THE RELATiONSHlP OF CERTAIN
BODY MEASUREMENTS
TC \XI‘EEGHT N BEEF CATTLE

Thesis for the. Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
\X'Wlliam M. Barton
1938

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTADI BODY W333

T0 WEIGHT IN BEEF cm

Theais for’Degrea of M. 30

Michigan State College

Will ism Mo Barton

1938

THES'S

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF 0mm BODY kmamams

TO WEIGHT IN Em CATTLE

A THESIS
SUBI‘EI‘ITED TO THE FACULTY
OF
MCHIQ'LN STATE COILEGE
OF
LCEICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE
BY
WILLIME M. BARTON
IN
PARTIAL FUIFIIIIflVI' OF TIE Rzgmms
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
mum. HUSBANDRY
EAST LANSING
JINE 1938

‘1- 15900

.Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his sincere
appreciation to Professor G. A. Brown, Head of
the Department of Animal Husbandry, for his advice
and guidance, and to Instructor George J.‘Propp,
Assistant in Animal Husbandry, for his helpful
assistance and constructive criticism, which
were invaluable in the preparation of this
manuscript.

Appreciation is also due Dr. W. D. Baton,
Associate in mathematics, tor his helpful advice

in the statistical computations.

I.
II.
III.
IV.

V.

VII.
VIII.
IX.

X.

XII.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review of Literature
Experimental Material
Eethod of Calculation
Measurements Used
Plan of merment
Experimental Results
General Consideration and Discussion
Sumnery
Conclusion
Bibliography
Tables
I. Feeder Cattle Measurements
II. Fat Cattle Measuranents

Grand Totals for Both Feeders
and Fat Cattle

III. Weights of Beef Cattle as Predicted
tmm Heart Girth Measurements

IV. Approximate Heights of Beef Cattle
of Good Grade for a Given Heart-
Girth Measurement, United States
Department of Agriculture

V. Estimating Weights of Dairy Cows
from Heart-Girth Measurements,
United States Department of
Agriculture

VI. Average Body Weights of Dairy
Cattle for Given Chest Girths,
C. Brody, Missouri

Page

 

10

11

1.3

16

18

26

SO

XIII. Figures

1.

2.

3.

4.

XIV. Charts

Measuring Instruments, Standard
Equipment Obtained from the
Bureau of Animal Industry, united
States Department of Agriculture

Measurements Taken for Width of
Body

Measurements of Length, Depth,
Circumference, and Height

Correlations between Measurements
and Weights in Beef Cattle

Page

 

14

l?

21

ms RELATIOINBHIP OF CERTAIN BODY W3

TO WEIGTI' IN BEEF ems
Introduction

It has long been thought that there is a definite relationship be-
tween certain body measurements and the weight of any animal. Many of the
old-time cattle buyers who traveled from place to place buying cattle,
based the price they were willing to pay for an animal upon the amount it
would weigh when driven ever the scales. The basis for this Judgnent on
weight was usually the depth of body, width of body, height or distance
from ground and various other body measurements as determined by the eye.
Of course, very few, if any of them, would ever say that an animal was so
many inches deep in body, or so many inches wide or around, or would weigh
a given number of pounds.

It is a known fact that wide, thick, deep-ribbed calves weigh more
than calves of the same age and breed that are shallow-bodied, narrow-
backed individuals. Without a doubt, any man acquainted in any way with
livestock would be able to tell which of two such animals was the heavier.
Comparatively few men have an opportunity to estimate weights often enough
to make them proficient in the work. Could weights be estimated on a
reasonably accurate basis from any body measurement, it would be of insati-
mable help to many livestock producers. The question of how many centi-
meters or inches in depth, width or height are required to indicate a
definite weight is still unanswered. The further question of increase in
these measurements as an animal grows needs a great deal of study.

Another question arises with animals on full feed that are being
fitted'for shows or even finished for market. A8 they become fatter,

they also become heavier, but are they increasing in circumference of chest,

-2-
cr flank, height or width, in the same proportion to body weigit as they

would increase were they being grown along, requiring a longer period of
time to reach the same weight?

Any method of predicting weight rather accurately by certain body
measurements would benefit tremendously the commercial cattle raiser,
especially the similar breeders through the Middle West and West who are
better known as livestock farmers, and never have more than a few cattle
to sell at any one time. The buyer has a much wider experience than the
seller in most cases, and therefore, is a better judge of weigits and
in many cases buys cattle from the farmer at an estimated weigit much
below the real one.

If animal husbandry workers could devise a tape for measuring
and a table of weights based on measurements, it would be of incalcuable
value to those who have livestock to sell.

This study, to a limited degree, tends to deal with some of the
above questions and problems, and discusses the correlation and relation.-
ship betwaen certain body measurements and weight in beef cattle. It
also brings together data in an effort to determine what and how much

relationship there is battleen measurements and weight.

.3-

Review of Literature

The study of body measurements and their relation to weight is not
an extensive one. The literature is very meagre and of a varied nature.

Most of the work has been done with dairy cattle although the
United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Division
of Animal Husbandry, this past year (1) prepared a table predicting weights
of beef cattle, from heart girth measurements. There is a wide divergence
beheen this table and the one arrived at as a result of this study. The
United States Department of Agriculture (2) , Bureau of Dairy Industry,
has also prepared a table predicting the weights of dairy cattle from
heart girth measurements. Their table is included in this paper and also
one prepared by Brody of Missouri (3). In comparing these two tables
on predicting weights of dairy cattle, even though both are based on
large numbers, there are in places wide differences in predicted weights
using the same heart girth measurements. There is also a rather wide
difference betmen the table prepared as a result of this study and that
prepared by the Bureau of Animal Industry, Division of Animal Husbandry.

I. L. Lush has probably done more work with measurements with beef
cattle than anyone else. In his study with Texas steers published in 1928
(4) in which masurements were taken on all calves as feeders and again as
finished steers, he found that the greatest increase was in body widths,
followed in order by lesser increases in body circumference, width of the
pelvic region, body depth, body length, height at topline from ground,
and head measurements. He states further that unavoidable errors in taking
body measurements limit their usefulness in describing animal form, size,
and fatness. Age plays a very important role in determining how a steer's
shape changes during fattening. Relative to weight, nearly all changes

were more extreme with older steers than with young ones. This was to be

-4-

expected as a logical result of the fact that the gins made by‘ the older
steers consist more largely of fat than do the gains made by younger steers.
The younger steers mde a definite increase in the absolute size of
their skeletal and muscular tissues during the fattening period.
£8 a result of their studies at Missouri, Wowbridge and Haigh (5)
concluded fmm experiments using different aged cattle and different rations,
that:
(a) Height at hips is affected very little,
if stall, by fatness.
(b) Height at withers is affected practically
not at all by fatness.
(0) Length from shoulder to hips is slightly
affected by fatness.
(d) Length from shoulder to ischium increases
distinctly with fatness.
(9) Width of hips increases distinctly with
fatness.

