VAREATEON IN PDTASSIUM AND SODIUM AS RELATED TO BQ’QY COMPQSETSON Thesis for the Degree cf Ph. D. MECHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY Tecv'i‘Ee-rcé A. Giéiefi Wéé This is to certify that the thesis entitled VARIATION IN POTASSIUM AND SODIUM AS RELATED TO BODY COMPOSITION presented by Tedford A. Gillett has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph D degree inEQCEl—iQiince "t M/‘l/(Zvokf >M. Cg (am/ax ~~// Major pilolessor Date November 18, 1966 0-169 ABSTRACT VARIATION IN POTASSIUM AND SODIUM AS RELATED TO BODY COMPOSITION by Tedford A. Gillett Possible sources of error involved in predicting composition from sodium and potassium content were investigated using muscles from swine, cattle and sheep. Blood samples from the sheep were also examined to determine the relationship of high and low blood potassium to composition of individual muscles. In addition, whole pig bodies were obtained and divided into six compartments, including the shoulder, loin, side, ham, G.I. tract and head, and blood. The sodium and potassium content of the muscles, the blood and the body compartments were determined by a flame photometric method utilizing a TCA extraction procedure, while fat, protein and moisture were measured by routine chemical methods. Variation in the potassiumemuscle, potassium- lean, and potassium-protein ratios of various muscles and body compart- ments were examined by placing potassium on a wet basis, on a fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. 0n using data corrected for fat and moisture differences, the ranking of muscles by potassium concentration was generally the same for all Species. There appeared to be more variation between.musc1es within a species than between the same muscles in different species. Since muscles high in connective tissue tended to bellow in potassium content, it is suggested that some of the variation in muscle potassium may be due to the content of connective tissue. However, connective tissue content was not deter- mined in this study so definite conclusions cannot be drawn. Tedford A. Gillett Although the number of sheep with high blood potassium values was small, the data indicated that the blood potassium level was not related (P < .05) to muscle potassium concentration. Differences in the potassium level of the blood and their effects on the estimates of composition are diSCussed. Correlation coefficients relating potassium and sodium concentration to the fat, protein and moisture content of the individual compartments of the pig, the intact carcass and the entire animal were calculated. Correlation coefficients of -.93, 0.77 and 0.94 were obtained between total animal potassium and the percent fat, protein and moisture, re- spectively, for the whole animal. In general, the correlation coefficients between potassium and the various chemical components were highly signi- ficant, while those for sodium were quite low and few were significant. Regression equations for predicting the composition of intact car- casses and whole animals from the total potassium and the potassium content of the ham are reported. Equations for estimating the chemical components of the whole animal from total animal potassium in grams (X) were as follows: percent fat = 70.22 - 18.38X, percent protein = 4.33X + 5.47, and percent moisture = 14.55X + 18.85. The corresponding standard errors of the estimate are 4.14, 0.55 and 0.82 percent, respectively. The standard errors of the regression cover such a large portion of the range in chemical components that they suggest a lack of accuracy in disting- uishing between values for individual animals. Muscle to muscle and compartment to compartment variation in sodium and potassium concentration was of considerable magnitude, regardless of Tedford A. Gillett the basis of comparison. This suggests that at least part of the error involved in predicting composition from potassium was due to the lack of constancy between potassium and lean content. The lack of constancy in potassium content of data corrected for fat and moisture differences suggests that methods employing potassium are not sufficiently accurate for predicting composition. VARIATION IN POTASSIUM AND SODIUM AS RELATED TO BODY COMPOSITION By Tedford A. Gillett A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Food Science 1966 ».,/ 47/ // ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to his committee chairman, Dr. A. M. Pearson, for his advice in the selection of course work and his constant interest and direction in the research project. Gratitude is also expressed to the other members of the author's guidance committee, Professor L. J. Bratzler and Dr. J. F. Price of the Food Science Depart- ment, Dr. E. P. Reineke, Professor of Physiology, and Dr. R. W. Luecke, Professor of Biochemistry. Thanks are expressed to Dr. W. T. Magee for his advice on statistical treatment and to Mr. Kenneth Kemp for assisting with the statistical analysis. Gratitude is expressed to Mrs. Mildred E. Spooner and Vincent A. Cummings for assistance with the chemical analysis and to Doctors R. A. Merkel, D. M. Allen and V. M. Hix for providing some of the samples. Finally, the author wishes to thank his wife and children for their under- standing, encouragement and assistance throughout his advanced studies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0 o o o I 0 O I I I o I o o o O o o o I o o o o I REVIEW OF LITERATIJRE o O I I o a o o I O I I o I o o o o o o 0 Theoretical Basis for Predicting Composition from Total Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Basis for