FACTORS AFFECTING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF HEAVY;
GRASS AND MILK-FED CALVES

Thesis far ”It Dogm of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

WiIIiam York Varnay
I960-

T?! F's?! S

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FACTOIS AFFECTING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF
HBIVY, GRASS AND MILK-FED CALVE'S

presented by

William York Varney

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in An. Hush,

JawgewaJ

‘ Major professor

Date May 13; 1960

  
     

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

FACTORS AFFECTING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF

HEAVY, GRASS m3 MILK-FED CALVES

By
WILLIAM YORK VARNEY

AN'ABSTRACT,

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Animal Husbandry

1960

I l/7

“MC THESIS

Twenty-three grade Hereford and twenty-four Red rolled heifa's were
bredinl956 tocalvedurisgthewinterandsprinteflOST. One-halfef
each breed was bred to each of two purebred Herefords, one of which
(Ball A) was visual]: judged to be superior and the other (Bull B) visn-
alJ: indeed to be interior. The calves were divided so that as nearly
as possible an equal “or of each bull's calves was creep fed a grain
nixtnre during the entire erasing season. All calves snckled their dens
Wont their lives on a redo-inn“): Bluegrass pastas but also
containing Lespedesa and Ihite clover. The nunbers of each breed slaugh-
tered in October were: led Pelled x Hereford, 6 steers and 14 heifers;
and Hereford n lereford, 8 steers and 4 heifers. Total (both breeds) «-
32 calves. One Red Pelled x Hereford and eight Hereford calves were
called due to insufficient weight.

In April of 1957, three groups of eight Hereford steers, ranging in
weight Iran 608 to 734 poands were placed on pasture nixtares as follows:
group 1, Drone grass and Ladino clover; group 2, Bluegrass and White
clover} and map 3, Bluegrass us Birdsfoot trefoil. A fourth group of
8 lereford steers was taken fron a nor-n1 pasture and placed on one
highly infested with weeds. They remained there 60 days and then were
' fed chopped Ragweed for 10 days i-sdiate]: before slaughter.

Four Red Polled and six Hereford cows were called and the renainder
regronped according to the perforannce of their 1967 calves and bred for
the 1953 calf crop. 11:. new Hereford bulls were used, one (can a) was
a high gainer and the other (Bull 1.) was a low gainer as deterniaed on a

perfernance test. Treatnent of the calves was the cane as in 1957. The
unbers of calves slaughtered in October were as follows: Hod Polled

x Hereford, 10 steers and 10 heifers; and Hereford x Hereford, 6 steers
and 7 heifers. Total (both breeds) - 33 calves. Four Hereford calves
were culled.

The cows used for the 1958 calf crop were again regrouped and bred
for the 1959 calf crop to two new Hereford bulls. They were again a
high gainer (Bull H) and a low gainer (Bull 1.) as deternined on a per-
fornance test. The calves were treated in a sinilar nanner to those of
the two previous years. The nunbers of calves slaughtered in October
were: led Polled x Hereford, ll steers ad 4 heifers; and Hereford x
Hereford, 7 steers and 5 heifers. Total (both breeds) - 27 calves.

Under the conditions of this study it was concluded that the Red
Polled x Hereford calves attained higher carcass grades, had greater
carcass yields, had ncre narbling and attained a greater carcass weight
per day of age than Hereford calves, as produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-
Calf rm. Hereford calves had a larger ribeye area per hundred pounds
of carcass than Red Polled x Hereford calves.

Creep feedirg in the Kontucky Cow-and-Calf Plan of beef production
was advantageous in onlyone year out of three, apparently being useful
only during unfavorable grazing seasons.

Calves sired by Hereford bulls with high gaining ability, as deter-
nined on performce tests, were not superior in gains or carcass quality
to those sired by Hereford bulls with lover gaining ability.

The varieties of forages grazed, including Ragweed, by cattle in
this study did not affect the palatability of the neat.

. JIlIlal I I lie-III '1‘ I l i [I

 

the percutage of bone ash on the noisture-free, fat-free basis in
heavy calves was not significantly correlated with tenderness of the

neat.

FACTORS AFFECTING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF

HEAVY, GRASS AND MILK-FED CALVES

BY

WILLIAM YORK VARNEY

A THESIS
Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and

Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Animal Husbandry

1960

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The investigator wishes to express his sincere apprecia-
tion to the following persons for assistance during the course of
this study:

To Dr. A. M. Pearson, for helpful suggestions and con-
structive criticism concerning research technique.

To Dr. J. D. Kemp, for constructive criticism and assist-
ance in collecting data.

To Dr. W. P. Garrigus, for permission to use Departmental
research as a thesis problem.

To Dr. R. B. Grainger and his staff, for assistance with
the chemical analyses. .

To Dr. D. M. Shuffett and his staff, for assistance with
the statistical analyses.

Special appreciation goes to his wife, Muriel, for toler-

ance and understanding.

iii

kBLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
Is IIITRUDUCTIC'I: e e e e e e e e e s e s e e e e e e 1
I I e REV 1.le OF LIT SLUTTL' ALE e e e e e e s e e e e e e e [4‘

Characteristics of Beef Produced by the
Kentucky Cow—and-Calf Plan or a Similar

Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Effects of Creep Feeding. . . . . . . 8
The Effects of Different Pasture

Forages Upon Quality and Palatability

of Beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO
Composition of Carcasses and Physical

Separation of Cuts. . . . . . . . . . . 12
Carcass Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Performance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Heritability of Rate of Gain and

Some Carcass Characteristics. . . . . . l9
Taste Panel Methodology . . . . . . . . . 23

III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Experimental Animals by Year . . . . . . . . 26
Slaughter Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Carcass Yields. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Marbling Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Color of Loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Color of Fat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Firmness of Lean. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Fat 'hickness Over the Ribeye Muscle. . . 35
Area of Ribeye Muscle . . . . . . . . . . 35

Treatment of Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

hysical Separation of the 9th, 10th

and 11:11 Ribs . g o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . g o 36
Moisture and Ether Extract Analyses . . . 36
Measurement of Bone Ash. . . . . . . . . . . 37

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS-~99353gggg
Chapter
Taste Panel Hethodology. . . . . .
Selection Of Pane-[o o o o o o o
PaHEI FaCilitiCSo o o o o o o 0
Preparation of Samples. . . . .
Objective Measure of Tenderness
Palatability Score Card . . . .
Statistical Analyses . . . . . . .
IV. RE"ULTS AH' DISCUSSION . . . . . . .
Carcass Data, 1957 o c o o o o o o
Carcass Data, 1958 . . . . . . . .

Carcass Data, 1959 o o o o o o o 0

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .

APPEEIDIX. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBLIOGI‘RAPI'IYO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

VITA. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

4O

43

43

63

103

108

201

209

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Breeding Scheme and Numbers of Calves Dropped,
RaiSEd and Slangiltchd by Year. 0 o o o o o o 0

Means for Carcass Grade, Yield and Marbling
Score,l957..................

Means for Carcass Weight per Day of Age, Fat
Thickness over Ribeye and Square Inches of
Ribeye per Hundred Pounds of Carcass, 1957. . .
Analysis of Variance for Carcass Grade, 1957. .
Analysis of Variance for Carcass Yields, 1957 .

Analysis of Variance for marbling Score, 1957 .

Analysis of Variance for Carcass Weight per
Day Of Age, 1957. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Analysis of Variance for Fat Thickness over
the Rlbeye I‘IUSCIC, 1957 o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Analysis of Variance for Square Inches of Rib-
eye Area per Hundred Pounds of Carcass, 1957. .

Mean Percentages of Ribeye, Total Separable
Lean, Separable Fat, and Bone, 1957 . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Total
separable Lean, 1.957. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Separable
Fat, 1957 I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Bone, 1957. .

T" I-

Mean Percentages of Moisture and Ether Extract,

1957. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Ether
EXtraCt,1957ooooéoooooooooooo

vi

Page

32

45

46

53

55

56

57

6O

61

LIST OF TABLES-~Continued

Table Page
30. Analysis of Variance for Carcass Grade, 1959. . . 84
31. ' Analysis of Variance for Carcass Yields, 1959 . . £5
32. Analysis of Variance for Marbling Score, 1959 . . 87
33. Analysis of Variance for Carcass Weight per

Day Of Age, 1959. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 88

34. Analysis of Variance for Fat Thickness over

the Ribeye Muscle, 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
35. Analysis of Variance for Square Inches of

Ribeye Area per Hundred Pounds of Carcass,

1959. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 91
36. Mean Percentages of Ribeye, Total Separable

Lean, Separable Fat, and Bone, 1959 . . . . . . . 93
37._ Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Bone, 1959. . . 95
38. Mean Percentages of Moisture and Ether Extract,

1959. O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 O 96
39. Analysis of Variance for Per Cent Moisture,

1959. O O C O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 97
40. Mean Panel Scores for Flavor, Juiciness and

Tenderness and Mean Shear Force Values for

Tenderness, 1959. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 99
41. Mean Group Palatability Data for Heavy, Grass-

Fed SteerS. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 100

42. A Comparison of Bone Ash, Animal Age (in Days)
and Tenderness of the Meat. . . . . . . . . . . . 101

43. Levels of Significance of Data. . . . . . . . . . 105

viii

I l I...“ lilllllli

O o O
c
o
I
O O
O O
O O
O O
Q 0
I I O
I . C
0 O 0 I
O O a I
O I I o
l ' O 1
o I D I
O 0 Q I
I n o v
r O O 0
U . O C
I I O U

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Grassland farming is rapidly expanding in the state of Ken-
tucky, due to a large scale soil improvement program and a very
favorable climate. Beef production and grassland farming go hand
in hand, which is one big reason for a recent increase in the pro-
duction of beef in this state. The ruggedness of the terrain of
most of Kentucky is also a deciding factor in this type of agri-
culture.

The Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan, as it is now called, is
relatively new. However, a few farmers for many years have fol-
lowed the plan of breeding nondescript cows to better than average
beef bulls, letting the calves drop in April or May and then run
with their dams until October or November when they are marketed.

Dr. W. P. Garrigus (1945), Head of the Animal Husbandry
Department, College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky, ob-
served this practice of beef production on some of the farms through-
out Kentucky and decided it would be well to expand it, recogniz-
ing that it would fit in well with the grassland farming practice
and also provide a sizable income with relatively little capital
outlay. Dr. Garrigus drew up a program.for this type of beef pro-

duction and called it the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan. This program

has steadily gained in pOpularity throughout the state since its
initiation about 1945. However, changes in the program by many
producers have occurred, the most notable of these being the use
of beef breed cows, such as grade Hereford, during the last decade.
Both the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan and the feeder calf plan have .
found favor with the farmers of this state. More than 100,000
cows are being used on each plan and many questions are being
raised as to the ultimate beef producing possibilities of each
plan. There has been no previous experiment devised to study such
factors as the effects of creep feeding, under Kentucky conditions,
neither from an economir point of view nor from the standpoint of
added finish and quality to the carcass.

Some data have been obtained regarding effect of breed of
sire on carcass characteristics of Kentucky calves (Kemp and Car-
rigus, 1955), and some comparative data are available on the pro-
duct of grade Jersey and grade Hereford cows bred to Hereford
bulls (Garrigus, Overfield and Lowry, 1953). However, data are not
available from controlled experiments concerning complete and
detailed carcass characteristics, including palatability studies_
for this type of beef.

Work at the Kentucky Station (Kemp and Varney, 1955) has
shown that flavor of beef is affected by wild onions. ‘Moreover,
some cultivated forages affect the flavor of milk and it seems
reasonable to assume that some of these affect the flavor of beef.

Flavor and tenderness problems have become apparent which

provoked the research related in this thesis. Immediately follow-

Illlvl ‘luull Ill

(I. I'll! . '1' (ill '1‘ tfl- i. ll '11.!!! 1|!|.l. .I. I
1| '1 I

ing World War II, when beef was scarce, this grass and milk fed
beef sold readily at prices comparable to heavier, grain fed beef.
However, in more recent years, consumers have become more critical
and discriminated against it. Many store operators say that buyers
complain that the meat is tasteless, tough and dry and, consequent-
ly, are not repeat buyers. Meat market operators also complain
that beef of this type is strictly a seasonal product as it is
available only during the fall months. Consequently, many meat
merchandisers have refrained from handling this beef in recent
years.

The purpose of the study herein reported was to evaluate
some of the factors that affect characteristics of beef as produced
in Kentucky, particularly the following:

1. To study the effects of creep feeding on the character-
istics of beef produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf

Plan.

2. To study the effects of breed of dam.(Red Polled and
Hereford) upon the quality of beef produced by the plan.

3. To study the effects of using two Hereford bulls of dif-
ferent gaining ability as determined by a performance test.

4. To study the effects of different pasture forages on the
palatability factors of beef.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Characteristics of Beef Produced by the Kentucky
Cow-and-Calf Plan or a Similar Plan

The Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan grew tremendously for sev-
eral years following its initiation in 1945 and is still quite
popular with the farmers of the state despite reversals in market
acceptance of the product.

Some limited work has been done relative to the carcass
characteristics of this type of beef. King (1951) studied the
carcasses of eighteen calves produced by this plan and concluded
that these calves were as high in quality, dressed as high,
graded as high, had a lower per cent of separable bone, had a
higher per cent of edible meat and a higher per cent of protein
than calves fed in dry-lot. Mullins (1952) compared beef produced
from grain rations with that produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf
Plan and concluded that the calves compared very favorably as to
drip loss and retention of bright red color in retail cuts.

Cullison (1940) reported on work done at the Mississippi
Experiment Station to determine which beef bulls would be best to

use as sires on the native cows of Mississippi. In this experi-

ment native cows were bred to native, Polled Devon, Polled Here-
ford, Polled Shorthorn and Angus bulls. The cows and calves were
grazed on pasture from March fifteenth to December fifteenth and,
then the calves were fed on ground corn, cottonseed cake, 1eSpe-
deza hay and sorghum silage. The cows received cheap roughage.
This program is similar to the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan except
for feeding the calves over a 177-185 day period. The calves
were dropped from.March until May and creep fed corn and cotton-
seed meal. The conclusion was that while any of the beef type
bulls were good, with little difference between the breeds, the
Shorthorn sired calves were somewhat superior in ruggedness and
rate of gain.

The following data were given by King (1951) as a compari-

son of the Mississippi plan and the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.

Mississippi Kentucky

Average Market Age (days) 353 256
Average Market Weight (pounds) 678 608
Average Dressing Percentage 59.7 58.8
Average Carcass Grade Low Choice Low Choice

As can be seen from the data above the average market
weights, dressing percentages and carcass grades were similar for
both groups of calves.

Means (1940) in a three-year study of fall versus Spring
calving, found little difference in final weights of the calves
and only a 0.5 per cent difference in dressing per cent in favor

of spring-born calves, but the spring-born calves had a set-back

at weaning for about one month. This is not a factor in the Ken-
tucky Cow-and-Calf Plan as these calves are sold off the teat.

Davis (1932) divided the bovine species into four groups
for grading: veal, calf, yearling beef and mature beef. Yearling
carcasses are from cattle approximately eight to sixteen months
old. They are now graded as prime, choice, good, standard and
utility. Yearling beef differs in quantity and distribution of
fat, color, conformation, texture and firmness of flesh and lacks
the evenness of fat of mature beef of the same grade. The color
is lighter red and the cartilages are white and relatively softer.
The fat covering is whiter for the yearling beef and the carcasses
are usually only partially or thinly covered. He also found there
was no appreciable difference between sexes in young beef. Hankins
and Buck (1938) in a study of steer calves, yearling and two year
old steers found variations in initial weight and rate of gain to
be minor factors with respect to influence on carcass grade. Sex
differences showed that steers weighed from sixty-five to ninety
pounds heavier than heifers under similar conditions upon reaching
choice grade.

Trowbridge and Dyer (1943) stated that young cattle make
greater gains on less grain than do older cattle and that the car-
cass grade of "low choice" may be made from roughage and pasture
alone. The 1946 Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal In-
dustry stated that there was efficient beef production from calves
that nursed. They had a greater efficiency of gain while on feed

and carcasses averaged one-third of a grade higher. The 1947

.‘fir lull (Our) \l(

)llll‘[\.l.ll ‘.|l,l‘v1J-l

‘!" l\|\.| ‘

Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry stated that
higher yielding milk cows produced lower grading feeders. The
1949 Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry reported
that beef calves of both sexes born during the period between
January twentieth and March fifth.were heavier at six months of
age than those born later in the spring.

Phillips g£_gl. (1942) stated that Hammond studied car-
casses of steers and heifers exhibited at the Smithfield Show
which consisted of cattle of several purebreds and a variety of
crosses. He found that crossbred steers had a slightly larger pro-
portion of carcass and larger proportions of kidney fat, gut fat,
tongue and heart than did crossbred heifers. Purebred heifers had
a larger proportion of kidney fat, head and hide. Crossbreds
were heavier at birth and weaning, gained more per day and had a
higher efficiency of gain. They also weighed more when sold, had
a higher dressing per cent and cost less per one-hundred pounds
of gain.

Wilson and Company (1943), in cooperation with the Univer-
sity of Illinois, under the guidance of Professor Sleeter Bull,
ran a test to determine the yield of usable meat and the proportion
of lean, fat and bone from different grades and weights of yearling
and two-year old steers. They concluded that comparable grades and
weights of yearling and two-year old steers should be fed until
they will produce, at least, high good or low choice carcasses in
order to obtain the maximum production of usable meat without pro-

ducing an excessive amount of fat.

03

The Effects of Creep Feeding

Very little work has been done relative to the merits of
creep-feeding as applied to the carcass. However, some studies
have been conducted to determine the merits of this program from
an economical standpoint and the effects on rate of gain and
slaughter grade of beef calves.

In experiments comparing creep feeding of calves versus
calves allowed to nurse the cows without grain, Ensminger (1939)
found that Shorthorn calves fed $8.97 worth of grain in a creep
on pasture during the nursing period, not only averaged one-hun-
dred pounds heavier at weaning time than similar calves allowed
to nurse the cows without grain, but they were also worth $2.00
more per hundred, or $17.88 per head more than the calves that
received no grain. Garrigus (1952) stated that calves getting
plenty of milk and palatable grass need, and will eat, little
grain. He further stated that if either milk or high quality
forage is lacking, a bushel of corn will feed a suckling calf for
at least ten days. Creep-feeding paid biggest dividends with the
first crop of calves out of heifers, or during drouth years, or
during years when the market pays well for extra finish, or where
there is a high percentage of older cows, or cows with twin calves
in the herd. Garrigus (1952) also pointed out that some farmers
separate first calf-heifers, old cows and cows with twins in order
to creep-feed their calves.

Miller and Nelson (1955) reported that Spring-dropped

calves of good quality, sold as feeders, were most profitable when

not creep-fed during normal grazing years. Good quality calves
from two-year-old heifers benefited from creep-feeding during
"drouthy" grazing seasons. They stated that when only the feed
bill was considered, the non-creep-fed calves were slightly more
profitable ($3.50 more per steer). However, creep-fed calves
were ready for market 42 days earlier than non-creep fed calves.
Smith and Thompson (1955) listed the following advantages

of creep-feeding:

1. It adds weight and finish.

2. The cows are not suckled down so much.

3. Calves grow out more uniformly in size and condition.

4. There is little shrinkage at weaning time.

5. It aids in the development of future breeding stock.

6. It shortens the feeding period after weaning.

7. It serves as a good market for home-grown feeds.

8. Calves creep-fed usually sell for a higher price than
calves not creep-fed.

They listed the following disadvantages of creep-feeding:
1. Extra equipment and labor is required.
2. It is sometimes difficult to get calves to eat.

3. Creep-fed calves sometimes do not sell to advantage as .
feeders.

4. There may not be enough Spread in price to justify creep-
feeding.

Cunningham et a1. (1958) reported that five trials were
conducted with two groups of 15 high-grade Hereford cows and their

calves to determine the value of creep feeding in the production

10

of feeder calves. They concluded that creep feeding improved the
average feeder calf grade from good to choice, and increased the
average weaning weight of the steers by 83 pounds and that of the
heifers by 43 pounds. This increased the average yearly net re-
turns per steer. However, in the case of the heifers there was

a loss after subtracting feed costs.

The Effects of Different Pasture Forages
Upon Quality and Palatability of Beef

 

 

Black g£_gl. (1931) were among the earliest to compare
the quality of grain finished and grass finished beef. They re-
ported no difference between the two types other than in tender-
ness. Corn fed beef was determined to be slightly more tender.
Black.g£_gl. (1940) found no bmportant differences either in ten-
derness or in other palatability factors between meat from grass
fed and grain fed cattle after the carcasses had been aged.

Barbells g£_gl. (1941) conducted studies with cattle on
grass and on grain rations and concluded that grass cattle of
equal fatness have the same value so far as carcass characteris-
tics-are concerned. In this same study, the rate of ripening was
also compared, as it was reported earlier by Barbells, that beef
from grass fed cattle deteriorated more rapidly when aged than
that from grain fed cattle. The study failed to show any signif-
icant difference between beef from animals fed exclusively on
grass and those on grass supplemented with concentrates. However,
Bull g£_gl. (1941) reported inferior eating qualities for grass

fed beef because of lower finish. Wanderstock and Millereifltfi) also

11

found beef from animals fattened on pasture alone to have poorer
eating qualities than that from animals fed supplements on pas-
ture or full-fed in dry-lot. However, all the beef was scored as
acceptable. The superiority of the supplement fed and dry-lot

fed beef was attributed largely to more finish. Hunt g£_gl.
(1953) concluded that there was no difference in the quality of
grain fed and grass fed beef provided both types were equally fat.

Longwell (1936) reported that grass did not produce dark-
cutter beef, but brightness did appear to be directly related to
degree of finish. These findings were later confirmed by Bull
(1941) and Mackintosh and Hall (1935). On the other hand, Kraft
53;;5L; (1950) reported that both carcass grade and color of lean
beef were influenced by the method of feeding.

Craig g£_gl. (1959) studied the effects of several pas-
ture and dry-lot rations with grade Hereford yearling steers.
They concluded that any differences in color stability of lean
during cooler storage was due to the amount of fat present rather
than to the influence of treatments. They further concluded that
the yellow pigment in fat decreased in intensity as more grain
was added to the ration of cattle on pasture.

Kemp and Varney (1955) reported that twelve grade Hereford
steers averaging 715 pounds were purchased at the stockyards and
placed on a mixed grass pasture that was heavily infested with
.wild onions. After three weeks one was removed and slaughtered.

The meat contained strong onion flavors and odors. After four

12

weeks all the cattle were removed, two were slaughtered, and the
others were placed in dry lot and fed alfalfa hay and grain. They
were slaughtered in pairs on the second, fourth, and sixth days
after being placed on dry feed. Rib roasts were cooked to 1600 F.
and tested by a taste panel for onion flavors and odors. Beef
from the steers slaughtered the day of removal showed marked fla-
vors and odors; after two days, slight onion flavors and odors

and after four days, no detectable onion flavors and odors.

The remaining three steers were fed wild onion t0ps for
four days. One steer was slaughtered soon after the last feeding.
The other two were killed, respectively, on the second and fourth
days after the last feeding of onions. Taste tests were similar
to the previous test with heavy initial contamination, very slight
after two days and little, if any, after four days. From these
data it was concluded that cattle should be removed from pastures
containing wild onion at least four days before slaughter in order
to make sure that the beef would have no onion flavors and odors.

Relative to onion or garlic flavor, the following quota-
tion was taken from The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs (1952).

Allyl Sulfide. Diallyl sulfide; thioallyl ether; 'oil

garlic.‘ (CH2:CH - CH2) 3; molecular weight 114.20. CSH1033
C 63.10%, H 8.83%, S 28. 8%. Colorless liquid; garlic odor
dZZ 0.888. b. 139°. n 27 1.4877. Insoluble in water; mis-
cible with alcohol, chloroform, ether, carbon tetrachloride.
Use: ‘mfg. flavors. Commercially available.

Composition of Carcasses and Physical Separation of Cuts

Lawes and Gilbert (1860) were the first to make a detailed

study of the composition of meat animals. These workers analyzed

13

carcasses of beef, sheep and swine at different stages of develop-
ment. They found with two heifers and fourteen bullocks the vari-
ous items of offal to constitute the per cent of body weight
shown below:

Paunch. . . . . . . s . . . . . 11.51%

Caul fat. . s . . . . . . . . . 2.02%

Intestines. . . . . . . . . . . 5.08%

Pluck . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62%

Liver . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.31%

Spleen . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%

Head and Tongue . . . . . . . . 2.69%

Hide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.49%

Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.77%

Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10%

Hall and Emmet (1912) determined the relative portions of
visible fat, lean and bone in the wholesale and retail cuts of beef
and the chemical composition and nutritive value of the boneless
meat of the various wholesale cuts. They found that the lean in-
creased from approximately 40 per cent in the flank, being succes-
sively higher in the fore shank, plate, rib, loin and round, reach-
ing 65 per cent in the round. A side of beef studied contained
56.90 per cent fat, 30.29 per cent lean and 12.34 per cent bone.

Hopper (1944) in a study at North Dakota, found that the
physical composition of the 9th-lOth-llth-rib cut is highly cor-
related with the physical composition of the empty body, carcass

and edible portion of the carcass. He also concluded that dressing

14

per cent is not a reliable indicator of fatness and that the per-
cent of ether extract in the rib-eye muscle (Longissimus dorsi)
and fat and bone of the 9th-lOth-llth-rib cut are not considered
satisfactory indices of fatness. The edible portion of the 9th-
lOth-llth-rib cut was selected as an average indicator of the
physical composition of the edible portion of the carcass.

Hankins and Howe (1942) found that the fat content of the
9th-10th-11th-rib cut, as determined by careful physical analysis,
can be used satisfactorily in studies of relationships with com-
position factors of the carcass and of other cuts. In a study of
the relationship between the separable-lean content of the 9th-
10th-11th-rib cut and the same component for the entire dressed
carcass, they found the lean content of the 9th-lOth-llth-rib cut
to be satisfactory for estimating the lean of the carcass for
steers but questionable in heifers. The lean meat content of the
rib cut was equally good for estimating the protein content of
the edible portion of the dressed carcass. The usefulness of the
percentage of bone of the 9th-10th-llth-rib cut as related to the
percentage of bone in the carcass was not as great as for separ-
able-lean or separable-fat due to the near impossibility of ac-
curate splitting of the carcass and rib cut. It was practically
impossible, even for the most expert butchers, to entirely avoid
deviations from the middle line of the back when splitting.

Ritchie g£_gl. (1942) found that the total nitrogen in
the lean flesh of the round, rib and loin did not noticeably

change with the condition of the animal but did increase as the

15

animal increased in size.

The 1943 Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal
Industry stated that the ratio of lean meat to bone in lamb car-
casses was found to vary with the grade of the carcasses. This
was also reported by Kemp (1952). The B. A. I. report stated that
the ratio of lean to bone varied from 2.7 per cent in prime car-
casses to 1.6 per cent in cull carcasses. The 1949 Report of the
Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry and Hankins and Howe (1942)
stated that the percentage of bone increased with a decrease in
grade. The separable fat content of the carcass varied with the
grade and the average per cent of protein in the edible meat in-
creased with a decrease in grade. Workers in the Bureau of Animal
Industry found, as stated in the Report of the Chief of the Bureau
of Animal Industry (1935), that the percentage of bone in the 9th-
10th-1lth-rib cut provided a basis for estimating the bone content
of the dressed beef carcass.

Cole g£_gl. (1960) reported that the area of 10in eye was
associated with only 18 per cent of the variation of separable
carcass lean, and 5 to 30 per cent of the variation in the separ-
able lean of the more valuable cuts of beef. Likewise, the rela-
tionships of the various linear carcass measurements with either
loin eye area or carcass separable lean were quite low. Carcass
width and circumference measurements were more highly related to
loin eye area, while the various linear measurements descriptive
of carcass length were closely related to total lean. Bone weight

of the entire carcass was highly related to total separable car-

16

cass lean ( r - 0.75). The separable lean of a particular cut
of beef was found to be more descriptive of carcass leanness or
muscling than either the area of loin eye or the various carcass
measurements. Correlation coefficients between total separable
carcass lean and the lean of various wholesale cuts were 0.95
with round, 0.93 with chuck, 0.81 with foreshank, 0.80 with sir-

loin, and 0.75 with shortloin.

Carcass Data

 

Beef grading standards place a great deal of emphasis on
fat. The three factors considered in beef grading are conforma-
tion, quality and finish. Quality and finish scores are deter-
mined by such factors as marbling, feathering, flank frosting and
other fat in the carcass. From a tenderness standpoint this stress
on fat does not appear to be justified.

Cover g£_gl, (1958) conducted studies on the carcasses of
126 yearling steers and found the correlation between shear force
value and U. S. carcass grade in the same carcasses to be low
(-.226). This indicates that less than 5 per cent of the variation
in shear force value was associated with carcass grade, leaving
more than 95 per cent unaccounted for. Thus, carcass grade appeared
to be unsatisfactory as an indicator of tenderness in the meat from
126 yearling steers.

According to the work of Hankins and Buck (1939) on more
than 2000 animals, correlation between carcass grade and some

measurable features of the carcass were, respectively: thickness

17

of fat over the rib eye muscle, 0.95; thickness of flesh, 0.95;
uniformity of width of carcass, 0.94; marbling of lean, 0.90 and
firmness of lean, 0.86.

Magee g£_gl. (1958), in a study of 62 yearling Hereford
and Angus steers, reported that gain had a larger direct effect
than age, final weight, or area of loin eye on the carcass grade
of the steers, accounting for 0.11 of the variation in carcass
grade. All the factors taken together accounted for 0.34 of the
variation in carcass grade. The direct effect of area of loin
eye on carcass grade was small, 0.0016, and negative. However,
the correlation between area of loin eye and carcass grade was
positive, 0.20, because area of loin eye was positively corre-
lated with age, final weight, and gain, and each of these was
positively associated with carcass grade. Carcass grade was more
highly correlated with final weight (r = 0.52) than with any of
the other variables.

Wellington and Stouffer (1959) conducted studies on the
carcasses of 121 cattle of widely varying fat content and marbling
development as to the relationship of these factors to tenderness.
Differences observed in tenderness, as measured by mechanical
shear resistance of cooked rib eye steaks, were not significant,
but an experienced palatability panel observed increased tender-
ness was correlated (P< .01) with more abundant marbling. However,
the tenderness differences associated with marbling thus detected
by the panel accounted for only about 7 per cent of the variabil-

ity in tenderness.

18

Hankins and Ellis (1933) reported a very low correlation
(-.108 1 .025) between ether extract of rib eye and shear force
value of the 9th, 10th, and 11th rib roast. Branaman 35:3},
(1936) used purebred Hereford steers and heifers of the same age
and reported no differences in tenderness attributable to finish
or sex.

Palsson (1939) reported that the degree of muscle develop-
ment could be estimated best by observing the cross-sectional-area
of the ribeye at the last rib, since this area is the last to
reach its full development as explained by the body growth gradi-
ent theory (Hammond, 1932; McMeekin, 1941; Wallace, 1948; and
Palsson and Verges (1952). Branaman (1940), working with lamb
carcasses, reported the area of ribeye to be a fairly good index

of total carcass lean.

Performance Testing

Sheets (1932) was the first to put forward a performance
test for beef steers. The criteria used were, rate of gain, effi-
ciency of gain, slaughter grade, carcass grade, carcass yield,
and physical and Chemical analyses and tenderness of a rib section.
Winters and MbMahon (1933) suggested that a performance test
should be based on rate of gain from birth to one year of age
with the calves nursing their dams but not having access to other
nurse cows or extra pail feeding. Black and Knapp (1936) ad-
vanced a record of performance test similar to that of Sheets

(1932) but used only rate of gain from weaning to slaughter.

19

The Heritability of Rate of Gain and
Some Carcass Characteristics

 

Patterson g£_31. (1949) reported the results of a twelve-
year study of young breeding beef cattle for gaining ability. The
cattle started on test at 6 to 12 months of age and were self-fed
a ground, mixed ration of about 65 per cent roughage for a period
of about 140 days. Only data from Herefords were analyzed in this
study, which included 1,053 bulls in 166 sire groups and 271 heif-
ers in 46 sire groups. Wide differences in gaining ability were
found, ranging from 1.15 to 2.82 pounds per head daily for the
average of the sire groups and from 1.37 to 4.08 for individuals.
Intra-sire correlation coefficients between half-sibs were 0.3250
and 0.2496 for bulls and heifers, reapectively.

Koch and Clark (1955) reported on data from 4,553 calves
raised at the United States Range Livestock Experiment Station,
Miles City, Montana. They calculated estimates of heritability,
repeatability and genetic and environmental correlations for
several economic characteristics. The heritability estimates
were, .35 for weaning weight, 21 for gain from birth to weaning,
.18 for weaning score, .47 for yearling weight, .39 for gain from
weaning to yearling age and .27 for yearling score. The analyses
indicate that maternal environment is quite important for birth
weight, gain from birth to weaning and weaning score.

