \.'.' \1; Cu Lu \L) D.) \f.) C) C, ("\ (H {J i\- ("3 C) ("\-\; L\ H. H N m r4 \‘ L\- 04 L: \(AD H U\ (W U \ O [-1. ~34 C)\ ’3‘) 0000000.. on ......oo...*2 cocooooooo(f‘)(," '1 . \fiC) (j)(:)r‘) C_'\OI'" r-1 3‘ ...“J (u (\. Ci'QxC‘ .9 OHM-'"JxOr‘J CJCUQ‘CLCr-{Clwrab-Cig . . 3w ("LJr—1r4r-4r—M;r—¢r—1r—Jr+ CHH(,.;r-—1(:>r—ir—r——4 HQ>Q_~rir—{CCQQJ\..- "\ g; a l7) 1: 51: C. C14 C“- O [‘- ('7' LC\ Cf (\J [\- C? C) 1). LU C‘C' L‘- CN' P- C‘J L\-U\ (\J (\1 LROJ (\J [\-C\J CC. C C" (\J (\J O C) I‘- “". “W 7H hi OJ “\L' x (\J C‘ [-4 ‘13—) C.» C r”! r'} \Z‘) C""|\O (CW r"; C*\ C\: Vi) ‘Q CH C“ L‘- LC. r; \O U‘\\O \O Q ( C C"'\ ‘3 CW! 11"“. 00000000.... 0000000. on co co. 00.0. 73 "” \-\£‘J\L‘\Q\D \i‘) E~-.;T\JLF\ v.) \3 (My? t\-\C) t\-\:T)\OU\\O D— Ox) \0 L\-(\~\J\OU\[\.\5> l\~t~- JG. {-i {-1 (f: i: "‘ (\J (\J C) :.-. CO (I) r» m r-— -z: .3 \O ..\— Cm h r— H (\1 W'\U\,:j O N [\- H Ux 11.3 h ‘0; (\J l\- t— .3 \O :3 H \O m. Ln. C , ,3.) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 LR Cu‘ (“\VJ -53 L"~- \L) .:1 H r* . :‘1 ..3' .31 Ina) \C U‘\U\\O OJ .3 Ls". Jun L’fl c.» \O ..1 -3 N \o H .3 L"\ J \J + 3 (\1 CK: C\J CC. C\. (X; ("u C‘u‘ C"; C“. C‘»; C\l C‘\: C\.- CV Cu (\1 C\J CU (\J C‘J C‘x. C‘u‘ (\i (v CU (U C‘\.' Cw C\J (\A C‘ 3 CC: CC) ‘u‘ C‘J 7;: 1 '.-; $7; ., w E‘ __ -"_ lJ-‘ L _ - . J C Is [\— r, u, ’34:“: \‘U cu H m C‘) u) .:. (\J Lnu.’ O O N (\1 (\J .300 [\- [-- <13 :1 (‘0) Cu O r-1 \0 CO C-\ ox k-Jr’..- 0000.00.00 00900000.... 000000000. .4 (. -...; ;.=\ (‘3 man Cu \1 ( \ff; u: {2\ r» r—J. ch [\- Q: U“ C.\ rm r\—- [M r» Cf) :C.‘ --v (u N ()on \o (x. a'.’ \ 1m (W .« ..L. t~ .C’) C.\ r“ [Hm-1' (.‘J C.\ C (Q (\J C}\\.;) (‘W ("\v) [‘~- . C"\ “X C"\ r-4 {\v\O r4 r4. ...:I CU C-) ('\-:f Tf—J [~’ . L7) 1 \L‘\.;J‘L\‘LJ\‘LJ.L\L\,:.:“IL\ L!\‘LJ\1.C‘\U\U\L\h‘xfllf\b\lt\‘L:‘\ 1.:‘\‘LI\L\‘LJ\L\1J'\1J\\QUNLNL’\ LA ...? '_ I.” ‘r ‘ L. p "-i f ; (1; n4 ‘ Vi _ r"! r"! _ [\- C‘- :"~ 2; n.‘ C.\: (\J o.) t—L". r-‘I ("no ...:‘5‘ O’x L- L\ (J; ”NCO Ci) (:0 {\- (\1 CA O\ C) “J“ ()\ .3 0\ Cu ("no C‘xJ O C; 1R C ..7\ C.\ {'7 >'_"','_, ,1"; o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ‘7 {:4 (I. N J\1-‘ .\L.\ wilt \:L1\(\. r ' )0 ((‘\U\ T’I' U“ P‘ 14‘: MG :‘*’ C1- C“ N (P: (A. \L.) U\ L\ C: x \L) (L, C.\: C J '3 g ,_’.j ( '5‘ \L) \g; \2 It\\;.- i- 11 1.3“ .’~\ 1:". 79‘ \f) L’\L\L"-, 1-’\ 14'\.