Predicting Composition by the Potassim-4o mthod I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Relationship of Total Potassium to Composition . . . . . Relationship of Potassiamr40 to Composition . . . . . . . Constancy of the Potassium-Lean Ratio . . . . . . . . . . Variation in Potassium Levels of Sheep Blood and Muscles Relationship of Sodium to Composition . . . . . . . . . . EHERIMENTAL PROCEDIIRE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Experimental Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWin-e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C at t 1e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sheep I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Collection, Preparation and Storage of Samples . . . . . Muscle potassium variation studies . . . . . . . . . Swine body compartment study . . . . . . . . . . . . Flame Photometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extraction, filtration and dilution of samples . . . Preparation of standard solution . . . . . . . . . . Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . Page 11 12 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 18 20 20 21 23 23 23 RESst AND DISCUSSION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Variation of Potassium in Pig Muscles . . . . . . . . . . . Potassium variation on a wet basis . . . . . Potassium variation on a fat-free, moisture- free basis Potassium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . Potassium variation among breeds . . . . . . . . . Variation of Sodium in Muscles of the Pig . . . . . . . Sodium variation on a wet basis . . . . . . . Sodium variation on a fat- free, moisture-free basis Sodium variation among breeds . . . . . . . . . . Content of Fat, Protein and Moisture in Pig Muscles . . Variation of Potassium in Steer Muscles . . . . . . . . Potassium variation on a wet basis . . . . . . . Potassium variation on a fat- free, moisture-free basis Potassium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . . . Potassium variation among breeds . . . . . . . . . Variation in Sodium in Steer Muscles . . . . . . . . . Sodium variation on a wet basis . . . . . Sodium variation on a fat- free, moisture-free basis Sodium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . . Sodium variation among breeds . . . . . . . . . . Content of Fat, Protein and Moisture in Steer Muscles . Variation of Potassium in Sheep Muscles . . . . . . . . Potassium variation on a wet basis . . . . . . Potassium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis Potassium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . Potassium variation in blood as related to muscle variation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Variation of Sodium in Sheep Muscles . . . . . . . . . Sodium variation on a wet basis Sodium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis Sodium variation on a protein basis . . . . . iv Page 24 24 25 27 28 29 30 Content of Fat, Protein and Moisture in Sheep Muscles . . . Potassium and Sodium Variation Between Species . . . . . . POtaS Sim I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOdium I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Variation of Potassium in Body Compartments of Swine . . . Potassium variation on a wet basis . . . . . . . . . . Potassium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis Potassium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . . . Relationship of Potassium to Composition . . . . . . . . . Variation of Sodium in Body Compartments of Swine . . . . . Sodium variation on a wet basis . . . . . . . . . . . Sodium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis . Sodium variation on a protein basis . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Sodium to Composition . . . . . . . . . . . Content of Fat, Protein and Moisture in Body Compartments OfSWj-neoocconstant-0.000030... SWANDCoNcllusloNs.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII BIBLIOGRAHIYIIII...IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII APPENDIX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 59 61 61 63 65 65 67 68 69 73 73 75 76 78 81 83 89 I . o . v c o a . . . . - , . . . . . . ‘ D . I ~ o I o w ‘ . v 1 . . - . - . . . . . .1 . n n I a . e i I I ~. . I o o u v s - o u I n - _ u o I c u v I o l I I | o u . a v 6 ~ ~ . » A . . . - A . s o . u . . a x a . u . - . . v v - , o o u I . o o n u I O I . o c u u c , O I o v n c . - . . » s o ¢ . . . s o o . Table 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 l6 l7 LIST OF TABLES Potassium content of different muscles of the pig . Sodium content of different muscles of the pig . . . Percent fat, moisture and protein . . . . . . . . . Potassium content of various steer muscles . . . . . Sodium content of various steer muscles . . . . . . Percent fat, moisture and protein in various steer mUSCIeS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Potassium content of various lamb muscles . . . . . Sodium content of various lamb muscles . . . . . . . Percent fat, moisture and protein in lamb muscles . Potassium content of muscles by species . . . . . . Sodium content of muscles by species . . . . . . . . Potassium content of various compartments of the pig Relationship between potassium and the chemical compon- ents of body composition of pigs . . . . . . . . . Regression equations for predicting fat, protein and ‘moisture of swine carcasses and animal bodies from potassium concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sodium content of various compartments of the pig .