Kincaid and Carter (1958) reported that nineteen high-
gaining bulls averaging 2.24 pounds per day and nineteen low-

gaining bulls averaging 1.65 pounds were selected from the 131 on

20

test over a six-year period. The difference, 0.59 pounds per day,
is slightly more than two standard deviations. The selected bulls,
22 Hereford, 12 Angus and 4 Shorthorn were paired by breed and
mated at random to equal numbers of grade Hereford cows for the
progeny test. The steer progeny, totaling 192 head, were full-
fed for 200 days following weaning. The heifers, 196 head, were
wintered largely on roughage and were tested by gains on pasture
their yearling summer. Differences between the averages of the
progenies of the high and low gaining sires were 0.1 pound per day
for the steer and 0.06 pound for the heifers. Heritability esti-
mates based on these differences ranged from 0.26 to 0.34 for the
steers and from 0.21 to 0.26 for the heifers, depending on the
weights used to adjust for differences in progeny numbers. When
adjusted for differences in variance among the sires and within
the progenies, i. e., when converted to standard measure, these
estimates became 0.38 to 0.49 for the steers and 0.31 to 0.35 for
the heifers.

Evidence of the influence of inheritance may be shown
either by differences between breeds or by differences among sires
within breeds. Cover g£_gl. (1957), by use of the analysis of
variance, indicated that loin steaks from Hereford steers cooked
by two methods, broiling and braising, were significantly more
juicy than those from cross-breed steers. For bottom round steaks,
however, statistical significance was found only when they were
broiled, with the Hereford steers having the higher juiciness

scores. Breed had no significant effect on either the tenderness

21

scores or the shear values of these steaks.

Further work by Cover g£_§l. (1957) showed that sires with-
in breeds appeared to have no significant effect on the juiciness
in these tests, but the effect on tenderness was significant. The
average tenderness value of the loin steaks from the animals sired
by the Brahman sire number 119 were at the bottom of the group of
Brahman sires for tenderness in both loin and round steaks, re-
gardless of whether they were braised or broiled. 0n the other
hand, the average tenderness value of the steaks from the offspring
of Brahman sire number 115 were at the top of the group of Brahman
sires for tenderness in both cuts with both methods of cookery.
Steaks from some of the cross-bred steers compared favorably with
the most tender steaks from the Hereford steers, but some were less
tender than any of the steaks from the Hereford steers. The least
tender steaks came from two steers sired by Brahman bull number 119.
Coefficients of variability computed within breeding groups for all
the measures of eating quality were higher for cross-bred than for
Hereford steers.

Carpenter g£_21. (1955) have reported that steaks and
roasts from animals of part Brahman breeding were less tender than
those of Shorthorn breeding. However, Cover (1958) found that
steaks from some animals with Brahman or part Brahman breeding
were as tender as some of those with pure Hereford breeding.

The observations of Cover g£_gl, (1957) in a study of
breeds, and sires within breeds when taken together, lend support

to the hypothesis that the heredity of the animals influence the

22

juiciness and tenderness of the meat. The influence of heredity
on some components of carcass quality has been suSpected for some
time, although conclusive published data are lacking. Black
‘g£_gl. (1934) reported that the roasted meat of the Brahman-
Shorthorn cross was less tender than that of Herefords or of
Shorthorns. However, wide variation was observed among individ-
ual animals in the different groups.

Hostetler‘g£_gl. (1936) compared the offspring of a native
bull and native cows with offSpring of a pure-bred Hereford bull
and native cows. Roasted 9th, 10th and 11th ribs from the progeny
of the pure-bred Hereford bull were significantly more tender than
those from the progeny of the native bull, but the average calves
for both fell within "tender“ in terms of the grading chart used.
The Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry (1937) reported, ”Two
Hereford bulls, rather closely related and apparently of equal
quality, were bred to beef cows of similar breeding. The calves
of one of the bulls made more rapid gains and their carcasses had
higher dressing percentages than did the calves of the other bull."
When the rib cuts of the carcasses were roasted in a similar man-
ner, the superiority observed in the growth factors of the first
bull was again exhibited in the form of more tender meat. Miner
and Yao (1954) stated, "Heritable coefficients estimated by the
half-sib method show that, when the high level of heritability is
set at 40 per cent, the following factors may be effectively se-
lected for: size of eye, length of eye, ether extract, fat, mar-

bling, intensity and quality of lean, quality of juice and

23

resistance to shearing."

Cover g£_gl. (1957) observed that the influence of heredity
on tenderness may be associated with certain physiological or me-
tabolic variations. Such variations might influence, not only
tenderness, but also such gross characteristics as weight, gain,
fat deposition and the development of muscular tissue. The level
of certain chemical compounds in the blood may also be hereditary.
Such characteristics in the live animal or in the carcass might
serve as an indicator of quality.

Cartwright g£_§l. (1958) collected shear force data for
126 steers. The cuts tested show heritability estimates of 64.48
per cent over-all and 47.84 per cent within breeds and crosses.
Part of the difference between sires was accounted for by breed
differences but the major portion was due to differences between
sires of the same breed. These values substantiate other reports
and support the premise that there are differences in tenderness

between individuals treated similarly.

Taste Panel Methodology

The taste panel is still a very useful tool in evaluating
food products. It has been found that the human subject can iden-
tify or reject foods by means which escape physical or chemical
methods. The assumptions may be made that, since the number of
persons on a food scoring panel is small, the members of the panel
must have good tasting ability and that the small number of persons

comprising the panel will represent general consumer preferences.

24

Platt (1931) stated that five or ten judges may be good for impor-
tant conclusions. There should be a screening of persons with
elimination of those who fail to distinguish differences and those
who cannot recognize duplications.

Raffensperger (1956) stated that the advantages of taste
panel scaling, found for one panel over another, may depend closely
on the reSpondents using the scale. Overman g£_§l. (1948) con-
ducted a study to test the reliability of flavor judgments of taste
panel members. he panel consisted of ten members who judged the
flavor of pastry made with five different flavored fats. An anal-
ysis of variance was used to measure the consistency and discrim-
inating ability of each judge. A low variability and a high abil-
ity to detect differences was necessary for good judging. Stein-
berg g£_§1. (1949) used a zero to ten and a two to fourteen num-
bering system as the method of scaling.

Peryam g£_gl. (1957) at the Quartermaster Food and Con-
tainer Institute developed a scoring system for measuring individ-
ual food preferences which is known as the "hedonic scale.” With
this method, individual preferences are indicated as some degree
of "like" or “dislike." This method is eSpecially useful with
judges who have had little or no previous experience in food scor-
ing. However, it is also quite useful with trained testers. The
simple ”like-dislike” description of the scale encourages the
observers to report their immediate response, which has been rec-
ognized as the most reliable. The full potential of the hedonic

scale method can be realized only through appropriate analysis of

25

data. In most cases this implies that a well-planned design must
be set down before the study begins.

The Warner-Bratzler shear is the most commonly used objec-
tive measure of tenderness of meat. Bratzler (1949) reported that

this method gives a correlation coefficient of .780 with panel

score a

CHAPTER III

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The data obtained during the course of this study-'0 col-
lected over a three-year period (1957-60) and involved three crops
of calves produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan. In addition,
the carcasses of thirty-two Hereford steers, produced on different
pasture mixtures and weeds, were studied for possible differences
in palatability. In analyzing and presenting the data, each of I

the three crops of calves and the lot of Hereford steers will be

treated separately.

Experimental Animals by Year

1221

It was pointed out earlier that the breeding program for
the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan is devised so that calves are
dropped in late winter or early spring in order to utilize the
grass of the entire growing season. With this in mind, twenty-
three grade Hereford and twenty-four Red Polled heifers were bred
between March 15 and June 15, 1956. The first calves then were
dropped during the winter and spring of 1957. The Hereford and
Red Polled heifers were divided so that, as nearly as possible,
an equal number of each breed was bred to each of two purebred

Hereford bulls. The numbers of calves dropped were twenty Here-

26

27

ford X Hereford and twenty-two Red Polled X Hereford. Of these,
twenty Hereford X Hereford and twenty-one Red Polled X Hereford
were raised. The calves were divided so that, as nearly as pos-
sible, an equal number of each bull's calves was creep-fed a

grain mixture during the entire grazing season while the remainder
did not have supplemental feed. The bulls used in subsequent years
were tested for rate of gain at the Bull Performance Testing Sta-
tion, University of Kentucky, however, those used to sire the

1957 calf crop were selected on the basis of being visually supe-
rior and visually inferior. They subsequently will be called Bull
(A) and Bull (B), reapectively.

The calves remained with their dams during the entire graz-
ing season on a pasture that was predominantly Bluegrass but con-
tained several other varieties of grass, as well as Lespedeza and
White clover. The numbers of each breed slaughtered in October
were:

Red Polled X Hereford - 6 Steers

14_Heifers

Total 20
Hereford x Hereford - 8 Steers
__4_ Heifers

Total 12

The larger number of Red Polled X Hereford calves slaughtered was
due to the culling of a larger number of the Hereford X Hereford
calves because of insufficient weight to produce carcasses repre-
sentative of the type of product sought in this method of produc-

tion.

28

In April of 1957, twenty-four Hereford steers ranging in

weight from 608 to 734 pounds were placed on the following pasture

 

mixtures:
‘§£232_ Number Pasture Mixture
1 8 Brome grass and Ladino clover.
2 8 Bluegrass and White clover.
3 8 Bluegrass and Birdsfoot trefoil.

Other steers of similar breeding were retained for the pur-
pose of adding them to and removing them from the various groups
as the need arose in order to insure that the forage remained in
a good grazing condition. This is called the "put and take" sys-
tem. These steers received no feed other than pasture.

A fourth group of eight steers was taken from the "put and
take" lot in August and placed on a very weedy pasture. The weed
in greatest abundance was Ragweed but there were several other
varieties present. The steers remained on this pasture for sixty
days and were then removed to dry-lot. After being placed in dry-
1ot, they were fed a fresh supply of chopped weeds each morning
for a period of ten days. The weeds were cut on field from which
random samples showed the following analysis:

Ragweed. . . . . . 70 per cent
Grass. . . . . . . 18 " "
Other weeds. . o . 7 " ”
Wheat stubble. . . 5 " "
The steers were reluctant to eat this mixture at first but were

eating it in fair quantities by the third or fourth day. A field

predominate in Ragweed was selected for this purpose because it has

29

been reported to cause off-flavors in milk. These cattle were
slaughtered off the weed ration in October, about the same time

as those from the other three groups.

1228

The cows used for the 1958 calf crOp were the same ones
used the previous year, however, five of the Hereford and four
of the Red Polled cows were culled due to poor breeding or poor
performance of their calves. The remaining cows were allotted
for breeding on the basis of the performance of their 1957 calves.
This was done in order to minimize any advantages one cow may have
over another, such as transmitted characteristics for rate of gain
and superiority in milk production.

Two Hereford bulls were selected on the basis of their
ability to make rapid gains, as determined in the Bull Performance
Testing Station at the University of Kentucky. One of the bulls
was a high gainer and will subsequently be called Bull (H), the
other was a low gainer and will subsequently be called Bull (L).
The performance records of the two bulls in a 154-day test are
listed below.

Bull (3) Bull (L)

Average daily gain (pounds) 2.90 2.36
Pounds per day of age . 2.51 2.21
Pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain 7.71 7.87

Seventeen Hereford and twenty Red Polled cows were bred
and a calf was raised from each of them. The numbers of calves

slaughtered in October were:

30

Red Polled X Hereford - 10 Steers

19 Heifers

Total - 20
Hereford X Hereford - 6 Steers
._Z Heifers

Total - 13

Total (both breeds) --33 calves

Four of the Hereford X Hereford calves were culled before

slaughter due to insufficient weight.

1959

The cows used for the 1958 calf crop were again regrouped
and bred for the 1959 crop. No further culling was done so there
were seventeen Hereford and twenty Red Polled cows. Two new Here-
ford bulls were again selected on the basis of performance record,
one a high gainer and the other a low gainer. The performance
records of these bulls in a 154-day test are listed below.

Bull (H) Bull (L)

Average daily gain (pounds) 2.55 2.26
Pounds per day of age 2.40 2.34
Pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain 7.49 7.89

There was again 100 per cent conception among the cows,
however, five Hereford and four Red Polled cows aborted. It was
determined that these abortions were due to fighting since no
pathological symptoms could be found. One Red Polled X Hereford
calf was destroyed because of a broken leg. The numbers of calves

slaughtered from the 1959 crop were:

31

Red Polled X Hereford - 11 Steers
.44 Heifers

Total - 15
Hereford X Hereford - 7 Steers
._5 Heifers

Total - 12
Total (both breeds) - 27 Calves

The general breeding scheme and grouping of progeny listed
below were used for each of the three years of the study, however,

some errors in divisions led to diSproportionate subclass numbers.

Group Sire Dam Treatment
1 Hereford Grade One-half on grass, milk and
(Bull H) Hereford creep-fed grain and one-half
on grass and milk only.
2 Hereford Grade One-half on grass, milk and
(Bull L) Hereford creep-fed grain and one-half
on grass and milk only.
3 Hereford Red Polled One-half on grass, milk and
(Bull H) creep-fed grain and one-half
on grass and milk only.
4 Hereford Red Polled One-half on grass, milk and
(Bull L) creep-fed grain and one-half

on grass and milk only.

The breeding scheme and the numbers of calves drOpped,
raised and slaughtered by year are shown in Table 1.

For the sake of simplicity in presenting the data, the
Red Polled X Hereford cross will be referred to as "Red Polled

Cross" and the Hereford X Hereford as "Hereford.”

Slaughter Procedure

 

The same general procedure was followed each of the three

32

 

 

 

 

NH NH NH m w NH muomouom mmmH
mH mH 0H 0H 0H 0N mmHHom mom mmoH
MH NH NH w m NH muowmuom wmmH
ON ON ON oH OH 0N moHHom mom wmmH
3V :8 H5 :5
NH ON ON HH NH MN ouomouom NmmH
ON HN NN NH NH 8N moHHom mom nmmH
monounmsmHm oomHmm moamoua Amv HHsm A<V HHsm oopm Ema wmmw
mo>Hmu mo amnasz roam msoo wo uopEsz Hooasz mo omoum

E

Mdmw wm QMMMHEUD<Hm 92¢ QumH<M .nmmmoma mm>A<U mo mMMMZDz 92¢ mzmmom UZHQmmmm

H MHm<H

33

years of the study and will be treated as a single operation.

The calves were weighed individually immediately before
leaving the farm and were tranSported by truck a distance of about
eighty miles to a cooperating packing plant. They were weighed
individually upon arrival for the purpose of obtaining individual
yields or dressing percentages. The farm.weights were to the
nearest pound and the packing plant weights were to the nearest
five pounds. Individual identity was maintained by removing neck
chains and number tags at the time of slaughter and then record-
ing cattle numbers in sequence as they were put on the rail.

Warm dressed weights and forty eight hour chilled weights were

recorded. The carcasses were chilled at approximately 38° F.

Grading

The carcasses were graded to the nearest one-third of a
grade by a U. 8. Government grader. To facilitate analyses of
the data, corresponding numerical scores were assigned on the
basis of the following: high prime, 24; average prime, 23; low
prime, 22; high choice, 21; average choice, 20; low choice, 19;
high good, 18; average good, 17; low good, 16; high standard, 15;

0

average standard, 14; and low standard, 13.

Carcass Yields
The carcass yields were determined by dividing the chilled

carcass weights by the live weights obtained at the packing plant.

Marbling,Scores

Marbling scores were determined by comparing the cut sur-
face of the ribeye muscle at the 12th rib to a set of pictures,
from the United States Department of Agriculture, of representa-
tive degrees of marbling assigned the following numerical values:

1. Extremely abundant.
2. Very abundant.

3. Abundant.

4. Moderately abundant.
5. Slightly abundant.
6. “Oderates

7. Modest.

8. final]. amount.

9. Slight amount.

10. Traces.

11. Practically devoid.
12. Devoid.

Color of Lean

 

Munsell Color Paddles were used for lean color determina-
tions. This is a series of color paddles by the Munsell Color
Company for determining beef color by comparison. The paddles are
numbered 1 through 10 with number 1 being light red or pink and
each succeeding number being slightly darker through number 10
which is very dark red. The comparisons were made thirty minutes
after brightening and the appropriate numbers recorded. A port-
able white-daylight, fluorescent lamp was used to assure uniform-

ity, quality and intensity of light.

Color of Fat
Color of fat was determined subjectively by viewing the car-

casses under the fluorescent light mentioned above and a numerical

score assigned according to the following scheme:
1. Creamy white.
2. Yellowish tinge.
3. Yellow.
Firmness of Lean
The determination of firmness was also done subjectively
by applying the fingers to the cut surface of the ribeye muscle
and assigning a numerical score as follows:
1. Firm.
2. Slightly firms
3. Slightly soft.
4. Soft.
Fat Thickness Over the Ribgye Muscle
For this determination, measurements in millimeters were

taken at the top, in the center and at the bottom of the ribeye

muscle. These were averaged for a single value.

Area of Ribeye Muscle

For determination of the number of square inches in the
ribeye muscle, a sheet of acetate paper was placed over the cut
surface of the muscle at the 12th rib and the outline traced
with a sharp pointed pencil. The traced area.was measured with a

planimeter.

Treatment of Samples
The entire rib section of the right side of each carcass
was removed and transported to the Meats Laboratory of the Univer-

sity of Kentucky. These cuts were divided between the eighth and

36

ninth ribs and wrapped in "Tite" locker paper, which has one
‘waxed surface, and frozen and stored at 00 F. The‘meht,wasqfrosen
about 96 hours after slaughter. They were thawed at approximately
38° F. immediately before physical, chemical and palatability

determinations.

Physical Separation of the 9th, 10th and 11th Ribs

An estimation of the total fat, lean and bone of the car-
casses was obtained by physically separating the 9-10-llth rib
cut into these components and determining their respective per-
centages. The ribs were weighed to the nearest one-hundredth
of a pound before separation and the components were weighed to
the nearest one-hundredth of a pound after separation. There was
some weight loss due to evaporation and adherence of tissue to
surfaces so the combined weights of the components did not always

equal the initial weight.

Moisture and Ether Extract Analyses

 

The portion of the ribeye muscle (Longissimus dorsi) adja-
cent to the 12th rib was used for moisture and ether extract deter-
minations. All external fat was removed and the lean tissue was
ground three times through a l/16 inch plate. Each sample was
thoroughly mixed, placed in a glass jar and held in a 0° F. freezer
until the time of analysis.

The procedure for moisture determinations was as follows:
Foil moisture pans were numbered, dried and weighed. Approximately

two grams of well-mixed sample was placed in a pan and weighed

37

quickly. The samples were placed in a 700 C. vacuum oven and dried
overnight. They were then cooled in a desiccator and reweighed.
The weight of the sample and pan after drying was subtracted from
the weight of the dried pan and fresh sample to give total mois-

ture loss.

Weight of moisture loss X 100

% Water = .
Weight of fresh sample

The procedure for ether extract determinations was as fol-
lows: After the moisture content was determined, the foil pans
containing the residue were cut and folded into cone-shaped thim-
bles. These were placed in dried and weighed extraction flasks
and extracted with ether for six hours on a Goldfisch extraction
apparatus. They were then dried in an oven at 100° C. for 1 1/2
hours, cooled in a desiccator and weighed. The weight of the
flask subtracted from the weight of the ether extract and flask

gave the weight of the ether extract.

7:. Ether Extract = Weight Of ether extract x 100
Weight of fresh sample

Measurement of Bone Ash

 

Since the grading Service uses hardness of bone as an in-
dicator of maturity and has associated maturity with tenderness,
the per cent ash in a section of bone was determined and related
to tenderness. The following procedure was used:

A cannon bone from each of sixteen calves from the 1959
crop was obtained at the time of slaughter. A portion two inches

long was taken from the exact center of each bone and wrapped in

38

a cheese cloth bag along with a metal identification tag. They
were stacked lengthwise in a soxlet fat extractor and extracted
with ethyl alcohol for 96 hours. They were then taken from the
cheese cloth and placed in numbered, dried and weighed silica
dishes and dried in a forced draft oven at 100° c. for 72 hours.
This length of time not only dried the bone but also volatilized
any remaining ethyl alcohol. Bones and dishes were cooled in a
desiccator and weighed. The weight of the dried dish subtracted
from the weight of the dried dish and dried bone gave the weight
of the dried bone.

The samples were then placed in a muffle furnace and the
temperature gradually increased to 6000 C., where it was main-
tained for 24 hours. They were cooled in a desiccator and weighed.
The weight of the dish and ashed bone subtracted from the weight
of the dried dish and dried bone gave the weight of the ashed

bone.

7. ASh = Weight Of ashed bone X 100
Weight of dried bone

 

Taste Panel Methodology

 

Selection of Panel

The panel members were selected from the staff and students
of the Animal Husbandry Department, University of Kentucky, on the
basis of previously demonstrated repeatability in scoring meat
samples. The number varied in different scoring sessions from

six to eight.

39

Panel Facilities

The scoring of the samples was done in an area removed from
the cooking area. The panel was seated at a long table equipped
with portable booths arranged in a manner that prevented each per-
son from seeing the others. Each member was given a scoring
sheet, a cup of water, an empty cup and an apple. The empty cup
was used for expelling the sample after scoring and the apple was
used to cleanse the mouth between samples. The panel was in-
structed to refrain from talking during the tasting period and to

concentrate fully on scoring the samples.

Preparation of Samples

 

The 6th, 7th and 8th ribs from the right side of each ani-
mal were cooked in electric ovens at 3250 F. to an internal tem-
perature of 160° F. Four roasts were cooked for each panel ses-
sion which means that with duplicate samples, each member scored
eight samples per sitting.

Only the ribeye muscle was used for scoring. It was re-
moved from the remainder of the roast and carved into samples one
quarter inch thick and one inch square. The samples were placed
on predwarmed and coded plates with the code numbers randomized
to minimize bias. The duplicate samples with different code num-
bers were served after the first ones were finished. All samples
were scored for flavor of lean, juiciness and tenderness. An at-
tempt was made to score for flavor of fat but due to a lack of

thickness of fat, a sufficient number of samples could not be

40

obtained without getting carmelized fat which would distort the

scores 0

Objective Measure of Tenderness

A portion of each ribeye muscle about one and one-half
inches thick was carved from the cooked 6th, 7th and 8th rib sec-
tion and two one-inch cores were removed. These were tested for
shear force values on the Warner-Brotzler shear machine. Three
readings from each core or six for each roast were taken and the

sum was averaged to get a single score for each animal.

Palatability Score Card

The "hedonic" scale was used, the exact arrangement is
shown in Figure 1. Numerical scores of 1 through 9 were substi-
tuted for analysis of the data with the most favorable rating

being given 9.

Statistical Analyses

Analysis of variance with unequal subclass numbers, as
described by Snedecor (1958) and Pearson and Bennett (1949) was
used. In this method of analysis the component sum of squares
do not add to the total sum of squares. For this reason, total
sum of squares are not included in the variance tables. Individ-
ual sum of squares was made comparable to the adjusted Subgroup
variances by dividing the regular error sum of squares by the
harmonic mean of the numbers in the subgroups. In instances

where significant interactions occurred, "F" ratios were obtained

Figure 1.
Name

Sample Number

41

Palatability Score Card

Date

 

 

Like Extremely_

Like Very Much

Like Moderately

Like Slightly

Neither Like nor Dislike
Dislike Slightly
Dislike Moderately
Dislike Very Much

Dislike Extremely,

Palatability Factors
Flavor .Juiciness Tenderness

 

by dividing the mean square of the interaction into the mean

square of each of the main effects associated with the interaction.

The following factors were statistically tested:

1. Carcass grade.

2. Carcass yield.

3. Marbling score.

4. Fat thickness over the ribeye muscle.

5. Carcass weight per day of age.

6. Square inches of ribeye per hundred pounds of carcass.

7. Per cent ribeye.

0. Per cent separable lean.

9. Per cent separable fat.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

42

Per cent bone.

Per cent moisture.

Per cent ether extract.

Average panel flavor scores.
Average panel juiciness scores.
Average panel tenderness scores.

Average shear force values for tenderness.

A multilinear correlation coefficient was calculated to

ascertain the relationship of percentage bone ash with panel score

and shear force values for tenderness.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The breeding scheme in the research reported was to use
two Hereford bulls of different gaining ability on grade Hereford
and Red Polled cows. The complete breeding program is outlined
in the experimental procedure. The idea in testing Red Polled cows
along with Herefords was to ascertain the merits of a dual purpose
breed in this program, since they are prone to beef characteristics
and also very good producers of milk. In subsequent years, the
product of the cross will be fed out in order to determine their
comparative usefulness as feeder calves.

As was pointed out in the experimental procedure, three
crops of calves were studied in 1957-58-59. Due to differences
in weather and grazing conditions, the use of different pairs of
bulls in different years and other variables, no attempt will be
made to compare calves among years. Instead, each year will be

treated as a separate experiment.

Carcass Data, 1957

 

The average live weight of all Red Polled Cross calves at
the time of slaughter was 523 Pounds and that of the Hereford
calves was 434 pounds. L Inns-achras only calves reaching 350

pounds live weight were slaughtered, 1 Red Polled Cross and 8

43

44

Hereford calves were not slaughtered. The 20 Red Polled Cross and
12 Hereford calves actually slaughtered averaged 532 and 504 pounds
live weight, respectively. The culling of the light weight calves
was considered to be justified since they were not representative
of the type of product sought in this method of production and the
practice is commonly followed by producers.

Seventeen of the 32 calves slaughtered were sired by Bull
(A) and 15 by Bull (B). Both bulls were pure-bred Herefords, but
Bull (A) was visually superior to Bull (B). Nine Red Polled Cross
and 6 Hereford calves were creep fed while 11 Red Polled Cross
and 6 Hereford calves received no creep feed. All calves suckled
their dams on pasture throughout their lives. Because of the small
numbers and the fact that it has been shown that calves of this type
differ little between sexes (Kemp and Garrigus, 1954), no distinc-
tion will be made between steers and heifers throughout this study.

The complete individual carcass data are presented in
Appendix Tables 1 through 4. The factors of color of fat, color
of lean and firmness are shown only in the Appendix and were not

treated statistically.

Carcass Gradegy 1957

The coded grade means for the various groups are shown in
Table 2 and the analysis of variance is shown in Table 4.

The mean scores reveal that the Red Polled Cross calves
consistently graded higher than the Herefords; however, the margin

was minimized when neither received creep feed. The over-all

TABLE 2 -

45

MEANS FOR CARCASS GRADE, YIELD AND MARBLING SCORE, 1957

 

 

 

 

Means
Group Number Carcass Grade Carcass Yield Marbling
Code (Per cent) Score
Bull (A) Progeny 17 14.94 56.73 10.53
Red Polled 9 15.11 58.04 10.44
Hereford 8 14.75 55.13 10.62
Bull (B) Progeny 15 15.20 56.73 10.60
Red Polled 11 15.36 56.85 10.45
Hereford 4 14.75 56.36 11.00
Creep Fed 15 15.80 57.66 9.93
Red Polled 9 16.22 58.08 9.78
Hereford 6 15.20 56.98 10.17
No Creep 17 14.41 55.85 11.12
Red Polled 11 14.45 56.80 11.00
Hereford 6 14.33 53.93 11.33
TOTAL NUMBER 32

 

46

 

 

 

mm 6sz demos.
oe.m mw.m mw.o e anemones
Ne.~ oo.e eo.H HH edHHem sea

ee.m em.e Ho.H eH ddeso oz
oe.N ee.w No.H e unaware:
e~.~ mu.~H wH.H a eeHHea sea
mm.~ ou.HH HH.H mH eem ddduo
ed.m me.e no.0 e snowshoe
ee.N Nw.m . NH.H HH edHHom eee
ed.~ oo.e eo.H AH anemone Hmv HHea
ea.~ on.» no.0 w encased:
He.~ . ee.e eH.H e eeHHoe ede
em.~ mm.e do.H eH anemone Hav HHem
mmmoumu mo mmosom AaEEv xdmmcsomv
OOH Hem omeaHm omoaHm ue>o saw me man pom
mo mmfiocH oumovm mmmoHoHSH umm ufimHmz mmmoumo uoHEoz macaw
made:

 

 

nmmH .mmeoeau mo mazsom emeezam emm mwmmHa mo
mmeozH amazon and mammHe ae>o mmmzaoHae Ham .mea so see man Hmommz weave

.m MHde

mom m2<m2

47

difference approached significance. Although the difference in
grade between sire groups was not statistically significant, the
calves sired by Bull (B) had a higher average grade. This was not
expected since Bull (A) was rated as visually superior. The only
significant difference was found between the creep fed and non-
creep fed calves. The creep fed calves graded higher than the
non-creep group (P<:0.01) with about two-thirds of a grade differ-

ence between the groups.

TABLE 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS GRADE, 1957

 

 

M M
Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F"

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .02205 .02205 .12
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .6728 .6728 3.56
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 3.2258 3.2258 17.08**
Bulls X Breeds 1 .02205 .02205 .12
Bulls X Feeds 4 1 .13005 .13005 .69
Breeds X Feeds 1 .5408 .5408 2.86
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0005 .0005 .003
Individual 24 4.5327 .1889 --

 

**Significant at 0.01 level.

Carcass Yields,gl957
The mean carcass yields are presented in Table 2 and the

analysis of variance is shown in Table 5. The Red Polled Cross

48

TABLE 5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS YIELDS, 1957

W

 

Source of Variation ”$232..“ $23.35.. 521323. R252.
Bulls l .0171 .0171 0.0008
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 6.9417 6.9417 3.08
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 11.8333 11.8333 5.25*
Bulls X Breeds 1 3.2655 3.2655 1.45
Bulls X Feeds 1 .3495 .3495 .16
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.9389 1.9389 .86
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 3.0915 3.0915 1.37
Individual 24 54.0544 2.2523 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

calves showed a definite advantage in yields over the Herefords
in all groups except the Bull (B) group where the advantage was
slight. The over-all difference approached significance.
However, the average yield of the progeny of both Bull (A) and
Bull (B) was 56.73%. The creep fed calves had a significantly
higher carcass yield than those given no creep feed (P<r0.05)

with mean values of 57.66 and 55.85 per cent, respectively.

Marbling,Scores,rl957
The mean marbling scores are given in Table 2 and the anal-

ysis of variance for marbling in Table 6. It has been pointed out

49

TABLE 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MARBLING SCORE, 1957
W

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F"

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls l - .0800 .0800 1.25
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .3612 .3612 5.66*
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 2.7612 2.7612 43.28**
Bulls X Breeds 1 .0613 .0613 0.96
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0113 .0113 0.18
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0051 .0051 0.08
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0049 .0049 0.08
Individual 24 1.5318 .0638 ~-

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

that the lower scores indicate greater amounts of marbling. The
data in Table 2 show that the Red Polled Cross calves exhibited
supremacy over the Herefords in marbling score in each of the four
groups. The reapective Red Polled Cross and Hereford means for
the various groups were: Bull (A) progeny, 10.44 and 10.62; Bull
(B) progeny, 10.45 and 11.00; creep fed calves, 9.78 and 10.17;
and calves with no creep feed, 11.00 and 11.33. The difference
between breeds was significant at the 0.05 level. The averages
for all Bull (A) progeny and all Bull (B) progeny were practically

the same with values of 10.53 and 10.60, respectively. The

50

greatest difference again was exhibited by creep fed calves over
calves given no creep feed, and this difference was significant
at the 0.01 level with average scores of 9.93 and 11.12, respec-

tiVQl)’.

Carcass Weight Per Day of Age, 1957

 

The means for carcass weight per day of age are presented
in Table 3 and the analysis of variance in Table 7. The Red Polled
Cross calves exceeded the Herefords in carcass weight per day of
age in all groups. The reSpective Red Polled Cross and Hereford
means for the four groups were: Bull (A) progeny, 1.14 and 0.93;
Bull (B) progeny, 1.12 and 0.93; creep fed calves, 1.18 and 1.02;
and calves given no creep feed, 1.09 and 0.85. The difference be-
tween the two breeds was highly significant. The means for all
Bull (A) progeny and all Bull (B) progeny were essentially the
same (1.04 and 1.06, respectively). The difference in means for
creep fed calves (1.11) and those with no creep feed (1.01) just

exceeded the 0.01 level.

Fat Thickness Over the Ribeye MuscleL 1957

The means for fat thickness over the ribeye muscle are
given in Table 3 and the analysis of variance is shown in Table
8. The respective Red Polled Cross and Hereford means for the
various groups were: Bull (A) progeny, 9.44 and 7.50; Bull (B)
progeny, 9.82 and 6.75; creep fed calves, 12.89 and 8.67; and
calves given no creep feed, 7.00 and 5.83. The Red Polled Cross

calves had thicker fat over the ribeye muscle (P< 0.01) than the

51

TABLE 7

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS WEIGHT PER DAY OF AGE, 1957

 

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F?