\;) ,jxf,» 4113. \L) Li“ I \1. . -. .IJ‘, L’ .L."".._:T LI. L\ “1‘11:- rifir4flfirir4r4r.rlr-ir-i t—{I—‘ir—‘Ir‘lr’lr—iI—{Hl—{r-ir-‘ifi rit—‘Hr’1r—‘Ir-‘Hr4r'4r—4r-4H I ‘) Sf E3 SL4 rfi'q 1.1 0' r} if L'Il 3’ :4 (‘4 ‘7 7 0‘) \C (\J C‘ w'x (q f“. I; C?) (v .301) r4 \0 run; r—{ O (u N (\- m 0— ("g ( \._;I r—i Ox‘ux cu M 13 u) f'i Lu _‘ " C ‘ (.9 H) (\J L’ , C.) ("i [\- r-E V ’ \J? “-0 C: ——3 C.) ._‘J C" J\ C.-\ CH -3-—3 U\ C}\ C h\ C» C.‘ U\\i C) C“ ‘- \ J‘x ,- C\J C\J IAN—4.7 '7 (“\.—J C-\-'13 (\J C'\ (*3 Cd -17 (\1 ("YR ("x (“N (' ‘ ..I [—1 1J\<'\ ("x (\J H -.‘71 Cu (\J C \ C CW (“W r—I r"! r"{ .-: 1'. (‘1 (Yum (Y\("\(Y\( um 0\(*\("\0“\ (”\(‘\(*\("\(‘7\("‘\("‘ OWP’NO";('\("\ mfixrfloxfi‘mwcflnxrfl ("xv-W ("x t-{ 351 "‘ ha '1.) '3 ~51 (7% (\Ln r-i f’\ C‘\ C‘W JxL". "I ——J' CO \f} CC) (A H OJ 0 (\J U\\C C‘ \OC/ 0 C)\Cl_J \0 H 4" 1.“. 71} (44 H0) \13 C.»(\.' C‘\\i) I‘1CJKCU C-J CIVC.‘ C3\O C} CN lfl C‘\C\J ()0 C.) 1C'\\O P\[“C ~«"'~L‘\ -.-{ cocooooooooo .00.... 0000000000.. ’1‘ (v‘\ (H w cw O\ rm rm (fixr (u (*\ rm \ C _, .3 JC r"! —-I Q C‘. H CAR) r~--J\o (3 CC.) up (w c~~ ‘, C—-E\-l\c‘~\£:L\—C~£\—t~~L\-[\—‘\— \L L~\ \(Jxob-t~f\< C‘~[\-\D\O\O\O\O\U\D\C‘ O \J k!) -gJ _ m C) \i) CC; O C? C‘ O C) [\— IT'ZT :1‘xg—«IOII C "CH )r-{r—l" ’ U\\OUJ 03.13 C.r-—l(\1.:j..:3‘ C\U\ wmc;_..('\lf\oq C,r—1(J.)h\("\(f‘\ 1;. \L: F-Cm-r.:u‘\.J[\-\»"'1J'\CY'.T \O (J‘\C\1\Ur4.U\..;I‘r—4[\CJCIJC‘IJ o o o o o o o o o - o 0 00000000.. 0.0.0.000... D-—CQ\;;C'—IU\O’\C\CJC'—'r—{ "I (upijU"\r;*[\-C‘J (‘fiOsr—LLI LOWER) [\~\O\O LC‘\C}\.;TE\I\- CJCICUHHHHHC—‘I HH -.---4 {—4 [—4 H L '\\') (x- f~--O CC 2 0‘ HI.) (I? m) -73 L\-U _C)’ CU C\1 (\\C‘ 7'1 (\J (I) (\1 O\-_'.1‘ CxJ Cf.) \Q C -3 H j\,., '1) (\J uni) H r~ C. Um C*\Z"~ C\. I» C- (_.: H H 3‘ U’\ to CJ\ Ln CL\ cu \C) : (\i H \O Jx b- (hop .1! (V (C \Q (q ...? ..C.. 0000.0. ooaoooooooooOooooooooooo CJ‘ (‘0 (Y‘ r--.{C: r—I C r—‘l (‘4' r-’. r‘ Qx :1 H r’{ r4 r‘i -.\ H r" C: r“! C1 H CJ\ C C) C," :4 C} O U‘CC\ CJ\ C\J r-l (_.:. Q‘\ 5—1 :— (\J (\1 C\J (\J Cu (\1 (\1 Cu Ck. ("a CC LWCU C\‘ Cu (\1 Cu CM CC! CU (\J C‘v C\i 0 CV (N C\; CC} CM f“! r4 H CM CM C‘C.‘ LL; C) P- H La 0 l ‘6; o I \O I C) [\— KO {.2 L“ E: o C} 74 (\J CU CU (U .1‘ Q . , . C Cl C G.) H > C: Q) 04 .0 r-i C‘.‘ mngu’) F‘C-J C7\<‘7‘ GT- ;.-1 H H m m-'f1a\\0 L\-CI> O\ C) m ;_‘; H H (\1 (Y\._:“L"\\O F—CC) J C‘ cu :3 4.33.»: H HHHH Hr—ir—Ir—{r—iw O: F-iC\JC‘qC\;C\;C\1C\JC\JC\JC\JP\Q‘ ‘ J a :11 C) 2* W; 0 L34 ¢r*' ( 1 Or’i £1. om 1‘ . $4 :3 . $4 :3 0 L‘ ("J 723+) C {r +3 Q ".3 4- L., "C. Q‘ Y—t C; (D L4 C (1? r; 3 ;:.' M ii :2: :3 I I :_ if) 0) Q2. L. s... Homlflmfi-f‘WflwC) OO\O LN-COHLH‘UNQN ‘\.(\J Hh-r'NxomLRCDoJr—i r—J. 4(4) S-u 0.: Cu \O (‘fiH (“\CL) ("X ("\("\CL) 3 [\— \O (C) (T) LOxO CWO C0 C3 (\1 ) O\ H u‘\ (“Wme C) Hut) -3 ri -\._; @Q‘ cocooAqooooQOW 00.000.00.00 000000009000 “'25 ,r.