(f) Heart girth increases 53?.“11 with increase

in fatness.

At the University of Wyoming (6) seven measurements were taken
at the beginning and the end of the fattening period of four lots of
calves, and three lots of ”0-year-old steers. These were analyzed
chiefly with reference to their relation to type (1.6. to ranginess vs.
low-setness) as determined visually by experienced Judges. Heart girth,
width at hips, depth of chest, and paunch girth all showed large increases
during the fattening of two-year-old steers. Height at withers showed a
small increase and the distance from the floor of the chest to the ground

showed a distinct decrease. All measurements of the calves increased

-5—

during fattening, but the greatest increases were in heart girth, width at
hips and paunch girth. The increase in depth of chest was slightly less and
the increases in cannon circumference, height at withers, and body length
were much less than the first three measurements mentioned. The increase
was least of all in the diatoms from chest floor to ground.

In the steer feeding experiments reported by Evvard, Culbertson,
Wallace and Hmond of the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station ('7),
heart girth, paunch girth, shoulder height and rump height were measured on
steers in feeder condition and again after fattening. The average increase
and percentage increase were calculated. For the most part these steers were
two-year-olds with about four months batman the five sets of measurements.
A few were calves and yearlings. All four measurements increased during
fattening, but heart girth and paunch girth increased more than height.

On a percentage basis, the increase in heart girth was slightly greater
than the increase in paunch girth in all lots. In most lots shoulder
height increased more than rump height, but there were some exceptions to
this.

These Iowa results give a clear picture of two height measurements,
both increasing slightly and at very nearly the same rates during fattening,
while the he girth measurements increase more than the height measurements
and the heart girth increases slightly but significantly more than paunch
girth.

Luah sums his 1928 (4) report up in the following way. "In general,
steers increase much more in 1133 during fattening than they do in length
or depth of body and least of all in height and head measurements. In
general, the soft parts of the body increase most rapidly, and the only
bony measurements which even approximately keep up with the increase in live

weights are the pelvic measurements. There is some breed difference beheen

o6—

Herefords and Brahmans in flank girth and paunch girth.

The most generally useful single measurement among those which increase
rapidly with increasing fatness seems to be chest girth, although chest
width and loin width could be more useful if the errors in taking those
measurements could be made as small as the errors in most of the other
measurements. The most generally useful ratio studied seems to be the ratio
of chest girth to wither height.‘

Lush states further: "Throughout the whole question of using body
measurements to supplement studies of weight changes in cattle, there runs
as an undertone the question of how accurate body measurements can be as an
objective description of animal form. In general, great accuracy is attained
only in the measurement of rigid, bony structures, such as head length,
cannon circumferences, or width at eyes. However, these parts of the animal
body are usually of very slight direct comnercial importance. The details
of conformation which have a direct commercial importance are for the
most part concerned with soft structures which have curved surfaces and
are Joined together by movable Joints. They are therefore difficult or
impossible to describe in a mathematical sense with anything like comlete-
uses. It seems to us from our experience in this study that body measurements
should be regarded as of minor importance compared with weight changes,
and that in most cases a system of artificial grades, standardized either
by the use of models or of pictures might more satisfactorily describe
important details of conformation than simple linear measurements alone can.
Linear measurements should be regarded as supplementary to other means
of description rather than as a substitute for those other means. Ii'he
great advantage of linear measurancnts is their high degree of objectivity,
which advantage they share with body weight."

In his work with dairy cattle (8) Lush states that the correlation

between the size of a measurement on different animals and the usual error

-7-

in taking that measurement is slight. The error for the most part is dis-
tinctly larger for larger animals. The accuracy of most measurements
compares rather favorably with the accuracy of weights where the standard
error of weighing was found in most cases to be between six and twelve
pounds or not far from one per cent of the mean weight. Measurements are
less affected by day to day changes in weather and other externalrcondi-
tions than are weights. The principal objection to the extensive use

of body measurements, at loast with dairy cows, seems to be not their
inaccuracy but their inadequacy to describe the animals in a complete way.

Twenty-five different measurements were each taken eleven times
on each of nine cows and ten yearling heifers from the Jersey herd of
the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. In only a few measurements
was the standard error of measuring much larger than two per cent of the
measurement and in about one third of the measurements it was less than
one per cent. The errors of measuring are of about the same magnitude as
the errors of weighing when expressed as percentages of the mean.

In another study on the accuracy of cattle weigts (9) Lush finds
the experimental error in the accuracy of single weights of cattle may
be expected, ordinarily under uniform conditions, to be between six and
twelve pounds.

The experimental error is somewhat smaller with younger cattle and
is distinctly smaller under unchanging environmental conditions than when
some sudden change is made in some important condition between tWo of the
weighing“

The size of the experimental error may perhaps be rather closely
related to the fat-free weight of the animal or to the size and capacity
of the animal's digestive tract, due to "fills" or "shrinks". The size

of the experimental error to be eXpected increases somewhat with the age

of the animals.

-8-

Severson and Gerlaugh (10) at Pennsylvania State conducted a study
in relation to changes in body weights and measurements of steers during the
fattening period. They measured a total of 214 steers, taking circumference
of chest, with an average measurement of seventy-three inches. Average weight
for the 214 head was 900 pounds.

In examining the table in this study on predicting weights from
heart girth measurements, it is shown that the predicted wei ghts for steers
with a heart circmnference of seventy-three inches is 913 pounds. This
weight is much closer than most livestock producers are able to guess.
Steers having a large increase in the circumference of the chest have been
those that had made the greatest daily gains. (It is true that the more a
steer gains, the greater is the amount of covering of flesh over the ribs
and crops or around the heart circumference.) Increases in body measure-
ments have a closer relationship with gains in live weight than the
initial measurements. This would logically be expected, since gins are
dependent upon the capacity of a steer to lay on fat and make growth in
bone and body tissue. The correlation coefficients for the true body
circumferences of chest and rear flank, the width of thurls (hip joint)
and the distance of hip to buttock Show the closest relationship of all
the initial measurements with gains in live weight. This suggests the
possibilities of using these measurements in the selection of feeding
steers, at least for experimental purposes, as a means of reducing the
experimental error caused by individuality of animals. Circumference of
paunch shows intermediate relationship with ability to gain. The 333:
cumference of chest and rear flank are more important in ascertaining gains
than feed capacity as indicated by the circumference of paunch.