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 0 0 0
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .0813 .0813 18.48**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 .0345 .0045 7.84**
Bulls X Breeds l .0002 .0002 .045
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0001 .0001 .023
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0047 .0047 1.07
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0009 .0009 .204

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Herefords. It is noted in Table 8 that the Bulls X Feeds interac-
tion was significant, which indicated that the reaponse of the
calves to feeds was different for one bull's offspring than for
the other bull's offSpring. This necessitated the calculation of
the ”F” ratio for bulls and feeds using the interaction mean
square as the error term. These ”F” values were not significant,
indicating that there was no real difference between either bull
groups or between the creep fed and non-creep fed groups in thick-

ness of fat over the ribeye.

52

TABLE 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FAT THICKNESS OVER THE
RIBEYE MUSCLE, 1957

 

 

 

S f V i , Degrees of Sum of Mean "F"
ource 0 ar ation Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0344 .0344 0.003

Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 15.5369 15.5369 10.51**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 44.8844 44.8844 4.80
Bulls X Breeds 1 .7537 .7537 0.51
Bulls X Feeds 1 9.3562 9.3562 6.33*
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.9537 1.9537 1.32
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .6870 .6870 0.46
Individual 24 35.4769 1.4782 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.
*Significant at the 0.05 level.

ngare Inches of Ribeye Area Per
Hundred Pounds of Carcass, 1957

This factor has received much attention since the loin is
the most valuable cut in a meat animal, and also the cross-sec-
tional area of the cut in beef, pork and lamb has been considered
as an indice to total muscling of the carcass. However, recent
work by Cole g£_§l. (1960) would question the usefulness of the
ribeye area as an index of leanness. Of course, a comparison
among animals for this factor is meaningless unless adjustment

is made for differences in live or carcass weight.

53

TABLE 9

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SQUARE INCHES OF RIBEYE AREA PER
HUNDRED POUNDS OF CARCASS, 1957

 

 

 

O l H H
Source of Variation De°ree8 Of fin“ Of Mean F.
Freedom squares Square Ratio
Bulls l .0362 .0362 1.63
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) l .0519 .0519 2.34
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 .0639 .0639 2.88
Bulls X Breeds 1 .0844 .0844 3.80
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0145 .0145 0.65
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0574 .0574 2.59
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0802 .0802 3.61
Individual 24 .5339 .0222 --

 

The mean values for ribeye area in square inches per hun-
dred pounds of carcass are given in Table 3 and the analysis of
variance in Table 9. An inSpection of Table 3 reveals that the
means for ribeye area per hundred pounds of carcass were grouped
rather closely together. The range was from 2.24 to 2.74 or
only 0.50 square inches of ribeye area per hundred pounds of
carcass and none of the differences were statistically signifi-
cant.

The Physical Composition of the
9th, 10th and 11th Ribs, 1957

The percentage composition of separable lean, separable

U'I
Ls

fat and bone in the 9th, 10th and 11th rib cut has been reported
to be closely correlated with the percentage of these components
in the entire carcass (Hankins and Howe, 1942). In the current

study the per cent of ribeye (Longissimus dorsi) muscle was cal-

 

culated in addition to the total lean, to determine whether the
significance among the groups would be comparable to that ob-
tained in ribeye area per hundred pounds of carcass. The com-
plete individual composition data are given by weights in Appen-

dix Table 13 and by per cent in Appendix Table 16.

Per Cent Ribeye,_l957

The mean percentages of ribeye for the various groups
are shown in Table 10. They are as follows for Red Polled Cross
and Hereford calves, respectively: Bull (A) progeny, 20.99 and
22.25; Bull (B) progeny, 21.09 and 20.86; creep fed calves, 19.38
and 21.48; and calves given no creep feed, 22.68 and 21.98. The
only significant difference shown was between feeds, in which the
calves given no creep feed had a larger percentage of ribeye
(P<:0.05). This indicates as was suggested earlier, that the

calves given no creep feed had muscling but lacked finish.

Per Cent Total separable Lean, 1957

The means for per cent total separable lean are shown in
Table 10 and the analysis of variance in Table 11. The means for
Red Polled Cross and Hereford calves, respectively, in the four
groups are: Bull (A) progeny, 49.91 and 51.83; Bull (B) progeny,

47.26 and 50.51; creep fed, 43.84 and 50.48; and no creep feed,

55

 

 

 

mm emeSz fleece
eo.HN eo.m~ Ns.Nm we.H~ e seaweeds
mm.eH em.e~ eH.mm we.- HH eeHHom eds
ao.o~ Na.m~ Ha.Nm ee.NN NH edeuo oz
ee.aH eo.Hm mm.om we.HN e edemddem
HN.~H NN.w sw.me em.eH a edHHee see
He.aH am.mm om.ee wH.o~ mH sea deeds
He.eH ew.e~ Hm.om ew.om d seahorse
ee.mH ee.~m eN.ad mo.H~ HH eeHHom ewe
oe.eH He.Hm eH.oe «H.H~ AH anemone Hmv HHdm
ee.eH ee.e~ mo.Hm mN.NN w anemone:
mc.wH Hm.Hm He.ee ee.om e eeHHom eee
He.wH a.e~ em.om mm.H~ NH anemone Hay HHee
econ mom nmmH Hmuoa mmonHm Honaoz msouu

mommucmowom emu:

 

It

 

 

 

All
lll'

amoH .mzom eza .Hem mamdmammm .zama mamamammm demos .mwmmHm mo mmueezuoamm zen:

OH MHm<H

TABLE 11

56

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT TOTAL SEPARABLE LEAN, 1957

 

 

SW °f Variatim ”$32233.“ 32333:. 321333.. R232.
Bulls 1 5.3016 5.3016 1.37
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 16.0280 16.0280 0.78
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 67.4790 67.4790 3.31
Bulls X Breeds l .1586 .1586 0.04
Bulls X Feeds 1 3.7549 3.7549 0.97
Breeds X Feeds 1 20.3586 20.3586 5.25*
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .068 .0688 0.02
Individual 24 93.0602 3.8775 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

53.19 and 52.72. It was noted that the mean percentage of separ-
able lean was higher for the Herefords in all groups except the
no creep group. The widest margin was exhibited between the
creep fed group (46.30) and the no creep group (52.91). How-
ever, the difference was not significant due to the significant

interaction between breeds and feeds.

Per Cent Separable Fat, 1957.
The means for per cent separable fat are given in Table
10 and the analysis of variance is shown in Table 12. The

respective Red Polled Cross and Hereford mean percentages for

57

the various groups were: Bull (A) progeny, 31.31 and 27.64;

Bull (B) progeny, 32.66 and 29.86; creep fed calves, 38.22 and
31.09; and calves given no creep feed, 26.39 and 25.06. The dif-
ference in favor of the Red Polled Cross calves over the Here-
fords was significant at the 0.05 level and the difference in
favor of the creep fed calves over those not creep fed was sig-
nificant at the 0.01 level. The latter suggests that creep feed-
ing may be responsible for extra fat with very little, if any,
extra muscling. The progeny of Bull (B) tended to be fatter than

those of Bull (A), however, the difference was not significant.

TABLE 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT SEPARABLE FAT, 1957

 

 

M =

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean ”Ff
Freedom Squares Square Ratio

Bulls 1 2.6727 2.6727 0.53

Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 27.5075 27.5075 5.4l*
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 165.3277 165.3277 32.49**
Bulls X Breeds 1 .9026 .9026 0.18
Bulls X Feeds 1 3.3172 3.3172 0.65
Breeds X Feeds 1 12.9536 12.9526 2.55
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0302 .0302 0.01
Individual 24 122.1085 5.0879 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.
*Significant at the 0.05 level.

Per Cent Bone, 1957

The mean percentages of bone are shown in Table 10 and the
analysis of variance in Table 13. The mean percentages of bone
for Red Polled Cross and Hereford calves, respectively, in the
four groups were: Bull (A) progeny, 18.05 and 19.44; Bull (B)
progeny, 18.66 and 18.61; creep fed calves, 17.21 and 17.26; and
calves given no creep feed, 19.38 and 21.04. It is observed that
very little difference existed between breeds. The mean percent-
ages for the progeny of Bulls (A) and (B) are essentially the
same, 18.61 and 18.70.

It is not surprising that the widest range in percentage
bone existed between the creep fed and non-creep fed calves with
values of 17.41 and 20.09 reapectively. This difference is highly
significant. The variation in percentage home between the creep
fed and non-creep fed groups would appear to be due to the effect

of the different degrees of fatness.

Analyses for Moisture and Ether Extract, 1957

 

The portion of the ribeye muscle at the 12th rib was ana-
lyzed for moisture and ether extract content. It is a well-estab-
lished fact that these two components tend to vary inversely. As
an animal increases in fatness, it decreases in water content. It
is also well-established that an increase in fatness, especially
intra-muscular fatness (marbling), tends to increase firmness and
has been considered to increase tenderness. However, recent work

by Wellington and Stouffer (1959) tends to cast doubt on this role

TABLE 13

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT BONE, 1957

59

 

 

of ”25:23:.“ 32:12:. 323:; R232.
Bulls l .0253 .0253 0.04
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 1.7196 1.7196 3.03
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 17.3166 17.3166 30.56**
Bulls X Breeds 1 1.2601 1.2601 2.22
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0012 .0012 0.002
Breeds X Feeds 1 .7596 .7596 1.34
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .2314 .2314 0.41
Individual 24 13.5982 .5666 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

in tenderness. They reported a very low correlation between ten-
derness and marbling score and a high correlation between marbling
score and per cent ether extract. They expressed the belief that
it is much more difficult to distinguish differences in marbling
with carcasses that are less intensely marbled, and therefore,

is more difficult to obtain a correlation between marbling score

and per cent ether extract with carcasses low in marbling.

Per Cent Moisture, 1957
The individual animal data for meisture content are given

in Appendix Table 19 and the group means are given in Table 14.

ll‘ll’l‘nl'l

 

 

 

‘BLE 14
177113 PER LEAVE.) OF IICISIJRE AN' ENTER. 11.}. RACE, 19 57
lme .n Percentages
Group Number Moisture Ether Extract
Bull (A) Progeny 17 74.53 1.57
Red Polled 9 74.29 1.63
Hereford 8 74.80 1.50
Bull (B) Progeny 15 74.45 1.24
Red Polled 11 74.36 1.29
Hereford 4 74.72 1.09
Creep Fed 15 74.45 1.88
Red Polled 9 74.23 2.09
Hereford 6 74.77 1.56
No Creep 17 74.54 1.00
Red Polled 11 74.41 0.91
Hereford 6 74.77 1.17
TOTAL NUMBER 32

60

 

61

TABLE 15

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT ETHER EXTRACT, 1957

 

 

Ila-Issu-
SW °f Variatim ”35223;.“ 323.32. 321323. R2122.
Bulls 1 .3158 .3158 4.83*
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .1050 .1050 0.33
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 1.0751 1.0751 2.35‘
Bulls X Breeds l .0001 .0001 0.0015
Bulls X Feeds 1 .2327 .2327 3.56
Breeds X Feeds 1 .4564 .4564 6.98*
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0129 .0129 0.20
Individual 24 1.5686 .0654 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

No significant differences were obtained. A view of the moisture
values quickly reveals that they were all grouped very closely to-
gether. In fact, the range was only 0.57 per cent among all

groups.

Per Cent Ether Extract, 1957

The mean percentages of ether extract are shown in Table
14 and the analysis of variance in Table 15. Table 14 shows that
the means for the Red Polled calves were greater than those for
the Herefords in all groups except the no creep group. This same

_ situation existed for marbling scores which indicates that a cor-

62

relation may exist between mean per cent ether extract and mean
marbling score. However, the mean per cent ether extract for
the Bull (A) group is significantly higher (P<:0.05) than that
for the Bull (B) group, although the mean marbling scores were
essentially the same (10.53 and 10.60).

The widest difference in mean percentage of ether extract
was shown between feeds, in which the creep fed group exceeded
the non-creep group. Their resPective means were 1.88 and 1.00.
However, the difference was not significant due to the inter-

action between breeds and feeds.

Palatability Data, 1957

Beef is consumed partly for its nutritive value but prob-
ably more often for the sheer enjoyment of eating it. The latter
point was foremost in mind in constructing the plan for this
study. Improvement in flavor, juiciness and tenderness are ever
being sought and the research related here was devised to manip-
ulate feeding and breeding variations in search of a combination
that would enhance the palatability factors of heavy calves, as
produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.

The mean scores for flavor, juiciness and tenderness were
obtained through the employment of a taste panel composed of six
to eight persons. They used the "hedonic scale” which ranges
from "dislike extremely" to ”like extremely" with numerical
scores from 1 through 9, respectively.

The shear force values were obtained by use of the Warner-

A [all I. l 'l‘ll I
If

63

Bratzler shear machine, which indicates the number of pounds re-
quired to shear a meat sample. Thus, the lower scores indicate
more tender meat.

The scores for individual calves are listed in Appendix
Table 22 and the mean group scores are shown in Table 16. There
were no significant differences among any of the groups for any
of the palatability factors. However, the mean group scores
indicate a definite trend in favor of the Red Polled Cross calves
which were fatter. The mean of the group sired by Bull (B) was
higher than that of the group sired by Bull (A) for all factors.
The creep fed group exceeded the no creep group in all reSpects

except for a slightly lower panel score for tenderness.

Carcass Data, 1958

 

The average live weight of all Red Polled Cross calves
at the time of slaughter was 561 pounds and that of the Hereford
calves was 448 pounds. The 20 Red Polled Cross and 13 Hereford
calves slaughtered averaged 561 and 448 pounds respectively. A
discussion of this was given under Carcass Data, 1957.

Sixteen of the 33 calves slaughtered were sired by Bull
(H) and 17 by Bull (L). Both were pure-bred Hereford bulls.
Bull (H) was a high gainer and Bull (L) a low gainer as deter-
mined in a performance test. Eleven Red Polled Cross and 7 Here-
ford were creep fed while 9 Red Polled Cross and 6 Hereford
calves received no creep feed. All calves suckled their dams on

pasture throughout their lives. The complete individual carcass

'l fl ’ ‘l I l I!

64

 

 

 

0:002

5005 .0052000005 005 00054> 00005 00500

0H mqmda

Z<ME 93¢ mmmwmwQZMH 93¢ mmHZHUHDh .MO><AM Mom mmMOUm Hmz¢m admz

50 0005552 5.55.0.5
0.55 05.0 00.5 00.5 0 05050500
0.55 55.5 00.0 55.5 55 005505 000
0.55 50.5 00.0 05.5 55 00050 02
0.05 50.0 00.0 00.5 0 05050500
5.05 00.5 05.5 00.5 0 005505 000
0.55 50.0 50.5 05.5 05 005 00050
0.55 05.5 00.5 05.5 0 05050500
5.05 50.5 50.5 50.5 55 005505 000
5.05 55.5 00.5 05.5 05 5000055 500 5500
5.55 50.0 00.0 00.0 0 05050500
0.55 50.0 50.5 05.5 0 005505 000
0.55 00.0 00.0 00.5 55 5000055 500 5500
oouom umozm mmoauobamh mm®C5053h uo>mam umAEDZ msouu

 

 

‘lll‘f‘l‘l‘

65

data are presented in Appendix Tables 5 through 8.

(3

Carcass Grade, 1950

 

The coded grade scheme as outlined for 1957 was used.
The coded grade means for the various groups are shown in Table
17 and the analysis of variance is shown in Table 19.

In viewing the data in Table 17, it is obvious that the
Red Polled Cross calves consistently graded higher than the Here-
fords. The average grades for the four groups were, for Red
Polled and Hereford, respectively: Bull (H) progeny, 17.20 and
15.50; Bull (L) progeny, 16.70 and 15.86; creep fed calves, 17.09
and 16.00; and calves with no creep feed, 16.78 and 15.33. The
over-all breed difference was significant at the 0.05 level. The
progeny of Bull (H) graded slightlyghigher than those of Bull (L)
(16.56 and 16.35, respectively) but the difference did not ap-
proach significance. The average grade for all creep fed calves
was higher than the average of all calves with no creep feed, how-
ever, the difference was not nearly so pronounced as in 1957 and
was not significant. The variation exhibited between the two
years is explained on the basis of a much better grazing season

in 1958, due to more rainfall.

Carcass Yields, 1958

The average yields are given in Table 17 and the analysis
of variance in Table 20. Again the Red Polled Cross calves ex-
hibited superiority over the Herefords. The respective Red Polled

and Hereford mean carcass yields for the four groups were: Bull

ll!.l"|‘[[ll[[‘l

TABLE 17

DEANS FOR CARCASS GRADE, YIELD AND

MARBLING SCORE, 1958

66

 

 

 

===-==
Means
Group Number Carcass Grade Carcass Yield Marbling
Code (Per Cent) Score
Bull (H) Progeny 16 16.56 57.49 9.63
Red Polled 10 17.20 59.08 9.20
Hereford 6 15.50 54.37 10.33
Bull (L) Progeny 17 16.35 58.40 9.88
Red Polled 10 16.70 59.30 9.60
Hereford 7 15.86 56.93 10.29
Creep Fed 18 16.67 58.39 9.55
Red Polled 11 17.09 59.23 9.27
Hereford 7 16.00 56.82 10.00
No Creep 15 16.20 57.45 10.00
Red Polled 9 16.78 59.14 9.56
Hereford 6 15.33 54.56 10.67
TOTAL NUMBER 33

 

lll‘i‘l'l‘ll‘

67

 

mm

mmmzbz HdHOH

 

 

meson

om.~ mw.w 0m.o o muomouom
mH.~ 00.0 05.5 o mmHHom wow
05.5 05.0 00.5 05 00050 0.0
0m.~ m¢.m No.5 5 buommuom
am.N so.m 0N.H 50 wmflaom 00m
wm.~ 55.m mH.H wH mom aowuo
N0.N 55.5 00.0 n wuowoumm
0N.N o~.m mH.H OH Umafiom mom
00.5 00.5 55.5 55 5000050 550 5500
mm.~ 50.5 00.0 o buomopm:
mN.N 00.05 0N.H OH woafiom wed
00.5 00.0 55.5 05 5000055 5550 5500
0000500 we mmCSOR A.mH0 Amwmsomu
005 new omonwm mmon5m um>o mwd 50 0mm 50m
mo menocH ouwrwm mmmcxo5£H 50m unm5mB 0000500 503652 @5050

 

 

mHflUZH fiddbum 92¢ memHfi MMDQ mMMZMU NH Hdm .mw< mo wda Mmm

wmma .mmdummu mo mQZDom Qmmnzam Mmm mmeHM mo
SDHHS mm¢um¢u mom mudmz

wH mqmfifi

TABLE 19

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS GRADE, 1958

 

 

W M
Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F”

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls l 0 0 0
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 2.5145 2.5145 5.65*
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 .4115 .4115 0.93
Bulls X Breeds 1 .2184 .2184 0.49
Bulls X Feeds 1 .8810 .8810 1.98
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0925 .0925 0.21
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .2182 .2182 0.49
Individual 25 11.1164 .4447 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

(H) progeny, 59.08 and 54.37; Bull (L) progeny, 59.30 and 56.93;
creep fed calves, 59.23 and 56.82; and calves given no creep feed,
59.14 and 54.56. The over-all difference between breeds in carcass
yield was highly significant. The average carcass yield of the Bull
(L) progeny was almost one per cent more than that of the Bull (H)
progeny, but the difference was not significant. The difference
between the carcass yields of the creep fed and non-creep fed groups
was less than one per cent, which is compatible with the closeness

in grade, and was not significant.

69

TABLE 20

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS YIELDS, 1958

 

 

 

Degrees of Sum of Mean ”E“1
Source Of Variation Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 3.4511 3.4511 2.31
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 21.1635 21.1635 14.19**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) ' 1 2.4758 2.4758 1.66
Bulls X Breeds 1 1.9686 1.9686 1.32
Bulls X Feeds 1 2.1055 2.1055 1.41
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.7807 1.7807 1.19
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 1.6744 1.6744 1.12
Individual 25 37.2843 1.4914 ~-

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

MarblingiScores, 1958

The means for marbling scores of the various groups are
presented in Table 17 and the analysis of variance in Table 21.
The scoring for marbling was the same as used in 1957. Again it
is pointed out that the lower scores represent more marbling.

Table 17 reveals that the Red Polled Cross calves consist-
ently had more marbling than the Herefords. The Red Polled Cross
calves averaged almost a full score higher, which was significant
at the 0.01 level. The average marbling of the Bull (H) progeny

exceeded that of the Bull (L) progeny, but the difference did not

approach significance. Some supremacy was demonstrated by the

70

TABLE 21

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MARBLING SCORES, 1958

W

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F9

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0395 .0395 0.23
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 1.4562 1.4562 8.42**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 .3799 .3799 2.20
Bulls X Breeds 1 .0456 .0456 0.26
Bulls X Feeds 1 .1080 .1080 0.62
Breeds X Feeds 1 .1080 .1080 0.62
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .1021 .1021 0.59

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

creep fed calves over those not creep fed (9.55 and 10.00), but

likewise was not significant.

Carcass Weight Per Day of Age, 1958

It was pointed out earlier (1957 data) that the carcass
weight per day of age deserves Special attention since it is one of
the most important economic factors. Good beef producers have long
sought breeding stock that are effective in transmitting this trait
to the offspring. Of course, the producer thinks in terms of live
weight per day of age but the principle is essentially the same.

The average carcass weights in pounds per day of age are

71

shown in Table 18 and the analysis of variance in Table 22. The Red
Polled Cross calves again demonstrated a highly significant advantage
over the Herefords in this reSpect. The respective means for the
Red Polled Cross and Hereford calves in the four groups were: Bull
(H) progeny, 1.24 and 0.91; Bull (L) progeny, 1.18 and 1.04; creep
fed calves, 1.24 and 1.02; and calves given no creep feed, 1.17 and
0.94. The means for the progeny groups of the two bulls were exactly
the same (1.12). The very small margin between the creep fed group
and those not creep fed (1.15 and 1.08) is attributed to the very
good grazing season in 1958.
Fat Thickness Over the
Ribeye Muscle, 1958

Excessive fat thickness in this region is certainly not de-
sirable as it is discriminated against by those promoting the modern
”meat-type" cattle. However, some outside finish is still needed to
permit aging and shipping. Neasurement of the fat thickness over
the ribeye muscle can be used to determine the desirability of the
degree of finish.

The mean fat thickness over the ribeye for the various groups
are presented in Table 18 and the analysis of variance is shown in
Table 23. The Red Polled Cross calves had thicker fat covering
over the ribeye muscle but the over-all difference between breeds
was not significant. In fact, no significance was exhibited for
thickness of fat by any of the groups in 1958. It is remembered
that breed and feed differences in fat thickness were highly sig-

nificant in 1957, which points up the fact that differences in

72

TABLE 22

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS WEIGHT PER DAY OF AGE, 1958

 

 

=========
.. ”33:33.“ 333...: .333. .232.
Bulls l .0034 .0034 0.41
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .0899 .0899 10.96**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) l .0075 .0075 0.91
Bulls X Breeds 1 .0116 .0116 1.41
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0012 .0012 0.15
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0001 .0001 0.01
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0292 .0292 3.56
Individual 25 .2051 -- --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

quality of forages are economically very important in this type of
production. The progeny of Bull (H) had slightly thicker fat in
1958 than those of Bull (L) (9.50 and 7.95) and the creep fed calves
slightly exceeded those not creep fed (9.17 and 8.13).

Square Inches of Ribeye Per Hundred
Pounds of Carcass,g1958

 

It is pointed out that the Hereford calves exceeded the Red
Polled Cross in this respect the previous year, but failed in one
group (the Bull B progeny) which probably prevented the over-all

difference from being significant.

TABLE 23

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FAT THICKNESS OVER

THE RIBEYE MUSCLE, 1958

73

 

 

 

, "1
Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean F'
Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 2.7766 2.7966 1.65
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 4.0755 4.0755 2.39
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 1.3041 1.3041 0.76
Bulls X Breeds 1 2.5878 2.5878 1.52
Bulls X Feeds 1 2.4090 2.4090 1.41
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.3366 1.3366 0.78
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 1.0441 1.0441 0.61
Individual 25 42.6703 1.7068 ~—

 

The mean ribeye areas in square inches per hundred pounds

of carcass for 1958 are shown in Table 18 and the analysis of

variance in Table 24 for the 1958 calves.

The Hereford calves were superior to the Red Polled Cross

in ribeye area per hundred pounds of carcass in each group.

The

reSpective Red Polled Cross and Hereford means for the various

groups were: Bull (H) progeny, 2.23 and 2.53; Bull (L) progeny,

2.26 and 2.42; creep fed calves, 2.29 and 2.54; and calves with no

creep feed, 2.19 and 2.39.

The over-all breed difference was sig-

nificant at the 0.05 level and approached significance at the

0.01 level.

 

74

TABLE 24

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SQUARE INCHES OF RIBEYE AREA PER
HUNDRED POUNDS OF CARCASS, 1958

 

 

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean ”F"

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0002 .0002 0.01
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) l .1043 .1043 7.40*
Feeds (Creep Feed vs.

No Creep) 1 .0417 .0417 2.96
Bulls X Breeds l .0185 .0185 1.31
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0008 .0008 0.06
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0014 .0014 0.10
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 0 0 0
Individual 25 .3514 .0141 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

The means for the progeny of Bull (H) and those of Bull (L)
were essentially the same (2.34 and 2.33). The mean for all creep
fed calves was higher than the mean for all those not creep fed
(2.38 and 2.26), but the difference was not significant.
The Physical Composition of the
9th, 10th and 11th Ribs, 1958

As outlined in the experimental procedure and the data for

1957, the 9th, 10th and 11th rib cut was physically separated into

ribeye, total separable lean, separable fat, and bone to obtain

an indication of the percentage composition in the entire carcass.

75

The individual data for 1958 are given by weights in Appendix Table
14 and by percentages in Appendix Table 17. The group means are

shown in Table 25.

Per Cent Ribeye, 1958

 

The means for the Red Polled Cross calves were slightly but
consistently larger than those for the Herefords. They were for
Red Polled Cross and Hereford reSpectively: Bull (H) progeny,
25.17 and 24.93; Bull (L) progeny, 25.85 and 24.64; creep fed,
25.74 and 24.66; and no creep, 25.28 and 24.85. The progeny of Bull
(L) slightly exceeded that of Bull (H) (25.43 and 25.12) and the
creep fed means are slightly larger than those for the no creep group.
None of the differences in per cent ribeye between any of the groups

was statistically significant.

Per Cent Total Separable Lean, 1958

There was no consistent difference between breeds for this
factor. The means for per cent separable lean for Red Polled and
Hereford were, respectively: Bull (H) progeny, 47.83 and 50.14;
Bull (L) progeny, 50.79 and 49.29; creep fed, 49.20 and 49.32; and
no creep, 49.43 and 50.00. The Bull (L) progeny mean exceeds the
Bull (H) progeny mean (50.12 and 48.54) and the mean for the no
creep group is slightly larger than that for the creep fed group
(49.50 and 49.27). The differences between all groups in per

cent separable lean were not statistically significant.

76

 

 

mm $85.2 593
sa.aH om.” 00.0m mo.sm o snowshoe
oo.eH ow.flm ms.as m~.mm a evades emu

$3,; 5.0.“ 8:3 2.3 3 @030 on...
ou.afi ua.Hm Nm.os us.sm a anemone:
3.5 _\m.mm 8.3 5.3 3 330m 3....
os.afi so.Nm 5N.os e~.mm ma ewe moons
ms.Ufi se.Hm am.ms ee.sm a whoaouo:
¢H.nH mm.om 05.0m mm.mm OH meHom mom
5N.QH Ne.om NH.Cm ma.m~ an anemone Adv Hana
”H.05 om.om sH.om mo.sm w enamoaoe
«:2: 8.2 9.3 2.3 3 263.23 use
oa.aH «s.Nm sm.us NH.m~ sH aaomopm Amv Hana
econ umm swag kuoa ohonfim nonfinz msouo

 

mammuCoopom nmoE

HII|
Ill

$3 .58 92 fig

mam<Mdmmm .34m4 mqmdM4mmm AdHOH .mwmmHm mo mm,

mm MAQ<H

\J
rx

483M fimm Z.Fh

 

Ill" Ill l.‘ Ill l}[[{ll.l

77

Per Cent Separable Fat, 1958

The means for per cent separable fat were higher for the Red
Polled Cross calves except in the Bull (L) group. Values for the
Red Polled Cross and Hereford were, reSpectively: Bull (H) progeny,
33.87 and 29.59; Bull (L) progeny, 29.93 and 31.44; creep fed calves,
32.34 and 31.98; and calves with no creep feed, 31.66 and 28.90. The
Bull (H) progeny showed more fat than those of Bull (L) (32.44 and
30.62) and the mean for the creep fed group, as expected, was larger
than that for the no creep group (32.04 and 30.84). However, none of

the groups differed significantly.

Per Cent Bone,_l958

The means for per cent bone were greater for the Hereford
calves in each group. They were, for Red Polled Cross calves and
Herefords, respectivelyz- Bull (H) progeny, 17.16 and 19.18; Bull
(L) progeny, 18.14 and 18.45; creep fed calves, 17.31 and 17.89;
and calves given no creep feed, 17.99 and 19.94. The Bull (L)
progeny mean exceeded that of the Bull (H) progeny (18.27 and
17.80) and the no creep group mean exceeded that of the creep fed
group (18.66 and 17.49). Statistical treatment revealed that none
of the differences in percentage bone between any of the groups
. were significant.

Analyses for Moisture and
Ether ExtractL 1958

 

Per Cent Moisture; 1958

The moisture percentage means for individuals are given in

78

Appendix Table 20 for individual calves and the group means are
shown in Table 26. There were no significant differences among
any of the groups.

The means are grouped very closely together, the range
being only 0.48 per cent among all groups. It is recalled that
this is the same situation that existed in 1957, indicating that
variation in quality of grazing materials do not measurably affect

moisture percentages in this type of beef.

Per Cent Ether xtract, 1958

 

The ether extract percentages for individual cattle are
given in Appendix Table 20 and the group means are shown in Table
23. There were no significant differences among any of the groups.
It is recalled that there was a highly significant difference be-
tween feeds in 1957. The difference between the two years was
probably due to the much better grazing season in 1958. The Red
Polled Cross calves had a higher percentage of ether extract in
each of the groups which is compatible with their more favorable
marbling scores and thicker fat over the ribeye. The Bull (H)
group had a higher percentage of ether extract than the Bull (L)
group (1.75 and 1.41), and the creep fed group again had a larger

average than the no creep group (1.67 and 1.46).

Palatability Data,_1958

 

The data for individual calves are given in Appendix Table

24 and the group means are shown in Table 27.

79

An?"

Alum 26

MEAN PER EN .833 OF MOISTURE AHD ETI“R EXTRACT, 1958
=========___

Mean Percentages

 

 

Group Number Moisture Ether Extract
Bull (H) Progeny 16 74.74 1.75
Red Polled 10 74.58 1.86
Hereford 6 75.01 1.57
Bull (L) Progeny 17 74.99 1.41
Red Polled 10 75.06 1.46
Hereford 7 74.90 1.33
Creep Fed 18 74.82 1.67
Red Polled 11 74.73 1.67
Hereford 7 74.95 1.66
No Creep 15 74.94 1.46
Red Polled 9 74.93 1.65
Hereford 6 74.95 1.17

TOTAL NUMBER 32

 

lll‘l‘ll.lll|l‘
l lil"I
ll'l'l‘
[III

There were no significant differences among any of the
groups which was also true in 1957. However, there appeared to
be a trend in 1957 for the Red Polled Cross calves, which were
fatter, to be preferred. The probable reason for the change in
trend was the excellent grazing season in 1958, a year in which
there was very little difference in fat content among the calves.
There were significant differences in 1957 for fat thickness, mar-
bling score and per cent ether extract while the 1958 data show
significance for marbling score only between breeds. The differ-
ence between bulls and between feeds for the three palatability

factors by the panel and for shear values were negligible in 1958.

Carcass Data,_l959

 

Twenty-seven calves were raised and slaughtered in 1959.
They consisted of 15 Red Polled Cross and 12 Hereford and 11
were sired by Bull (H) and 16 by Bull (L). Both were pure-bred
Hereford bulls. Bull (H) was a high gainer and Bull (L) a low
gainer as determined in a performance test. Nine Red Polled Cross
and 6 Hereford calves were creep fed while 6 Red Polled Cross and
6 Herefords received no creep feed. All calves suckled their dams
on pasture throughout their lives. The complete individual car-

cass data are presented in Appendix Tables 9 through 12.

Carcass GradeL 1959

 

The coded grade scheme used the two previous years was in
effect in 1959. The coded grade means for the various groups are

shown in Table 28 and the analysis of variance in Table 30.