‘ Relationship between sodium and the chemical components of body composition of pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . Fat, protein and moisture content of various compartments Of the pig I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vi Page 24 31 34 35 42 47 50 56 60 62 64 65 70 72 73 77 79 V“. e ’ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Division of pork carcasses into various compartments . . 19 Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Potassium content of various swine muscles on a wet basis Potassium content of various swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture‘free basis . o n o o o o o l I o a I a c o o a 0 Potassium content of various swine muscles on a protein basis I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sodium content of various swine muscles on a wet basis . . Sodium content of various swine muscles on a fat-free, mOiSture-free basj-s 0 I n c a o o o o o I o c o n a a o 0 Percent fat in various swine muscles . . . . . . . . . . . Percent protein in various swine muscles . . . . . . . . . Percent moisture in various swine muscles . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm by breed . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm (both breeds) . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm by breed . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a protein basis in ppm (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a protein basis in ppm by breed . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm by breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm (both breeds) . . . viii Page 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 98 98 99 99 99 100 100 100 \J.-.I‘ Table 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm by breed . . . . Analysis of variance of percent fat in various swine ‘muscles (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of percent fat in various swine mUSCJIeS by breed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Analysis of variance of percent protein in various swine 'muscles (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of percent protein in various swine musc1es by breed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Analysis of variance of percent moisture in various swine muscles (both breeds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of percent moisture in various swine muSCIeS by breed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Potassium content of various steer muscles on a wet basis (ng/kgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Potassium content of various steer muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potassium content of various steer muscles on a protein ba818 (mI lkgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sodium content of various steer muscles on a wet basis (gale/kg.)oooooooooooooooooooooooo Sodium content of various steer muscles on a fat-free, mOiSture" free basis (En. lkg.) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Sodium content of various steer muscles on a protein basis (glue/kg.)oooooooooooooooooooooooo Percent fat in various steer muscles . . . . . . . . . . . Percent moisture in various steer muscles . . . . . . . . Percent protein in various steer muscles . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of potassium content of steer muscles on a~wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis, and on a protein basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 co..:--I-.:A--..Il IIIIIDIIII1IIII-"ID' ' I. vll‘nv .1'IIIA.-.>I. .- ‘ IIDIIIII'IDICI E :’ -... . g} 4 .... Table 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Page Analysis of variance of sodium content of steer muscles on a wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis (m. lkgl) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 113 Analysis of variance of the percent fat, protein and moisture in steer muscles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Potassium content of lamb muscles and blood on a wet basis (ng /kgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 114 Potassium content on lamb muscles on a fat-free, moisture— free basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Potassium content of lamb muscles on a protein basis (gnI /kgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 116 Sodium content of lamb muscles on a wet basis (gm./kg.) . 117 Sodium content of lamb muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 118 Sodium content of lamb muscles on a protein basis (gm./kg.) 119 Percent fat in various lamb muscles . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Percent protein in various lamb muscles . . . . . . . . . 121 Percent moisture in various lamb muscles . . . . . . . . . 122 Analysis of variance on potassium content of various lamb muscles (gnI lkgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 123 Analysis of variance of sodium content of various lamb mtlscles (gnI lkgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 123 Analysis of variance of the percent fat, protein and moisture in lamb muscles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a wet basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . 125 Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a protein basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 fc’r*__ ......... ......... Table 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Total potassium content of various compartments of the Pig body (gm. ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a wet basis (En. /kgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a moisture-free basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a protein basis (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total sodium content of various compartments of the pig body (ng) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Percent fat in various compartments of the pig body . . . Percent protein in various compartments of the pig body . Percent moisture in various compartments of the pig body . Analysis of variance of potassium content of various com- partments of the pig body (gm./kg.) . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of sodium content of various compart- ments Of the pig hwy (mI lkgI) I I I I I I I I I I I I I Analysis of variance of percent fat, protein and moisture of various compartments of the pig body . . . . . . . . . xi Page 127 128 129 130 132 133 134 135 135 135 INTRODUCTION For a number of years medical and biological investigators have sought an accurate, non-destructive method for measuring gross body com— position of animals. Such a method would find wide application in human medicine and in the livestock industry. It would be extremely useful to be able to predict the physical components (fat, muscle and bone) or the chemical components (ether—extract, water, protein and ash) of the body. A non-destructive method which afforded accuracy would enable the animal breeder to select for muscling or meatiness. It would enable the nutritionist and physiologist to follow changes in composition throughout an experiment. It could be used by the livestock man to assess the de- gree of finish on animals, and thus enable him to time the marketing of animals to his advantage. The worth of livestock could also be deter- mined on the basis of composition, and thus some of the subjectiveness of visual appraisal could be avoided. Meat processors could control the chemical components in their formulation and obtain more uniformity. Finally, in the research laboratory, the labor, expense and physical difficulties involved in direct analysis of meat could be reduced. Rather thorough reviews have been compiled on the non-destructive methods of determining composition by Keys and Brozek (1953), Harrington (1958) and Brozek and Henschel (1961). Recently a new method has been proposed, the potassium-40 method, which appears to have many advantages for determining body composition (Anderson, 1959). -1- -2- The rationale behind the use of K40 to predict composition is the assumption that the protein-potassium ratio (or lean-potassium ratio) is constant. If this was true, a determination of potassium would in effect measure the lean body mass of an animal (Anderson, 1959). The K40 method estimates potassium from the radio-activity of the naturally occurring gamma emitting isomer of potassium, K40. Potassium from different sources is reported to vary by less than i 0.5 percent in its K40 content (Vino- gradov, 1957), so it should be an excellent index of total potassium and hence of lean body mass. Recent work, however, shows that the K40 method may lack the precision needed for practical application (Kirton and Pearson, 1963). Itwaasthe purpose of this study to determine: 1) the accuracy with */ which composition can be predicted from potassium and sodium content, and 2) to examine some possible sources of error, particularly the con- stancy of the protein-potassium ratio. LIILP.E"'I|l‘ REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theoritical Basis for Predicting Composition from Total Potassium Concentration differences in sodium and potassium exist between the intracellular and extracellular fluid. The differences are established and maintained through the metabolic work performed by the cell membranes (Guyton, 1956). Potassium, the main cation of the intracellular fluid, and sodium, the principle cation of the extracellular fluid, are present in a relatively constant pr0portion of these fluid compartments (Manery, 1954; Conway, 1957; Wblstenholme and O'Connor, 1958; Robinson, 1960). In 1956, Moore gt 31. reported that almost 98 percent of the total potassium in the human body is in the skeletal muscle. They stated, "Since the skeletal muscle is the largest single component of the lean tissue of the body - excluding the skeleton - it is clear that the Ke (exchangeable potassium) is really a measure of the lean ... Theoretically, one should be able to translate the value for Ke into kilograms of wet muscle or lean tissue." The data of Forbes and Lewis (1956) have indi- cated that slightly over 60 percent of the potassium of the human body is located in the muscle. This figure appears much lower than that re- ported by‘Moore'ggugl, (1956), however, the skeleton was included in the calculations of Forbes and Lewis (1956) as contrasted to the work of Moore Eta—l. (1956). Anderson (1959) also proposed the use of potassium content to pre- dict the muscle mass of animals. His postulation was based on the assumption that the concentration of potassium in living cells was held -4- constant by homeostatic processes, therefore, a determination of potassium would be equivalent to a determination of cellular mass. He also stated "There is no potassium in fat and very little in bone." He further suggested that total potassium content could be used to predict the lean body mass. Thus, those animals or cuts with a higher concentration of potassium would have a greater concentration of lean tissue or muscle. There appears to be some controversy over Anderson's statement that "There is no potassium in fat and very little in bone.’ Kirton Eta—1. (1961) reported that there was about half as much gamma activity in fresh bone and a quarter as much in fatty tissues as in muscular tissue. This would suggest that potassium was present in these tissues, since the radioactivity was measured from potassium-40. Archdeacon 25 31. (1961) reported 1500 - 2800 parts per million (ppm.) of potassium in the bone marrow of rabbits. 0n the separable bone of pigs, Pfau E£.§l- (1961) making use of flame photometry and potassium-40 counts reported 1100 and 1290 ppm. of potassium, respectively, for the content of these bone samples by the two methods. Van Dilla gt a1. (1961) reported only a trace of potassium in pooled bone from cattle, while Blaxter and Rook (1956) reported the absence of potassium in the metacarpal bones from cattle. Kirton (1962) suggested that the controversy might be due to differ- ences in terminology. He explained that fat and bone most often meant fatty tissue and green bone (containing marrow and sometimes a little flesh), but fat and bone could be elaborated to mean "chemical fat" and "crystalline bone". Regardless of the terminology, the absence or low -5- content of potassium in fat and bone of animals and the high content in skeletal muscle suggests that a relationship does exist between the potassium content and composition. Theoretical Basis for Predicting Composition by the Potassium-40 Method According to Suttle and Libby (1955), potassium-40 theoretically comprises 0.0119 percent of the natural potassium isotOpes, has a half life of 1.25 x 109 years and emits 10 beta particles for every gamma ray. Potassium isotopes from a natural mixture emit 2.96 gamma rays per second per gram with 1.45 Mev. of energy. Anderson (1959) stated, "Isotopic fraction effects are very small because of the small mass differences, so that all potassium has essen- tially the same K-40 (potassium-40) content and hence the same radio- activity. A determination of the K-40 activity is therefore equivalent to a determination of total potassium." Kulwich 25 31. (1960) referring to the work of Vinogradov (1957) reported that potassium from different sources did not vary by more than $0.5 percent in its potassium-40 content. On this basis they also con- cluded that a potassium-40 determination on a biological sample w0uld be an excellent index of the total potassium. The work of Vinogradov (1957) indicated that about seven times as much radioactivity was emitted by potassium-40 as by the next most prevalent naturally occurring radio- active isotope, carbon-14. Anderson (1958) described how to avoid counting errors due to the radioactivity of cesium-137, a product of nuclear weapon testing. Cesium rays ( Contam name I' Ch bMypo have re] Potassil the edit Obtained tent and On groum Kir Correlat Percent ‘ c°rrelat1 in the £1 "era 13 F Tharafore in c001905 -6- gamma rays have a lower energy level (0.66 Mev.) than potassium gamma rays (1.45 Mev.), which allows them to be counted on separate channels. Contamination due to other fallout products could be avoided in a similar manner (Anderson, personal communication as cited by Kirton, 1962). Relationship of Total Potassium to ngposition Cheek and West (1953) reported a close correlation between total body potassium and lean body mass of rats. Kirton and Pearson (1963) have reported correlation coefficients of 0.94 and 0.81 between the potassium content and the percent protein and percent separable lean of the edible carcass and dressed carcasses of lamb, respectively. They obtained correlations of 0.997, -.996, and 0.986 between potassium con- tent and the water, fat and protein, respectively, on ground pork samples. On ground lamb, their correlations were only slightly lower. Kirton g£_gl, (1963) in studies on 24 empty pig bodies reported correlations of 0.86, -.87 and 0.77 between percent potassium and the percent water, ether-extract and protein, respectively. CorreSponding correlations of 0.87, -.88 and 0.78 were reported for the same components in the frozen carcasses. The standard errors of prediction from potassium were 13 percent for water and ether-extract, and 17 percent for protein. Therefore, Kirton £3 31. (1963) concluded that individual differences in composition between animals could not be accurately assessed by potassium determinations. Relationship of Potassium-40 to Composition Determination of the total potassium from potassium-40 counting offersznlalternate nondestructive index for estimating composition (Zobrisky gtflgl., 1959). The first measurements of body potassium by means of the radioactivity of potassiumr40'were reported by Sievert (1951, 1956) and by Burch and Spiers (1953). Although the work of Sie- vert was not directed towards an estimate of body composition, he did eXplain age and sex differences in terms of composition. In 1956 Wbodward gt a1. plotted the total body gamma activity of 13 humans against calculated fat-free weight as determined by gross weight. They concluded that fat was the principle factor causing variation in the potassium content of the body. They also demonstrated that the radio- activity of potassium-40 was related to body water and hence to the lean body weight of the subjects. Kulwich.ggugl. (1958) studied the usefulness of potassium-40 as an index of the amount of lean in hams. They selected two groups of hams on the basis of fatness and measured their radioactivity at various stages of separation into their physical components. They reported a correlation coefficient of 0.983 between gamma rays per second per pound and the percentage of fat-free lean. A correlation coefficient of -.966 was also reported between gamma rays per second per pound and the per- centage of fat. In 1960 Kulwich gtflgl. used beta instead of gamma rays to study the relationship of potassium-40 to the composition of ham.samples. Using an ashing procedure, which released' the carbon, they eliminated the _.