All experimental workers realize that there are errors made in

weighing livestock. All scales do not balmce or break with the same

-9-

tension. There are also errors made in taking any kind of’measurement.
These errors may be due to one or more of several different reasons, such
as, the position the animal is in, the way the operator holds the tape,
and the tension.applied to the tape when.reading the measurement. weather
conditions tend to cause errors. Dirt and other foreign material on the
animal are responsible to some degree for errors.

Regardless of who is doing the work and the kind of'measurament
being taken, under our present method of measuring and weighing, there
will continue to be a certain.amount of error in all weighing and
measuring of animals. From.the studies conducted by other experiment
stations, it has been concluded that, with the errors included, the
measurement which has the most relationship to body'weigmt in.cattle is

that of heart girth.or chest circumference.

-10-

Eiirimental Material

This study'was started in the fall of 1932 and was continued
through a period of three consecutive years. The data studied consists
of various measurements in regard to weight of thirty-five head of
Hereford heifers and thirtybsix head of’Hereford steers. The data was
collected incidental to the major objective of a fattening experiment
being carried on by the Michign Agricultural Experiment Station and
the Bureau of Animal Industry of the united States Department of
Agriculture. Three experiments were conducted, one each in 1932.33, 1933-34,
and 1954-35. In each experiment halve purebred Hereford heifers and
twelve purebred Hereford steers from the United States Range Live
Stock Experiment Station, Miles City, Montana, were used. Measurements
were taken at the beginning and at the end of the feeding period. The
calves weighed on an average of 3'75 pounds as feeders and an average
of 762 pounds as fat cattle. All of the calves graded "choice' as
feeders and ranged from ”choice" to 'xn‘ime" as finished cattle. Seventy.
tvm head of Hereford cattle were used at the start of the experiments,
but because the data on Heifer No. 7 of the 19:54.35 group was found to
be incomplete, she was necessarily eliminated. Since measurements
were taken at both the beginning and at the end of the experiment,
this study really deals with measurements on 142 head of cattle,

classified as feeders and as fat cattle.

-1],-

Method of Calculation

Because these calves were selected for uniformity of type it
seemed unnecessary to compute a multiple correlation batman the measure-
ments used and the weight of the fattening animals, so for convenience
the least square method of calculating was used as it is outlined by
Arkin and Colton (11). The standard error of prediction is a measure of
the variation or the scatter about the line of regression. One standard
error will include sixtyoeight per cent of the cases measured off,

plus and minus about the line of regression.

-12-

' N14 ”is

 

liars 1. Insuring mtrmsnts, Standard Equipent Obtained from the
Bureau of Animal Industry, United states Department of
Agriculture: (1) Measuring rule for height of aninl,
(B) caliper for width measurements, (0) am used to replace
short caliper arms for width measurement of shoulder and
thurls, (D) centimeter tape.

~13-

Measurements Us ed

Some thirty measurements were taken and recorded in centimeters
(Figure 1). Because of the insignificance of sonm of the minor measure-
ments, in figuring relationship between measurements and weight, all but
twelve were discarded. These twelve are: length of body, height at
shoulder, height at hips, depth of brisket, depth rear flank, loin width,
crop width, chest width, width chest floor, heart circumference, flank cir-
cumference and belly circumference. The length of body was taken from
a point just ahead of the top of the shoulder to the pin bone. Height
at shoulder was taken as the animal was standing on a lave]. floor in
as natural a position as possible. Height at hips was taken in the
same way. Depth of brisket was taken, using the parallel bars on the
meter stick, standing at an angle in front of the brisket, the top bar
level over the shoulders or withers, and the bottom bar between the
fore legs, level with the floor or point of the brisket. Depth of rear
flank, was taken using the parallel bars, the top bar being level over
the hips and the lower bar touching and passing under the rear flank.
The loin width was taken, using the small bars midway between the last
rib and the hip Joint. The crop width was taken, using the small bars,
Just back of the shoulder. The chest width was taken using the longer
parallel bars, just back of the shoulders, passing down over the body.
Width of chest floor, was taken using the shorter bars, just back of
the fore leg, or a measurement of the chest floor width. The circmnfer-
ence measurements were taken with a steel tape, graduated in centimeters.
Heart circumference was taken Just back of shoulder and fore legs, pass-
ing around the body; belly circumference, around the middle of the paunch;

and flank circumference, over and imediately in fmnt oi‘ the hip Joint

 

Figure 8. Measurements Taken for Width of Body.

(A) Loin width, (B) chest width, (0) amp width.

-15-

and through the rear flank. .All measurements on any one animal were taken
by the same person, to avoid as much error as possible in drawing the tape

too tight or allowing it to remain too loose.

-16..

Plan of Experiment

The objects of study were:

(1) To determine what relationship existed between the
mechanical measurement and the actual weight of an animal.

(2) To set up a table, if possible, for predicting weights
of beef cattle from different body measurements, or at least from
measurements having the highest correlation or relationship to weight.

(3) To find the difference in weight battleen beef cattle
and dairy cattle, having the same body measuranent, namely heart girth,
and to also show the differemes that might be calculated from different
eXperimental data.

Throughout the entire eXperiment single measurements were used
in calculating the relationship to weight. It is probable that two or
V more measurements, having a high correlation, when thrown together,
could be used more accurately in predicting the weight of a beef
animl, but at the same time, in order to make this study as practicable
as possible, and understandable to all beef cattle producers, it was
decided to use only the single measurement in figuring relationship and,

if possible, in predicting weight.

 

figure 3. measurements of Length, Depth, Circumference, and Height.
(A) Depth of brisket, (13) height at shoulder, (a) width
chest floor, (D) heart circumference, (3) belly circul-
ference, (r) flank circumference, (G) depth of rear flank.
(3) height at hips, (I) length of body.

-18-

marinental Results

The first measurement used in figuring relationship of measure-
ment to weight was that of length of body. The correlation coefficient
betwaen length of body and weight in feeder calves was found to be .749
with a standard error of prediction of 21.75 pounds. This is a fairly
high correlation and the standard error of prediction is small as com-
pared with that of cone of the other measurements. This means that
should a predicting table be set up, this table should be within 21.75
pounds plus or minus of the actual weigit of the animal in sixty-eight
per cent of the cases. The correlation coefficient between langth of
body and weight in fat cattle was .253 with a standard error of predic-
tion of 106.58 pounds. It would, therefore, be useless to try to predict
weights of fat cattle by length of “body measurements.