 

m m 3252 «Boy

 

 

H.ma 00.0 oa.e o.o e eucamumn
m.mH as.e mo.o ss.e a mafiaoa ewe
H.5H nm.e ne.© as.o ma guano om
m.ea sm.e e~.e os.o a euommumm
o.ea sa.e om.o se.e HH eoHHom ewe
e.eH as.e mw.e mm.o we . ewe amass
m.xfi u.c am.e 05.0 a esoemume
m.sa sm.o ms.e ue.e oa esfiaom eon
H.5H 00.0 om.m me.e as Anemone Adv Hana
N.eH ms.s ma.o mm.o s epommumm
m.eH No.0 no.0 ee.s 0H esaaoa woe
o.e~ mm.o sm.e mm.o 0H summons Ame seam
mos~m> umesm mmmcueecea mmmoflofish , uo>m~m Honasz macaw
mcwez

 

mmmfi .mmmzemnzma mom mesq<> momom gamma
zen: nee amazemozma nza mmmzHopr .eo><ue mom museum amzam zen:

NN mqmmH

MEANS FOR CARCASS GRADE, YIELD AHD

TABLE 28

Lil-La...“

82

Lite scene, 1959

 

 

 

Group Number Carcass Grade I::::ss Yie harbling
Code (Per cent) core
Bull (H) Progeny 1.1 15.45 58.22 10.36
Red Polled 6 16.00 60.03 10.00
Hereford 5 14.80 55.21 10.80
Bull (L) Progeny 16 15.19 57.21 10.37
Red Polled 9 15.56 57.83 10.11
Hereford 7 14.71 56.24 10.71
Creep Fed 15 15.47 58.35 10.27
Red Polled 9 15.44 59.09 10.33
Hereford 6 15.50 55.99 10.17
No Creep 12 15.00 56.67 10.50
Red Polled 6 16.17 58.38 9.67
Hereford 6 14.00 54.58 11.33
TOTAL NUMBER 27

 

 

83

mH.H
mm.o

Ne.r

HN.H

nu

Ha

award“ .d HOB
who m3 “mm
moaaom cmm
amono or
whomeuem
mOHHom wed
mom moowu
mnomeum
Jeraom mm:

JnJO

:d um Adv HHsm
mnemowmm
onHom was

kfimmonm Adv HHS

 

mm.o
0m.OH
ne.u
mu.o
es.a
ow.m
@w.w
HH.oH
om.o
00.5
om.o
cw.“
35

agenda popo
mmocxowaw new

Amwflzomv
ewd mo hen pom
urmflwz mmwoumo

 

 

 

memo:

.H O 39.—flu.

Q2090

 

 

 

 

anon .mmeueao mo mnzuom o:.nz:e mam mwmmHe mo

and mwumHm flm>0

wN made

oHea nae .moa mo was «me Heone mmeue.

mom m$AE

TABLE 30

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS GRADE, 1959

84

 

 

 

. . Degrees of Sum of Mean “F”
Source Of Variation Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls l .3362 .3362 0.97
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 2.7612 2.7612 1.19
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No creep) 1 .1800 .1800 0.08
Bulls X Breeds l .0265 .0265 0.08
Bulls X Feeds 1 .5202 .5202 1.50
Breeds X Feeds 1 2.3113 2.3113 6.69*
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .5784 .5784 1.67
Individual 19 6.5686 .3457 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

The grade means for the Red Polled Cross calves were higher
than those for the Herefords. However, the difference was not sig-
nificant due to the interaction between breeds and feeds. Examina-
tion of the average values shows that the Red Polled Cross exceeded
the Hereford calves in carcass grade when not creep fed (16.17 and
14.00, reapectively), but the Herefords were equal when creep feed-
ing was practiced (15.44 and 15.50, reSpectively). This indicates
that on good pastures the Red Polled cows gave sufficient milk,
and there was no advantage to creep feeding their calves. However,
creep feeding calves from Hereford cows improved their grade and

made them equal to the Red Polled Cross calves.

85

TA BLE 3 1

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CARCASS YIELDS, 1959

 

 

 

. . Degrees of Sum of Mean ”F”
Source Of Variation Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 1.0500 1.0500 1.28
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 24.2515 24.2515 29.54**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 3.0848 3.0848 3.76
Bulls X Breeds 1 3.3040 3.3040 4.02
Bulls X Feeds 1 .6647 .6647 0.81
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.3714 1.3714 1.67
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 1.7325 1.7325 2.11
Individual 19 15.5993 .8210 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

There were no significant differences between bulls or be-
tween feeds. The Bull (H) progeny graded slightly higher than
the Bull (L) progeny (15.45 and 15.19) and the mean grade for the
creep fed calves was slightly greater than the mean for those with
no creep feed (15.47 and 15.00).

The grazing season in 1959 was not quite as good as it was

in 1958, but was considerably better than the 1957 season.

Carcass Yields, 1959
The mean carcass yields are presented in Table 28 and the

analysis of variance for yields is shown in Table 31. The Red

86

Polled Cross calves yielded higher (P410.01) than the Herefords.
There were no significant differences among any of the other
groups. The reSpective Red Polled Cross and Hereford mean car-
cass yields in the four groups were: Bull (H) progeny, 60.08

and 55.21; Bull (L) progeny, 57.88 and 56.24; creep fed calves,
59.09 and 56.99; and calves given no creep feed, 58.38 and 54.58.
The progeny of Bull (H) yielded one per cent higher than those

of Bull (L), but this difference did not approach significance.
The creep fed calves yielded 1.68 per cent higher than those not
creep fed, and the difference approached significance.

Carcass yields are very important economically to the
meat packer and itwould be interesting to observe the product of
the Red Polled X Hereford after they are fed out in the feed-lot.
The question, of course, is whether their superiority in yield
is entirely due to the better milking ability of their dams with

a resultant increase in fatness and yield.

Harbling Score, 1959

This factor is also of considerable economic importance
to the packer because more emphasis is probably placed upon it
than any other single factor in arriving at a U. 8. Government
carcass grade. A little more marbling can often mean the differ-
ence between placing a carcass in the next higher grade, which
can and often does mean a difference of several dollars in the
value of the carcass.

The means for marbling scores for 1959 are given in Table

87

TABLE 32

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MARBLING SCORE, 1959

 

1

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean "F9

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0364 .0364 0.20
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 1.3324 1.3324 . 0.83
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 .0699 .0699 0.04
Bulls X Breeds l .0109 .0109 0.06
Bulls X Feeds 1 .2054 .2054 1.15
Breeds X Feeds 1 1.5974 1.5974 8.97**
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .1392 .1392 0.78
Individual 19 3.3832 .1781 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

28 and the analysis of variance is shown in Table 32. Again it is
pointed out that the lower scores indicate more intense marbling.
The respective mean marbling scores for the Red Polled Cross and
Hereford calves for the four groups were: Bull (H) progeny, 10.00
and 10.80; Bull (L) progeny, 10.11 and 10.71; creep fed calves,
10.33 and 10.17; and calves given no creep feed, 9.67 and 11.33.
Three of the four means were greater for the Red Polled Cross
calves but the difference was not significant due to the interac-
tion of breeds and feeds. The significant interaction was due to
the greater amount of marbling shown by the Hereford calves, when

creep fed as compared to calves of the same breed when not creep

TABLE 33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RCASS WEIGHT PER DAY OF AGE, 1959

 

 

r T r

 

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean ”F”

Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls l .0028 .0028 0.34
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 .2720 .2720 32.77**
Feeds (Creep Fed vs. .

No Creep) l .0247 .0247 2.98
Bulls X Breeds l .0071 .0071 0.86
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0004 .0004 0.05
Breeds x Feeds 1 .0110 .0110 1.33
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0245 .0245 2.95

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

fed (10.17 and 11.33, reSpectively). On the other hand, Red
Polled Cross calves did not differ greatly in intensity of mar-
bling regardless of whether creep fed or not (10.33 and 9.67,
respectively).

The mean scores for the progeny of bulls (H) and (L) were
essentially the same (10.36 and 10.37). The creep fed calves had
slightly more marbling than those not creep fed (10.27 and 10.50),

but the difference did not approach significance.

------

 

Carcass Weight Per Day of Age; 1959

 

The means for carcass weight per day of age are shown in
Table 29 and the analysis of variance in Table 33. The reSpective
Red Polled Cross and Hereford means for the various groups were:
Bull (H) progeny, 1.42 and 0.95; Bull (L) progeny, 1.28 and 0.98;
creep fed calves, 1.40 and 1.00; and calves given no creep feed,
1.23 and 0.93. There is little room for doubt that the differ-
ence between the two breeds was highly significant. However, no
significance was exhibited for this factor among any of the other
groups. The progeny of Bull (H) exceeded those of Bull (L) (1.21
and 1.15), and the creep fed calves exceeded those not creep fed
(1.24 and 1.08).

It was pointed out earlier that some of the calves raised
in 1957 and 1958 were not slaughtered due to insufficient weight.
A larger proportion of the Hereford calves were culled than the
Red Polled Cross. This gave the Herefords a definite advantage.
Appendix Table 26 shows a comparison of the two breeds by years
in live weight per day of age for all calves raised. It is seen
that a greater difference existed than was shown by comparing

only the calves slaughtered.

Fat Thickness Over the Ribeye MuscleL 1959,

The means for fat thickness are presented in Table 29 and
the analysis of variance in Table 34. A view of Table 34 reveals
that no significance was exhibited among any of the groups. How-

ever, the Red Polled Cross calves tended to have a thicker fat

90

TABLE 34

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FAT THICKNESS OVER
THE RIBEYE MUSCLE, 1959

 

 

 

3|
Source of Variation Degrees Of Sum Of Mean ”F,
freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 1.4160 1.4160 0.75
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 5.3265 5.3265 2.81
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 2.0265 2.0265 1.07
Bulls X Breeds 1 .0038 .0038 0.002
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0313 .0313 0.02
Breeds X Feeds 1 5.4983 5.4983 2.90
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 3.28 8 3.2858 1.73
Individual 19 36.0402 1.8969 --

 

covering than the Herefords. The mean fat thickness for the prog-
eny of Bull (H) was greater than that for the progeny of Bull (L).
Also, the mean for all creep fed calves exceeded that for those
not creep fed.

It is recalled that there was a highly significant differ-
ence exhibited in 1957 between breeds and between feeds while no
significance was obtained in either of the other two years. It
is also recalled that 1957 was not a good grazing season due to
dry weather. This again suggests that the good milking ability
of the Red Polled cows is especially important in poor grazing

seasons. As mentioned earlier, it remains to be seen whether the

uuuuu

TABLE 35

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SQUARE INCHES OF RIBEYE AREA PER
HUNDRED POUNDS OF CARCASS, 1959

 

 

 

. Degrees of Sum of Mean “F”
Source of Variation P” 1 g g ,.
rrcecom squares square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0381 .0381 0.55
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) l .0632 .0632 0.91
Feeds (Creep Fed vs.

No Creep) 1 0 0 0
Bulls X Breeds l .0697 .0697 5.05*
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0021 .0021 .15
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0240 .0240 1.74
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0121 .0121 .88
Individual 19 .2623 .0138 --

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level.

entire superiority of the Red Polled Cross calves should be attrib-

uted to this factor.

Square Inches of Ribeye Per Hundred
Pounds of Carcass,g1959

he means for square inches of ribeye per hundred pounds of

carcass are presented in Table 29 and the analysis of variance in

Table 35.

the Red Polled Cross for this factor.

not significant.

was significant.

However,

The means indicated that the Hereford calves exceeded

the difference was
Table 35 shows that the Bulls X Breeds interaction

It is recalled that the Hereford calves tended to

92

exceed the Red Polled Cross in ribeye area throughout the study.

The progeny of Bull (H) slightly exceeded those of Bull
(L) in ribeye area in 1959 (2.24 and 2.21). The mean for the
group given no creep feed was slightly larger than the mean for
those creep fed (2.29 and 2.25). The latter indicates that there
was a tendency for the group given no creep feed to have muscling
but lack in finish.

he Physical Composition of the 9th,
10th and 11th Ribs, 1959

The individual data are given by weights in Appendix Table

15 and by percentages in Appendix Table 18. The group means are

shown in Table 36.

Per Cent Ribeye, 1959

The mean percentages of ribeye were consistently higher for
the Red Polled Cross calves over the Herefords. However, there
were no significant differences among any of the groups. The
reSpective Red Polled Cross and Hereford means for the various
groups were: Bull (H) progeny, 23.96 and 23.42; Bull (L) progeny,
22.77 and 21.76; creep fed calves, 23.29 and 22.07; and calves
with no creep feed, 23.11 and 22.85. The Bull (H) group mean ex-
ceeded that of the Bull (L) group (23.75 and 22.43) but the means
for the creep and no creep groups were essentially the same

(22.93 and 22.99).

Per Cent Total Separable Lean, 1959

The Hereford means for total lean were considerably higher

 

 

AN Meagan eaeoa
nH.om ma.m~ so.mm me.- e Homeeee
m~.wa we.om eN.om He.m~ e eefiaom ewe

ao.eH on.e~ wu.~m ee.- NH eeeee on
ue.ea mm.e~ we.am ao.- e eeomeeee
em.ea ee.om ow.am e~.m~ e eeeaom eem
us.ea au.e~ ma.am me.- me ewe eeeeo
um.oa mm.- oo.mm ee.a~ a eeoeeuee
as.“ NN.e~ ow.Hm sa.- a eeaaom use
M.” em.mm e~.Nm ne.- ea acemoem Age Haze
ee.ee es.m~ eu.mm Ne.m~ m eeoeeeem
o“.ee mh.am mm.0m mm.m~ e eeeaoe ewe
um.eH on.e~ ~n.~m nh.m~ as anemone Ame Hana
econ new :39 H3 on. omen—«a nonasz macaw

 

wwwuuaoouom swam

 

mmmfi .mzom nee .Ham Manamaemm .zamg

1I||
ill

on H.543.

 

 

mamamammm qaeoa .mwmmHe mo «moaezmommm 24m:

94

than those for the Red Polled Cross calves in all groups except
the creep fed group where the means were the same (51.88). The
over-all difference was not significant. The Red Polled Cross and
Hereford means were, respectively: Bull (H) progeny, 50.58 and
53.86; Bull (L) progeny, 51.80 and 53.00; creep fed calves, 51.88
and 51.88; and calves given no creep feed, 50.29 and 55.04. It
is noted that there was a difference of almost 5 per cent between
the two breeds in the no creep group while the difference between
the means of all creep fed calves and all those not creep fed was
only 0.4 per cent. There was a slight difference in per cent
total separable lean between the progeny of the two bulls, the
mean of the Bull (L) progeny exceeding that of Bull (H) (52.26

and 51.72).

Per Cent Separable Fat, 1959

The means for per cent separable fat for the Red Polled
Cross calves were consistently higher than those for the Here-
fords, and the difference was significant at the 0.05 level. The
respective means for the ed Polled Cross and Hereford calves
were: Bull (H) progeny, 31.78 and 25.76; Bull (L) progeny,
29.22 and 27.55; creep fed calves, 30.14 and 29.36; and calves
given no creep feed, 30.68 and 23.83. No significant differences
were obtained among any of the other groups. The Bull (H) prog-
eny were somewhat fatter than those of Bull (L) (29.50 and 28.39)
and the creep fed calves were considerably fatter than those not

creep fed (29.89 and 27.76).

III-15511215..

95

Per Cent Bone, 1959

 

The means for per cent bone are shown in Table 36 and the
analysis of variance in Table 37. The Hereford calves had a higher
percentage of bone (P< 0.01) than the Red Polled Cross calves. The
reapective means for the Red Polled Cross and Hereford calves for
the four groups were: Bull (H) progeny, 16.80 and 19.44; Bull (L)
progeny, 18.41 and 18.52; creep fed calves, 17.29 and 17.88; and
calves given no creep feed, 18.25 and 20.15. The no creep group
had a higher percentage of bone than the creep fed group (P< 0.05).
There was no significant difference between bulls. However, the

Bull (L) group had a slightly higher percentage of bone.

TABLE 37

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT BONE, 1959

 

 

 

S f Va ‘at' Degrees of Sum of Mean "F”
ource 0 r1 ion Freedom Squares Square , Ratio
Bulls ' 1 .3320 .3320 0.48
Breeds Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 5.9610 5.9610 8.56**
Feeds (Creep Feed vs.

No Creep) 1 3.8296 3.8296 5.50*
Bulls X Breeds 1 1.6847 1.6847 2.42
Bulls X Feeds 1 .8506 .8506 1.22
Breeds X Feeds 1 .7503 .7503 1.08
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 2.5487 2.5487 3.66

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.
*Significant at the 0.05 level.

I‘ll"..“||ll It} [It 11].. ll.‘|'| .lll“

oooooo

CCCCC

 

I'IEAIG PERCEI

1T3;

GES OF MOISTURE AND

TABLE 38

ETHSR EITTLL‘.CT, 1959

96

 

Hean Percentages

 

 

Group Number Moisture Ether Extract
Bull (H) Progeny 11 74.93 1.07
Red Polled 6 75.35
lereford 5 74.42
Dull (L) Progeny 16 74.73 1.05
Red Polled 9 74.91
Iereford 7 74.52
Creep Fed 15 74.58 1.12
Red Polled 9 74.94
Iereford 6 74.04
10 Creep 12 75.11 0.99
Red Polled 6 75.31
Hereford 6 74.91
TOTAL NUMBER 27

 

E II InIIE III II .
.III ll‘}!l||l.ll!.{lli
.lilll‘ {Iii
[([.fui|\{l\4|‘lllll

97

Analyses for Moisture and
Ether Extract, 1959

 

 

Per Cent Moisture, 1959

The moisture percentages for individual cattle are given
in Appendix Table 21, the group means in Table 38 and the anal-
ysis of variance in Table 39. The average moisture content for
the Red Polled Cross calves was higher than for the Herefords and
the non-creep fed group mean was higher than that for the creep
fed group. Both were significant at the 0.01 level. This is
difficult to explain since the means for both preceding years were

grouped very closely together with no significance indicated.

TABLE 39

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PER CENT MOISTURE, 1959

 

#—
_‘

 

0 "1
Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Mean F:
Freedom Squares Square Ratio
Bulls 1 .0549 .0549 0.48
Breeds (Red Polled

Cross vs. Hereford) 1 1.1202 1.1202 9.77**
Feeds (Creep Feed vs.

No Creep) 1 .9757 .9757 8.51**
Bulls X Breeds ~ 1 .2753 .2753 2.40
Bulls X Feeds 1 .0009 .0009 0.0078
Breeds X Feeds 1 .0975 .0975 0.85
Bulls X Breeds X Feeds 1 .0259 .0259 0.23
Individual 19 2.1793 .1147 --

 

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Per Cent Ether Extract, 1959

The percentages of ether extract for individual calves are
shown in Appendix Table 21 and the group means in Table 38. There
were no significant differences among any of the groups. The re-
Spective mean ether extract percentages for the Red Polled Cross
and Hereford calves in the four groups were: Bull (H) progeny,
1.17 and 0.95; Bull (L) progeny, 1.13 and 0.95; creep fed calves,
1.10 and 1.13; and calves given no creep feed, 1.20 and 0.76. The
means for Bulls (H) and (L) were: 1.07 and 1.05; and those for the
creep and no creep groups, 1.12 and 0.99, reSpectively. These
were all compatible with the mean marbling scores shown in Table

28.

Palatability Data, 1959

 

The data for individual calves are given in Appendix Table
25 and the group means are shown in Table 40.

There were no significant differences among any of the
groups. As in 1958, the calves were about equal in fatness and
there were no trends for any of the groups to score higher. The
mean palatability scores for the two bull groups and for the two
feeding regimes were very close.

Palatability_Data for Heavy
Grass-Fed Steers

In 1957, palatability studies were conducted on rib roasts

from thirty-two heavy, Hereford steers that had grazed different

pasture mixtures with no supplementary feed. The treatments are

 

99

 

Z 8022 .58
0.1m ~0.0 no.0 no.n 0 0000000:
n.0n 0n.0 00.o oa.o 0 eennoo 000
0.nn on.0 no.0 nn.n NH eeeuo oz
n.0n nn.0 no.n on.n 0 aeoeeeoe
n.n~ on.0 oo.n 0H.n o eennoo 000
n.n~ no.0 Ho.o H~.o me 000 00000
n.0n oo.0 no.0 0N.o o eeomoeem
N.NN no.0 , 0o.0 NH.o o 000000 000
n.00 no.0 no.0 0H.o 0n neenone A00 Haen
+.on no.0 00.0 nn.n n ‘ eeooeeoe
o.no on.0 0n.n nn.n 0 eennoo 000
N.~N nn.0 no.0 on.n an neemoee A20 ease
menswear umofim mmomuomnow memenonsh 0520.3 Henson." asonw

 

new on

 

 

onon .mmemnmnzmo mom meana> m mom 0.0am
name age annexeazne nee nmmenonen .mooaee mom memoom emzem zen:

ow mama“:

100

given in the experimental procedure for 1957.
The palatability data for individual cattle are given in

Appendix Table 23 and the mean group data are shown in Table 41.

TABLE 41

MEAN GROUP PALATABILITY DATA FOR HEAVY, GRASS-FED STEERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means
Group* Kill Wt. Grade Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Shear
(pounds) Code Values
I 969 15.25 6.85 6.82 6.61 19.0
II 949 15.50 6.97 6.98 6.95 18.1
III 955 15.37 7.09 7.12 6.74 18.8
IV 857 12.75 7.02 6.94 6.24 19.1
*1 - Brome grass and Ladino clover.
II - Bluegrass and White clover.
III - Bluegrass and Birdsfoot trefoil.
IV - Weeds and Ragweed.

There were no significant differences among the four groups
in any of the attributes studied. An inspection of the group means
reveals that they were within a very close range for each quality
factor including shear force values for tenderness. These data
indicate that there were no differences among the forage mixtures
studied as to their effect on the eating qualities of beef.

A Comparison of Per Cent Ash in Bone
and Tenderness of the Meat

 

A determination was made in 1959 of the percentage of ash

in a center segment of the cannon bone from each of sixteen calves.

,1 91301: or 001m ASH, 2.1111111. AGE
01‘ THE 1:13:11“

ALL\

AND TENDE

T3. 31.13 42

13 ‘TW ,
LQMSASS

IN DAYS)

101

 

 

 

Calf Age Done Ash Tenderness hear
Number (days) (% Panel) Value
5 269 65.56 5.67 27.7
27 277 64.76 6.90 18.1
19 245 64.38 7.67 18.5
39 283 64.10 7.42 19.0
30 37 63.97 7.10 20.4
13 262 63.94 3.33 20.5
15 275 63.72 7.00 20.0
11 256 62.73 6.83 19.5
48 276 62.49 6.25 25.7
7 273 62.42 6.00 25.6
10 274 62.37 5.83 27.6
45 266 62.24 7.50 12.9
6 278 62.07 6.40 20.6

9 263 62.06 6.42 19.1
82 271 61.88 6.70 21.1
33 269 61.12 5.30 21.8

 

It! .I‘ II. [[5151
l i 1li III! I . .[vi
Ill].

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

102

The analysis was on the fat-free, moisture-free basis. These per-
centages were compared with mean taste panel scores for tenderness
and mean shear force values in an effort to reveal a possible cor-
relation with tenderness. These data are shown in Table 42,

along with the animal ages. The ash percentages are arranged in
descending order from the highest value. The multilinear correla-
tion coefficient of percentage ash with panel tenderness and shear

force values (r = .54) was not significant.

CHAPTER

SUI-MARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data obtained during the course of this study were
collected over a three-year period (1957-60) and involved the pro-
duct of three crops of calves produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-
Calf Plan. In addition, the carcasses of thirty-two Hereford
steers, produced on different pasture mixtures and weeds, were
studied for possible differences in palatability.

Twenty-three grade Hereford and twenty-four Red Polled
heifers were bred in 1956 for the production of the 1957 calf crop.
The heifers were divided so that, as nearly as possible, one-half
of each breed were bred to Bull (A) and the other half to Bull (8).
Both were pure-bred Hereford bulls. Bull (A) was visually judged
to be superior to Bull (B). The calves were divided so that, as
nearly as possible, one-half of each breed received creep feed.

All calves suckled their dams on pasture throughout their lives.

After some culling the cows were re-grouped, on the basis
of the performance of their 1957 calves, and one-half of each
breed were bred to Bull (H) and the remaining half to Bull (L).
Both were pure-bred Hereford bulls. Bull (H) was a high gainer

and Bull (L) a low gainer as determined by a performance test.

The calves were again divided so that, as nearly as possible, one-

103

I11 [[511

 

I I'll" I III" i I
I! [I i i i (Iii1l [1"

half of each breed received creep feed and again, all calves suck-
led their dams on pasture.

The cows were re-grouped again and bred for the 1959 calf
crop. Two new pure-bred Hereford bulls were used, and again Bull
(H) was a high gainer and Bull (L) a low gainer as determined by
a performance test. The division of the calves for feeds was the
same as in the previous two years.

In 1957, four groups of eight Hereford steers were grazed
on different pasture mixtures and weeds for palatability studies.

All cattle were slaughtered by a cooperating packing plant
and carcass data were obtained from the calf carcasses. The 6th,
7th and 8th ribs from the right side of each carcass were roasted
and scored by a taste panel for flavor, iuiciness and tenderness.
Shear values for tenderness were obtained from the Warner-Bratzler
shear machine. The 9th, 10th and 11th ribs were physically
separated into ribeye, total separable lean, separable fat and
bone and the percentages of these components determined.

The area of the ribeye muscle adjacent to the 12th rib
was analyzed for moisture and ether extract. Ash percentages were
determined from a center section of the cannon bone from each of
sixteen calves from the 1959 crop in order to ascertain the rela-
tionship between ash content of bone and tenderness of the meat.
The level of significance obtained for various factors among the
different groups by years is shown in Table 43.

Under the conditions of this experiment the following

conclusions seem justified:

105

 

 

 

mo.o
0.0 -1 0 .Ho.o 11 no.0 econ been new
Ho.o
n -1 n.n 00.0 11 .00.0 000 eaeeeeoen eeeo nee
11 11 11 11 11 11 smog mnemueeem Hence undo pom
11 11 o 11 11 mo.o 0%oenm ucoo new
11 n 11 11 Ho.o 11 wmmoumu
meadow ooH pom mou< ononnm
11 11 11 11 11 11 mmocxonse umm
no.0
n n n.n no.0 no.0 .00.0 000 no nee poo 000002 0000000
no.0
11 n n.n 11 no.0 .no.o eeoem neaneeez
m m m no.0 Ho.o no.0 enemy 0000000
11 m m 11 no.0 no.0 00000 ammoumo
omoH wmoa nmon omon anon Anon
Rwanvoooxm mnouo Ho>oq oocmonwnmwnm “Ouomm

g

<H¢Q mo MUZ<UHMHZOHm mo mam>m4

me m4m¢8

106

poem aoouo oz .
pom noouo
vuommumm

mmouo vaHom mom
and Ame Hana

O
HNMdl-OUD

 

 

 

Ame “<0 Hana . 1 oesouee
11 11 11 11 11 11 nunnnneumnsm
11 11 H 11 11 no.0 uumuuxm nosum undo mom
no.0
o.m 11 11 .Ho.o 11 11 ouauonoz.ueoo Hem
anon anon omoH anon anon Anon nouoem

   

 

“manpoooxm neouu Ho>oa oosmonmn Hm

 

vmdawudoo11m¢ NAM4H

107

Red Polled X Hereford calves attained higher carcass grades
than Hereford calves, as produced by the Kentucky Cow-and-
Calf Plan.

Red Polled X Hereford calves produced greater carcass yields
than Hereford calves.

Carcasses from Red Polled X Hereford calves had more marbling
than those from Hereford calves.

Red Polled X Hereford calves attained a greater carcass weight
per day of age than Hereford calves.

Hereford calves had a larger ribeye (Longissimus dorsi) muscle
area per hundred pounds of carcass than Red Polled X Hereford
calves.

Creep feeding in the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan of beef pro-
duction was advantageous in only one year out of three, ap-
parently being useful only during unfavorable grazing seasons.
Calves sired by Hereford bulls with high gaining ability, as
determined by performance tests, were not superior in weight
gains or carcass quality to those sired by Hereford bulls
with lower gaining ability in the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan
of beef production.

The varieties of forages grazed by cattle in this study, in-
cluding large and prolonged intakes of Ragweed, did not affect
the palatability of the meat.

The percentage of bone ash (on the moisture-free, fat-free
basis) in heavy calves was not significantly correlated with

tenderness of the meat.

 

2!.I IIVI 51"..[1 [51’1I

hmuomnem was mnooumv

 

 

00.0 no.0n 00.0n 0.0on 0.00n n.nnn H00 memeeeea
00.0w oo.0H 00.0 0.m~m 0.0Hm o.Hmm 0mm meomno><
50.0m ma wumwnmum .3 On wmm mom cam emm NN
00.00 on 0000 30A 01 00m NHm oflm mam 0H
<m.00 one 0000 0 0mm men can Hoe 0H
no.0 0H 0000 30H OH 00m Ham mwd mom n
ww.mm 0H moon 30H OH Nmm 0mm 00m mum m
muomnom onHom 00m
no.0m oo.0H m~.HH ~.~0m n.nom m.~mm «mm mmmmum><
H¢.0m mH wuowcwum .m an 0mm 0mm mam 000 «N
«H.0m ma wumvcsum .A HH 0mm 0mm mme «00 MN
n0.0m MH wuwwemum .4 NH mww mom can 0mm ow
No.0m mH enmmcmum .m HH 00m 00m 0H0 0mm ma
mumoum UmHHom 00M
Amv HHsm we meowoum
ANV 0000 ommuo ouoom AmHSO£ mqv ufiwnoz ufiwnoz sham um nonasz
mfionw screw . wcnfiaumz. uswnez woaanso enema uom Manx ucwnoz efiuumu
mmcsom

 

 

 

hmmH zH mmonmomm mm>A<U 20mm <H<Q mm¢0m¢u

H mam<H NHQmem<

109

Ancemoum A<0 nflsm HH<0

 

 

no.00 eo.0n n0.oH 0.nnn 0.non 0.000 0N0 000000><

amnemnom wee mueoumv

n0.00 0n.0a «0.00 o.n0n o.00~ n.0ne ooe 000000><

00.00 00.0H n0.oH 0.00o o.nnn n.nne non eeneeeea
0n.n0 00 00000000 0000 an enn nnn 000 000 as
H0.n 00 0000:000 0000 an 0on non 000 nnn as
00.00 0H 00000000 0000 00 eon oon 000 won on
mummwmm whommhmm

00.00 00.0n 00.0H 0.00m 0.00N o.nn0 nos 000000>0
os.nn nn 00000000 300 on nnn 0mm nos one 00
0n.on 00 00000000 an son onn 000 n00 0n
00.00 00 00000000 0000 00 00a nnn 000 nan 0n
00.00 0a 0000 300 0H eon oHn 0N0 0n0 no
no.00 00 00000000 0000 00 «no non nos 0H0 0n
museum mwoweuos

ANV 0000 000nm opoom Amusoz mew ufiwnoz ufiwnez spam um Honasz

enenw 00000 mannenmz_ 000003 emnnneo 00000 new Hana 000003 unease

mwcsom

 

 

 

wossnucoo11a mamma NHszmm<

 

 

 

110

Amuomwmm mam mummumv

 

\ll'l
\l‘

I
I.