‘ O C C.‘ Q\ O Q\ C593) OJ 0_\ 0 0 041' H 0.) (L) O H C) H H «1'3 41 (D Ox H Cd H O\. C}\ O .-_'> H. i) 7' gr) HHHOHULJ} C2..7\——:T HHHOC‘2r—IHHHH OCf:HHHOCHC*r--:---S [-4 H U) (1) (:3 L '12 L1,. . ‘\ 4 :CL. [\_~II\L"\[\-U\OC)[\CLEC~J " C‘JmU\L\«O(\JL\-C7 b—(M CUM": L\-[\-J\(\1 C)(\J [\«1'4 54 032C»; c-*qc;>£\-C)C(Y\Ou.' “ HC\1(\J mowaAerL‘ U\C\J (‘0 cup-w.) UMQuJ it: 96‘ 0000000000 o. co... 0... 000.00 '2‘ .5" \O\UL“-\O\O[‘—L\-t‘-l\-\O O") U\U\\L) l\-\O\OU\\O\U\O \O\O\O\" \O\O\G\OU\ \u 3.x; 5; LT.‘ E~I E4 0) Cr.) E 'J 4;. g \0 \Oa) HCO mmmcoco ,.) LC 0: «no \0 \0 1A,?! ~Ox (AC (MO Inca L\-U‘\\O U\Lr\c~'\1r\ H '3. 11,44 0 o O o O O o o o o o o o o o I o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .. ..1.“\OC\J[\~C‘—“JC\L\-E\-\C 3%) y~1U\£\44 2,) p C. U; 0r" If} [\_[\. E a, o o LL13 GQHHU\O~.C\1 Oxoxom ‘4': N3\C17l\-C\lr—!OO\OC'\CUW\W\ \chUxmcbmr—lrflxo CL. H .: 4‘1 in (x. b—lfl CA (L (\1 u.) c~— L\~ U HC, \[\- H Una.) -3 c» C: (j, C C a; \O :1; (fl U“. \1) \0 \Q C 4 4 (”\r-{r—{HCVCVHF-4ZLOJ (\IN N (u4xch‘xm N 41.—4‘0 .1.: vx—l HHU OJ Hm 0'\‘ .t 50 (merfi (flow rrx (firm hwqm UN (q (“\mcfi (”NON ("warm (mm Cumcflw‘xd\mm0‘.n\ r—H (E: c-—; (I L. :1 +3 0:) (\J P— H (\- C‘) O\ H C}! C) C) (A «no ...‘I Q OWCO m \(4 \O H.:r m 0 0.; (\J (\1 r~--- ‘LL‘ (.1;- U: 4 (\J L\- H H 0‘1 H O\ C) .4? a» CW4 “i f'\l\- 4'qu r-‘z C. (“x w H 0.4:. U‘. H C.\ (W O\ :‘ .7-— 0r1 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O Q “NJW\P &Z\C{\Ot‘-H (V U“"‘I"5.\OHMC§3H WON-0‘ CNN -..u; (w ("0 .2. \Owwwuwwwxow [\-\L)\O\L’)\Qf~t\-£\\L)l\ [\~(\-\L3\AJL\\O[\-\C\OD~L~E‘~- B“ 43 mmcflm C'\HL\J(\1\O\OOCIJ . - Ct. [\‘ H lefl 4‘7 O (\J U'\ (“CA4 (\J w 43 0.3%) cu CO H [\eMxL O O O\ Law) H .30 O\U\U‘ U x; u; Cir-4 0 0 0 0 of 0 0 0 o 0 o o [-1'Q\f"'\OJO\("’\..;701;P\4.‘~O\U waxvcur—lmuj H1110: a L~ , er—{O\C‘)P’ \C‘Ofi‘ffl\b'\flc 000.000.0000 0000000... no 122:. HHHHHOHQHC‘Hn .39; 0%“me .JCVJLN-(x 4M0 O\O‘.1f\r-{.—3‘LUC\J U. t\~t~- H H H H C: .5 mos Oct)1r\..jL\-rr\m03mo L‘~HU\(\Jt\r—{CDL’\,JIC\~O\O (\J OxC.c\Jo\.—|r\ J“; (\J 470'. Q :: U\ Cu 0 CAD [\(‘fi 4). Oh .r—4’ (\1 O H C‘) O\.;1 r4 \O\f) L. .(fl [\- (\. (Cu (4) Cu t\- C L\- (C\ an x 432-{\ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O. I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 DC Ji‘C COCC C\C\C\JCC1(:‘V\ cut—{CCVHCNHOHHUx : uxHC“C'(\JHHH-.r\ ‘» H.» $4 0 w Cu Cu w w CU H (\J 0.; Cu Cc :. (x; Cu (\1 (\- (\J (\J w (\a CV L\. \J L”. (\a (\1 (\a C» (\1 (x. Cu H (a an: 0-1 r‘i Q [\~ _ I In . E‘ 1"). ' ' (‘> I H 0 C \0 C L\ ’ 14 H CO hi (5 0 U’ (13 . C.