In using the measurement ”height at shoulder" a correlation of
.473 was obtained with a standard error of prediction of 28.93 pounds
in feeder calves and a correlation of .808 with a standard error of
prediction of 64.92 pounds in fat cattle. Here again the standard error
of prediction is too great to be of much practical value. The correla-
tion coefficient betIeen the "height at hips" measurement and body
weight was found to be .521 with a standard error of prediction of 28.05
pounds and for fat cattle to be .784 with a standard error of 68.54
pounds. Here again, as in the above measurements, the standard error
of prediction is lower in feeder cattle than in fat cattle, but is still
too great in both cases to be of much practical value.

In the depth measurements, a correlation coefficient of .742 was
obtained between the measurement "depth of brisket" and body weight with

feeder cattle. The standard error of prediction here was 22.03 pomds.

This standard error of prediction is low enough to be of practical value

-19-
in predicting weights of feeder cattle from "depth of brisket" measurement
but in fat cattle, with a correlation coefficient of .858 between the smne
measurement and body weigit, we have a standard error of prediction of
56.54 pounds. This standard error of prediction in both cases is lower than
that found in any other measurement with the exception of flank circumference.
However, because of the way the measurement is taken and because of the
way an animal my be standing when measured, this measurement is subject
to a great deal of experimental error. Fifty-six and one half pounds is
still too great an error to be of practical value to most beef cattle producers.

The measuranent "depth of rear flank" had a correlation coefficient
with body weight of .348 in feeder cattle with a standard error of pre-
diction of 30.81 pounds. This correlation is too low to be of any practi-
cal value. In fat cattle, using the same measurement, we have a correlation
coefficient of .721 with a standard error of prediction of 76.05 pounds.
Again we have a correlation that is fairly high, but the standard error
of prediction is too great. The width measurements were all found to be
of little or no practical value in predicting weights. The correlation
coefficient between the measurement "loin width" and weight was found to be
.638 with a standard error of prediction of 25.32 pounds in feeder cattle
and .783 correlation with a standard error of predict ion of 69.12 pounds
in fat cattle. This measurement could be used to some degree in predicting
weights but is subject to a mat deal of experimental error.

Using the measurement "crop widths, we have a correlation coeffi-
cient of .282 with a standard error of prediction of 31.53 pounds in feeder
cattle, and a correlation coefficient of .707 with a standard error of
prediction of 77.93 pounds in fat cattle. The correlation coefficient
is too low in feeder cattle to be significant and the standard error
of prediction is too great in fat cattle to be of practical value.

Chest width and width of chest floor both had too low a correla-

-20-

tion coefficient to be significant in feeder cattle and the standard error
of prediction was too great in both cases to be of much practical value
in fat cattle.

The measurement"heart circumference”has a fairly high correlation
with body weight in feeder cattle and has a standard error of prediction
of 25.08 pounds. This standard error of prediction is low enough to be
of practical value to most livestock producers. In fat cattle we have a
still higher correlation coefficient of .853 but the standard error of
prediction of 106.06 pounds is greater than the standard error of all but
one other measurement.

The correlation coefficient between the measuranent "flank circum-
ference" and body weight is .603 with a standard error of prediction of
24.83 pounds. This correlation is rather low but the low standard error
of prediction suggests the practicability of using this measurement. With
fat cattle, using the same measurement, we have a correlation coefficient
of .888, with a standard error of prediction of 51.32 pounds. This again
looks like a good measurement to use in predicting weights.

The measuranent "belly circumference" was found to have a low
correlation with a rather high standard error of prediction for both
feeder and fat cattle and is, therefore, of very little practical value.

of all measurements taken, there seemed to be less chance of
experimental error in heart circumference and depth of brisket than in
any other measurements. The correlations between heart circumference
and weight, and depth of brisket and weight were found to be higher for
both feeder and fat cattle than the other measurements. The measurements
for both feeder and fat cattle were combined and the correlation coeffi-
cients between this particular group of figures and those of weight were

O‘hmtad.

-21..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4
Correlations beWeen Measurements and Weights in
Beef Cattle
Faeder Cattle Fat Cattle

Standard Correlation standard Correlation

EI‘ror of ryx Error of ryx

Mediation Prediction

Pounds Pounds
Length of body 21.75 .749 106.58 .253
Height at shoulder 28.93 .473 64.92 .808
Height at hips 28.05 .521 68.34 .784
Depth of brisket 22.03 .742 56.54- .858
Depth rear flank 30.81 .348 76.05 .721
Loin width 25.32 .638 69.12 .783
Crop width 31.53 .282 77.93 .707
Chest width 28.51 .497 59.52 .841
Width chest floor 31.96 .074 98.10 .454
Heart circumference 25.02 .647 106.06 .953
Flank circumference 24.83 .603 51.32 .888
Belly circumference 32.27 .180 90.90 .584
Combination Feeders

and Fat Cattle
Heart circumference sy : 32.32 ryx : .988
Combination Feeders
and Fat Cattle

Depth of brisket S : 60.04 mm : .958

-22..

The correlation coefficient between the measurement "heart circum-
ference” and body weight, using all animals, was found to be .988 with a
standard error of prediction of 32.32 pounds. This is a very high cor-
relation, and the standard error of prediction is small enough to be of
practical value. The correlation coefficient between the measurement
"depth of brisket” and weight, using all animals, was found to be .958,
with a standard error of prediction of 60.04 pounds. Again we have a
very high correlation, but in this case the standard error of prediction
is too large for practical use.

After studying the above results and the reports published by
other experiment stations, it was decided that the best measurement to be
used in predicting weight was that of heart circumference. This measure-
ment was used because there is less chance for error in securing the
measurement, and also as the animal grows and becomes fatter, whether
he is in the feed-lot or on pasture, heart circumference increases in
about the same degree as does that of weight. There is also a greater
relationship between the measurement, "heart circmnference" and body weight,
in all cases than there is with other measurements.

Table 3 shows the weights of beef cattle as predicted from heart
girth measurements, as prepared in this study. In comparing this table
with Table 4, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Animal Industry, it can be seen that there is a difference
in most predicted weights having the same measurement. Some of the
differences are large enough to be significant; others are not. The
weights in Table I are all predicted with a standard error of prediction
of 32.32 pounds, plus or minus. In other Words, using these predicted
weights for this particular type of cattle, one should be within thirty-

two pounds of the exact weight of an animal sixty-might per cent of the

time.