 

wmncHuCOUuuH MHm¢H Nanmmmd

 

 

HquN 00mm 00.0 0H.H ¢.HNN mw.H HH.N ms.H mmwwuv>¢
00 0 00 0 00.00 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000>0
NN.N mm.m oH oo.0 Hom N m H NN
mo.N 0m.o MH NH.H HoN H H N 0H
mN.N NH.w MH mN.H mwN H H N CH
0m.N 0H.N m mH.H m0N m m N N
oN.N mm.n NH 0N.H noN H H H m
mummwmm meHom 00%
00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000><
mN.N N0.N m 0H.H omN N m N 0N
NN.N om.o m 0m.o oqN N N N mN
Nm.N NN.N m mo.H ooN N H N ON
nw.N 0N.oH m Hm.H mNN m N N mH
mummum cmHHom mom
A¢v HHsm mo kcmwoum
mmmouwo mo mwcnom AmmSUcH A.EEV mm< mo hma Amhmwv muoom macaw muoom umnasz
ooH umm mkon0m mo mumsvmv mmmcxowaa hum u£M0m3 mm< mmmcauHm poHoo cme uoHoo uwm mHuumu
mmfiocH mumnum m0mn0m umm ammonwu

111

 

Amcmwoum A«v HHsm HH<V

 

om.N mm.n mn.m qo.H N.NNN Ho.N oo.N do.H mmwwnm><
AmumMHmm cam mumwumv
¢n.~ gm.“ on.n mm.o o.mm~ m~.~ nm.~ ~H.~ mmmmum><
No.N mo.n mm.w mo.o o.wwN no.N oo.m mm.N mmwmum><
NN.N om.m m ow.o HmN m N N Nq
No.N 05.5 m oo.0 mmN m N m H¢
«m.N oo.w NH oo.H qNN N m N qm
muome: wuowmumm
w.N nm.n 00.5 mm.o o.HwN oo.N 0N.H oo.N mmmwum>¢
Hm.m mm.m N mn.o nmN m N N mq
mo.m wn.o m mw.o moN N H N on
mm.N oo.0 w oo.0 mwN N H N mm
um.N 0H.N N ¢Q.H HmN H H N NN
mN.m mn.w m No.H ooN N H N oN
mpmmum vpommumm
mmmoumo mo mwcsom AmmnocH A.EEV mw¢ mo hum Am%wwv muoom muoom mpoom umnEsz
ooH Mum wmmpHm mo mumsvmv mmmcMoHSH umm ustma mw< mmochHm MOHOU cmmH uoHoo umm mHuuwo
mmfiucH wuwawm whmnHm umm mmmopwo

 

 

wmscfiuaoo--fi mgm<a anzmmm¢

112

AmumMHmm wcm whooumv

 

mm.mm mm.mfi m¢.oH a.ou~ H.mm H.¢mq nfim mmmmpo>«
w.cm om.mH mm.oH H.th q.Nom o.mom nmn mammuo><
0H.mm «H @000 sou HH mom amm mmq «Hm Hm
mfi.m mH muwmcmum 304 HH ”mm NQN muq mom NH
om.mm mfl Humwcmum xmflz HH own mom o¢¢ mmq mH
m¢.um mH mummcmum sown HH 5mm mmw mmq msq NH
mw.m 0H coco 304 OH oom NHm omm qmm HH
“H.oe 6H meow seq OH @mm afim man man 0
m~.om OH @000 30A oH mNN om~ 00¢ mfiq q
mm.om NH @000 a mom qc¢ owe mwo m
Hq.mq 0H meow 30A 0H omN mom mmm 5mm N
mummwm: UQHHOM Human
mu.mm cm.¢H oo.HH o.mmm m.~m~ o.mq¢ Hn¢ mammuo><
00.nm mfi mgmmcmum mafia HH mm mow com Hmm 0H
oo.mm ¢H mumwamum HH mHN NNN com HH¢ cH
mumoum meHom 6mm
Amy HHsm mo kcowonm
AN mvoo owmuo muoom Amunofi qu ucmeB ustmB aumm um nonssz
wHoww owwuo wCHHnumE ufimHmS vaHHfio mmmum pom HHHM uwamz mHuuwo

 

wucsom

 

wmmH zH QMUDQOMm mm>A<U 20mm <H<G wm<um<o

N mqde NHszamd

113

Hamwoum Hmv HHsm HHHV

 

 

mn.om om.mH oo.oH «.0wN m.mm~ m.¢mq HHm mmmmum>«

AmummHmm wcm mummumv

gm.om mn.¢H oo.HH o.o- o.qm~ o.ma¢ on mommpm><

H~.mm oo.mH co.HH o.no~ o.mHH o.mH¢ 50¢ mammum><
H~.cm mH Hummamum HmHm HH new MHN mud qu Nq
mHUMHmE whowoumd

H¢.©m Ho.HH oo.HH o.mw~ n.~o~ H.Hom mmm mmwmum>«
Ho.Hm HH wummcmum NH Hmm +m~ mqq qoq oq
we.” mH wumwcmum HmHz oH mom mom mHm 5mm mm
mm.wm mH mumwsmum HmHm HH on mmm mHm pom om
mummum whommumm

Afiv mwoo wcmao muoum Amuuofl qu ufimez ufimHmz shah um Hoafisz

meHw mwmpw mcHHnumE_ ustwS vaHHfio mmmua pom HHHM ufimeS mHuumU

mccsom

 

 

woscHucoonuN mqm<H NHmzmmm<

114

AmummHmm wcm mummumv

 

o¢.~ No.0 HH.H HH.H ¢.Hmm om.~ mH.H NN.N mmwmum><
HH.H No.0 mH.oH oH.H H.~w~ HH.H HH.H NN.N mammum><
ow.N 0N.m a HH.H «0N N H m HN
Nq.N mN.c ¢ ow.o mmN m H N NH
mo.m Hm.N m oo.0 HcN m H N MH
«m.N mm.o N mH.H mNN m H m NH
wq.N oo.N HH oN.H qu H H N HH
om.H «0.0 0H NH.H omN H N N o
N¢.N qq.m NH oo.0 oqN N H N q
mm.H H¢.N oH NN.H mom H H N m
¢q.N mm.o qH mN.H HON m H N N
mHmHme meHom wmm
NN.N mw.o Om.m m~.H mom om.m om.H om.~ mummuo><
NN.N Nw.N m Nm.H mHN m N N aH
NN.N @m.m m NH.H NwH q H m 0H
mummum meHom vmm
Amy HHsm mo mamwoum
mmwuumu mo muasom AnonocH A.aav ow¢ mo ham Amhwvv muoom muoom muoom “036:2
ooH mam mNmnHm mo oumavmv mmmconny umm uanmB mw¢ mmmaauHm uoHoo :mmH uoHou umm mHuuwo
manocH mumsvm onpHm nah mmwouwo
\Lfll fl

 

 

wmmmHucoo--~ HHm¢s anzmmH¢

115

 

HHcomoum Hmv HHsm HH<V

 

o¢.N mm.o oo.m oo.H m.moN mH.N 0N.H 0N.N mammum><
AmummHmm vcm mumwumv
HH.H Nu.c mN.¢ mm.o m.wm~ om.H m~.H oo.N mmmmum><
oH.N NN.m oo.¢ mm.o o.Hom oo.N oo.N oo.N mammum><
0H.N NN.m ¢ mm.o Hem N N N N¢
mummHmm wuowmumm
Hm.~ wH.N H®.N no.0 N.Hm~ mm.H oo.H oo.N mammump<
mq.N Nw.m m mN.o ¢mN N H N oq
¢¢.N Hm.N mH Ho.H NmN H H N mm
0N.N oo.w N co.H Nom H H N om
mummum whommumm
mmuuuwo mo mvcsom HmoaoaH n.88v mm« «0 Nun Amzwwv muoom muoow ououm uwnEbz
ooH Hum mNmHHm mo muwsvmv mmmconSH ham ustmz mw¢ mmmcshHm HOHou cme uoHoo uwm mHuumu
mmzonH vuwnwm mkmpHm uwm mmmuumo

 

 

[I‘lllw
lily

 

 

 

wwsaHucoouuw mHm<H NHQmem<

116

00.00 00.0H 0N.0 0.0H0 0.0H0 0.000 000 000000><
00.00 0H 0000 30H 0H 000 0H0 0H0 000 0H
0.00 0H 0000 30H 0H 000 «Hm 000 000 HH
00.00 NH 0000 0 000 H00 000 HH0 0H
N0.00 0H 0000 30H 0H 00m H0~ 000 000 N
0H.00 0H 0000 00H 0H 000 000 000 N00 0
00.00 0H 0000 00H 0H 000 000 000 N00 0
00.00 0H 0000 30H 0H 000 000 000 0H0 0
00.00 NH 0000 0 000 000 000 00 0
H0.00 0H 0000 30H 0H 00m 00m 000 N00 N

mHQMHom meHom wmm
nocozv
mummum meHom dam

moPHmo wmm mmmuo

 

 

NV 0000 wvmuw muoom Amu50£ Nev ustmB ustwB apwm um Hanasz
wHwHw mwmuo waHHnuwz. ufimez meHHzo mmwun uom HHHM ufimeB oHuumu
mwasom

 

 

 

 

NmmH ZH amobnomm mm>H¢U 20mm 4H<n mm4om<u

m mqde xHQmem<

117

Amw>Hwo van @0000 HH<V

 

 

00.N0 00.0H 00.0 0.000 H.000 0.000 000 00000000

. AmHQMHm: vcm mummumv

00.00 00.0H NH.0H 0.000 0.N00 0.0H0 000 000000>0

00.00 00.0H 00.0H 0.0N0 0.0N0 0.000 000 000000>0
00.00 0H 00000000 0000 0H 0N0 0N0 000 000 00
mhmwwmm whommuwm

00.N0 00.0H 00.0H 0.000 0.H00 0.0H0 000 00000000
00.00 0H 00000000 0000 0H 00 000 000 NHO 00
00.0 0H 00000000 000: 0H 000 000 0H0 N00 00
00.0 0H 00000000 0000 HH 0H0 000 000 N00 00
00.00 0H 0000 000 0H 000 0H0 000 000 N0
00.00 0H 00000000 0000 0H 0N0 0N0 000 0H0 00
mummum 000mmuom

ANV 0000 00000 anoum A0050: w¢v usmHms ustmz 690m 00 003852

0H000 00000 00HH000z. 000002 00HH000 00000 000 HH00 000003 0H0000

mwasom

g

 

wwncHu:OUunm mgm<H mezmmm¢

 

 

 

 

118

 

0N.N 0m.o w.NH wH.H H.00N om.H mm.H mm.H mammum>¢
mo.N om.o MH 0H.H HoN H H N 0H
w¢.N oo.0 HH ON.H ¢mN H H N HH
mN.N NH.w MH NN.H mwN H H N oH
om.N 0H.n m mH.H m¢N m m N n
mm.H 00.0 0H NH.H moN H N N o
mN.N mm.h NH 0N.H noN H. H H m
00.0 00.0 0H 00.0 000 N H N 00
mm.H H0.n 0H NN.H mom H H N m
00.N mm.o 0H mN.H HON m H N N
mumMHmm vaHom vmm
Amaozv
mummum meHom vmm
mm>Hmo 0mm mumuu
mmmoumo we mccsom AmmnucH A.EEV 0&4 mo kmn Amhwwv ououm muoom muoom umnEDz
ooH 00m mmmnHm mo uuwsvmv mmmnqunH Hum ustms mm< mmmcauHm uoHoo ammH uoHoo umm uHuumo
mmsuaH muwsvm mhmnHm 00m 0000000

I \l I

ll
II

 

000000000--0 0000a 000z0000

119

 

000>H0o 000 00000 HH<V

 

mm.N NN.N 0N.HH HH.H o.m0N mm.H h¢.H mm.H mmwmum><
AmmoMHmm can mummumv
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 0.000 00.H, 00.H 00.0 000000>0
0m.N 00.0 oo.NH 00.H 0.00N oo.N oo.m oo.N 00mmum><
0m.N oo.0 NH 00.H dNN N m N 0m
mummHmz wuomoum:
H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 0.000 00.H 00.H 00.0 00000000
0m.N oo.0 m 00.0 wwN N H N mm
0q.N Hm.h mH Ho.H NmN H H N mm
on.N oo.m n 00.H Nom H H N om
mm.N mH.N n 00.H HmN H H N 0N
mN.m mn.w m No.H omN N H N 0N
mummum whommumm
mmmuumo mo mwaaom AmmfiuaH A.EEV ww< mo >09 Am%mvv muoom ouoom muoum umnanz
ooH umm mhmnHm mo vumDW0v mmmaon;H pom ustmB mw< wmmaenHm MOHOU ame uoHoo umm mHuumo
masocH muwsvm mmmnHm 00m 0000000

 

 

 

 

 

wmscHuGOUanm mqm¢H NHszmm¢

120

AmummHmm mam whooumv

 

 

ow.om m¢.¢H oo.HH H.05N “.mmm ¢.Ho¢ HHm mammum><

Hm.om ow.qH w.OH o.HnN o.mn~ o.n~¢ mac mmmmum><
sq.@m mH @uwwamum smfim 0H mm «mm on @Nm NN
mH.mm 0H woow sag HH mom wow mo¢ NHm Hm
0H.mm mH vnmwamum 30A HH mmm mom mmq mom NH
ow.mm mH mumwsmum smflm HH 0mm mom oqq Noe mH
m¢.om mH wumwcmum saws HH 5mm 0mm mmq mnq NH
mumwwmd UGHHOAH 60M

w~.om NH.¢H NH.HH m.mw~ o.Ho~ m.mom mum mummuu><
H¢.¢m mH mumwcmum smflm HH 0mm 0mm mam ¢O@ qN
NH.¢m MH mummcmum 30g HH omw ¢m~ mmq qqq mm
no.¢m mH mumscmum :04 NH own now OHm wum om
00.nm mH wumwcmum am“: HH mmm mmm com Hmm 9H
om.mm ¢H mpwwcmum HH mHN NNN cam HHe 0H
No.om mH vwmmcmum gown HH com mom 0H0 «mo mH
mummum cmHHom mam

wmmm ammuo oz :uHB mm>Hmo

ANV «woo mwmuo muoum Amuse: qu ufime3 usmHmz Euwm um “036:2

meHw mwmpu waHHnum: uswflma meHHso ammun “om HHHM uswflmz «Huumo

mwcsom

é mHm<H MHQmem<

hmoH zH DmUDDomm mm>H¢U 20mm <H<Q mm¢um¢u

121

Hammuo oz HH<V

 

 

mw.mm Hq.¢H NH.HH q.~o~ o.-~ m.m~q mm¢ mam¢pm>¢

Amu@MHmm wcw mummumv

mo.mm mm.qH mm.HH m.m¢~ m.omm m.mmq 05¢ mammym>¢

«H.0m oo.mH 00.HH “.mou o.Hn~ m.m~¢ omq mammum>«
wH.mm mH wpmwcmum amflm HH «mu mmw o¢¢ qwq sq
Hm.om mH wumwcwum swwm HH swm mum msq ~m¢ «q
Ho.wm mH wumwamum am“: HH can Non mom mmm Hq
muwmwmm wuowmhmm

om.Hm h®.MH so.HH o.o~N 0.0mm m.mmq qmq mummum>¢
~¢.Nm mH wumwcmum 20A NH mNN on“ mad mmq mg
Hm.Hm «H wumucmum NH Hmm qmm mqq ¢oq oq
qm.0m qH vumvamum HH qmm omN m¢¢ Ho¢ on
mummum whommumm

ARV mwou mkuo muoow Amusos mqv ustmB upmeB. sham um nonezz

meHw wwmuo maHHaum: uswflms meHH30 mmmum uom HHHM uanms mHuuao

mvcsom

 

 

wmscHucoonne MHm¢H NHQmem<

HI‘
\ll'

122

Amumemm wan mummumv

 

 

wmscHucou--q mHm¢H anzmmm<

No.N om.n oo.N oo.H q.nmN ¢o.N m.H mH.N wwwmum>¢
oo.N mo.~ co.n Ho.H o.oo~ oo.N o¢.H om.~ momwum>¢
NN.N mm.o oH om.o Hem N m H NN
m.N 0N.m m HH.H ¢mN N H m HN
N¢.N mN.o q ow.o mmN m H N NH
mo.m Ho.n w oo.0 HmN m H N mH
qm.N mm.o n mH.H mNN m H m NH
mumMHom meHom wad
mm.N Hm.n om.o 0H.H N.n¢N no.N NH.N NH.N mowmuo>«
mN.N N¢.N o ¢H.H omN N m N cN
NN.N m.o m qm.o oqN N N N MN
Nm.N NN.N m ao.H oeN N H N ON
NN.N o.n o Nm.H mHN m N N aH
NN.N ¢m.m m NH.H an d H m 0H
mm. 0N.oH m Hm.H mNN m N N mH
wuowum HumHHonH Humm
wmmm mumuo oz :uHBme>Hmu
ammoumu mo awasom AmmsucH A.EEV mw¢ mo hma Am%mvv muoom muoom muoum umaEDZ
00H umm mhmnHm mo mumsvmv mmwconna Ham uanwS mw< mmmcauHm uoHoo aMmH uOHoo uwm mHuqu
mmaocH muwsvm mhmnHm uwm mmmoumo

 

 

123

 

Hammuo oz HH<V

 

¢©.~ co.“ mm.o Ho.H «.mom om.~ o~.H wH.N mammpo><
Ampomew can mummumv
mo.N H0.0 mw.m mu.o m.omN om.N no.H NH.N mmwmum><
om.~ no.0 no.m aw.o 0.5mm no.~ oo.N mm.~ mommum><
NN.N om.o m ow.o HoN m N N sq
oH.N nn.m q ow.o Hom N N N Nd
No.N mn.n m 00.0 mmN m N m H¢
muomHmm wuommnmm
Nm.N 00.0 00.0 ow.o h.¢mN mm.N mm.H oo.N mammum><
Hm.m mm.n n mn.o nmN m N N Nd
m¢.N No.m m on.o qu N H N oq
mo.m mn.o m mw.o moN N H N mm
mummum whomwumm
mmmouwo mo mumsom AmmnocH A.EEV mw¢ mo ham .Amhwvv muoom muoom muoum pwnaaz
ooH umm whmnHm mo mpmawmv mmeHUHsa umm ufime3 mw< mmanuHm uoHoo cmoH HOHOU umm mHuumu
mmfiocH muwsvm mhmHHm uwm mmwoumo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wmscHuCOUuud MHm<H NHszmm<

 

124

Amu0MHmm new mummumv

 

 

mo.mm 0N.NH 0N.m n.MNm w.mNm m.h¢m w.hom mmwwump<
no.0 mh.HH oo.0 m.wom 0.0Hm «.mmn m.mqm mommum><
om.nm 0H 0000 30H oH omN Hcm on mmm 0H
mw.wm NH 0000 m omN Nom mom HNm oH
om.am mH moHoso 30H w 0mm own 0mm wHo m
nn.wm mH moHofio 30H 0 mm mmN omq mom. 0
000MH02 00HHom 00m
mm.mm mw.0H mm.m w.mmm m.o¢m m.Nom N.Nwm mmm0~0>¢
MH.N0 0H 0000 30H oH . mHm ONM Now mNm w
mh.em OH 0000 30H oH mmm oom NNo mac HH
0N.oo NH 0000 m mNN mwN moq owq N
mo.oo oH moHono 30H w mom ohm woo one m
mm.mm NH 0000 m NNm mmm com owm q
mo.wm OH 0000 30H oH com com 0H0 one m
mummum onHom 00m
Amv HHsm mo %C0m0um
NV 0000 owwuo muoom Amnnofi m¢v ustwz ufiwHwB Baum um “anabz
wHwHw okuo mcHHHumz ugmHmz meHHfio ammuo 00m HHHM u£mH03 mHuuwo
mwcsom

 

 

wmmH ZH QMUDQOMM mm>A¢U 20mm ¢H¢Q mm¢0m<u

m mqm<H xHQmem<

125

0000000 H00 0000 0000

 

 

00.00 00.00 00.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 000000>0

AmuomHmE 000 mummumv

00.00 00.0H 00.0H 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 000000>0

00.0 00.00 00.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 000000>0
00.00 0H 0000 300 0H New 000 000 000 00
00.00 0H 0000 000 0H 00w ~00 H00 000 on
00.00 NH 0000 0 NNN 000 000 000 00
mumwwmm whommhmm

00.00 00.0H HH 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 000000><
00.00 0H 00000000 0000 HH 00w ~00 000 H00 00
00.00 0H 00000000 HH H00 000 000 000 00
00.00 00 00000000 0000 HH 00m 000 000 000 mm
mummum whomwumm

Axv 0000 wwwuo muoum Amusoa qu ustmz ustwz spam um Hananz

0H0flw 00000 000H0002 000003 00HH000 00000 000 HHflm 000003 000000

mwcsom

 

 

 

000000000--0 00000 x0020004

126

Amumwfimm wan mummumv

 

00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000
00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000>0
mH.N 00.0 CH do.H qu N 0 N 00
mm.H mw.m 0H mo.H sz N m N CH
H0.H mo.o mH mN.H NNN H N N m
oN.N mm.o ma no.0 mmN H 0 m o
mummwmm mmHHom 00%
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000
om.N mw.n a 00.H «ON m m N m
mN.N ww.~ w mN.H th m d N HH
00.N w0.0 HH mm.H NwH N m N N
mm.N 0m.m ma Hm.H HwN H m m m
mo.N 00.0 HH NH.H HmN H N N d
mm.N oH.m 0 nm.a mmN N N m m
mummum onHom wmm
Amy HHnm mo hcmwoum
0000000 no mccsom Ammfiocw A.EEV wm< mo kmn Ammmvv muoom ouoom muoom umasbz
ooH 00m mxmnwm mo mumnvmv 000:3005H 00m uanmB ow¢ mmmqauwm noHou c004 uoHou umm mauumu
mmsoaH unwavm mzonfim 00m 0000000

 

 

 

wmscHuCOUunm mgm¢H xHQmem¢

127

Amammoum Amv Hfism HH<V

 

qm.~ om.c om.m NH.H H.05N oo.N aH.m Hm.u mmmmum><
AmuMMHmm wcm mnowumv
mm.N nm.o no.n Hm.o o.mNN mm.N om.m .mm.N mmwmuw>¢
n¢.N Nw.m oo.m mm.o m.mwN oo.N mm.m no.N mummum><
mN.N mm.m n ow.o mwN H q m mm
co.N mN.o Ha qw.o mwN n q m Om
w¢.N No.m m wn.o omN N N N oN
mummgmm whommumm
wm.~ No.0 mm.o 00.H ~.onm Ne.~ ne.m oo.N mowwum>«
oh.N mo.o w no.H mNN m m N mq
Hm.N wH.w o wm.o mwN N m N @m
mH.N mo.m N ma.c mmN m m N mm
mummum wuomwumm
mmwouwo mo mwcsom Amazon“ A.EEV mw< mo mun Amhmwv «poem macaw muoom Hmflfisz
00H hum w%mnwm mo mumsvmv mmmaxowaa umm unwwmz mw< mmmqauwm uoHoo cmmA uoaoo uwm ofiuumo
monoaH mumsvm mmmawm nah mmwoumo

 

wodcfiucoouum mAm<H NHQZMth

128

Amumwwmm mcw mummumv

 

 

om.mm on.oH oo.m n.5Hm H.mwm H.mmm m.¢mm mommpo>«
oa.om om.®H no.¢ m.oau m.mo~ «.moq o.HHm mmwmum><
nm.wm OH @000 30H CH mow New mqq mac Nu
mo.ow mH vooo amHm m HNm mum Hmm , wqm 5H
Hfi.mm 0H goon 30H oH mmm cmm HHm «om mH
MH.mm mH moHogo 20H m mom mom «om NNm HN
NH.mm 0H voou 30H oH HHm “Hm own mqm om
m~.mm «H wumccmum HH mNN Hm“ hoe «NH mH
muumHmm meHom yam
wh.mm oo.HH om.o n.5mm m.qem o.mmm ~.aHo mmmmum>¢
sw.wm “H @000 oH mmm HHm awn omm s
No.00 mH moHosu 30H w «mm com «mm moo H
mo.oo 0H woow 30H oH cum smm mum qu mH
om.wm 0H @000 30H oH HNq “NH HHB och Hm
mummum UmHHom wmm
AAV HHsm mo mcmwoum
ANV mwoo mwmuu muoom Amazon wdv uanmB uawfimz auwm um umnESZ
mHme wumuu maHHnums. ustma meHHso mmwua “om HHHM usmHma mHuumo
mwcdom

Ii

 

o m4m¢H xH92mmm4

mmmH ZH amobnomm mm>A¢U Scam ¢H<Q mm<Um¢U

129

AHAQMVWOHW A‘HV Hflsm HHJuV

 

 

.o¢.m mm.ofi ww.¢ m.ooN m.Nom N.wom o.mNm mmwwum>fl

Amumwwmm mum mummumv

mo.om mw.mH mN.0H 0.50N o.NNN ~.mo¢ m. m0 mmwmuo><

m.w mN.oH oo.0H o.mNN N.owN N.Hn¢ N.ww¢ mmmwuo><
NN.m eH @000 304 0H m¢N nqN 5H0 qu Nm
Om.mm NH meow OH ¢~N wNN 00¢ mud Hq
Oo.nm mH @000 30A OH mom . on on mqm mm
Nm.w ma @000 30H OH cm 00 mn¢ mac mm
mp0MHmm whomwumm

Ho.mm mm.mH Ho.oH m.nm~ m.NoN p.500 o.mm¢ mmwmum><
mN.mm ca @000 304 HH omN omN mad .mc 50
NN.c «H @000 304 OH amN mmN ¢Hm mmm m¢
0N.mm qfi cumwcwum HH NNN NMN 0N0 qu mfi
mumwum vuowmnmm

ARV owoo mwmpo mnoom Amado; qu uSwNmB unmwmz eumm um nm£asz

wHwHw mwmuo mawaaumz. uanmB wmaafiso mmmua uom HHNM unwwmz ofiuumo

0 mwcsom

 

 

wmncHuaoouuo mam<a NHQmem<

130

AmanHmm wcm mwmwumv

 

33 fig 2.0 wH.H «HH.H 84 03.. 3d mmmfimi
mN.N $6 56 SH 90.3 $3 86 mm.~ $582
mN.N no.0 ¢ mo.H mmN H m N NN
0H.N ¢o.m mH mH.H «wN H N m 5H
mo.N H0.0 mH NH.H HmN m 0 N mH
w¢.N o¢.h w No.H HmN H ¢ N HN
Hm.N Hw.u m ¢N.H HmN N m m 0N
cN.N «o.m o wh.o th m m N mH
mu0MHmm meHom wmm
MN.N ¢m.n mN.n om.H h.moN oo.N oo.N om.N mmwmn0>¢
mN.N nm.n m mH.H HwN H m N n
oH.N m¢.n m cm.H mwN N N m H
wq.N ¢o.n o m¢.H HNN m d m mH
mo.N ow.w o o¢.H mmN N m N «N
mummum HumHHonH Umm
AHV HHsm mo hammoum
mmmouwu mo mwcsom AmmsocH A.SEV 0w< mo hwn Amxmwv muoom muoom muoom nwnfisz
00H hum mmmnHm mo muwnwmv mmmaonLH umm ustmB mw¢ mmmGEuHm u0Hoo ammH u0Hoo “mm OHuumU
mmsocH mumsum ohmnHm uwm mmmoumo

 

 

E

 

 

mchHucoouno mgm<H NHQZHmm¢

131

 

Hzamwoum HHV HHsm HHHV

 

mm.~ mw.o do.n NH.H w.mo~ oo.N oo.m mm.~ mmwmum><
AmumMHmm cam mummumv
NH.H m¢.o HH.H 00.H H.5mu HH.H HH.H a~.~ mommum>¢
m¢.N mn.o oo.0 mo.H N.N©N mN.N om.N om.N mummum><
oq.N Nw.m 0H NH.H oHN N N m Nm
c¢.N «5.0 o 00.0 #wN N m m Hc
mm.N qw.n n HH.H NNN m N N am
om.N 00.0 CH Ho.H NNN N m N om
mummHmm whommumm
wm.~ mH.w oo.0 mo.H H.Hm~ oo.N oo.m oo.N mmmwum><
mH.N Hm.m h wc.H wMN N 0 N sq
No.N om.n c HN.H mMN N N N ed
mm.N nm.m m Hw.o mNN N m N w¢
mummum wuommuwm
mmmoumo mo mvcsom AmmsucH A.EEV omd mo man Ammmuv ouoom whoom anoum HmnEsz
ooH Hum mmonHm mo mumvvmv mmmaonne uom uanmB mwd mmmnEhHm uoHoo cmmH HOHOU uwm mHuumo
mmSQaH unwavm ohmpHm umm mmwoumo

 

E

 

 

 

 

UmucHuGOUuuo MHM<H NHQ2mmm¢

 

 

 

 

 

I'llill

132

 

 

HOHOOOOO
wcw mnomumv
ON.OO OO.NH ON.O O.NNO 0.0NO 0.000 N.OOO OmOmpmpO
O0.00 OO.NH ON.O N.OON O.OOO 0.000 0.0NO OOOOpo><
OH.OO OH OOHOOO 20H O OON OOO OOO NNO HN
NH.OO OH OOOO 30O OH HHO OHO ONO OOO ON
ON.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH ONN HON NOO NNO OH
0.00 OH OUOOOO 30H O OOO OOO OOO OHO O
N0.0 OH OOOOOO 30H O OO OON OOO OOO O
mummfiom OOHHOO Oom
ON.OO O.OH O0.0 N.OOO O.HO O.NOO O.OOO OOOOOO><
O0.00 OH OOQO 30H OH HNO ONO OHO OON ON
OH.NO OH OooO OOH OH OHO ONO NOO ONO O
OO.OO OH OOHOOO 30H O OOO ONO OOO OOO O
-0.00 NH Oooo O ONO OOO OOO OOO O
OO.O OH Ocou 30H OH OOO OOO OHO OOO O
ON.OO NH OOOO O OON OON OOO OO N
mummum meHom 0mm
m0>ku can momuu
AN ovoo mwmpw opoum Amusos w¢v usmHmB u£NH03 Guam um “038:2
OHOOO OOOHO OOOHOHO: OOOOOO OOHHHOO OOOHO pom HHOu “OOHO: OHOOOO
mwcsom

 

 

 

n made NHQmem<

 

0H ZH QMmeomm mm>A<U 20mm ¢H¢Q mm¢0m¢o

 

1!