___._ .~’ ‘ In SIM radioactivity of carbon-l4 as a source of error. Errors due to the radio- activity of cesium-137 were also ruled out, since Laug and wallace (1959) reported no significant amount of beta activity in the ash of meat pro- ducts that could not be accounted for by the potassium content as ‘measured by flame photometry. The samples used from portions of the ham were selected to have a wide range in chemical components and varied widely in ether-extract (13.0 - 78.6 percent), protein (5.2 - 21.6 per- cent), and mpisture (16.1 - 64.7 percent). The wide range in chemical composition probably accounted for the high correlations repbrted. How- ever, Kulwich et al. (1961a) working with intact hams reported a correla- tion of 0.96 between net counts per minute and the pounds of separable lean of the hams by measuring the gamma radiation due to potassium-40. Kulwich £531. (1961b) related the gamma ray emission of beef rounds to their lean content and obtained correlation coefficients of -.865 and 0.798 between disintegrations per minute from potassium-40 and the per- cent of separable fat and lean, respectively. Zobrisky 33 31. (1959) reported that the potassium-40 content of animals might be useful as a rapid nondestructive index for determining protein to fat ratios in live hogs. Kirton gt a1. (1960) working with live unwashed lambs reported correlations of -.79, 0.51 and 0.86 between the estimated potassium-40 content and the percent of carcass fat, lean and bone, reSpectively. They also reported that total lean was more accurately predicted from the live weight or carcass weight than from the potassium content. Correlations of 0.90 and 0.91 were reported between lean content and live weight and between lean content and carcass weight, respectively. -39 ‘7‘ .“ In 19' potassiun . potassium- more accur accuracy I A HUT tion from accuracy, 1962), se: Allen e_t .' 3.1-, 1961 1958), col (Andersen or PotaSS ditions ( Bram, U the Pota; in the b' and‘will r ”18%| C01") the Use Ande rSOI‘ ConStanJ cial f1. In 1962 Kirton discussed the accuracy of estimating composition from potassium as determined by flame photometry or by the radioactivity of potassium-40. He concluded that although flame photometry appeared to 'more accurately indicate composition, neither approach offered sufficient v/' accuracy to warrant practical application. A number of possible sources of error exist in determining composi- tion from potassium concentration, which could account for the lack of accuracy. Among the possible ernors are individual variation.(Kirton, 1962), sex and age (Spray and Widdowson, 1950; Anderson and Langham, 1959; Allen.g£”§l., 1960) and breed or race (Gillett 25 al., 1965; Zeidburg1gt 5gp, 1961) differences. The inadequacy of instrumentation (Anderson, 1958), contamination from natural sources or from radioactive fallout (Anderson and Van Dilla, 1958), the effect of various levels of sodium or potassium in the diet (Smith and Meyer, 1962), and various disease con- ditions (Harrison and Darrow, 1938; Lade and Brown, 1963; Clancy and Brown, 1963) are also probable sources of error. Lack of constancy in the potassium-lean ratio and the effect of different levels of potassium in the blood may also be responsible for errors in predicting composition and will be discussed individually. Constancy of the PotassiumrLean Ratio Constancy in the potassium-lean body ratio is a basic assumption in the use of potassium as an index of lean body mass (Moore gt al., 1956; Anderson, 1959). Barter and Forbes (1963) have also reported that a constant of 68.1 meq. of potassium per kg. of lean body weight is a cru- cial figure in the determination of body fat by their method. 'Woodward .JH' stancy c of potas. (Anderso: potassiu mass and Var. potassicz 1963) an, -10- 35.21, (1956) reported that fat was the principle factor causing variation in the potassium content of the human body, which implied greater con- stancy of potassium on a fat-free basis. On a fat-free basis, the content of potassium has been reported to be independent of sex, age or weight (Anderson, 1957). However, Allen g£_§l, (1960) found differences in potassium content due to sex and age after correcting their data for fat mass and bone mineral. Various workers have questioned the degree of constancy between potassium and lean body mass (Moore 23 31., 1956; Miller and Remenchik, 1963) and between potassium and protein (Lawrie and Pomeroy, 1963; Pfau .g§.§1., 1963; Gillett g£_al,, 1965; Flear £3 31., 1965). Moore (1956) indicated that there was some evidence that potassium concentration varied sufficiently to alter the validity of any relationship for expressing lean body mass on the basis of potassium content. Variation of potassium on the fat-free, moisture-free basis for different muscles of the pig were reported to be of considerable magnitude by Lawrie and Pomeroy (1963). However, Pfau ££.