-23-

TWo other tables on predicting weights of dairy cows from baart
girth measurements have been included as a means of comParing the
differences betteen weights of beef cattle and dairy cattle having
the same heart circumference and also to show the differences in the
predicted weights of dairy cows, having the same heart circumference,
as predicted by two entirely different experiments, but for the suns
kind of cattle. Tables 7 and VI.

In going back to Fiaire 4, the explanation for large standard
errors of prediction in some cases may be due to experimental ermr
in taking the measurement. It is a known fact that eXperimental
errors are found in all measm'ements, but even then the standard
errors of prediction, as shown in the tables, are nearly all too large
to be of any practical value to the man who is accustomed to estimating
the weight of beef cattle.

The graphs included in this study show the scatter around the

line of regression and are self-explanatory.

-24—

General Consideration and Discussion

The data used in this study were collected incidental to a major
objective of a "degree of finish experiment”.

It is possible to suppose that had the erperiment been executed to
fit the requirements of the measurement and weight study, greater correla-
tions and smaller standard errors of prediction might have resulted. The
fact that these animals were measured over a period of three years may
have increased the experimental error to some degree and this may in some
instances account for the large standard errors of prediction. Even
though the same person took the measurements each year, he is likely to
vary the position and manner in which the measurements were taken over a
period of three years.

The same type of cattle may also vary in measurements during a
period of three years' time because of climatic conditions, whether or
not they have had a good grazing season, or due to the thickness of hide
or length of hair coat.

The fact that the cattle studied in this experiment were all of
the same type reduces the value somewhat of a study of this sort. The correla-
tion coefficients and standard errors of prediction are based on "choice"
to "fancy selected" feeders only and "choice" to "prime" fat cattle, and are,
therefore, not of much value when used on common or poorer grades of cattle
possibly having the same body measurements.

The table predicting weights of beef cattle from heart girth
measuranents, mde in this study, is based on measuranents, taken on cattle
weighing from three hundred to eight hundred pounds. Had measurements
been included from cattle in all classes, weighing from sixty pounds to

two thousand pounds, this study would probably have been of more value.

The predicted weights are, however, rather accurate for calves weighing

-25-

between two hundred and one thousand pounds, of choice beef type and should
be of great value to the small livestock producer, who is not located near
accurate scales and has to depend upon his "guess" or the trucker's esthmate

to establish a value for his cattle.

Sums}!

The investigation reported in this paper is a study of the relation
of certain body'msasurements to wehght in beef cattle. The data were
collected from thirty-five head of Hereford heifers and thirty-six head of
Hereford steers fed by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station during
the years 1932-53, 1933-34, and 1934-35. The correlation coefficients
between twelve body’measurements and total body weight were calculated.
The standard error of prediction was calculated for both feeder and fat
cattle. The measurements having the highest correlation are: heart
circumference, with a correlation coefficient of .647 in feeder cattle,
.953 in fat cattle, and .988 in a combination of both feeder and fat
cattle; and depth of brisket, with a correlation.coefficient of .742 in
feeder cattle, .858 in fat cattle, and .958 in combination feeder and
fat cattle. The other measurements are as follows, in order of size of
correlation: flank circumference, loin width, chest width, height at
hips, height at shoulder, length of body, depth of rear flank, crop
width, belly circumference, and width of chest floor.

The standard error of prediction was found to be the anallest,
using the measurement'length of body" in feeder cattle, but was larger
for length of body in fat cattle than any other measurement. The standard
errors of prediction are rather large in all cases and predicting weights
with errors this large is hardly practicable. Many men dealing in live-
stock can "guess" within twentybfive pounds of an animal's weight.

The table for predicting weights of beef cattle from heart girth
measurements, prepared in this study, is fairly accurate for calves
weighing between.two hundred and one thousand pounds. It is not, however,

of much practical use for cattle above or'below these weights.

-27-

Included in this study, for comparison, is the table predicting
weights of beef cattle from heart girth measurements, as prepared by the
United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry. (1) .
Also included, for comparison only, are the tables predicting weights of dairy
cattle from heart girth measurements (2) , as prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Dairy Industry, and by C. Brody (3)
of Missouri.

That there is a difference in weight of beef cattle having the
some heart circtnnference is shown in these tables. Dairy cattle having
the same heart circumference also vary in weight as shown by the two
separate tables. There is also a difference in weight betWeem beef cattle
and dairy cattle having the same heart circumference, as can be seen

by comparing the two sets of tables.

-28—

Conclusion

 

The standard errors of prediction obtained in these results indicate
that there is a slight correlation between certain body measurements and
the weight of beef cattle. The standard errors in feeder cattle show very
little difference. As the cattle become larger and fatter, the differences
in standard errors grow larger. Part of this increased difference no
doubt is due to experimental error made in taking the measurement. The
animals used in this study were uniformly alike in type. The fact that
measurements from this particular type show a slight relationship to
weight does not man that the same measurements taken on all beef cattle
would show the same relationship. The measurement found to be the
best to use in predicting weight was that of heart circumference followed
by depth of brisket. The table predicting weights of beef cattle by
heart girth measurements, as prepared in this study, has some practical
value to the shell livestock producer. To the man who has had a great
deal of experience in handling livestock this table is of minor importance.
Men who are dealing with livestock from day to day can ”guess" the
weight of an animal rather accurately. This study is based only on the
best type of beef cattle and the predicted weights are necessarily for that
kind of cattle. After all, a good set of livestock scales is the best
method or weighing cattle, and with improved roads, better methods of
travel, and numerous nnrketing centers, the livestock producers very
seldom sell cattle on estimated weights, as was done in former years.

There is too great a chance for experimental error to accurately
predict weights of beef cattle from measurements. Variations also occur
in cattle having the same body measurements, due to internal fat, size

of bone, thickness and pliability of hide, climatic conditions and

various other reasons.

There is some correlation between certain body measurements and
weights but because of the possibilities of experimental errors and the
size of the standard error of prediction it is hardly possible to take
a certain measurement on a beef animal and predict very accurately that

particular animal's vei git.