 

‘ ‘Il.|lll.ll.. ' i ill-l I! .III. II l I I'll] I III II 'Ii IIIJIIIO III...‘ I I'll. [u I

 

133

 

 

AmmPHwo 00m

OOOOO HHOO

mm.wm N0.0H mm.m m.OON m.¢om N.HHm N.mNm mommu0><

Amumeom

000 mummumv

NO.OO OO.OH OO.OH O.OON O.OON O.OOO 0.0NO OOOOHO>O

OO.OO OO.OH OO.O N.OON O.OON 0.000 O.HNO OOOOHO>O
NN.mm OH O000 30H oH OON NON NHO qu Nm
0O.Nm OH 0000 30H oH mom on ONO OOO mm
w.w OH 0000 30H oH owN OON ONO MOO Om
NN.mm OH 0000 30H oH OON NON HOO NOO om
O0.00 NH 0000 m NNN mmN mNO m0 ON
mummHmm whommnmm

HO.OO OO.OH OO.OH O.NON 0.0NN O.ONO O.NOO OOOOumpO
NN.Om OH 0000 30H oH OON OON OHO mmm OO
ON.NO OH OOOOOOOO OOHO HH OON NON ONO HOO OO
mummum Onommnom

AN 0000 mOmu0 muoom Amu505 O00 ustmz ustmB Bpwm um panadz

OHmHV mvmu0 mcHHpumz uamHm3 OmHHHao mmmun pom HHHM ustmz mHuumo

mvcsom

 

 

UmDGHuaOUunN mqmfiH MHQmem<

 

 

134

AmummHmm Ocm muomumv

 

ON.N OO.N OO.O ON.H O.OON ON.H HO.N OO.N OmmmpmpO
HN.N OO.O OO.OH OO.H O.OON OO.H ON.O OO.N OOOOOO>O
OO.N OO.N O No.H HON H O N HN
Hm.N HO.N O ON.H HmN N m m 0N
ON.N Oc.m O ON.o NON m m N mH
HN.H mo.O OH ON.H NNN H N N O
0N.N mm.O mH NO.o OON H O O O
mumOHom OmHHom Omm
OO.N OO.O OO.O OO.H O.HON OO.H OO.N OO.N OOOOuopO
OO.N 00.0 O OO.H mm N m N ON
OO.N OO.N O OO.H OON m m N O
mm.N Om.O mH Hm.H HON H m m O
OO.N O0.0 HH NH.H HON H N N O
OO.N oH.O O Nm.H NOm N N m m
OO.N O0.0 HH OO.H NOH N m N N
mummum HOmHHoOH 00m
mopHmo Omm mmmuo
mmwuuwo m0 mwcsom AmmaocH A.EEV mw< mo Own Amhmwv muoom ouoom mpoom ponesz
00H uwm mmonHm m0 mumsvmv mmmcxowna Hum uanmz ww¢ mmmaauHm uoHoo ame HOHoo 0mm mHuumo
mmnoaH mumsvm whonHm umm mmmoumu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OmscHuCOUnuN man¢a anzwmm¢

135

 

Ammpru 00m ammuu HHdv

 

OO.N OO.N NH.O OH.H H.NON OO.N OO.N OO.N mommnmpO
Amuvao: 00w mummumv
OO.N NO.O O0.0 NO.H O.NON OO.N OO.N ON.N OOOOuo>O
OO.N O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O.NON OO.N OO.N OO.N OOOOH0><
OO.N O.m CH NH.H OHN N N O NO
OO.N O.N N HH.H NNN m N N Om
OO.N O0.0 oH Ho.H NNN N m N Om
OO.N ON.O HH O0.0 OON m O m om
OO.N N0.0 O ON.o OON N N N ON
mummHmm Ouommuoz
OO.N OO.N OO.O OH.H 0.00N OO.N O0.0 OO.O OOOOHO><
NO.N OO.N O HN.H OmN N N N OO
0N.N O0.0 O NO.H ONN m m N OO
muwmum Ouowmnms
mmwouwo mo mwcsom AmmsocH A.BEV mw< mo Own Amhmwv muoom muoom muoom umnabz
ooH pom «OmaHm m0 muwsvmv mmmaquSH umm uawHOB om< mmmaeuHm uoHoo cmmH uOHoo umm 0Huum0
mmfioaH oumsvm whonHm umm mmwoumo

 

l|ll
Ill

 

 

 

 

 

OmnsHucOUuuN MHOOH anzmmmd

136

 

 

HOHOOOoO

00m mummumv

OH.OO O0.0H O0.0 H.OHO 0.0NO O.NOO O.NOO OOOOumpO

OO.OO OO.OH OO.O N.OOO O.OOO N.OOO 0.0NO OOOOHO><
O0.0 OH Oooo 204 OH OON NON OOO OOO NN
OO.OO OH OooO OOOO O HNO ONO ONO OOO NH
O0.00 OH Ooou 304 OH ONO OOO OOO OOO OH
OO.NO OH Oooo OOH OH OON HOO OHO OOO OH
O0.0 NH Oooo O OON NOO OOO HNO OH
OHOOOOO OOHHOO OOO

NN.OO OO.OH OO.O 0.000. O.NOO O.ONO O.OOO OOOOOO>O
O0.00 OH OooO 300 OH ONO ONO ONO OOO OH
O0.00 OH OooO OOH OH OOO OOO NNO OOO HH
OO.O NH OooO OH OOO OOO OOO OOO N

N0.00 OH OOOOOO 304 O OOO OOO OOO OOO H

9.89. m OmHHom 00M

000m mmmuu oz £UHB m0>Hm0

NV 0000 mmwp0 ououm Amuse; OOO ustmz ufime3 ahmm um umnasz

OHOOO OOOHO OOOHOOO: OOOOOO OOHHOOO OOOHO pom HHOM OOOOOO OHOOOO

mOcsom

 

 

 

 

 

 

w mHm<H XHmzmmm<

 

 

meH ZH QHUDQOMm mm>A¢o_EOmm ¢H¢Q mm<0m<u

 

 

137

NOOOuo oz HHOO

 

 

OO.NO ON.OH O0.0H 0.00N 0.000 0.0HO O.NOO OOOOOO>O

AOHOMHmm Ocm muwwumv

OO.OO OO.OH NO.OH O.OON O.OON 0.0NO 0.000 mmOmumpO

ON.OO OO.OH OO.OH O.OON O.NON O.NOO O.ONO OOOOOO><
OO.O NH Oooo OH ONN ONN OOO OOO HO
NN.NO OH Oooo Bog OH NON NON OOO ONO OO
mHQMme whowmhmm

O0.00 ON.OH OO.HH O.HON O.OON O.OOO N.HOO OOOOHO>O
ON.OO OH Oooo 30H HH OON OON OOO OOO NO
ON.OO OH OHOOOOOO HH NNN NON ONO NOO OO
O0.00 OH 335% HH HON OON ONO OOO OO
OO.OO OH OHOOOOOO OOOO HH OON OON ONO OOO OO
whomum whowmhwm

HNO owoo owmu0 muoom Amusos OOO A ufimeB uszma Bumm um umnasz

OHOOO OOOHO OOHHOHOOV OOOOOO OOHHOOO OOOHO OOO HHOM OOOOOO OHOOOO

mwasom

 

 

OOOOHOOOO--O OAOOH anszOO

138

AmummHom 0cm mpmmumv

 

OH.N N0.0 OO.O NH.H O.NNN OO.N O0.0 OO.N mmmwuo><
NH.N N0.0 O0.0H NO.H N.OON OO.H O0.0 ON.N mmwmum>O
ON.N O0.0 O OO.H mmN H m N NN
OH.N O0.0 OH OH.H OON H N O NH
OO.N H0.0 OH NH.H HON O O N OH
OH.N O0.0 0H OO.H OON N O N OH
OO.H O0.0 oH OO.H NON N m N CH
mummHm: OmHHom OOO
NN.N HN.N ON.N OO.H O.OON ON.N ON.O OO.N OOOOHO>O
OO.N OO.N O OO.H HNN O O O OH
ON.N OO.N O ON.H NON O O N HH
ON.N NO.N O OH.H HON H O N N
OH.N OO.N O OO.H OON N N O H
mummum mefiom Huwm
Ommm mmmuo oz auwz mw>Hm0
mmmupmu mo mOcsom AmazoaH A.BEV mOO mo Own AOOOOV muoom mnoom muoom umnasz
ooH umm mhmnHm mo oumavmv mmmnonsa yam uamez mm< mqusuHm uoHoo cme uoHoo umm mHuumu
mmnocH muwsvm mmmpHm uwm _ ammunmo

 

 

 

 

 

moscHucoouum MAmOH NH92mmm<

139

 

HOOOHO oz HHOV

 

ON.N NO.O OH.O OO.H O.ONN OO.N OO.O OO.N mommumpO
AmummHmm Ocm mummumv
OO.N NN.O OO.O O0.0 O.NNN OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOOO>O
OO.N OH.O O0.0 H0.0 0.00N OO.H O0.0 O0.0 OOOmump<
OO.N ON.O O O0.0 OON N m O HO
ON.N O0.0 N O0.0 OON H O m mm
mummHmm Ouommumm
OO.N ON.O ON.O O0.0 O.OON ON.N ON.O OO.N mmOmum>O
OH.N Hm.m N OO.H OON N O N NO
NO.N Nm.m m HO.o ONN N m N OO
HO.N OH.O O O0.0 OON N O N Om
OH.N O0.0 N O0.0 OON O m N Om
mummum Ouomoum:
mmmoumo m0 mOanom AmmaucH A.EEV mO< mo Own Amhmwv muoom ouoom muoom nonasz
ooH umm mOmnHm mo mumsvmv mmmchHaa umm ufimea mwd mmmqauHm uoHoo ame u0H00 umm mHuumo
mmnocH mumnvm mhmnam umm ammoumo

 

OOOOHuaoo--O OOOOH NHOZOOOO

140

AmummHmm ch mummumv

 

 

OO.OO OO.OH OO.OH O.NNO N.OOO O.ONO O.NOO OOOOHO><

HO.OO OO.NH OO.O 0.0NO O.NNO O.OOO O.OOO OOOOOO><
HO.OO NH OOOO O ONO NNO OOO OOO OH
mummflmm OOHHOO Oom

NH.OO O.OH ON.OH O.OOO N.OOO O.NOO O.NNO OOOOOO><
O0.00 OH Ooou 30O OH OOO OOO OOO OO HH
NO.HO OH OHOOOOOO OOOO HH HOO OOO OOO OOO OH
O0.00 OH OooO OOO OH OOO NOO OOO ONO N
ON.OO OH OooO 30H OH NOO OOO ONO OOO OH
OO.HO OH Oooo OOO OH OOO OHO OOO OON NH
OOOOOO OOHHOO OOO

Amv HHam m0 Ocmwoum

ARV wOoo mOwu0 wuoom Amu50£ OOv uanmz ufiOHmz Euwh um umAESZ

OHOOO OOOHO OOOHOqu OOOOOO OOHHOOO OOOHO “om HHOM OOOHOO OHOOOO

. mOczom

 

 

E

 

 

OmOH zH QMUDQomm mm>H<U 20mm <H<Q mm¢0m<0

m mqm¢H NHQZMMMfi

Amawwopm Adv HHsm HH<V

 

 

NN.OO O0.0H OO.OH O.ONO N.OOO 0.000 O.NNO OOOOpo>O

AOHOMHO: Ouw mucoumv

HN.OO .O.OH OO.OH O.OON O.OON O.OOO O.NOO OOOOHO>O

ON.OO NO.OH OO.HH N.OON N.OON N.HOO N.ONO OOOOHO>O
O0.00 OH OOOOOOOO NH HON NON ONO NOO OO
OO.OO OH OHOOOOOO OOOO HH OON OON OOO OOO OO
N0.00 OH OOOOOOOO OOOO OH OON OON OOO OOO OO
mumwwmm UHOMOHwE

OH.OO OO.OH OO.OH O.HNN O.ONN O.NOO O.NHO OOOmpo>O
OH.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH ONN OON ONO OOO OO
OO.OO OH Oooo OOO OH ONO NNO OOO OOO NO
mumoum Opommumm

AN 0O00 mOmu0 mnoom Amuse; OOO uanwa usmHmB, sham um umaEDZ

OHOOO OOOHO OOOHOOOO. OOOOOa OOHHOOO OOOOO OOO HHOO OOOOOO OHOOOO

meadow

 

 

 

OchHucoonnO mgm<H xHszmm<

142

Amumemm Ocm muwmumv

 

OO.N OH.O O0.0 NO.H O.NON OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOHO>O
OO.H ON.O O0.0H OH.H 0.0NN oo.N oo.N oo.N mmwwuo>¢
OO.H ON.O oH OH.H ONN N N N OH
muomwmm OmHHom Omm
HO.N NO.O O0.0 NO.H O.OON OO.N ON.O OO.N OOOOumpO
NO.H OO.N NH OO.H OON N O N HH
OO.N O0.0 N OO.H OON O N N OH
OO.N O0.0 O OO.H ONN N m N N
OH.N O0.0 O OO.H ONN O O N CH
OH.N ON.O HH OO.H ONN N O N NH
mummum UmHHom 00%
Amy HHsm mo hammopm
mmwoumo mo mwaaom Amazon“ A.EEV OOO mo Own Ammmvv ouoom muooO ouoom nonasz
00H umm whonHm mo ouwsvmv wmwaxUHSH pom unOHmz 0O< mmwneuHm uoHoo cmmH MOHoo uwm mHuuwo
mmaucH muwsOO mNmnHM uwm mmwoumo

 

'LIr
'l'l‘lll

wmdnHucoouum MHmOH NHmzmmm<

143

 

NOOOOouO HOO HHOO HHOO

 

 

‘|l\
HI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OmsaHuaooqu MHm<H NHszmm<

ON.N OO.N O0.0 HN.H N.OON OO.N ON.N oo.N momwuo>4
AwpmmHmm Ocm mummumv
OO.N OO.O OO.N OO.O O.HNN OO.N OO.N OO.N OOOOumpO
NO.N NH.O O0.0 NO.o N.ONN NO.N OO.N oo.N mmwmum><
NO.N Hm.O N NO.o OON O m N mm
OO.N O0.0 O O0.0 OON m N N OO
HO.N ON.O O O0.0 NNN N N N OO
mummHmm Ouommumm
OO.N OH.N OO.N OO.H 0.0NN OO.O OO.N OO.N OOOOHO><
OO.N oo.O m HO.o ONN O. O N OO
OO.N OH.O O OH.H HNN O H N NO
muomum Ouomoumm
mmwuumo mo mOcsom AwesocH A.aEV mwd mo Own Amhmwv muoom muoom muoom HOOEDZ
ooH umm mmmnfim mo mumsOmv mmmconaa pom unmwmz OOO mmmaauHm uoHoo cmoH poHou umm 0Huumo
mmfioaH wuwsvm mhmnHm umm mmmuuwo

 

 

 

144

Amumemm ch mummumv

 

OO.NO OO.OH HH.OH H.ONO 0.000 O.OOO H.OOO OOOOHO><
O0.0 OO.OH NO.O N.OHO 0.0NO N.OOO N.HOO OOOOOO>O
N0.0 NH Oooo. O NHO OHO OOO OOO OH
-O.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH HNO NNO OOO ONO O
OO.OO NH Oooo O OOO OHO OHO OOO O
OHQMHGE Umflfiom Hum/m.
OO.NO OO.OH OO.OH O.ONO N.OOO N.HNO 0.000 OOOOOO><
ON.NO OH OOOO 30O OH OOO OOO ONO OOO O
NO.OO OH OHOOOOOO HH OOO HOO OOO ONO HN
OO.NO OH OOOO OOO OH OOO OOO OOO OHO ON
O0.00 OH OOOO 30H OH OOO NNO ONO NOO O
O0.00 OH OHOOOOOO HH OON OON OHO NOO O
ON.OO OH OooO OOO OH NON OON OOO NOO N
mpwmum OmHHom 0mm
AHV HHsm mo mamwoum
NV «woo mOwHU muoom Amuse; OOV u£OH03 uOOsz Sham um umnasz
OHOOO OOOHO OOOHONOO OOOOOO OOHHOOO OOOHO pom HHOM OOOOOO OHOOOO

 

 

mOcsom

 

 

 

 

OmOH zH QmODQOmm mm>H<U 20mm <H<Q mmdUMdU

OH MHm<H ”HQmemd

145

HOOOOOOO AHO HHsO HHOV

 

 

HN.NO OH.OH N0.0H H.HOO N.NOO 0.0NO 0.000 OOOONO><

AmumMNwm mam mummumv

ON.OO HN.OH HN.OH O.HNN O.ONN O.NOO N.OOO OOOOHO><

OH.NO OO.OH OO.O 0.0NN 0.00N O.OOO O.OOO OOOOOO>O
ON.OO OH Ooou 20H OH OON NON ONO OOO OO
O0.00 NH Oooo O OON OON OOO OOO ON
mummwmm wuowmumm

O.OO OO.OH ON.HH 0.0NN O.NNN 0.000 O.OOO OOOOHO><
OO.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH OON OON OOO ONO OO
O0.00 OH OmecmuO 30H NH OON OON ONO OOO OO
OH.OO OH Oooo 30H OH HOO OOO OHO ONO NN
HH.OO OH ONOOOOOO 20H NH OON OON OOO OOO HO
N0.00 OH ONOOOOOO HH OON NNN OO OOO OO
muwmum wuommumm

ARV mmoo wwwuw muoom Amuse; mdv ufiwwms unwwwz Bumm um umnasz

OHOHO OOOOO OOHHOumz OOOHOS OOHHHOO OOOOO “om HHHM OsmHoz OHOOOO

mwcsom

 

wmwcHucoonaoH m4m49 NHQmem¢

146

AmumMNmm cam mumwumv

 

NN.N HN.N HH.OH ON.H O.NON NN.N O0.0 OO.N OOOOOO>O
OO.N ON.O NO.NH NH.H N.OON OO.N O0.0 OO.N OOOOOO><
HO.N NN.O ¢H oH.H NON N m N NH
wo.N wo.m NH HN.H OON N q N m
Nm.H Nm.m ma HH.H wNN N N N o
mummwmm wmfiaom wmm
OO.N OO.N O0.0 OO.H O.NON OO.N O0.0 OO.N OOOONO><
OO.H oo.N NH Om.H MON m m N m
OO.N Om.w N ON.H OON m m N HN
mN.N ON.m o ON.H mON N q N 0N
MN.N mH.w 0H mm.H OON N m N m
om.N Nm.o c mo.H owN N m N d
ON.N Nm.o ma OO.H OOH N N N N
mpmmum meHom wax
AAV Hfism mo hamwoum
mmmoumo mo Ovanom AmmfioCN A.EEV mm¢ mo Own Amwmwv ouoom muoum muoom umeamz
ooH umm mmmnwm mo ouwnvmv wmmaxuNnH Hum uzwwmz mw< mmmnauwm Hoaoo awmq Hoaoo umm mfiuuwu
mmaocH vuwswm mamafim uwm mmmoumo

 

 

 

 

UOSCHuaOUIuoH mqde xHQ2mmm<

147

 

NOcOwoum AHV HHOm HH<V

 

HN.N O0.0 O0.0 OH.H 0.00N NO.N H0.0 OO.N OOOONO>O
amummwom was mummumv
OH.N O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O.NNN NO.N OH.O OO.N OOOONO>O
OO.N NO.O OO.NH OO.O O.HON OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOOO><
NO.H NN.O ma No.0 mmN N q N on
NH.N mH.o NO mo.H owN N N N ON
mummwwm wpommum:
ON.N OO.O OO.N OO.O O.OON OO.N ON.O OO.N OOOOHO>O
NN.N mm.m w No.0 NON m m N om
ON.N mm.q o mN.o OON m m N oq
NH.N ON.N a 0m.H NNN N m N NN
Hm.N Hm.m N oo.0 NON m q N am
ON.N H0.0 N oo.N OON m m N om
mumwum whommpmm
mmmoumo mo mwcsom Ammfiocw A.EEV mm¢ mo Nam Amhmwv whoom muoom muoom nmnasz
ooH mam mhmnwm mo oumawmv mmmaxONca umm u:wOm3 ow¢ mmmceuNm uoHoo mama uoHoo uwm mauumo
mmsoaH muwsvm mkmnqm umm mwmoumo

 

[I III]
1% 1"

 

 

 

UmscHucoonuoH mgm<H NHszmm¢

148

Amummwmm wcm mummumv

 

 

OO.OO OO.OH OO.OH 0.000 O.HOO O.OOO O.HNO OOOOHO><
H0.00 O0.0H OO.HH O.HNO O.NNO 0.000 0.0NO OOOONO>4
H0.00 OH O.HmOEOOm HH HNO NNO OOO ONO O
ONOONOO OOHHON OOO
OO.OO NO.OH ON.OH H.OOO H.OOO O.OOO O.NNO OOOOOO><
O0.00 OH Ooou OOH OH OOO OOO OOO NOO HH
NO.HO OH OOOOOOOO OOHO HH HOO OOO OOO OOO OH
ON.OO OH Oooo 30H OH NOO OOO ONO OOO OH
OO.HO OH OOOO 30H OH OOO OHO OOO OON NH
OO.NO OH OooO 30H OH OOO OOO OOO OHO ON
O0.0 OH Oooo 20H OH OOO NNO ONO NOO O
OO.OO OH ONOOOOOO HH OON OON OHO NOO O
ON.OO OH OooO 30H OH NON OON OOO NOO N
9595 wofiaom wwm
mm>amo wmm mmmnu
ARV mwou mvmuu muoom Amuse; qu ufimwmz uawfima apwm um umnfisz
OHOHN OOONO OOHHONOZ OOOHOS OOHHHOO OOONO OOO HHHM OOOHOO OHOOOO
mwasom

 

 

 

 

ommH ZH amoboomm mm>A<o EOMh <H¢Q mm<0fido

HH mgmdfi MHQmem¢

A.

NOO>HOO OOO OOOOO HHOO

 

 

OO.OO NO.OH NN.OH N.ONO O.HOO O.NOO N.ONO Ommmuo><

Amummflmm mam muwmumv

O0.00 OO.OH NH.OH N.OON O.NON O.NOO N.OOO OOOONO>O

OO.OO ON.OH OO.OH N.OON N.OON O.OOO N.ONO OOOOuo><
ON.OO OH OooO 30H OH OON NON ONO OOO OO
O0.00 OH ONOOOOOO OOHm HH OON OON OOO OOO OO
N0.00 OH OHOOOOOO OOHO OH OON OON OOO OOO OO
O0.00 NH OOOO O OON OON OOO OOO ON
mummwmm whomwumm

O0.00 OO.OH OO.OH 0.0NO O.OOO O.NOO O.NNO OOOOHO>O
OO.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH OON OON OOO ONO OO
OH.OO OH OooO OOO OH HOO OOO OHO ONO NN
mummum wuommhmm

ANV mwoo mkuw muoom Amuse; NOV unwfima unmfimz Such ua pupasz

OHOO» OOOOO OOHHOHOE. OOOHOO OOHHHOO OOONO Oom HHOM OOOOOS OHOOOO

mvcsom

 

 

wmscwucoonufia mam¢H.NH92mmmd

150

AmummHmm mam mummumv

 

ON.N OO.N OO.m OO.H a.mmN NN.N NN.N oo.N wwwmum>4
OO.N OO.O OO.HH HN.H O.OON OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOSZO
NO.N no.0 HH HN.H OON N O N m
muomem meHom wmm
NN.N NH.O ON.O OO.H O.OON ON.N NH.O OO.N OOOOSQ
No.H NO.N NH OO.H omN N m N HH
OO.N mm.m N OO.H OON m N N mH
OH.N om.w a mO.H ONN n O N oH
mH.N ON.w HH OO.H ONN N O N NH
mN.N ON.N o ON.H mON N O N 0N
NN.N NH.N oH mm.H OON N m N m
ON.N No.0 0 OO.H omN N m N O
ON.N NN.O mH OO.H ONH N N N N
mummum wwHHom Humm
mm>Hmo can aomuo
mmmuumo mo mwcsom AmmsoaH A.aEV mw¢ mo Nan Amhwvv muoom ouoom muoom umpabz
00H umm mumnHm mo onwavmv mmmconfia pom ustm3 mw< mmmnauHh uoHoo ammH uoHoo umm mHuuwo
mmsucH onwavm mhmpHm umm ammouwo

 

 

 

wmscHucoou-HH m4m¢H Nanmmm<

151

 

AmmpHmo Omm ammuu HHOV

 

mN.N ON.N OO.m ,ON.H m.MON NN.N oo.m oo.N mommum>¢
Amummwmm Ocm mummumv
ON.N ON.O O0.0 OO.H 0.0NN OO.N NO.N OO.N OOOOHO><
NN.N OO.O OO.OH OO.O 0.0NN ON.N OO.N OO.N OOOOHO><
NO.H NH.m mH No.0 mwN N O N mm
OO.N m0.0 O O0.0 OON m N N OO
HO.N ON.m w O0.0 NNN N N N Om
NH.N mH.O NH OO.H OON N N N ON
mummwmm whommumm
HN.N HH.N O0.0 HH.H O.NNN OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOOO><
ON.N mm.O O no.0 NON m m N on
mH.N ON.N m OO.H NNN N m N NN
mummum Ouowmumm
mmmoumu mo mwcsom Ammsocw A.EEV mmfl mo Nan Amhmwv muoom muoom mpoum Mamasz
ooH umm mNmaNM mo mumswmv mmmconJH umm unwwmz mmO mmmcahwm uoHou cme MOHoo umm mHuumo
manoaH mumsvm mmmnHm uwm mmwuumo

 

 

 

OOOOHOOOO--HH OHOOO OHOZOOOO

152

Amummem ch mummumv

 

 

OO.OO NH.OH NO.O O.HOO N.OOO O.NOO O.OOO OOOOHO>O
OO.OO OO.NH OO.O 0.0HO 0.0NO N.ONO O.OOO OOOOOO>O
NO.OO NH OOOO O NHO OHO OOO OOO OH
HO.OO NH OooO O ONO NNO OOO OOO OH
OO.OO NH OooO O OOO OHO OHO OOO O
mummwwm meHom wwm
NO.NO OO.OH OO.OH 0.000 O.OOO O.OOO O.OOO mommumpO
OO.OO OH OOOO 30H OH OOO NOO OOO ONO N
ON.NO OH Oooo 30H OH OOO OOO ONO OOO O
NO.OO OH OOOOOOOO HH OOO HOO OOO ONO HN
muwwum meHom mam
Ommm mmmuo oz fiuHB mm>HmU
ARV mOoo wwwuo ouoom Amazon OOV unwams ufimHm3 sham um umnEsz
OHOHO OOOHO OcHHOqu OOOHms OOHHHOO OOOHO new HHHM “OOHmz OHOOOO
mwcsom

 

ommH zH nmosaomm mm>A¢U 20mm <H<n mm<um¢u

NH mHm<H MHszmm¢

153

NOOONO oz HHOO

 

 

NO.OO O0.0H OO.OH O.HON H.OON N.OHO O.OOO OOOOumpO

Amumeom mam mummumv

OO.OO OO.OH OO.HH O.HON O.OON O.OOO 0.0NO OOOOump<

O0.00 OO.OH OO.NH O.HON O.NON O.ONO NOO OOOOOOOO
O0.00 OH OumOamum NH HON NON ONO NOO mm
mummwom Unowmhmm

OO.OO OO.OH ON.HH O.OON N.OON O.OOO O.ONO OOOOHO><
O0.00 OH Oumwcmum HH ONN oON oNO OOO OO
O0.00 OH Oumccmum 30H NH OON OON ONO OOO OO
O0.00 OH @000 30A cH ONO NNO OOO OOO NO
HH.OO OH Oumwcmum 30H NH OON OON OOO OOO Hm
N0.00 OH OumOcOum HH OON NNN OOO ooO OO
mhmwum whowwuwm

NNO mwou mwmuo muoom Amuse: OOO ufimeB ufime3 spam um pmnsbz

OHwHw mOwuo chHauw2_ uanmz OmHHO50 mmwum we: HHHM uanmz mHuumo

mvcsom

 

 

 

Hlllll‘ E

 

 

 

 

 

 

meCHucoouINH mqm<H NHszmm<

154

Amumemm Oam mumwumv

 

NH.N OO.N OO.OH ON.H O.OON OO.N O0.0 OO.N OOOONO><
OO.H OH.O OO.NH OH.H N.HNN OO.N OO.O OO.N OOOOHO>O
HO.N NN.O OH OH.H NON N O N MH
OO.H ON.O oH OH.H ONN N N N OH
NO.H N0.0 OH HH.H ONN N N N O
mummwmm OOHHom wax
ON.N OO.N N0.0 Hm.H O.NON NO.N NO.N oo.N mmwmpw><
OO.N O0.0 O OO.H mNN N m N N
Om.H oo.N HH OO.H MON m m N m
OO.N O0.0 N. ON.H OON n O N HN
mummum OmHHom Omm
mem mmmuo oz nuHa mm>Hmu
mmwuumo mo avaaom Ammsocw A.EEV ww< mo Own AmeOV muoom muoom muoom umnabz
00H yum mNmnHm mo upmanv mmwaon59 umm unwwmz mw< mmuqauHm noHoo Gama MOHoo uwm mHuuwu
moaocH upwawm mNmme ugh mmwoumo

 

 

 

OmscNuGOUnINH mAm¢H Nanmmm¢

 

155

 

Humane oz HHOO

 

ON.N NO.O N0.0 OO.H O.OON NO.N NH.O OO.N OOOOumpO
AOHOMHom mam mummumv
NO.N OO.O O0.0 OO.O N.OON O0.0 OO.O OO.N OmmmumpO
NO.N Hm.O oo.N No.0 0.00N O0.0 O0.0 oo.N mmwmum>¢
NO.N Hm.O N N0.0 OON m m N mm
mummHom Ouommumm
OO.N OO.O OO.O OO.O N.OON OO.O OO.O OO.N OOOOOO>O
OO.N O0.0 O Hw.o ONN n O N OO
ON.N O0.0 O ON.O OON m m N OO
OO.N mH.w a OH.H HNN m H N NO
HO.N H0.0 N oo.0 NON n O N HO
ON.N Ho.O N 00.H OON m m N Om
muwwum Ouomoumm
mmwouwo mo mOcsom ammsocH A.BEV mw< mo Nam Awkwwv whoom ououm mucom nonfiaz
ooH umm mawnHm mo muwsumv mmmaxUHsa umm uanma OOO mmmqauHm uoHou smug poHoo uam mHuuwo
mofiocH muwswm mNOpHm umm mmmouwu

 

i
4:2 3m

OmscHu

OOH. NHHHZONEO

156

O0.0

N mam mmHHom won

 

OO.H NO.N OO.H 00.H Ho.m O0.0 mmwwum><
oo.0 ON.H OO.N ON.H mo.H O0.0 O0.0 mmmmuw>¢
O0.0 O0.0 OO.N OO.H 00.H NH.O mH.O wO
O0.0 mo.H OO.H NO.H, O0.0 ON.m Ow.m NO
mm.o mm.H OO.N HO.H OO.H ON.O mw.O HO
No.0 +m.c OH.N Hm.H N0.0 O0.0 O0.0 Om
O0.0 mm.H OO.N OO.H OO.H O0.0 N0.0 mm
N0.0 OO.H mm.N mN.H mo.H oH.m MH.m Om
No.0 NO.H NO.N OO.H NH.H OH.m HN.m NN
N0.0 OH.H OO.N OO.H NN.H O0.0 HN.O ON Ouommumm
O0.0 ON.H HN.N NO.H OH.H mm.m mO.m mammum><
OO.H OO.H O0.0 OO.H OO.H O0.0 ON.O ON
O0.0 Ho.H NO.N ON.H N0.0 mm.m mo.m MN
Ho.H NO.H mm.N OO.H O0.0 HH.m OH.m NN
O0.0 HN.H mH.m HO.N OH.H Om.m O0.0 0N
OH.H NO.H ON.m NN.H OO.H mo.O oH.O OH
ON.O NH.N OH.N OH.H O0.0 O0.0 oH.m OH
OO.H HH.N NN.N NO.H ON.H N0.0 Om.m OH
O0.0 ON.H OO.N NO.H NH.H NN.O ON.O N
mo.H NN.N OO.N OO.H OH.H mo.O OH.O n OmHHom me
acom uwm cmmH :OmH ohmnHm wcHaom wchom umnabz A¢v HHsm mo hammoum
Hmuoa “usuo wcwuuso umum< muommm mHuumo

 

 

 

 

 

I
1|I1

 

‘HIH

NmmH AmQZDOm ZH HSUHmB wmv mmHm mBHH Q24.EHOH .mHa mo ZOHHHmomZOU A<UHmwmm

 

 

 

MH MHm<H MHanmm<

157

HOHOOOHOO OOO OOHHOO OOOV

 

No.0 NO.H NN.N mm.H OO.H Oo. O0.0 N0.0 mmmwuw>¢

Hm.o OO.H NO.N OO.H NO.H Oo. O0.0 O0.0 mommpm><

mo.o mm.H Om.N OO.H NO.H No. O0.0 ON.O NO

mw.o ON.O NO.N ON.H Hw.o No. OO.m ON.m 0O

O0.0 OO.H ON.N OO.H OH.H No. HO.m mO.m mm

Ho.H HN.H ON.N m.H OH.H m . N0.0 O0.0 om Ouomwuom

N0.0 HO.H OO.N ON.H OO.H OO. N0.0 O0.0 OOOOHO><

O0.0 OO.H OO.N OO.H OH.H mo. OH.m NN.O HN

Om.o NN.H OO.N OO.H ON.H mo. N0.0 Nm.O mH

no.0 NO.H ON.N ON.H oo.0 No. ON.O ON.O NH

ON.O mw.o 00.H oo.H oo.0 mo. Om.m OO.m OH

Ho.o N0.0 mO.N OO.H 00.H No. HN.O ON.O mH

O0.0 NO.H NO.N ON.H OO.H No. O0.0 N0.0 NH

O0.0 OO.H OO.N OO.H HH.H mo. O0.0 O0.0 HH

OO.H NO.N OO.N OH.H N0.0 mo. mm.m O0.0 O

ON.O Om.H HN.H 00.H HN.o Oo. mN.m O0.0 O

HN.H mN.m OO.N OO.H mN.H mo. mN.N Om.N m

O0.0 ON.H OH.N oo.0 OH.H Oo. ON.O mN.O N mmHHom vow

mcom umm smug ame mmmpHm mmoH wchom wchom umnasz 3
HMUOH Hmfiuo wfiwuufio Hmum4 whommm mHuqu Amv HHsm mo %CmOOHm

 

 

 

OmDaHHCOUIIMH MHm¢H MHQmem¢

 

 

 

 

 

158

HOHOOOOO: OOO OOHHom mev

 

 

 

 

OO.O HO.H OO.N HO.H OO.H OO. O0.0 OO.O OOOOOOOO
NO.O NO.H OO.N HO.H NH.H OO. NH.O HN.O OOOOH0><
OO.O OO.H OO.N OO.H OO.H HO. OO.O N0.0 OO
NO.O OO.H OO.N ON.H OO.H OO. OH.O OH.O OO
OO.O OO.H ON.N OO.H OH.H NO. HO.O OO.O OO
HO.H HN.H ON.N OO.H OH.H O,. NO.O OO.O OO
NO.O NO.H NO.N OO.H NH.H OO. OH.O HN.O NN
NO.O OH.H OO.N OO.H NN.H OO. OO.O HN.O ON OOOOOOOO
OO.O HH.N NO.N OO.H NO.H OO. O0.0 NO.O OOOOOO>O
ON.O NH.N OH.N OH.H OO.O OO. OO.O OH.O OH
OO.O OO.H OO.N OO.H HH.H OO. OO.O OO.O HH
OO.H HH.N NN.N NO.H ON.H NO. N0.0 O0.0 OH
O0.0 ON.H OO.N NO.H NH.H O ON.O ON.O N
OO.H NO.N OO.N OH.H O.O OO. O0.0 OO.O O
OO.H NN.N OO.N OO.H OH.H NO. OO.O OH.O O
ON.O OO.H HN.H OO.H HN. OO. OO.O O0.0 O
HN.H ON.O O.N OO.H ON.H OO. ON.N OO.N O
OO.O ON.H OH.N O0.0 OH.H OO. ON.O ON.O N OOHHom OOO
mcom “mm cme cme mmwnHm mmoH mchom mchom umnEpz mo>Hmo Ooh mwmuo
HOOOH umOOO OOHOOOO OOOOO upomom «Huumo
.lflf. LHHuunnuuunnflflunnuunuununfl1t
mmmmmmmmmunMH MAmOH NHozmmm<

159

 

Ouowmumm Ocm OoHHom OQMV

 

OO.O ON.H OO.N HO.H OO.H OO. OO.O OO.O OOOOOO>O

OO.O OO.H ON.N OO.H OO.O OO. OH.O ON.O OOOOOO><

OO.O OO.O OO.N OO.H OO.H NO. NH.O OH.O O

OO.O OO.H OO.H NO.H OO.O HH. ON.O OO.O NO

OO.O OO.H OO.N OO.H NO.H NO. OO.O ON.O NO

OO.O OO.H OO.N HO.H OO.H OO. ON.O O0.0 HO

OO.O ON.O NO.N ON.H HO.O NO. OO.O .ON.O OO

NO.O OO.O OH.N HO.H NO.O O OO.O OO.O OO OOOOONO:

O0.0 ON.H OO.N NO.H OH.H OO. O0.0 O0.0 OOOOOO>O

OO.H OO.H OO.O OO.H OO.H OO. OO.O ON.O ON

OO.O HO.H NO.N ON.H NO.O NO. OO.O OO.O ON

HO.H NO.H OO.N OO.H OO.O OO. HH.O OH.O NN

OO.O OO.H OO.N OO.H OH.H OO. OH.O NN.O HN

OO.O HN.H OH.O HO.N OH.H OO. OO.O OO.O ON

OO.O NN.H OO.N OO.H ON.H OO. N0.0 NO.O OH

OO.O NO.H ON.N ON.H OO.O NO. ON.O OO.O NH

ON.O OO.O OO.H OO.H OO.O OO. OO.O OO.O OH

OH.H NO.H ON.O NO. OO.H HO. OO.O OH.O OH

HO.O NO.O OO.N OO.H OO.H NO. HN.O ON.O OH

OO.O NO.H NO.N ON.H OO.H NO. O0.0 N0.0 NH OOHHON OOO

mcom umm cmmH ammH mwmnHm mmoH wchom mchom umpfisz mem mwmpo
Hmuoa umsuo mcHuuno umuw¢ muommm mHuumu oz fiuHS mm>Hmo

 

 

 

OmscHuCOUIuMH mamfiH NHszmm<

160

Awuommpmm Ocm OmHHom Oomv

 

ON.O OO.H OO.H OO.O OO.H OO. OO.O OH.O OOOEOOO
0N.0 OO.H mO.H No.0 H0.0 m0. NO.m OO.m mmmwum><
NO.0 HH.H NO.H ON.0 mN.0 N0. ON.m NN.m m

0O.o NN.H OO.H 0.0 0w.0 O0. Hm.m mm.m 0m

Om.0 ON.H OO.H 00.0 ON.O O0. mO.m 0O.m ON

ON.O m0.H ON.N ON.H OO.H m0. OH.O OH.O 0O

H0.0 O0.0 NH.N m0.H OH.H O0. N0.0 O0.0 Om

O0.0 00.0 NN.H 0N.0 wo.0 m0. Hm.m m.m mm Ouowmumm
ON.O OO.H oc.N O0.0 OH.H m0. Nm.O Nm.O mammum><
NN.0 ON.H Nm.H O0.0 N0.0 m0. 00.m mm.m OH

O0.0 Hm.H mO.H HN.0 No.0 m0. mm.m HO.m 0H

O0.0 m0.H oo.N m0.H No.0 O0. ON.O mw.O 0

N0.0 OO.H ON.H H0.0 O0.0 N0. N0.m 00.m O

NN.0 mm.H m0.H an. NO.H m0. N0.0 NH.O O

O0.0 Om.H mm.N OH.H 0H.H m0. N0.0 N0.0 HH

O0.0 Nm.H OO.H OO.- Oc.H Oc. N0.m O0.m N

H0.0 OO.H ON.N Nm.H um.H O0. mm.n 0m.m m

0c.0 HO.H NN.N OH.H m0.H m0. M0.0 O0.0 O

NN.O oH.H mO.N wo.0 HO.H 0H. O0.0 O0.0 m OmHHom com
Odom umm cmmH ammH onpHm mmoH mchom mchom umnflzm Amv HHsm mo Nammoum

HOuoH Hofiuo mcHuuzo umum¢ muomwm mHuumU

 

OOOH 6958 OH 5852 N3 OOHO HHHHHH 93. ES .HHNO mo 2338.28 .2335

OH adde Nanmmm¢

 

l ll lull-‘1' [will ‘1 '«l 1'! III. '1 I

 

 

, A

161

 

Awuommumm Orm OeHHoa mmv
ON.O ON.H OO.N OO.H OO.H OO. H0.0 O0.0 OOOOuo><
O0.0 HH.H ON.H Om.0 N0.0 O0. mO.m mm.m mmwmum>¢
Nm.0 mN.H mm.H O0.0 O0.0 O0. mm.m mO.m Nm
O0.0 OO.H 0N.H N0.0 m0.0 N0. ON.O ON.N HO
NN.0 00.H NO.H N0.0 m0.H m0. mN.m Hw.m mm
H0.0 ON.H NO.N N0.H 00.H m0. O0.m H0.0 Om
O0.0 OO.H OO.H u.0 0m.0 m0. mm.m Om.m NO
O0.0 0H.H mO.H ON.O ON.O m0. Nm.m Nm.m OO
m0.0 m0.0 MO.H N0.0 HN.O O0. mN.N mm.N m Ouommuwm
O.O NO.H ON.N OH.H OH.H OO. N0.0 H0.0 OOOOOOOO
O0.0 00.0 OO.H 00.0 O0.0 O0. 00.m O0.m NN
HN.0 NO.H NO.N OO.H OO.H m0. O0.0 m0.0 NH
Om.0 OO.H Hm.N NN.H OO.H m0. O0.0 m0.0 OH
O0.0 mO.H NN.N mN.H O0.0 O0. H0.0 O0.0 HN
0N.0 ON.H oo.N ON.O ON.H O0. Om.m 00.0 ON
H0.0 O0.0 OO.H O0.0 0N.0 mo. mN.N ON.N mH
mN.0 mm.H HO.N ON.H Hm.H O0. N0.0 O0.0 N
OO.H OO.H NO.N HO.H ON.H O0. 0O.m O0.0 H
O0.0 Om.H HO.N 00.0 NO.H HH. m0.0 ON.O mH
O0.0 Nm.H O0.m OO.H OO.H N0. mm.m Nm.m ON OoHHom Omm
mcom umm cmmH cmmH mmwnHm mmoH wchom mchom HOOESZ : o Namoou
Hmuoa umSuo wcHuuso umum¢ muommm mHuumo NHV HH m m c m

 

 

OmszHucoo--OH MHOOH anzmmm<

 

 

 

. I o n o a c o u a o o . ~ c a c n n a

o n u c O u . u . O u a . o a o o 1 a I

o n a a n O I o n u 1 a n a a g a c a I

a o o I O 1 o u c . I o o o o o I a n c I
c I O I o a o a O o v v o o o I I o 0 o .

I c 0 V. o o u a h c v o a o o O o c o a

 

 

   

162

Awnommumz cam mmflflom mmuv

 

NN.O Nm.H mo.~ am.o ¢o.H no. no.¢ ~H.¢ mommuo>«
oo.0 wH.H Nm.H om.o Hm.o do. mo.m m©.m mummum><
mm.o mN.H mm.H mc.o qo.o ¢o. mm.m m¢.m mm
NN.O ao.H mm.H No.0 mo.H mo. mn.m Hw.m om
Ho.o mN.H NO.N NO.H 00.H mo. mm.m Ho.q mm
00.0 NN.H ¢w.H dw.o ow.o co. Hm.m mm.m om
mm.o qN.H mo.H om.o mn.o do. m¢.m o¢.m om
oo.0 OH.H mm.H mn.o mn.o mo. Nm.m sm.m ed
«w.o mo.H mN.N ON.H 00.H mo. mH.q ma.¢ m¢ wuowmumm
on.o Nq.H 0H.N «o.H MH.H mo. ¢m.q mm.¢ mwmmpe><
0.0 m¢.H NN.N m~.H oo.0 mo. Hm.¢ om.q an
05.0 cN.H oo.N mn.o mN.H ¢o. om.m oo.q om
He.o mm.o «m.H dw.o 05.0 no. mn.~ o~.~ MH
0.0 mm.H oo.N mo.H no.0 mo. mn.q mw.¢ m
N0.0 om.~ on.H Hm.o mw.o No. hm.m mm.m o
¢m.o hm.H qo.m om.H cm.H No. mm.m nm.m qu
NN.O mm.H mm.H .w.o NO.H mo. no.¢ ~H.¢ m
Hw.o qm.H ON.N Nm.H mm.H ¢o. mm.m om.m m
m.o Hw.H NN.N «H.H mo.H mo. mo.¢ wo.¢ q
u.o mH.H mq.~ mm.o Hm.H oH. om.q oo.¢ m
oo.0 hm.H mw.a mw.o ¢o.H qo. Nm.m om.m N onHom wma
0com umm swag cmmq mxm Hm mmoA mcficom wcwcom nmnasz
kuoa umsuo p wcwuuso umumd mnommm mauumu mmpfimo wmm mmwuu

 

 

wmscfluGOUuu¢H mqm¢H Nanmmm<

fl

163

 

A0uowmpom 000 000000 0000

 

00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.H 00. 00.0 00.0 mmmmum><

00.0 00.H 00.0 N0.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 mommum>0

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 “0.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 mm

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 0

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00. «0.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 mm 00000000

00.0 00.H NH.N 00.H HH.H 00. 00.0 00.0 mowmum><

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 «N

00.0 N0.H 00.0 00.H 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

«0.0 0N.H N0.H 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 Hq.~ 00.0 N0.H 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00. h

00.H 00.H 50.0 00.H 00.H 00. 00.0 00.0 0 000000 000

mcom “mm cmmq Emma 933m 304 wagon waflcom “unsung 0.0mm mmmuu
#309 .0950 @5390 umum< «woman @3qu oz :33 mo>Hmo

 

 

Um saw ucoo .. .. «H ”.3de NHQZMEM4

 

 

 

 

 

il’
I I

 

164

Awuommuom 0am vaHOm wmmv

 

00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00. 50.0 00.0 000000><
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 50.0 000000>0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
05.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 50.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
05.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
00.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00 00000000
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 000000>0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 05.0 55.0 00
00.0 50.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 50. 00.0 00.0 00
00.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 50.0 00.0 5
00.0 00.0 00.0 55.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00
00.0 00.0 50.0 05.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 50 000000 000
mcom 000 0000 0000 000000 0000 000000 m0000m umpE:z

00009 nmsuo MG0uuso umum< muowmm mHuumU Amv HHDm mo hamwoum

 

0000 0000000 zH 000003 000 0000 0000 020.0000 .000 00 20000000200 00000000

mH made Nanwmm¢

165

000000000 000 000000 000V

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 000000><

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00000030

00.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 05.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00

m5.o 05.0 mm.~ 00.0 00.0 co. ma.m 00.m on

00.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 mo. 05.0 M5.0 on

00.0 05.0 «5.0 00.0 50.0 mo. 00.m 50.m 00

00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 50

05.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mo. 00.m 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «o. 00.0 00.0 cm 00000000

50.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 5~.0 000000>0

00.0 05.0 0~.N 00.0 00.0 mo. 00.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 Nm.m 00.0 50.0 00. 0m.m 00.0 m

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0. 00.0 «0.0 o

00.0 mm.0 0m.N 00.0 00.0 No. m0.m 5H.m 0

00.0 00.0 50.0 05.0 00.0 00. 50.0 00.0 00

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 00. 00.0 00.0 on

00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 me. 00.0 00.0 0

No.0 N0.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 o 00.0 «0.0 0

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 o 00.0 00.0 N 000000 000

0:00 00.0 0000 000.0 0.00000 0000 000080 000000 000050 a 0 000090
Hmuoa 00:00 wc0uuso umumd muowmm 000000 Adv 00 m m m

 

 

 

wusCHuCOUIImH made Nanmmm¢

 

 

 

 

I
’ \

16

Awuommumm mam onHom wumv

 

m0.0 mm.H mN.N ¢m.H NN.H qo. ww.m Nm.m mommuo><
Hm.o mm.H mm.N «m.H 00.H «o. mq.¢ mm.¢ mummum><
mw.o om.H nm.~ mq.H ¢H.H mo. on.¢ mn.¢ om

Nw.o mN.H NH.N qm.H w~.o «o. o~.¢ «N.q m

mm.o oq.H on.~ mm.H HN.H ¢o. OH.m dH.m mm

05.0 wH.H ¢o.H no.H mw.o «o. mm.m Nm.m ¢q

mn.o oo.0 «H.N NN.H No.0 mo. Ho.m qo.m cm

on.o mN.H om.N oq.H OH.H oo. mH.m mH.m mm wuomoum:
HO.H on.H mo.m 00.H om.H ¢o. om.m ¢w.m mommua><
mo.H nm.~ mm.~ NN.H ¢~.H no. om.o m¢.o HH

mo.H NO.H Hm.m mm.H wo.H mo. HN.© om.o ma

oo.0 Ho.H mm.N mm.H NN.H do. om.m m¢.m m

00.H HH.N mm.m NN.H mm.H co. mm.o H0.0 0H

mo.H oo.N nm.m an.H mm.H mo. Nq.o om.o NH

oa.o mm.H oa.m mm.H n¢.H mo. me.m mm.m om

HH.H on.H mm.w ¢o.H o~.H mo. ow.m mw.m m

NO.H no.0 mm.N mn.H mN.H o Nm.¢ uo.q ¢

ww.o mo.a Nm.m mm.H ma.o o ww.q ww.q N onHom wmm
«com umm cwmq cwm hmfiflm mmoa wwwaom wchom umnESZ mm>Hmu vmm mmmuo

Hmuoa uwsuo wsfluuso umum¢ muommm mHuuwo

 

 

 

vaCMucoouumH mqm<H Nanmmm<

 

 

167

 

Awuomouom can wmfiaom ummv

 

ww.o wN.H H¢.N mm.H OO.H do. sm.¢ Ho.¢ mommuo><

Nw.o no.0 ¢N.~ Hm.H no.0 «o. mo.q so.q mmmwpmp<

aw.o 0N.H mm.m mm.H OO.H no. Hm.q om.¢ mm

65.0 q~.o 00.H wo.H aw.o mo. o¢.m ®¢.m ac

m0.0 95.0 NN.H mH.H hm.o mo. ¢H.m 5H.m o¢

oo.0 mN.H mH.m ON.H oq.H Ho. m¢.m o¢.m m

05.0 ON.O NO.N mH.H cm.o mo. Hm.m om.m m

au.o HO.H mN.N mm.H no.0 No. wH.q om.¢ om wpomuuoz

qm.o mm.H mm.~ o¢.H mH.H ¢o. HH.m mH.m mmmmuo><

mm.o HN.H mN.N mm.H oo.0 no. mo.¢ Ho.m mH

ma.o oo.H mw.~ om.H oq.H do. n¢.m Hm.m u

mw.o 00.H om.~ OH.H OH.H No. mn.¢ nu.¢ ma

oa.o oo.H cm.N ¢m.H OO.H No. om.m Nm.m o

00.H mm.H Hm.~ H¢.H OH.H No. mH.m nfl.m m

Hm.o mm.o -.m HN.H Hm.H mo. 5H.m Nm.m Hm coHHom mm“

maom umm cmoq swag 0%mnwm mmoq wwwcom mewcom umnasz vmmm ammuu
Hmuoa umsuo wcwuusu umumd muommm mfiuuwo oz SuHB_mm>Hmo

 

 

E

voscfluaOUuumH uAm<H Xanmmm4

ill!
ll

APPENDIX TABLE 16

PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF 9TH, 10TH AND 11TH RIBS

(BY PERCENTAGE) 1957

-_—~
I

168

 

11 A Cattle Total
Bu ( > Progeny Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red P011ed 5 19.15 46.10 36.04 16.72
7 21.41 49.52 33.65 16.83
10 20.20 46.63 35.52 17.51
14 18.63 41.18 42.55 15.49
15 23.93 53.77 26.56 19.51
20 21.65 58.53 22.20 17.61
22 18.99 49.03 30.43 19.57
23 20.76 52.40 25.57 21.52
24 24.00 52.8 27.65 18.43
Averages 20.99 49.91 31.31 18.05
Hereford 26 25.90 56.90 25.05 17.41
27 21.50 49.33 32.05 17.66
34 21.25 46.39 35.09 17.93
35 20.71 53.06 27.42 19.33
36 21.53 53.96 23.27 22.77
41 21.74 _50.93 28.78 19.25
47 21.76 48.19 26.68 22.28
48 23.87 58.23 20.29 21.00
Averages 22.25 51.83 27.64 19.44
Averages 21.58 50.89 29.70 18.61

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPENDIX TABLE 16--Continued

169

 

 

 

Cattle Total

BUII (B) Progeny) Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 2 24.84 45.51 35.49 17.74
3 17.57 8.8 44.00 16.48
4 18.25 43.96 34.96 19.54

6 15.65 37.05 43.52 18.88
11 19.54 46.65 35.03 16.90

12 22.76 50.76 29.98 18.82

13 23.36 56.77 20.33 21.26

16 24.59 54.37 22.68 20.76

17 23.02 53.02 23.72 21.63

19 24.39 53.66 25.81 19.51
21 22.22 49.04 32.18 17.24

Averages 21.09 47.26 32.66 18.66
Hereford 30 20.73 49.09 31.09 18.36
33 19.54 48.67 35.17 15.81

40 21.60 55.20 20.80 22.13

42 21.70 50.21 29.57 19.79

Averages 20.86 50.51 29.86 18.61
Averages 21.14 48.17 31.91 18.70

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPENDIX TABLE 16--Continued

 

170

 

Cattle Total

Creep Fed Calves Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 2 24.84 45.51 35.49 17.74
3 17.57 8.8 44.00 16.48
4 18.25 43.96 34.96 19.54

5 19.15 46.10 36.04 16.72

6 15.65 37.05 43.52 18.88
7 21.41 49.52 33.65 16.83

10 20.20 46.63 35.52 17.51
11 19.54 46.65 35.03 16.90

14 18.63 41.18 42.55 15.49

Averages 19.38 43.84 38.22 17.21
Hereford 26 25.90 56.90 25.05 17.41
27 21.50 49.33 32.05 17.66

30 20.73 49.09 31.09 18.36

33 19.54 48.67 35.17 15.81

34 21.25 46.39 35.09 17.93

35 20.71 53.06 27.42 19.33

Averages 21.48 50.48 31.09 17.66
Averages 20.18 46.30 35.37 17.41

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPENDIX TABLE 1 6 - ~Con t inn ed

171

 

 

Calves with No Cattle Total
Creep Feed Number nibeve Lean Fat Bone

Red Polled 12 22.76 50.76 29.98 18.82
13 23.36 56.77 20.33 21.26
15 23.93 53.77 26.56 19.51
16 24.59 54.37 22.68 20.76
17 23.02 53.02 23.72 21.63
19 24.39 53.66 25.81 19.51
20 21.65 58.53 22.20 17.61
21 22.22 49.04 32.18 17.24
22 18.99 49.03 30.43 19.57
23 20.76 52.40 25.57 21.52
24 24.00 52.87 27.65 18.43

Averages 22.68 53.19 26.39 19.38

Hereford 36 21.53 53.96 23.27 22.77
40 21.60 55.20 20.80 22.13
41 21.74 50.93 28.78 19.25
42 21.70 50.21 29.57 19.79
47 21.76 48.19 26.68 22.28
48 23.87 58.23 20.29 21.00

Averages 21.98 52.72 25.06 21.04

Averages 22.46 52.91 25.92 20.09

(Red Polled and Hereford)

 

APPENDIX TABLE 17

PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF 9TH, 10TH.AND 11TH RIBS

(BY PERCENTAGE) 1958

172

 

 

Cattle Total

BUII (H) Progeny Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 3 32.83 54.13 25.87 17.83
4 23.08 47.44 34.40 17.09

5 25.60 50.09 34.14 15.03

2 26.26 47.73 34.60 16.67

11 26.04 50.98 29.32 18.60

8 25.97 47.33 32.77 18.69

6 21.30 44.11 39.85 15.54

9 20.08 41.41 40.99 16.56

10 25.48 45.15 36.29 17.73

14 24.68 48.85 32.06 18.32

Averages 25.17 47.83 33.87 17.16
Hereford 33 29.17 52.68 26.78 19.05
34 28.08 53.45 23.15 22.41
49 25.84 54.54 24.64 20.10

26 21.49 47.28 35.53 16.04
30 22.54 46.20 35.77 16.90

35 22.32 44.95 33.94 20.49

Averages 24.93 50.14 29.59 19.18
Averages 25.12 48.54 32.44 17.80

(Red Polled and Hereford)

 

APPENDIX TABLE 17--Continued

173

 

 

 

Cattle Total
11 P e 1

Bu (L) rogely Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 24 28.68 56.61 25.51 17.50
19 29.96 50.84 28.69 18.14

1 22.26 50.71 29.86 18.37

7 26.84 51.43 31.35 15.98
13 25.36 55.80 21.01 22.10
20 31.25 50.00 31.50 17.50

21 21.71 48.68 31.36 8.8
15 22.17 49.25 31.77 18.34

17 23.43 46.73 36.57 16.03

22 27.63 47.37 29.60 21.71
Averages 25.85 50.79 29.93 18.14
Hereford 8 24.23 55.63 21.50 21.50
46 23.14 45.40 32.64 20.47

47 23.67 49.11 31.06 18.93

36 24.94 51.62 31.92~ 15.21
39 27.56 51.71 28.61 18.90
41 22.07 ' 45.21 37.23 17.02
32 27.40 46.36 35.86 16.62
Averages 24.64 49.29 31.44 18.13
Averages 25.43 50.12 30.62 18.27

(Red Polled and Hereford)

oooooooooo

..........

oooooooooo

aaaaaaaaaa

ooooooo

.......

.......

u ‘51" ’IIIII-ll.’

APPENDIX TABLE

l7--Continued

174

 

 

 

Cattle Total

Creep Fed Calves Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 2 26.26 47.73 34.60 16.67
3 32.83 54.13 25.87 17.83

4 23.08 47.44 34.40 1 .09

5 25.60 50.09 34.14 15.03

8 25.97 47.33 32.77 18.69
24 28.68 56.51 25.51 17.50
6 21.30 44.11 39.85 15.54

9 20.08 41.41 40.99 16.56
13 25.36 55.80 21.01 22.10

20 31.25 50.00 31.50 17.50

21 21.71 48.68 31.36 18.86

Averages 25.74 49.20 32.34 17.31
Iereford 49 25.84 54.54 24.64 20.10
46 23.14 45.40 32.64 20.47

26 21.49 47.28 35.53 16.04
30 22.54 46.20 35.77 16.98

36 24.94 51.62 31.92 15.21

39 27.56 51.71 28.61 18.90

32 27.40 46.36 35.86 16.32

Averages 24.66 49.32 31.98 17.89
Averages L 25.24 49.27 32.04 17.47

(Red Polled and Hereford)

ooooooooooo

...........

ooooooooooo

ooooooo

ooooooo

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX TABLE 17--Continued

 

175

 

 

 

Calves with No Cattle Total
Creep Feed Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 1 22.26 50.71 29.86 18.37
7 26.84 51.43 31.35 15.98
11 26.04 50.98 29.32 18.60
19 29.96 50.84 26.69 18.14
10 25.48 45.15 36.29 17.73
14 24.68 8.85 32.06 18.32
15 22.17 49.25 31.77 8.3
17 23.48 46.73 36.57 16.03
22 27.63 47.37 29.60 21.71
Averages 25.28 49.43 31.66 17.99
Hereford 33 29.17 52.68 23.78 19.05
34 28.08 53.45 23.15 22.41
8 24.23 55.63 21.50 21.50
47 23.67 49.11 31.06 18.93
35 22.32 44.95 3.94 20.49
41 22.07 45.21 37.23 17.02
Averages 24.85 50.00 28.90 19.94
Averages 25.12 49.50 30.84 18.66

(Red Polled and Hereford)

 

II‘. I1. I gtl ltnxl
In“
Ill

.........

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

000000

oooooo

......

 

 

APPENDIX TABLE 18

PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF 9T1, 10TH AND 11TH R 83

(BY PERCENTAGE) 1959

176

 

 

 

Cattle Total

Bull (H) Progeny Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 17 23.54 50.31 31.69 16.77
10 23.90 50.68 31.92 16.49

7 27.04 52.27 29.04 17.97

19 26.84 56.07 26.68 16.45

11 19.28 46.03 36.86 16.02

15 23.06 47.38 34.80 17.40

Averages 23.96 50.58 31.78 16.80
Hereford 8 25.64 58.24 23.63 17.95
48 23.70 54.91 21.39 21.96
34 23.35 54.31 25.13 19.80

44 22.19 49.49 30.10 19.39

33 21.93 51.10 28.29 19.52

Averages 23.42 53.8 25.76 19.44
Averages 23.75 51.72 29.50 17.82

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPENDIX TABLE

8--Continued

177

 

 

 

Cattle Total

Bull (L) Progeny Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 2 19.88 47.54 34.43 18.03
4 25.41 60.57 18.70 20.73

3 22.13 50.26 30.19 19.04

20 25.65 54.10 28.79 15.71

21 28.93 62.64 18.96 17.43

9 21.28 48.55 30.56 20.50

6 19.16 48.83 37.55 17.24

5 23.39 51.93 29.65 17.68

13 19.16 45.71 34.13 18.96

Averages 22.77 51.80 29.22 18.41
Hereford 36 22.14 54.28 24.05 21.19
81 23.59 56.74 19.66 22.19

27 23.54 53.70 28.40 17.12

46 17.98 54.26 24.92 19.87

30 24.10 54.33 27.48 17.55

26 21.19 49.32 34.30 15.22

39 18.40 50.00 29.72 19.34

Averages 21.76 53.00 27.55 18.52
Averages 22.43 52.26 28.39 18.31

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPENDIX TABLE 18--Continued

178

 

 

 

Cattle Total

Creep Fed Calves Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone
Red Polled 2 19.88 47.54 34.43 18.03
4 25.41 60.57 18.70 20.73
3 22.13 50.26 30.19 19.04

20 25.65 54.10 28.79 15.71

17 23.54 50.31 31.69 16.77

10 23.90 50.68 31.92 16.49

5 23.39 51.93 29.65 17.68
19 26.84 56.07 26.68 16.45

11 19.28 46.03 36.86 16.02

Averages 23.29 51.88 30.14 17.29
Hereford 26 21.19 49.32 34.30 15.22
34 23.35 54.31 25.13 19.80

44 22.19 49.49 30.10 19.39
27 23.54 53.70 28.40 17.12
39 18.40 50.00 29.72 19.34

30 24.10 54.33 27.48 17.55

Averages 22.07 51.88 29.36 17.88
Averages 22.93 51.88 29.89 17.48

(Red Polled and Hereford)

APPEHDIX TABLE 18--Continued

179

 

Calves with No Cattle Total
Creep Feed Number Ribeye Lean Fat Bone

Red Polled 21 28.93 62.64 18.96 17.43
9 21.28 48.55 30.56 20.50
6 19.16 44.83 37.55 17.24
15 23.06 47.38 34.80 17.40
7 27.04 52.27 29.04 17.97
13 19.16 45.71 34.13 18.96
Averages 23.11 50.29 30.68 18.25
Hereford 36 22.14 54.28 24.05 21.19
8 23.59 56.74 19.66 22.19
82 25.64 58.24 23.63 17.95
46 23.70 54.91 21.39 21.96
33 21.93 51.10 28.29 19.52
Averages 22.85 55.04 23.83 20.15
Averages 22.99 52.28 27.76 19.09

(Red Polled and Hereford

 

180

m¢.¢n
eN.H
Nn.¢n
mo.H

om.qn
mN.H

2.3.
$4
8;:
cm;

mN.¢n
mo.H

mmmwuo>4

AOHSumHoEV
whommumm was meHom com
Auomuuwm uoaumv
wuomonom wow wmaaom mom

 

 

c¢.qn NH.mn No.¢n mN.mn munumfloz
Nm.H Nw.o oa.H mw.o uomuuxm umsum
Ne oq mm on panama ofluumo
whomwuom
NH.¢N «H.mm om.mn mm.¢n Ho.mw Nm.mo mN.o~ m¢.¢n Nm.mb mo.Nn Hm.¢m muoumfioz
w.o mn.o mw.o NN.O NN.O mN.N 00.H mN.N mN.N mm.m no.0 uomuuxm uw£um
HN ma NH ma ma NH HH 0 d m N Hananz «Huumo
meHom won
nmv 443m
AoHSumHozv

whommumm com meHom wmm
Auomuumm umzumv
wuowmnom wow meHom wmm

 

0N.mn Nm.mn mq.¢n Nm.mn NH.¢N ww.Hn Nm.mn no.5“ ouSumNoE

ow.o em.H om.H NO.H cm.H m¢.N mo.H mo.H oomuuxm umfium

we we ad mm mm «m 5N 0N panama oHuumo
wuommmom

«N.qn oo.N“ om.wn mo.mh om.¢m H¢.Nn Nm.mn ow.¢n mm
mn.o on.o ¢H.H HO.H mH.H NH.m NN.N mo.N mm.
«N mN NN 0N ma ¢H ca n m

.qn mnoumfioz

N uownuxm uoaum

won853 mauumo
vmaaom wma

 

av .38

 

 

33 685835 53302 92 SEE mafia

ma mam<H MHszmm<

DU

 

 

wwscfiucoouuma uAm<H Manmmm4

 

 

 

 

4m.4n 0443004OZV
wuowouwz 0cm onHom 00M
OO.H Auomuuum uwfiumv
44444440 444 444444 440
55.45 04.05 45.05 04.45 04.45 44.05 40.05 44444442
54.4 00.0 40.4 40.4 00.4 40.0 50.4 4444440 44440
04 54 44 44 04 00 44444z 444440
04044443
44.45 44.45 04.45 00.05 44.45 00.05 44.05 00.05 00.45 00.45 40.05 40.00 44444442
40.0 05.0 05.0 44.4 00.0 40.4 05.0 00.0 40.0 04.4 05.0 04.4 4444440 44440
44 04 44 44 04 04 54 04 04 04 44 444440 444440
044444 440
44044440 oz
04.45 4444444440
UHOmmHmS USN flmHHOm ”00.5.44
mo.4 auumuuxm nosumv
whomoumm Ucw wmaaom 00%
54.45 00.45 40.45 54.05 40.05 50.55 44444442
00.4 40.4 04.4 04.4 00.0 00.4 00.4 4444440 44440
00 40 00 00 54 04 444442 444440
040mmumm
04.45 44.45 04.05 40.05 00.45 00.45 00.45 00.05 00.45 40.45 4444444:
00.4 54.0 00.4 44.4 00.4 05.4 00.4 04.4 00.0 00.0 4444440 44440
44 44 04 5 0 0 4 0 4 444442 444440
444444 440
440444>« 00>440 004 40000

g

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON Mdde NHDzmmm¢

00.40 0045004030
04004443 004 00040m 04m
40.H Auomuunm Mogumv
0400444m 0am wmaaom 04%
00.00 00.40 40.00 00.00 40.00 00.00 00.00 40.00 04500402
00.4 00.4 00.4 04.4 44.4 00.0 40.4 05.0 4444444 44440
Nm 40 0m 0m 04 0d 00 440854 444400
0400044m
00.00 00.00 00.00 N4.m0 00.00 00.00 0H.m0 00.00 N0.40 00.00 40.00 44540402
00.H m0.0 mH.N 00.H mm.N 00.H OH.H Hm.H 00.N 00.0 N0.0 uomuumm Hmsum
NN 0H ma 4N 0N m4 0 4 0H 0N 400853 444400
onHom 00%
A40 4400
00.00 0045004020
44444440 444 444444 440
00.H Auomuuxm Hmnumv
040M440: 0:0 wmafiom 04%
40.00 00.00 40.00 04.40 m0.m0 00.00 N0.40 045404o2
00.4 00.H 00.4 m0.N 00.4 00.0 m0.0 uomuumm umfium
mm m 0N 00 00 mm 440853 444440
04000442
00.40 00.00 00.40 40.00 0m.N0 00.00 0m.40 00.00 N0.00 00.00 00.00 04940402
u.H 00.H 00.H 00.H CH.¢ 0m.H 00.H 00.H mm.H OH.H 00.H uomuuwm Hmflum
00 OH 0 0 m HH N m 0 m 403553 mauumo
onHom 00M
04m040>4 Amv 4400
mmofi HQ¢HZMOMMM MdemHOE_DZ<.HUdM NH MHSHM

 

 

 

¢Oodh AOHSumflOEV
04004440 004 044404 04%
04.4 44444444 444440
flHOMGHmE Ufim UQHHOW UOM
00.40 44.40 00.40 00.40 40.00 00.00 «0.40 44040408
04.4 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 4444444 44444
44 mm 44 04 40 mm 44444z 444444
04040443
40.44 04.04 00.44 44.04 00.44 04.44 40.04 00.44 00.44 40.44 44444444
40.4 40.0 04.4 04.4 00.4 40.4 40.0 00.4 40.4 00.4 4444444 44444
44 04 04 44 04 04 44 4 4 444442 444440
044404 044
40400 on
00.40 0445404020
04044440 004 044404 044
00.4 44444444 444440
0404444m 044 044404 04%
00.40 00.40 40.00 40.00 40.00 04.40 04.00 00.00 44044402
00.4 00.4 0N.4 44.0 40.4 00.0 00.4 04.4 4444440 44440
mm 0m 0m 00 00 04 04 444802 444440
whommumm
00.40 40.40 00.40 44.00 40.40 00.N0 44.00 00.00 N0.40 00.40 00.40 «0.00 44044402
00.4 mm.N 00.4 04.4 00.4 04.4 N0.0 40.4 00.4 04.4 00.4 00.4 4444440 44:44
40 ON 04 0 0 4m 0 0 4 0 N 444802 444440
044404 044
4404443. 0444.440 044 4448.0

 

 

0454444001nON MAde Manmmm¢

 

..
..

a. '0 £

.. .. .1.