“ (1} 0 C 0: L Q) O D (\J CC»--.1J\\O [\(A‘) uxC‘ (U g: N M.SU\\O (\LU O\ C) :5 ;~; H H (\J mgjlnxo (\CU C“. ".- 'c :4 4.: ;4.. «1 WHY \m0\(“\(‘r\m(‘\(*\4 Q) ) h- 43444434441431.“ 0) b U\U\U\U\U\U\U.U\U\\u C (:3 1 tr 0 o c. H -.~' (2. "‘ ... .0. "‘ :5 0 L4 '3 0 L4 :5 o '- O {.343 0 £134) r 7.3 — L C; (D :4 c; (v :— C C“: (I? ;.~_-: 0 m >4 '1 (a , 5 ‘A 357 L v k ‘ 1:41-31? [H '4 4.4! I" ”T .»~'\T'l oJ—L.4'~ Al; 0 .-L. 4\ \.l| -248- CW C". P~- U-J (75' U ~ (3.. ’ '1‘. f ~ (7‘: CI C‘y ("A J [\- U‘\ ".x\ E» t-- w \. \ ‘J (:1; r—? ('\\O 4’ H t \0 4f --1\ -J”\ 1.. th-'\t\\i.‘\1}] ‘ I \l-J 1 1' | \13 L“.—¥§f\~;‘ \(’ —;4 ‘il‘ 1—1F\\J\"-: \i) 1~:'\‘Lf\ r“; r". H u": #1 (4 hi .---i r-i r-i r—{ r'{ H r‘l H H H H H t—‘l H r'i t—i H 1-‘\' ...:1£~L\w.:.‘..( ‘JL t~C~HO\\O-f.*r'\H4’_*C> (“HG ‘l-W—P'H C' (“b-"J F'x—l .——. t‘c’ C~C.C; Huh; -3»ng H 3:: (I. (2- O‘\0"‘1;\._.\ (M.,?) H 1.- .< \ (”x C~J OJ U‘xU‘. C) U. "N (m (u (a: ("\ m (C‘\(*‘.("\C*\(“‘\C\J C‘.C'\f'\(‘~(‘x(*\ mmmmmr XMC'XCHMMM c3 '41“ 0“ 4T \C-NL' 2 [\.(,._ "I: 0‘ f-~ C- O C) 4! (M-S.? C‘ (T. (‘y ('1 -J\ 41 H C‘. 0-. [H (v \'.4 r-l. L"- (1 C‘x. (x; (*'\ (‘J \ H \C') :34 r-B LU H (' ‘. CD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I '3‘».k.-‘.'_)\CJ ...,4 [‘L.U\\* [‘-C‘~ C‘A r-{UJ‘VLJ [‘N C, r—{CY\'.J\[‘—- U.) \f .I \f r \(_, \Q \ , '\.I ~ \;_) \; U \L) [ ~ [‘~ \i.) \C) \U L“. C‘- \i..3 \U \I.) \J C“) H C) H U.‘ waf) L‘~—- [\- P~ (\301 m C. -:1 H \L‘« r4 C_) (fix .w {4 Jx (‘\ ("‘.< \‘~ ('\v ‘4' (W 2-2 (4‘ 4‘! u \u (..\ \7, (‘~- 14‘ 414* L -J\ L‘- 000000000000 00000000000:’)\ ti ‘ I 2C1“ I..\LL. u, Cw CW (. (7 C) 4‘ h .) CI‘ C\\-.. \L’J O\L\— Cu C) 0 (>( LuC‘C.‘ QHHrHHH C..C(__,‘HC_‘(_C‘HOr-i CL) - IU’.(\I C-\ I (., C (\J (.1-? C... ("\CJ L"\\C \(g C‘ (~03 [419 (\1 P"\ \O -"\ [\— C.‘ v.3 r1 (\ C , C“. u. CC. r—' H U: (\1 chu (“LR C L , U u: L: .0. L\~ C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O H C9 C, r; C \L‘u' r ! C, C! H V‘\ r"' C, (‘u r-{ r1 r4 r-I (\J V. (‘1 \,:\1‘l O\ (\2 C» (V L ' (L r! (”\a Cu (\3 (R. (\J I C‘- C- CU (\. L~J C . (\J (\J C‘u H (J r" C“ I r4 C :3 Q .L"! ('3 LI l1: fi 1' Q) -: o. (4:14“; Inc.» C.\ (3- cu ;.._; H H n: (Cm? 1520 H33 U 0 ‘1‘ :5. \y \u ‘L' \O \ \11\L‘, \C \J {- G: t: [— [\- [\-- [v [2— f-— CH t— 1‘th ,;; ;, O (.5 "'4 f“ o -H a 5». L3 30 L. ‘34— 0 C +3 f: C E; I“ .\ E1". ’1‘ 1 1 I L 18. 19. 