.30-

Table I

Feeder Cattle measurements

 

 

 

1932 - 33
Number We ight Circumfer— Circumfer-
ence Heart ence Flank
Centimeters
Steers: 16 389 134 132
17 366 135 137
18 399 131 139
19 379 134 132
20 398 139 138
21 414 137 139
22 415 138 139
23 376 138 132
24 (375 (135 (133
26 (401 (143 (148
27 (392 (131 (134
23 ( 23 ( 23 (
Heifers: 1 (371 (130 (138
2 (370 (132 (133
3 389 137 140
4 353 133 126
5 372 133 137
6 404 142 140
7 373 132 129
8 400 142 142
9 360 130 126
10 345 138 146
11 369 132 140
13 380 135 132

-31..

Table I

Feeder Cattle Measurements

 

 

 

 

1933 - 34
NUmber Wei t Circumfer- Circumfer-
ence Heart once Flank
Centimeters

Heifers: 1 364 130 133
3 392 133 138
4 395 134 145

5 442 138 152.5
6 371 130 133
7 430 137 140
9 388 134 134
10 (419 _ (1:52 (140
11 (373 (1:50 (124
12 24 (399 24 (134 24 (137
13 (see (127 (134
15 (323 (127 (1:52
Steers: 16 362 131 144
17 394 132 130
18 370 131 132
19 358 134 130
22 442 138 141
23 405 134 140
24 377 133 134
25 415 140 136
26 441 137 135
27 419 133 142
28 463 139 142

29 37? 131 131

-32-

Thble I

Feeder Cattle measurements

 

 

 

1934 - 35
NUmber Wei t Circumfer- Circumfer-
ence Heart ence Flank
Centimeters
Heifers: Nb Tag 323 127.5 140
1 338 130.5
2 311 133 131.5
3 323 128 131.5
4 364 134 139
5 346 136 (142
e 311 127.5 (135
7 (385 (139 (150
8 (361 (136.5 23 (142.5
9 (346 (133 (140
11 24 (326 24 (127 (130
12 (336 (130 133
( (

Steers: 13 (377 (138 138
14 396 138 138
15 341 124 120
16 409 135 143
17 325 128 129
18 339 130 136
19 368 132 132
20 357 135 134
21 387 135 140
24 340 131 137
39 346 132 133

NO the 529 127 129

-33..

Table II

Fat Cattle Measurements

 

 

 

1932 - 33
unmber Weight Circumfer- Circumfer-
ence Heart ence Flank
Centimeters

Heifers: 3 751 169 173
5 710 168 170
7 812 174 169
Steers: 17 784 175 172
22 866 175 177

27 (821 171 166.5

(

Heifers: 1 (800 171 176

""""" 2 (731 (167 (168.5
9 24 (819 (178 (171

( 24 ( 24 (

Steers: 19 (889 (180 (179
" ' ' 20 (927 (186 (179
24 828 176 168
Heifers: 6 702 168 168
4 550 149 155
13 600 155 160
Steers: 14 628 153 152
16 659 160 159
18 568 152 148
Heifers: 8 706 169 166
10 649 166 164
11 713 169 173
Steers: 21 747 168 169
23 756 166 163

26 773 170 175

-34-

Table II

Fat Cattle Measurements

 

 

 

 

1933 - 34
NUmber Weight Circumfer. Circumfer-
ence Heart ence Flank
Centimeters

iHeifers: 3 784 180 173
4 805 177 183

15 735 175.5 176.5

Steers: 18 821 176 179.5
24 788 174.5 174
25 906 184.5 193
Heifers: 6 872 186 186
10 1037 187 189
13 822 177 180
Steers: 19 968 194 187
22 976 189 182

29 886 183 178.5
Heifers: 5 695 162.5 171
9 594 157 158
11 577 156 151
Steers: 16 631 157 160
23 588 156 154
28 688 165 165
Heifers: 1 701 167 167
7 773 171.5 182

12 683 166 167.5
Steers: 17 716 165 164
26 742 171 168

27 813 171 179

-35-

Tabie II

Fat Cattle'Measurements_

 

 

 

1934 - 35
NUmber Weight Circumfer- Circumfer-
ence‘Heart ence Flank
Centimeters_
Heifers: 4 691 163

6 596 153 162
11 597 157 161

Steers: 16 713 161 166.5
17 666 161.5 165
39 (601 (151 (151

( ( (
Heifers: 1 (711 24 (165 23 (170
5 24 (775 (168 (174
12 (631 (160 (169
(

Steers: 14 (818 174 178.5
15 726 163.5 173

24 780 168.5 173.5
Heifers: 3 804 172 180
9 834 177 182
No Tag 695 166 180
Steers: 13 831 173 185
18 793 169 175
20 843 180 181
Heifers: 2 876 177 184
7 867 181 192
8 782 170 176
Steers: 19 989 189 188
21 1009 191 191

Nb Tag 845 182 178

Grand
Average

-36-

Grand Tbtals

 

For Both Feeders and fat Catt}:

 

 

'Weight Circumderence Circumference
Heart #- Flank
81,485 21,733 21,766.5
568.53 151.86 154. 26

-37-

Table III

‘Weights of Beef Cattle as Predicted from.Heart GirchMeasurements

IMade in a study of feeder and fat calves at
Michigan State College

 

 

Heart Girth
Centimeters Inches
106 41.7
107 42.1
108 42.5
109 42.9
110 43.3
111 43.7
112 44.0
113 44.5
114 44.9
115 45.3
116 45.7
117 46.0
118 46.4
119 46.9
120 47.2
121 47.6
122 48.0
123 48.4
124 48.8
125 49.2
126 49.6
127 50.0
128 50.4
129 50.8
130 51.2
131 51.6
132 52.0
133 52.4
134 52.8
135 53.1
136 53.5
137 53.9
138 54.3
139 54.7
140 55.1
141 55.5
142 55.9
143 56.3
144 56.7
145 57.1
146 57.5
147 57.9
148 58.3
149 58.7

Weight

92

102
113
123
134
144
154
165
175
186
196
206
217
227
237
248
257
269
279
289
300
310
321
331
341
352
362
372

393

404 '

414

435
445
455
466
476
487
497

518
528
539

 

 

Heart Girth
Centimeters Inches
150 59.0
151 59.4
152 59.8
153 60.2
154 60.6
155 61.0
156 61.4
157 61.8
158 62.2
159 62.6
160 63.0
161 63.4
162 63.8
163 64.2
164 64.6
165 65.0
166 65.4
167 65.7
168 66.1
169 66.5
170 66.9
171 '67.3
172 67.7
173 68.1
174 68.5
175 68.9
176 69.3
177 69.6
178 70.0
179 70.5
180 70.9
181 71.3
182 71.7
183 72.0
184 72.4
185 72.8
186 73.2
187 73.6
188 74.0
189 74.4
190 74.8
191 75.2
192 75.6
193 76.0