1

y

.5 Q. <‘ C. 1‘

u. .. -. .. .L

I
.- ‘O O. I.
O. I. U. I.
‘. ~l O. I.

 

 

 

mn.¢n
mo.H
Nm.¢n
mo.o

Ho.¢n
MH.H

~¢.qn
mo.o

mm.mh
NH.H

AmHSumHozv
whomwum: van meHom mom
Auomuuxm umsumv
whommumm mam meHom wmm
Nm.mn H~.mn HH.¢~ mo.mn mm.mn No.mn mH.¢n undumfloz
mm.H «N.H nq.o mm.o mw.o m0.0 o~.H uomnuum umsum

 

mm ow om oq 5N Hm om “moans mfluumo
mnemoumz
om.qn om.¢~ ow.¢~ oo.mn mm.ms ~¢.¢~ om.¢~ H~.m~ w~.¢n muaumfloz
qH.H mH.H om.fi Nm.o NN.H dd.“ Nm.H m0.0 Hw.o “omuuxm “exam
ma m o a Hm ON n q N “weasz mfiuuw

 

mmflfiom you
Aqv game

AoHSUmHoEV
wpowmum: wan woaaom wax
Auomuuxm nonumV
muommumm cum meHom cam

HN.¢~ mm.mn oo.mm mN.mn Ho.¢n
no.0 om.o m~.H oo.0 qn.o
mm dd «m ad Nw

0H.m~ mm mm aw.¢n Hm.on m.mn mm.¢~
mm.~ ¢o.o mn.o oo.0 ¢O.H ON.H
ma HH me s OH NH

musumfloz
uomnumm umfium
“anasz mfiuumo

mmmmmmmm.
musumfloz
uomuuwm umaum
umnasz mHuumo

mmHHom mmm

 

3.5 San

 

 

mmofi .mmo«wzmummm mabamHoz az4 Hodmaxm mmmam

HN mqmda NHQmem<

(p

1

 

HH.mn
oo.0
Hm.¢n
$5.0

Hm.mm
ON.H

mm.qn
NH.H
¢o.¢n
MH.H

qm.¢n
OH.H

mowwum><

mm.mn mw.¢m

qm.o
HH

ww.o
0H

an.¢m
no.0
¢¢

mm.¢h
«H.H
ma

HH.¢~
n¢.o
om

mm.mn
¢o.H
CH

mm.mn
oo.0
w¢

HN.©N
oa.o
n

m.mn
mm.H
mm

mm.qm
wn.H
NH

w©.mn
mm.o
mq

wH.mn
mm.H
ma

mm.mn
nw.o
nu

n¢.¢w
¢¢.H
om

Ho.¢h
qn.o

O
c

ow.qn
mm.H

8.?
$6
8

oo.mn
wn.H
¢m

HN.mn
mc.o

mH.¢n
m~.H
om
m¢.mn
NN.H
HN

nous» 302v
whommumm wcm meHom wmm
Auomuuxm Mazumv
wuowwuom mam meHom cam
ous“. mac:
uomu mm uozum
umnfisz mauumu
wuomouwm
0.25 302
uowuuxm umfium
uo£ESZ mauumo
@mHHom sum

 

 

mMMMD OZ

Auusumflozv
whomwumu vcm onHom wwm
Auomuuxm pofiumv
wuommuom wcm meHom mom
mnsumfloz
uomuuxm uwsum
nopasz mauumo
whomouwm
unbumfloz
uomuuxm umzum
umnfisz mauumu
meHom wow

 

 

mm>q<u mum mmmfio

 

 

voscwucoounfiu mqm¢H Nanmmm¢

186

APPENDIX TABLE 22

MEAN PALAT.BILITY SCORES AND SHEAR ALUES, 1957

 

Cattle . Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values

 

Bull (A) Progeny

Red Polled 5 6.93 6.93 6.21 22.6
7 7.57 7.07 7.00 28.0

10 6.93 7.21 6.36 26.7

14 7.83 7.17 7.33 15.1

15 7.50 7.14 7.79 16.1

20 6.93 6.64 6.71 24.6

22 7.07 7.21 6.36 30.2

23 7.20 6.90 7.50 21.3

24 6.83 6.83 6.00 21.4

Averages 7.20 7.01 6.81 22.9
Hereford 26 6.92 6.58 6.58 19.9
27 6.86 6.57 4.86 31.8

34 7.00 7.00 6.30 25.1

35 7.17- 6.83 6.67 18.2

36 6.42 6.25 4.83 31.2

41 7.07 7.29 7.36 17.2

47 ’7.00 7.20 7.20 16.6

48 7.17 7.17 7.17 21.6

Averages 6.95 6.86 6.37 21.7
Averages 7.08 6.94 6.60 22.3

(All Bull (A) Progeny)

ooooooooo

.........

ooooooooo

ooooooooo

 

 

 

187

APPENDIX TABLE 22--Continued

 

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Bull (B) Progeny
Red Polled 2 7.35 7.17 7.83 14.3
3 7.07 7.21 7.71 15.8
4 7.71 7.43 7.64 17.8
6 7.64 7.43 7.57 16.2
11 7.00 6.70 5.70 25.3
12 7.08 6.92 6.17 21.8
13 7.07 6.86 7.93 18.0
16 7.36 6.86 7.21 23.9
17 7.71 7.64 7.93 15.3
19 7.21 6.86 7.36 20.8
21 7.36 6.71 7.36 21.4
Averages 7.32 7.07 7.31 19.1
Hereford 30 7.14 6.93 6.71 23.7
33 7.29 7.14 7.71 19.4
40 7.21 7.07 7.14 23.5
42 7.14 7.21 7.07 25.1
Averages 7.19 7.09 7.16 22.9
Averages 7.29 7.08 7.27 20.2

(All Bull (B) Progeny)

APPENDIX TABLE 22--Continued

H
C)
C)

 

 

 

‘—__

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Creep Fed Calves
Red Polled 2 7.35 7.17 7.83 14.3
3 7.07 7.21 7.71 15.8
4 7.71 7.43 7.64 17.8
5 6.93 6.93 6.21 22.6
6 7.64 7.43 7.57 16.2
7 7.57 7.07 7.00 28.0
10 6.93 7.21 6.36 26.7
11 7.00 6.70 5.70 25.3
14 7.83 7.17 7.33 15.1
Averages 7.34 7.15 7.04 20.2
Hereford 26 6.92 6.58 6.58 19.9
27 6.86 6.57 4.86 31.8
30 7.14 6.93 6.71 23.7
33 7.29 7.14 7.71 19.4
34 7.00 7.00 6.30 25.1
35 7.17 6.83 6.67 18.2
Averages 7.06 6.84 6.47 23.0
Averages 7.23 7.02 6.81 21.3

(All Creep Fed Calves)

189

APPENDIX TAB E 22--Continued

 

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Calves with No
Creep Feed
Red Polled 12 7.08 6.92 6.17 21.8
13 7.07 6.86 7.93 18.0
15 7.50 7.14 7.79 16.1
16 7.36 6.86 7.21 23.9
17 7.71 7.64 7.93 15.3
19 7.21 6.8 7.36 20.8
20 6.93 6.64 6.71 24.6
21 7.36 6.71 7.36 21.4
22 7.07 7.21 6.36 20.3
23 7.20 6.90 7.50 21.3
24 6.83 6.83 6.00 21.4
Averages 7.21 6.96 7.12 21.3
Hereford 3 6.42 6.25 4.83 31.2
40 7.21 7.07 7.14 23.5
41 7.07 7.29 7.36 17.2
42 7.14 7.21 7.07 25.1
47 7.00 7.20 7.20 16.6
8 7.17 7.17 7.17 21.6
Averages 7.00 7.03 6.79 22.5
Averages 7.14 6.99 7.01 21.8

(All No Creep)

 

190

APPENDIX TABLE 23

MEAN PA ATABILITY SCORES AND SHEAR VALUES FOR

HEAVY GRASS-FED STEBRS

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values

 

Group I 51 7.50 7.57 7.50 15.4
41 6.92 7.00 6.42 19.6

79 6.50 6.14 6.28. 20.4

5 6.29 6.43 6.21 20.2

31 7.07 6.93 6.71 22.2

66 6.86 7.14 7.43 12.1

65 6.64 6.21 5.50 25.5

56 7.00 7.17 6.83 16.8

Averages 6.85 6.82 6.61 19.0
Group II 60 7.29 6.79 6.64 23.2
10 7.07 6.8 6.71 17.5

63 6.64 7.17 7.50 10.9

22 6.50 7.17 6.92 18.4

33 7.29 6.93 7.00 19.0

44 6.86 6.71 6.64 18.7

14 7.42 7.33 7.92 16.6

45 6.71 6.86 6.29 20.7

Averages 6.97 6.98 6.95 18.1

APPENDIX TABLE 23--Continued

 

 

Cattle hear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values

Group III 43 7.07 6.86 7.21 16.6
15 6.79 7.29 6.93 16.2

40 6.67 6.92 5.42 26.4

61 7.21 7.07 6.79 19.0

1 6.8 6.71 6.93 20.1

70 7.33 7.08 6.00 26.9

18 7.50 7.50 7.57 12.8

57 7.29 7.57 7.07 12.5

Averages 7.09 7.12 6.74 18.8
Group IV 32 6.86 6.57 5.93 20.6
24 7.07 6.71 5.57 21.0

8 7.29 7.07 7.57 16.6

67 6.57 7.36 6.93 13.4

2 7.43 7.57 6.71 18.8

16 6.79 6.43 5.57 24.0

12 6.92 6.83 4.50 23.7

52 7.25 7.00 7.17 14.4

Averages 7.02 6.94 6.24 19.1

 

mm: PAL".TABILITY scones AND 31'?

APPENDIX TABLE 24

AR ALUES, 1958

192

 

 

‘ L1
J- J

___,

T

 

‘——

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Bull (H) Progeny
Red Polled 3 6.00 7.10 6.50 17.6
4 6.50 6.83 6.83 16.3
5 5.93 6.83 6.10 17.6
2 7.83 7.42 7.42 18.2
11 6.71 7.50 7.42 21.1
8 7.21 7.00 7.28 10.8
6 6.42 6.83 5.83 19.3
9 7.10 7.10 7.28 14.7
10 6.42 6.00 4.00 19.6
14 6.50 6.71 7.50 13.3
Averages 6.67 6.93 6.62 16.8
Hereford 33 6.10 6.93 6.8 14.2
34 6.71 6.64 5.21 26.4
49 6.64 7.21 7.10 12.2
26 6.21 7.28 7.21 11.9
30 5.64 6.50 5.64 17.0
35 6.64 5.93 6.71 15.4
Averages 6.32 6.75 6.45 16.2
Averages 6.53 6.86 6.55 16.6

(All Bull (H) Progeny)

193

APPENDIX TABLE 24 - -Con t inu ed

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Bull (L) Progeny
Red Polled 24 6.83 7.83 7.50 17.1
19 6.71 6.42 6.42 16.4
1 6.42 6.21 6.21 13.6
7 6.83 7.42 6.00 16.4
13 6.10 6.71 7.00 16.1
20 6.83 6.64 6.21 17.1
21 6.21 6.28 6.21 20.6
15 7.31 7.21 7.28 15.6
17 5.93 6.64 6.42 17.2
22 7.00 6.10 6.42 15.0
Averages 6.62 6.75 6.57 16.5
Hereford 48 7.21 7.10 7.71 14.0
46 6.00 6.21 7.10 16.5
47 7.21 7.71 7.71 16.6
36 6.83 7.10 7.28 19.5
39 6.71 6.28 4.93 24.1
41 6.93 7.10 6.64 22.0
32 6.64 6.71 6.64 12.9
Averages 6.79 6.89 6.86 17.9
Averages 6.69 6.80 6.69 17.1

(All Bull (L) Pr

ogeny)

c .l‘ : ..I I. 10' I, ll:

 

oooooooooo

oooooooooo

..........

cccccccccc

0000000

OOOOOOO

194

APPENDIX ABLE 24--Continued

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Creep Fed Calves

Red Polled 2 7.83 7.42 7.42 18.2
3 6.10 7.10 6.50 17.6

4 6.50 6.83 6.83 16.3

5 5.93 6.83 6.10 17.6

8 7.21 7.00 7.28 10.8

24 6.83 7.83 7.50 17.1

6 6.42 6.83 5.83 19.3

9 7.10 7.10 7.28 14.7

13 6.10 6.71 7.00 16.1

20 6.83 6.64 6.21 17.1

21 6.21 6.28 6.21 20.6

Averages 6.64 6.96 6.74 16.9
Hereford 49 6.64 7.21 7.10 12.2
46 6.10 6.21 7.10 16.5

26 6.21 7.28 7.21 11.9

30 5.64 6.50 5.64 17.0

36 6.83 7.10 7.28 19.5

39 6.71 6.28 4.93 24.1

32 6.64 6.71 6.64 12.9

Averages 6.40 6.76 6.56 16.3
Averages 6.55 6.88 6.67 16.6

(All Creep Fed Calves)

195

APPENDIX TABLE 24--Continued

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Calves with No
Creep Feed

Red Polled 1 6.42 6.21 6.21 13.6
7 6.83 7.42 6.00 16.4

11 6.71 7.50 7.42 21.1

19 6.71 6.42 6.42 16.4

10 6.42 6.00 4.00 19.6

14 6.50 6.71 7.50 13.3

15 7.28 7.21 7.28 15.6

17 5.93 6.64 6.42 17.2

22 7.00 6.10 6.42 15.0

Averages 6.64 6.69 6.41 16.5
Hereford 3 6.10 6.93 6.8 14.2
34 6.71 6.64 5.21 26.4

'8 7.21 7.10 7.71 14.0

47 7.21 7.71 7.71 16.6

35 6.64 5.93 6.71 15.4

41 6.93 7.10 6.64 22.0

Averages 6.80 6.90 6.80 18.1
Averages 6.71 6.77 6.57 17.1

(All No Creep)

 

o ‘ o v
. o o o
.. n o u
n . a a
v o o u
- a . .
o . v .
. . . o
. . . . .
o o y I
. o o c
c o v o
o n . o
o o o .
u I - n
o o 3 a
a o ' I
. u o v

 

   

196

APPENDIX TABLE 25

MEAN ALATABILITY SCORES Ah SHEAR ’ALUES, 1959

 

 

 

(A11 Bull (H) Progeny)

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values

Bull (H) Progeny
Red Polled 17 6.80 7.00 6.20 20.1
10 7.17 7.17 5.83 27.6
7 7.42 7.00 6.00 25.6
19 7.50 7.33 7.67 18.5
11 7.42 7.08 6.83 19.5
15 7.17 7.00 7.00 20.6
Averages 7.25 7.10 6.59 22.0
Hereford C 7.30 6.70 6.70 21.1
8 7.08 6.67 6.25 25.7
34 7.40 7.10 6.30 24.6
44 7.17 7.17 6.08 19.0
33 6.70 6.60 5.30 21.8
Averages 7.13 6.85 6.13 22.4
Averages 7.19 6.,8 6.38 22.2

_ _‘_-;_T

 

 

 

197

APPENDIX ABLE 25--§3ntinued

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Bull (L) Progeny
Red Polled 2 7.17 6.75 6.25 21.9
4 6.90 6.80 4.80 28.3
3 7.42 6.92 5.92 22.1
20 7.08 6.83 7.50 15.1
21 7.00 6.60 5.40 24.4
9 7.25 7.33 6.42 19.1
6 7.30 7.00 6.40 20.6
5 6.92 7.08 5.67 27.7
13 7.00 7.33 6.33 20.5
Averages 7.12 6.96 6.08 22.2
lereford 36 7.17 7.42 6.00 23.5
8 7.30 6.8 7.40 23.5
27 7.20 6.90 6.90 18.1
46 7.10 6.70 7.50 12.9
30 7.40 6.80 7.10 20.4
26 7.20 6.90 6.60 3.7
39 7.42 7.33 7.42 19.0
Averages 7.26 6.98 6.99 20.2
Averages 7.18 6.97 6.48 21.3

(All Bull (L) Progeny)

.11 ii 1“

APPENDIX TABLE 25--Continued

 

I _— — v.

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Creep Fed Calves
Red Polled 2 7.17 6.75 6.25 21.9
4 6.90 6.80 4.80 28.3
3 7.42 6.92 5.92 22.1
20 7.08 6.83 7.50 15.1
17 6.80 7.00 6.20 20.1
10 7.17 7.17 5.83 27.6
5 6.92 7.08 5.67 27.7
19 7.50 7.33 7.67 18.5
11 7.42 7.08 6.83 19.5
Averages 7.15 7.00 6.30 22.3
Hereford 26 7.20 6.90 6.60 23.7
34 7.40 7.10 6.30 24.6
44 7.17 7.17 6.08 19.0
27 7.20 6.90 6.90 18.1
39 7.42 7.33 7.42 19.0
30 7.40 6.80 7.10 20.4
Averages 7.30 7.03 6.73 20.8
Averages 7.21 7.01 6.47 21.7

(All Creep Fed Calves)

199

APPENDIX TABLE 25--Continued

 

 

 

Cattle Shear
Number Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Values
Calves with No
Creep Feed

Red Polled 21 7.00 6.60 5.40 24.4
9 7.25 7.33 6.42 19.1

6 7.30 7.00 6.40 20.6

15 7.17 7.00 7.00 20.6

7 7.42 7.00 6.00 25.6

13 7.00 7.33 6.33 20.6

Averages 7.19 7.04 6.26 21.8
Hereford 36 7.17 7.42 6.00 23.5
81 7.30 6.80 7.40 23.5

8 7.30 6.70 6.70 21.1

46 7.10 6.70 7.50 12.9

8 7.08 6.67 6.25 25.7

33 6.70 6.60 5.30 21.8

Averages 7.11 6.81 6.52 21.4
Averages 7.15 6.93 6.39 21.6

(All No Creep)

 

- . -
n o u
, . o
w
. . a
u
. o n ,
. v o
n n c
1
.
_ . u
' u o
- v a
n I o
. o u
n o -

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amocsomv
“4 Sta 84 oo.N om; NO.N 8,4 mo 88 8m “and-..” 33
now mgm mmm 0H Nmm oqm Awesoomv usmflwz m>HA cw owned
93 8e 8...} Sn m3 2% 388.3 8:383 9,3 8803.
NH OHH on oaa mm NNH Amhoflv and CH omamw
EN EN mam 8N 2N EN. 3.33 mi. 8803..
NH ma m? cm cm Hm momqwm mo>~oo mo newesz
mmouo mwouu mmouo )oum
whomoum: voHHom mom mnemouom meHom wom puommuo: wmflfiom mom vac
mmmH wmma nmma poor

 

 

ammufim nm>qdu naommflflm Add 02¢ mmomu mmqqom Own Add mo «mew? wm zomHM<mzoo <

0N mqde MHQmmmmd

Barbella,
1941

Barbells,
1942

Black, W.‘
1931

Black, w.
1934

Black, W.
1936

BIaCk, W.
Wilson.
1940

Black, W.
1948

Blumer, T.
1959

BIBLIOGRAPHY

N. C., Bernard Tanner, 0. G. Hankins and R. E. Hunt.

Quality of Beef from Grass Fed and Grain Fed Cattle
of Equal Fatness.
J. Agr. Res., 64:517.

N. G., B. Tannor, 0. G. Hankins and R. E. Hunt.
Comparative Ripening of Beef from Grass-Fattened and
Grain-Fattened Steers.

J. An. Sc., 64:517.

H., K. R. Warner and C. V. Wilson.

Beef Production and Quality as Affected by Grade of
Steer and Feeding Grain Supplement on Grass.

U. S. D. A. Tech. Bul. 217.

H., A. T. Simple and J. L. Lush.

Beef Production and Quality as Influenced by Crossing
Brahman with Hereford and Shorthorn Cattle.

U. S. D. A. Tech. Bul. 417.

H. and Bradford Knapp, Jr.
A Method of Measuring Performance in Beef Cattle.
Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod., 29:72.

H., R. L. Hiner, L. B. Burk, L. M. Alexander and C. V.

Beef Production and Quality as Affected by Method of
Feeding Supplements to Steers on Grass in the Appalach-
ian Region.

U. S. D. A. Tech. Bul. 717.

H., Bradford Knapp, Jr. and A. C. Cook.

Correlation of Body Measurements of Slaughter Steers
with Rate and Efficiency of Gain and with Certain
Carcass Characteristics.

J. Agr. Res., 56:465.

N. and H. P. Fleming.

A Method for the Quantative Estimation of Marbling in
the Beef Rib Eye Muscle.

J. An. Sc., 18:959.

201

202

Bratzler, L. J.
1949 Determining the Tenderness of Meat by Use of the Warner-
Bratzler Method.
Proc. 2nd An. Rec. Meat Conf. P. 117.

Bull, Sleeter, R. R. Snapp and H. P. Rusk.
1941 Effect of Pasture on Grade of Beef.
Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 475.

Bull, 3., R. R. Snapp and H. P. Rusk.
1941 Effects of Pasture on Grade of Beef.
Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 475.

Bureau of Animal Industry - Report of Chief.
1935 U. S. D. A. Ag. Res. Div.
1943
1944
1946
1947

Carpenter, J. W., A. Z. Palmer, w. G. Kirk, F. b. Peacock and M.
Koger.
1955 Slaughter and Carcass Differences Between Brahman and
Brahman-Shorthorn Crossbred Steers.
J. An. Sc., 14:1228.

Cartwright, T. C., O. D. Butler and Sylvia Cover.
1958 Influence of Sires on Tenderness of Beef.
Proc. 10th An. Res. Conf. A. M. I. F.

Chatfield, Charlotte.
1926 Proximate Composition of Beef.
U. S. D. A. Cir. 389.

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. An. Sc., 19:89.

Cover, Sylvia, T. C. Cartwright and 0. D. Butler
1957 The Relationship of Ration and Inheritance to Eating
Quality of the Meat from Yearling Steers.
J. An. Sc., 16:946.

Cover, Sylvia.
1958 An approach to Measuring Tenderness of Beef.
Proc. 11th An. Rec. Heat Conf. P. 217.

O
I I I I O I
D O O I O
.
. c u u o n
O O I I C I
I l O I . D
I

o o n o . . .

I a c a v o o c n

u
o
o o I u
I O . C ’
u
I o o a l . . .
D
o
o I o v v o
' 9 U o u 0 o
I
' 9 o a
O U . .
a
9 I Q I
O
o
' ' ‘ D o o

 

.I'.“

203

Cover, Sylvia, G. T. King and O. D. Butler.
1958 Effect of Carcass Grades and Fatness on Tenderness of
Meat from Steers of Known History.
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 889.

Craig, H. B., T. N. Blumer and E. R. Barrick.

1959 Effect of Several Combinations of Grass and Grain in
the Ration of Beef Steers on the Color Character-
istics of Lean and Fat.

J. An. Sc., 18:241.

Cullison, A. E.
1940 The Influence of Breeding on Performance of Beef Calves
in Mississippi.
Miss. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 347.

Cunningham, C. J., G. C. Anderson, J. O. Heishman and E. A. Livesay.
1958 Value in Creep Feeding in Production of Feeder Calves.
W. Va. Us Ag. Exp. Sta. BUIo 4230

Davis, w. C.
1932 Market Classes and Grades of Yearling Beef.
U. S. D. A. Cir. 208.

Dawson, H. H. and D. L. Harris.
1951 Sensory Methods for Measuring Differences in Food Quality.
U. 8. Do A. B111. 340

Deatherage, F. E.
1951 A Survey of the Organoleptic Testing Methods Used in
Meats Research.
Proc. 4th An. Rec. Meat Conf., p. 184.

Durham, Ralph M. and J. H. Knox.
1953 Correlation Between Grades and Gains of Hereford Cattle
at Different Stages of Growth and Between Grades at
Different Times.
J. An. Sc., 12:771.

Ensminger, M. E.
1939 Beef Production.
A. E. S. Leaf. 183, Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta., Amherst.

Garrigus, W. P.
1945 Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.
U. of Ky. Leaf. 95.

Garrigus, W. P.
1952 The Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.
U. of K. Cir. 494.

204

Hall, L. D. and A. D. Emmett.
1912 Relative Economy, Composition and Nutritive Value of
the Various Cuts of Beef.
Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 158.

Hankins, O. G. and L. B. Buck.
1938 Relationships Among Production and Grade Factors of
Beef.
U. S. D. A. Tech. Bul. 665.

Hankins, O. G. and N. R. Ellis.
1939 Fat in Relation to Quality and Quality Factors of Meat
Animal Carcasses.
Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod. P. 315.

Hankins, 0. G. and Paul E. Howe.
1942 he Approximate Composition of Cuts from Lamb Carcasses
of Different Degrees of Fatness.
U. S. D. A. Mimeo.

Hankins, 0. G.
1945 Quality in Meat and Meat Products.
Ind. and Eng. Chem., 37:220.

Hankins, O. G. and Paul E. Howe.
1946 Estimation of the Composition of Beef Carcasses and
Cuts.
U. S. D. A. Tech. Bul. 926.

Hiner, R. L., C. R. Fellers and E. B. Anderson.
1955 Amount and Character of Connective Tissue as it Relates
to Tenderness in Beef Muscle.
Food Tech., 9:80.

Hostetler, E. N., J. H. Foster and O. G. Hankins.
1936 Production and Quality of Meat from Native and Grade
Yearling Cattle.
N. Car. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 307.

Hunt, R. E., C. M. Kincaid and R. C. Carter.
1953 Grain or Grass-Fattened Beef?
Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 458.

Kemp, James D., Steeter Bull and H. W. Bean.
1953 The Economy and Nutritive Value of Different Cuts of
Lamb of Different Grades.
J. An. Sc., 12:338.

Kemp, James D. and W. P. Garrigus.
1955 Carcass Characteristics of Heavy Calves Produced by the
Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.
Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 636.

205

Kemp, James D. and W. Y. Varney.
1955 Onion Flavor in Beef.
Annual Livestock Field Day Report, U. of Ky. P. 4.

Kincaid, C. M., R. C. Carter and J. S. Copenhover.
1952 Heritability of Rate of Gain from Progeny Tests with
Beef Cattle.
J. An. Sc., 11:741.
King, General T.
1951 Carcass Characteristics of Heavy Fat Calves Produced
by the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.
Thesis: U. of Ky.

Knapp, Bradford, Jr.
1939 Determination of Slaughter Steer Grades from Weights
and Measurements.
U. S. D. A. Cir. 524.

Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and A. L. Baker.
1944 Correlation Between Rate and Efficiency of Gain in
Steers.
J. An. Sc., 3:219.

Knox, J. H.
1957 The Interrelations of Type, Performance and Carcass
Characteristics.
J. An. Sc., 16:240.

Kraft, A. A. and J. J. Wanderstock.
1950 Meat Color Problem Closer to Solution.
Food Ind., 22:112.

La*es, John Benedict and J. Henry Gilbert.
1860 On the Composition of Oxen, Sheep and Pigs and Their
Increase Whilst Fattening.
J. Royal Agr. Soc. of Eng., XXIz433.

Longwell, J. H.
1936 Color of Lean Meat as Affected by Grass and Grain Feed-
ing.
W. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 274.

I‘IaCkintOSh, D. L. and J. L. Hall.
1935 Some Factors Related to Color of Meat.
Am. Soc. An. Prod. Proc., 28:281.

Magee, W. T., R. H. Nelson, C. A. Branaman, L. J. Bratzler and
A. M. Pearson.
1958 Some Factors Affecting Carcass Grade in Steers.
J. An. Sc., 17:649.

2&5

Means, Roy H.
1940 Fall Versus Spring Calving.
Miss. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 347.

Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs.
1952 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N. J.
6th Ed. P. 37.

Meyer, Bernadine, Juanita Thomas, Ruth Buckley and J. W. Cole.
1960 The Quality of Grain-Finished and Grass Finished Beef
as Affected by Ripening.
Food Tech., 14:4.

Miller, Wayne and Arnold B. Nelson.
1955 If I Creep Feed?
A. E. S. Cir. 647, Okla. Agr. and Mech. College,
Stillwater.

Mullins, Auttis Mart.
1954 Comparison of Beef Produced from Grain Rations and by
the Kentucky Cow-and-Calf Plan.‘
Thesis: U. of Ky.

Overman, A. and J. C. Li.
1948 Dependability of Food Judges as Indicated by an Analysis
of Scores of a Food-Tasting Panel.
Food Res., 13:441.

Patterson, R. E., J. H. Jones, J. J. Boyles and R. B. Turnbough.
1949 Performance Testing and Progeny Testing of Beef Breed-
ing Stock as an Aid to Selection.
J. An. Sc., 8:608.

Patterson, R. E., T. C. Cartwright, J. H. Jones and J. J. Boyles.
1955 Performance Testing of Beef Breeding Stock.
J. An. Sc., 14:1034.

Peryam, D. R. and N. F. Girardet.
1952 Advanced Taste-Test Method.
Food Eng., 24:58.

Phillips, Ralph W., W. H. Black, Bradford Knapp, Jr. and R. T.
Clark.
1942 Cross Breeding for Beef Production.
J. An. Sc., 1:3.

RaffenSperger, Elsie L., David R. Peryam and Kenneth R. Wood.
1956 Development of a Scale for Grading Toughness-Tenderness
in Beef.
Food Tech., 10:627.

.__‘---I

o I u I
I I 0
o I
.
I o
l o
I o I o I o o
o
O
I
I o
a I I l
a
O I
I I I I o I I o
o
I I o o
O O C 0 O I O O
O
. I a O
O 0 I O C
I
O O
I I a I I
I
u
o o o I
a u 9 I
I
o I

207

Rollins, W. C. and K. A. Wagnon.
1956 Heritability of Weaning Grade in Range Beef Cattle.
J. [LIIQ 3C0, 15:529.

Schwartz, Noel and Dean Foster.
1957 Methods for Rating Quality and I tensity of the
Psychological Properties of Foods.
Food Tech., 11:15.

Shelby, C. E., R. T. Clark, J. R. Quesenberry and H. R. Woodward.
1953 Heritability of Jone Pre- and Post-"laughter Character-
istics in Beef Cattle.
J. An. Sc., 13:962.
Shelby, C. E., R. T. Clark and H. R. Woodward.
1958 The Heritability of Some Economic Characteristics of

Beef Cattle.
J. An. Sc., 14:372.

Skeets, E. N.
1932 Evaluating Beef Cattle Performance for a Register of
Merit.
Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod., 25:41.

Smith, A. L. and Val D. Thompson.
1955 Creep Feeding Beef Calves.
A. E. S. Bul. B-792, Texas Agr. and Mech. College,
College Station.

Snedecor, George W.
1955 Statistical Methods. 4th Edition.
Iowa State College Press, AmeS.

Trowbridge, E. A. and A. J. Dyer.
1943 Good Pasture and Roughage in Fattening Cattle.
Mo. Agr. Ex . Sta. Bul. 466.

Wanderstock, J. J. and J. J. Miller.
1948 Quality and Palatability of Beef as Affected by Methods
of Feeding and Carcass Grades.
Food Res., 13:291.

Warwick, Bruce L. and T. C. Cartwright.
1955 Heritability of Rate of Gain in Young Growing Beef Cattle.
J. An. Sc., 14:363.
lington, G. H. and J. R. Stouffer.
959 Beef Marbling, ICS Estimation and Influence on Tenderness
and Juiciness.
Cornell U. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 941.

Wilson and Company, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
1943 Yields from Different Grades and Weights of Steer
Carcasses.

Winters, L. M.
1940 Records of Performance for Meat Animals.
Imp. J. Exp. Agr., 8:259.

2

8

__.-I_

 

VITA

William York Varney was born in Pike County, Kentucky,
April 1, 1917. He received his elementary education in the Pike
County public schools and was graduated from Belfry High School
in 1937. He attended Pikeville College, Pikeville, Kentucky, from
1937 to 1939 and subsequently taught in the Pike County schools
until 1943. He served as principal the latter two years. He
served in the United States Navy as a non-commissioned officer
from 1943 to 1945. Upon discharge from the Navy he was self-em-
ployed until 1949 when he enrolled in the University of Kentucky.
He received the degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture in
1951 and the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture in 1952.
He was employed by Southern States COOperative from 1952 to 1953
and by Swift and Company from 1953 to 1954. He joined the staff
of the Animal Husbandry Department of the University of Kentucky
in September, 1954, with the rank of Instructor and was promoted
to Assistant Professor in 1956, the position he now holds.

He pursued course work on a part-time basis at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky from 1955 to 1958 and pursued course work toward
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Animal Husbandry, with
minors in Dairy Nutrition and Physiology,-at Michigan State Uni-
versity from 1958 to 1959.

On September 29, 1940, he was married to Miss Muriel

209

210

Carrico, Williamson, West Virginia. They have one daughter,

Linda Louise, and one son, William York, Jr.