21. -249- List of Variables on Data Cards Av. 12th rib fat thickness Barcass weight Round Score Carcass conformation Hind Quarter conformation Fore Quarter conformation Maturity score Marbling score Carcass grade 5th Thoracic - h in. 5th Thoracic - 8 in. 5th Thoracic - 12 in. 5th Thoracic - av. 8th Thoracic - h in. 8th Thora01c - 8 1810 8th Thoracic - 12 in. 8th Thoracic - av 11th ThOI‘é'LClc - b.1ne 11th Thoracic - 8 in. 11th Thoracic - 12 in. 11th Thoracic - av. lst L‘mbar " h 1110 181'. Lmbar - 8 m0 lst 1am " 12 1110 1st Lumbar - av. hth Lumbar - h in. hth L‘Mbar - 8 m0 hth lem '- 12 m0 hth Lumbar - av. 6th L‘mbar " ’4 “0 6th Lumbar - 8 in. 6th Lmbar - 12 1110 6th Lumbar - av. 31d Sacra]: - h 1110 3rd Sacral - 8 in. 31% 58cm - 121-De 3111 Sacral - 870 5th Sacral - ll. 130 5th 58ch - 8 m0 5th Sacral - 12 in. 5th Sacral - a'0 Av. at h in. Av. at 8 in. Av. at 12 in. Depth of 10th rib. Depth of 12th rib. Depth of Brisket. Length Of roundo Circumference of round. Taste panel-flavor 510 52. 53- 5h. 55. 56. S7. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7h. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 8h. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93- 9h. 95- 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. Wt. of un-trimmed lean outs. Wt. of belly cuts 4 xx, - Wt. of trimmed lean cuts. Wt. of external fat trim. Wt. of K.K. - R.S-. Wt. of boned, trimmed RLRC. Cutting loss - R.S. R.S. weight. Wt” tin-trimmed round- R030 Wt. trimed r011“! " R050 Wt. fat trim round - R.S. Wt0 m-trmai 10in - ReSe Wt. trimmed loin - R.S. Wte fat trim 101-n " R080 Wt0 un'trimw rib "' 3080 Wt. trimmed rib - R.S. Wt. fat trim rib - R.S. Wt. Un-trimmed chuck - R.S. Wt. trima ChuCk - R080 Wt. fat trim chuck - R.S. Uto0 8m - R080 Wt. brisket - R.S. Salable yield - 11.8. Total internal fat trim- R.S. Wt. was " R030 Wt0 plate - R080 "to M - R050 119m mum - R080 Fat trim mum " 3080 $09 roam - 3080 Yield loin 2* R.S. Fat tri- 10111 - R080 fine 10111 " R080 Yield Rib - R.S. Fat trim rib - R.S. Bone rib - R.S. Yield chuck - R.S. Fat trim chuck - R.S. Bone chuck - R.S. Yield 6“ " R030 Fat trim shank - R.S. Bone shank - R.S. Yield brisket - R.S. Fat trim brisket " R080 Bone brisket - 11.8. % pmtem 1.“ Lone Yield Plate - R080 Fat trim plate - R.S. Bone plate - R.S. Yield flank - 11.3. 101. 102. 103. 101:. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 116. 119. -250- Fat trim flank - R.S. Bone flank - R.S. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Rump-less round - L.S. Lean rump-less round - L.S. fat rump-less round - L.S. bone rump-less round - L.S. Wt0 Rmp - L030 Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Ht. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. 19“ mp ’ L050 fat mp " L080 bone rump - L.S. intaCt roam - L080 lean intact round -_ L.S. fat intact round - L.S. bone intact round - L.S. 10111 - L050 lean loin - L.S. fat 101D " L050 bone loin - L.S. rib - L080 lean rib - L030 fat; rib - L.S. bone rib - L.S. Chan - L080 lean chuck - L.S. fat chuck - L.S. bone chuck - L.S. shank - L080 lean shank - L.S. fat sunk " L080 bone amnk " L050 brisket! - L030 133-n briskat - L080 fat brisket - L.S. bone brisket - L.S. plate " L0 S0 lean plat. - L030 fat plate " L080 bone plate - L.S. flank - L080 lean flank - L.S. fat flank - L.S. bone flank '- L050 K0K0 " L080 fat K.K. - L.S. Kidney - L.S. left side. tom lean " L080 total fat - L.S. total bone - L.S. Cutting 1083 " L080 Wt. Wt. 9-10-11 rib. lean 9-10-11 rib. 153. 15h. 155. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 16h. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 17h. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 18h. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 19h. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 20h. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. fat 9-10-11 rib. bone 9-10-11 rib. 6-7-8 ribs lean 6—7-8 rib. fat 6-7-8 ribs bone 6-7-8 rib. 12th r1b0 10311 12th r1b0 Wt. fat 12th rib. ‘Wt. bone thhn rib. Fat measurement A. Fat measurement B. Fat measurement C. Fat measurement D . Fat measurement B. Fat measurement F. Fat measurement G. Av. measurments D ,E,F,G. Av. all fat measuranents. Loin eye area. Taste panel- Juiceness. ‘Wt. semitendinosis ‘Wt.‘0uadriceps Wt. semimembran. + adduct. Wt. semimanbranosug Wt. biceps Earls Wt. rectus femoris Wt. triceps brachii Wt. supraspinatus Wt. soas ma or Wt. Eon Isa us dorsi Wt. rug-92mm . Wt. L0D0 6.7-8 r1b0 Wt. l..D. 12th rib. "to L0D0 101110 Wt. radius and ulna. Wt. four. Wt. tibia and fibula. Wt. scapula. Wt. lmmerus. Est. % Retail yield (Briedenstein) U.S.D.A. Est. % RLRC. Est. RLRC (Brungardt 8: Bray) Est. Lb. lean (Cole) Est. Lean (H 8: H). Est. Fat (H & H). Est. Bone (H 8: H). Taste panel - tenderness. WamergBratzler shear tenderness. Z Ether extract. % Moisture of L.D. Steer number. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 21h. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 22k. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 23h. 235. 236. 237. 238. ‘ 239. 21:0. 21:1. 21:2. 2143. 2%. 2145. 2146. 21:7 . 2148. 