Weight

549
559
570
580
591
601
611
622
632
643
653
663
674
684
695
705
715
726
736
746
757
767
778
788
798
809
819
830
840
850
861
871
882
892
902
913
923
933
944
954
965
975
985
996

-38-

T8ble III
Heart Girvth Heart Girth

Cent imeters Inches Wei t Centimeters Inches We ight

194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

76.4
76.8
77.1
77.6
78.0
78.3
78.7
79.1
79.5
79.9
80.3
80.7
81.1
81.5
81.9
82.3
82.7
83.1
85.5
83.9
84.3
84.6
85.0
85.4
85.8
86.2
86.6
87.0
87.4
87.8
88.2
88.6
89.0
89.4
89.8
90.2
90.6
90.9
91.3
91.7
92.1
92.5
92.9
93.3
93.7
94.1
94.4
94.9
95.3
95.7
96.1
96.5

1006
1017
1027
1037
1048
1058
1068
1079
1089
1100
1110
1120
1131
1141
1152
1162
1172
1183
1193
1204
1214
1224
1235
1245
1255
1266
1276
1286
1297
1307
1318
1328
1139
1349
1359
1370
1380
1391
1401
1411
1422
1432
1442
1453
1463
1474
1484
1494
1505
1515
1525

1536

246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
238
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270

96.9
97.2
97.6
98.0
98.4
98.8
99.2
99.6
100.0
100.4
100.8
101.2
101.6
102.0

» 102.4

102.8
103.1
103.5
103.9
104.3
104.7
105.1
105.5
105.9
106.3

1546
1557
1567
1577
1888
1598
1609
1619
1629
1640
1650
1660
1671
1681
1692
1702
1713
1723
1733
1744
1754
1764
1775
1785
1796

~39-

Table IV
Apgoximate Weights of Beef Cattle of Good Grade for 6 Given
Heart-Girth Measurement

United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry,
Division of Animal Enabandry

 

Heart Weight Heart Weight Heart Weight
Girth in Girth in Girth , in
Inches Pounds Inches Pounds Inches Pounds
50 76 50} 562 71 942
50% 62 51 595 71% 959
51 67 51} 404 72 977
51} 91 52 415 72; 994
52 96 52; 426 75 1011
52} 101 55 457 75% 1029
55 106 555 449 74 1047
555 112 54 461 74% 1065
54 116 54k 472 75 1065
54} 126 55 464 75} 1100
55 129 555 496 76 1117
555 155 56 506 762 1135
56 141 5% 520 7'? 1154
56} 147 57 555 775 1173
57 155 57k 545 78 1192
57} 159 56 556 76} 1211
56 166 565 571 79 1250
68% 175 59 565 795 1249
59 161 59% 596 60 1269
593 166 60 611 80% 1266
40 195 60% 624 81 1308
405 202 61 657 81% 1528
41 210 61‘} 651 88 134:8
41% 216 62 665 82% 1566
42 226 62% 679 65 1566
425 254 65 695 655 1409
45 242 65} 706 64 1450
a} 250 54 723 84% 1451
‘4 259 54} 738 85 1472
44; 267 65 753 855 1493
45 276 65% 768 86 1514
45; 265 66 765 66} 1555
45 294 66} 796 67 1557
46'} 505 67 614 87% 1576
47 515 67}- 629 88 1600
47} 522 66 645 88% 1622
48 332 53% 861 89 1644
46} 542 69 677 89% 1667
49 552 695 695 90 1669
493’ 562 70 910 90; 1712
so 372 70% 926 91 1735

91‘} 17 57

-40-

Teble V
Etimating Weights of D6111 0058 from Heart-Girth Measurements

United States Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Dairy Industry

Heart Weig‘t Heart Weight Heart Weight
Girth Girth Girth

Inches Pounds Inches Pounds Inches Pounds
25 so 48% 364 71 1027
25} 32 49 574 719 1046
2., 34 49% 564 72 1069
27.} 35 50 394 789 1090
28 39 50$ 404 73 1111
29% 9 2 51 414 739 1132
39 95 51‘} 424 74 1153
29.} 93 52 434 74% 1175
30 101 52% 445 75 1197
30% 104 55 456 75% 1219
31 103 53% 467 '76 1241
31.} 113 54 476 76%; 1265
32 113 59} 489 77 1285
32.} 135 55 501 77% 1506
:53 123 55} 513 78 1331
33} 133 56 526 785- 1554
34 133 56% 539 79 1377
34% 143 57 552 79% 1400
35 14a 57% 566 80 1423
35; 153 56 579 609 1446
35 153 689 593 81 1469
354} 155 59 607 81% 1492.
37 158 59% 622 62 1515
574} 174 60 657 82% 1556
33 130 609 652 65 1561
39} 135 61 666 659 1564
39 192 61% 684 84 1607
391 200 62 700 643 1650
40 903 629 716 65 1655
40* 215 63 732 85% 1676
41 334 659 749 66 1699
‘14} 333 64 766 86% 1722
‘2 240 64} 765 67 1745
431 343 65 600 674} 1766
4,3 257 653 617 66 1791
43.} 255 66 835 88% 1814
4‘ 275 66k 853 89 1857

- 442 234 67 671 699 1660
45 294 67‘} 669 90 1665
‘5’ 30‘ 68 908 90} 1906
46 51‘ 68'} 927 91 1929
w} 324 69 947 91% 1952
‘7 334 5% 9 57 9 2 1975
479 544 70 967
46 554 702 1007

-41-

Table VI
Average Body'weighta of Dairy Cattle for Given Chest Girths

16 prepared by c. Brody, Missouri

 

 

57.5

550

Chest Girth weight Cheat Girth Weight

Inches __ Inches

22.5 39 58.5 578
23.5 44 59.5 606
24.5 50 60.5 635
25.5 56 61.5 665
26.5 62 62.5 696
27.5 69 63.5 728
28.5 76 64.5 761
29.5 84 65.5 794
30.5 92 7 66.5 829
31.5 101 67.5 865
32,5 110 68.5 901
33,5 120 69.5 939
34.5 130 70.5 977
35.5 141 71.5 1017
36.5 153 72.5 1057
37.5 165 73.5 1100
38.5 178 74.5 1148
39,5 191 75.5 1185
40.5 205 76.5 1231
41.5 219 77.5 1276
42.5 235 78.5 1324
43.5 250 79.5 1372
44.5 257 80.5 1421
45.5 284 81.5 1472
46.5 302 82.5 1523
47.5 331 83.5 1575
48.5 340 84.5 1630
49.5 351 85.5 1684
50.5 332 86.5 1740
51.5 403 87.5 1797
52.5 425 88.5 1856
53.5 449 89.5 1916
54.5 473 90.5 1976
55.5 498 91.5 2038
56.5 523 92.5 2102

F.
“a

-1.

74

1...

71*

u?“

2.

3.

4.

6.

7.

8.

Bibliography

Estimating the Weights of Beef and Dml-Pxn'pose Cattle from Heart-
Girth Measurements. Bradford Knapp, Jr., Associate Animal
Husbandman. United States Departnent of Agriculture, Bureau

of Animal Industry. Mimeograph N0. 24.

Estimating the Weights of Dairy Cows from Heart-Girth Measurements.
Khndrick, I. F. and Parker, Jo BO. Bureau Of Dairy Industry.

Mimeograph 695.

Relationship between Live Weight and Chest Girth in Dairy Cattle
of unknown Age. Brody, 0., Davis, H. P. and 116835410. 1. 0n
University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural

Experiment Station. Research Bulletin 262.

Changes in Body Measurements of Steers during Intensive Fattening.
I. 1.. 11161:. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin

Nb. 3850 Sept. 1928.

Studies in Animal Nutrition. (1... changes in form and weight on
different planes of nutrition). Moulton. Trowbridse md 381811.

“1330911 Agricultural Experiment Station. Research Bulletin No. 43.

Type in Beef Calves. university of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment

Station. Bulletin No. 155.

Ste” Feeding Experiments. Evvard, Culbertson and Hammond. Iowa

Agricultural Experiment station Leaflets N08. 16-22 and 25.

y A Study of the Accuracy of Measurements of Dairy Cattle. J'. L.

141811 and 0. c. Copeland. Journal of Agricultural Research, VOL 41'

-43-

9. The Accuracy of Cattle Weights. J’. L. Lush. Journal of Agricultural
Research, Vol. 36.

10. A Statistical Study of Body Weights, Gains and Measurements of
Steers during the Fattening Period. B. 0. Severson and Paul
Gerlaugh. Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment

Station Annual Report, 1916-1917.

11. An Outline of Statistical Methods. Arkin, Herbert, and Colon,

Raymond B. 1934.

Wang h 7

Feed “'5

VI.

  
    
 
 
  
 

Wtz)’

y:A-fbt¥
Ant-272.19
.bz’éoli

X: 80.” Li.

 

wfzr
YaA “’7

A ‘3 *884-96
/ b: [3036
Length -.. Body L73
0-?
80

A30 /25 130

 

 

 

Waist-.1-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fhodsr
Coffin .
#£fl>
#oo , 3 - i
__i 3 ' . g ‘ o .321
__ r . , :32”
350 s . ' _ . ____
' -.-. W7‘
—’ . )’ A 76):
. - 79-31/60!
.300 . b: 1.1/5
”=7- ”21:1
922: ~ ,1...

 

 

 

floor . _/////
”EL- 42 AL 22 Al 44! .
W29 hf .
F91
691-He

75o

8’50

 

7.50

 

A r. 297. 72

b : 1.5. 63

X ; Wit! 7‘6
642”
Fhur'

35 4o

 
  
   

\Mflghf
FeJAOP
aaffle
H50 ‘

  
 
     
  
 
  

72A+bx

.Az-IZbuiz
b: 5.3
X=FIQNK

 

 

cuffle
£250
A1~ 24 .7
350 b:2b§§7
XDF/ON K
750
$50
Depth

R20»
Fluw/
:5 a

g; SQO

,Iqo'b
We‘gh‘r
Farr
ta'rfle
9.50
ye. W'f'.
YtA 'f b)!

A 7- -8820 2‘

b: 26.13
X'— brisket

850

6.50

Depth
BH’s Kc'r

 

WOIQhT
Feed 2 ’-

(La-HIG-
.506

    

yzAbe
A: 4224/
b: 9.58

400
X -. law's ref

35o
DcPfh

BH'sh'e'f

Joe
45
.50 5.5 60 65

M

/ 4' /

ngh‘f’.
Fo'f
Coffle

Hear-1’

Cnrcu Info-cue:

cu-caphucucc-g

’50.

I70

1‘ s

 

 

‘Zoa

Weog hf
Panda :-

Ca-r-grl a

#00

3.5a

.300

HT. A T.
Hi P5

[050
We'fibf
rev
(,0 1‘er
950

U0

7.50

[.50
Hi. A 7?
Hi Ps'

.5250

y: "f:

i: AM»!

Ag-3a5.82
b: 6.5?

X: H7‘. HI}:

9‘2

)’= 47%)!
:-/73’4.i7

A; .7/. 75
)1: Hi flips

loo

 

[Jo

   
  

A25

  
  
   
  

[Jo

W639 MT

Feeder

 

H0045? .
A “'9
Shoumfl-

 

I650
Weigh 1‘
Fa ‘I'

(191er
$950

 
  
   

y: A #13}

A: -“1657.

Z50 ' b: 2LX3 g5
. x 1.. ”7'. At Sh'

loo [.5 Ila ' 1’5 120 r25

Wag!“ y: w+.

Feeéck =A+bx
daft/e )’ -. - 3.0? .—
50
b 1'. 2- 77’

 

Flo N K
bravura» o IVC C
_ 11¢ ' 1“ EL!

 

 

 

ffo

7.50

6:70

Flaw/C
Cot-Cnuf’.

.550.

L50 H a lie Mo /i .7
0 OD

Wezgfl
Fee 4 0 |- y: Wf. . 1'

 

 

  
   
    

we
’!&f y: W'f.

FZade»
:A+b
(.af/le i} : [SJ-:2
b :7. 47

[/50 x: WI'J‘IA Chas /.

   

 

Wméw
y: Wf.

Feede»
Gaff/55 I: ‘Hby
a A7- 2.5
./
b : é.fzf

 

xv; Chef WIJ‘IA

£»OP
Wld fl).

/
5 If g
o .21
/
19‘

' [050
Wetgln‘

Fa'f
buff/e.
?50

I50

750

650

{HIP
Wl'c'fb.

r550

 

‘
AI R

150

’%

 

   

”'Tfiifilfflfi‘mflfijfliufiflflflfflfliflfliflfififlfif’