21190 2500 251. 252 . 253. -251- Transformed Variables Variables below are expressed as S K.K. of total carcass. % Untrimw 13“ cuts " R050 S Belly cuts - 3.8. S Trimmed lean cuts - 3.3. % M0 fat trim - R080 S Untnlmd.roum of 3.8. S Trimmed round of 3.8. S Total rad. fat trim: 3.8. S Untrimmed loinv 3.8. S Trimmed loine 3.3. S Fat trim.from loin. 3.5. S Untrimed rib- 3.8. S Trimmed rib - R.S. S Rib fat trim - 3.8. S Uhtrimmed chuck - 3.3. S Trimmed chuck - 3.8. S Chuck fat trim - 3.8. % Shank " R080 % Brisket - R030 % Plate " R080 % Flank - R080 % RIIRC - R03. S Retail Yield - 3.8. S Internal Fat trhs - 3.3. S Bone - 3.5. % Yiild of round - of 3.3. 5 Int. fat trim round - of 3.5. 5 Bone of round - of 3.5. S Yield of loin - of 3.8. $ 111130 fat! trim 0: 10m - R030 S Bone of loin - of 3.3. S Yield of rib - of 3.3. 5% Int. fat trim rib - of 3.5. 5 Bone of rib - of 3.8. 7: Yield of chuck - of 12.5. S Int. fat trim chuck - 3.8. S Bone of chuck - of 3.8. S Yield of shank - of 3.3. % f‘t trim of Shank. Of R080 S Bone of shank - of 3.8. S Yield of brisket - of 3.8. S Fat trim brisket - of 3.8. S Bone of brisket - of 3.3. 7: Yield of plate - of 3.3. S Fat trim plate - of 3.8. S Bone of plate - of 3.8. S Yield of flank - of 3.8. S Fattrim of flank - of 3.8. S Bone of flank - of 3.8. cent of the cuts themselves: a Fr Y O fella "R030 255. 256. 257. 258. 2S9. 260. 261. 262. 263. 26h. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 2714. 275. 276. 277. S Fat of round - 3.5. S Bone of round - 3.8. 'S Yield of loin - 3.8. S Fat of loin - 3.8. S Bone of loin - 3.8. S Yield of rib - 3.8. S Fat of rib - 3.5. S Bone of rib - 3.8. S Yield of chuck - 3.3. S Fat of chuck - 3.8. S Bone of chuck - 3.8. S Yield of shank - 3.8. % Fat or Shank - R080 S Bone of shank - 3.8. % Yield of brisket - 12.5. S Fat of brisket - 3.8. 3‘ Bone of brisket - 3.8. S Yield of plate - 3.5. % Fat of plate - R050 S Bone of plate - 3.8. S Yield of flank - 3.3. % Fat Of flank - R060 S Bone of flank - 3.8. Following variables are expressed as a ercent of the left side: . mnpfes‘sirom .... . 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 28k. 285. 2860 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 29h. 295. 296. 297. 2980 S Rump of L.S. 1 IntaCt round or L050 S Loin of L.S. % Rib 01' L080 S Chuck of L.S. % Shank 0: L050 S Brisket of L.S. S Plate of L.S. % Flank Of L080 % K0K0 or 10080 S K0K0 Of R080 S Lean of rmpless round of L.S. S Fat of rumpless round of L.S. S Bone of rumpless round of L.S. S Lean of rump of L.S. % Fate of rump or 10080 S Bone of rump of L.S. S Lean of intact round of L.S. S Fat of intact round of L.S. S Bone of intact round of L.S. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 303. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 31h. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 32h. 325. -252- S Lean of loin of L.S. S Fat of loin of L. 8. S Bone of loin of L. S. S Lean of rib of L. S. S Fat of rib of L. 8. S Bone of rib of L. S. S Lean of chuck of L.S. S Fat of chuck of L. 8. S Bone of chuck of L.S. S Lean of shank of L.S. S Fat of shank of L.S. S Bone of shank of L.S. SW of brisket of L.S. S Fat of brisket of L. S. S Bone of brisket of L. S. S Lean of plate of L.S. S Fat of plate of L. S. S Bone of plate of L. 8. S Lean of flank of L. S. % Fat or flfllk Of L050 S Bone of flank of L.S. S Fat of K.K. of L.S. S Kidney of L.S. % Tom 1933 0: L080 S Total fat of L.S. S Total bone of L.S. S Cutting loss of L.S. Following variables are expressed as a percent of themselves: 326. 327 . 328. 329. 330. 331- 332 . 333. 33k- 335. 336 C 3370 338. 339. 3&0. 3&1. 3L2. 3&3. 3th. 3&5. 3h6. 3h7. 3h8. 3h9. 350. S Lean of round - L.S. S Fat of rumpless round - L.S. S Bone of rumpless round - L.S. S Lean of mp - L.S. S Fat of rump - L.S. % Bone Of rump- L080 S Lean of intact round- L.S. S Fat of intact round- L.S. S Bon no of intact round - L.S. S Lean of loin- L. S. SF at or 10111- L030 $30116 Of lom- L030 $1! “D or rib- L080 %F at or rib " L030 S Bone of rib- L.S. S Lean of chuck- L.S. S Fat of chuck- L .8. S Bone of chuck- L. S. S Lean of shank- L. S. S Fat of shank- L.S. S Bone of shank -. L. S. S Lean of brisket - L.S. S Fat of brisket - L.S. S Bone of brisket - L.S. S Lean of plate - L.S. 351. 352. 35}. 35h. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 36h. 365. 366. 367. 368. S Fat of plate - L.S. % Bone or plate " L080 S Lean of flank - L.S. S Fat of flank - L.S. S Bone of flank - L.S. in 6-7-8 rib- L0 S0 tin 6-7-8 rib - L.S. no in 6-7-8 rib- L.S. Lean in 12th rib - L.S. Fat in 12th rib - L.S. Bone in 12th rib - L.S. S 9-lO-ll rib of intact rib- L.S. S 6-7-8 rib of intact rib - L.S. Volume of round. SJL S Fa % Bone in 9-10-11 rib - L.S. SLean SFat SBon S S S Following variables were added to card # 0 after original punching: 369. 370- 371. 372 . 373. 37k. 375. Lb. total fat trim of 3.8. % total fat trill! of R0 50 Eat X0K0 Wt“ (only In. S0 )0 PPM K" (fresh basis) Pm K” (protein basis) PH! Na: (fresh basis) PHI Na (protein basis) ufigmmrgwm‘ugmmmnymugw