§l- (1963) on comparing the potassium content of the semi: membranosus and longissimus dorsi muscles from 60 pigs of two different breeds found the differences to be nonsignificant. Pfau and Kallistratos (1963) reported that there were no statistically significant differences between any of the muscles of a single pig, although the method of statis- tical treatment is not clear. From human bioPSies, Flear gt a1. (1965) reported variability in the sodium, potassium, chloride and water content of skeletal muscle, and even between different muscles in the same individual. The variability was not (1963) 5 body and hunans v. very difl veloped back mus muscle 0 estimati 11' (1959 althOugh it did no -11- was not reduced on a fat-free, dry-weight basis. IMiller and Remenchik ” (1963) stated that "potassium is not uniformly distributed through the body and the distribution varies from one 'package' to the next. Two humans with identical external anthropological measurements may have very different musculatures. The long distance runner may have well de- veloped leg muscles while the laborer may have well developed chest or back‘muscles." Therefore, if potassium differences exist from.mmscle to muscle or from area to area, the validity of the potassium-40 method of estimating composition would appear to be questionable. Variation in Potassium Levels of Sheep Blood and Muscles In sheep, a number of researchers have noted high and low potassium blood types (Kerr, 1937; Evans, 1954; Evans and King, 1955; Kidwell gt a_l., 1959; Mounib and Evans, 1960; Howes 9311., 1961; Drury and Tucker, 1963; Kahattab 35 31., 1964; Rasmusen and Hall, 1966). Evans'ggng1. (1956) reported that the concentration of potassium in the plasma of British sheep was the same for those with low and high blood levels. They there- fore attributed the differences noted in.whole blood entirely to the red blood cells. They hypothesized that the two blood types (low and high potassium) were genetically controlled in a simple Mendelian manner. The high potassium type was homozygous for the recessive allele, while the low potassium group was either heterozygous or homozygous for the domin- ate allele (low potassium is dominant) (Evans gtfl§1,, 1956). Kidwell‘gg 31, (1959) in similar studies on sheep raised in America indicated that although their data didn't contradict the hypothesis of Evans 3.}; _a_1_. (1956), x/l it did not lend strong support. -12.. In 1966 Rasmusen and Hall studying the blood of 115 sheep confirmed Mendelian inheritance of high and low potassium in red blood cells. By typing blood for the presence or absence of factor M and determining the potassium concentration, they found that without exception all M-negative blood samples were from sheep of the low-potassium type. Furthermore, all animals known to be heterozygous for low potassium or homozygous for high potassium were M positive. A survey of the literature (Kerr, 1937; Mounib and Evans, 1958; Kidwell 3931., 1959) on the magnitude of potassiun differences in the blood of sheep indicates that the high potassium type erythrocytes have approximately three to five times as much potassium as the low potassium type. Mounib and Evans (1958) gave values of 23 and 83 meq. per liter for the potassiun content of erythrocytes from the blood of sheep of the low and high potassium types, respectively. Khattab £5 a. (1964) used 30 meq. per liter as the dividing line in typing animals as low potassium or high potassium Since the blood is known to comprise approximately eight percent of the animal body (Dukes, 1955), Kirton (1962) concluded that the inclusion of both blood types (high and low potassium) would introduce some error in predicting composition from potassium content. He also suggested that if widely different potassium levels existed in sheep muscles that even larger errors could occur unless the different types were studied separately. Mounib and Evans (1960) found on studying a limited number of sheep that statistically significant differences between the two types (low and high blood potassium) did not occur in the skeletal muscle (biceps femor sligh: been u the re: sodium exchang b3 Berg ZiIImerm.‘ Ede in the b 1) free sorbed b; CTYStall that the Toge Prises t1 Portion c Constant "“617, 1 Such a re Huldowney -13- femoris only). However, the potassium of the muscles did tend to vary slightly with the blood type. Relationshipiof Sodium to Composition Dilution techniques employing radioactive isotOpes of sodium have been used to determine the extracellular fluid volume of animals, and the resulting dilution volume has been taken as an index of exchangeable sodium.(Guyton, 1956). Exchangeable sodium plus a sizeable p001 of slowly exchangeable bone sodium comprise the total body sodium (Edelman, 1954a, b; Bergstrom and wallace, 1954; Forbes and Perley, 1951; Casey and Zimmerman, 1960). Edelman (1961) described the complex nature of sodium distribution in the body by stating that bone sodium is found in three distinct phases: 1) free extracellular sodium (exchangeable), 2) exchangeable sodium ab- sorbed by the surface of the crystalLfiNBbone, and 3) the sodium in the /’ crystalline structure of bone (non-exchangeable). He further estimated that the total exchangeable sodium represented 70 percent of the total. Together with the intracellular fluid the extracellular fluid com- prises the total body water. Sodium comprises a relatively constant portion of the extracellular fluid while potassium comprises a relatively constant proportion of the intracellular fluid (Keys and Brozek, 1953; Manery, 1954). Due to their relative constancy, estimates of these electrolytes (sodium and potassium) should be related to total body water. Such a relationship has been established by Edelman 25 31, (1958) and ‘Muldowney (1963). Both groups of workers found highly significant -14- correlations between serum sodium and the ratio of total body water to the sum of exchangeable sodium plus the exchangeable potassium. Since body water has been shown to be related to composition (Babineau and Page, 1955) , it appears that sodium should also be related to composition. Kirton (1962) demonstrated that both sodium and potassium were highly related to composition. His work indicated that potassium was more close- ly related to composition than sodium. However, in light of the relation- ship between sodium and composition, further research in this area appears justified. barrows I used to ments 0, weight c a Slaughte Shorthon analyzed 0V8 r311 1 it with an . N0 at temj 4 Shrops. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Experimental Animals .§EEEE: Two groups of swine from the Michigan State University farm were used. The first group was used to study the constancy of potassium and sodium in various muscles, while the second group was used to study the relationship of potassium and sodium to the composition of the var- ious compartments of the pig body. Six Hampshire and six Yorkshire barrows with slaughter weights ranging between 84.3 and 99.8 kg. were used to study the variation in muscles. In the study on various compart- ments of the pig body, 25 crossbred Yorkshire-Hampshire hogs with a live weight of 81 to 108 kg. were used. Fourteen were gilts and 11 were barrows. Cattle. Seven Angus, seven Hereford and two Shorthorn steers with slaughter weights between 232.2 and 344.3 kg. were used. The steer carcasses were purchased from local packers. The unavailability of the Shorthorns limited their number. Therefore, the Shorthorns were not analyzed separately as a breed, but values for them were included in the overall‘means. .§EEEEI Twenty-five lambs were obtained from the Michigan State University farm with carcass weights ranging between 13.2 and 31.3 kg. with an average of 23.2 kg. Twenty-three were wethers and two were rams. No attempt was made to select for breed, however, there were 7 Suffolks, 4 Shrapshires, 2 Hampshires, 2 Southdowns and 10 crossbred lambs. Six -15- ..r . hu- i' “rm f' .m -15- of the crossbreds were 5/8 Dorset-2/8 Suffolk-1/8 wastern, three were 3/4 Dorset-1/4 western, and one was 9/16 Dorset-6/16 Suffolk-1/l6 western. Collection, Preparation and Storage of Samples Since the procedures varied slightly, each will be discussed separ- ately where appropriate and differences will be emphasized. Muscle Potassium Variation Studies. Following conventional slaughter, the carcasses of the swine, cattle and sheep were aged for approximately 1 wk. at 3.3°C. Various muscles were then excised from the right side of each carcass. Each muscle was ground once through a 9.5 mm. plate and four times through a 1.6 mm. plate with mixing between each grinding. Samples of each muscle were then taken at random and placed in air tight sample jars, frozen and held at -29°C. for subsequent analysis. After thawing and just prior to analysis, the contents of each jar were thor- oughly mixed with a plastic blade attached to a "Lightnin" stirrer. In the first study on swine, the lon issimus dpgpi, semimembranosus, semitendinosus, ppgg§_m§jpgb biggpp femoris and rectus femoris muscles were utilized. The same muscles were also used in the cattle study, however, only the portion of the lopgissflmus $255; from the wholesale rib was utilized. In addition, the triceps brachii and sppraspinatus muscles from the front quarter were used. For the sheep, only the por- tion of the longissimus gggpi between the 12th rib and the 5th lumbar vertebrae was used, while the semimembranosus, semitendinosus and rectus femoris muscles were used in their entirety. In the lamb study, blood samples were also taken to determine if genetically different blood types (high and low potassium) would effect -17- muscle potassium concentration. Approxfimately 50 m1. of blood from each lamb was collected and placed in jars containing 1 gm. of reagent grade citric acid. The citric acid was used to prevent coagulation. The samples were then frozen and stored at -29°C. until analyzed. Swine Body Cpmpartment Study. In the second study on swine, the experimental animals were taken off feed approximately 24 hr. prior to slaughter and injected intramuscularly with approximately 3 ml. of Sernalan (phencyclidine—hydrochloride, 100 mg./m1.) prior to exsanguina- tion. The blood was quantitatively collected and weighed in a plastic bag. Approximately 50 m1. samples of blood were also collected for analysis, while about 1 gm. of reagent grade citric acid was used to prevent coagulation. The blood samples were then frozen and stored at -29°C. for subsequent analysis. The hogs were scalded, dehaired and washed in the conventional manner. The head and viscera, including the kidneys, were carefully removed, collected and quantitatively placed in plastic bags for weigh- ing and freezing. This compartment was identified as the head and G. I. tract. The carcass was weighed, split in half and placed in a cooler at 3.3°C. for 24 hours prior to cutting. The carcass was divided into four parts as follows: 1) the shoulder, which included the clear plate, jowl and fore foot, was that portion anterior to a cut made across the 3rd rib perpendicular to the vertebrae; 2) the ham, including the hind foot, was the entire portion posterior to a cut made across the 2nd and 3rd sacral fatback from th £5123 m spareril illustra cuts fro Eac and held ments wi 4-0 um. through . 2-0 m. p divider k grindings equa1 por Sample we Placed in After than thoroughl} % ThEP they are d -13- sacral vertebrae perpendicular to the shank; 3) the loin, including the fatback, was the portion of the carcass dorsal to a straight cut made from the ventral edge of the blade bone to the ventral edge of the ppppg gpjp£_muscle on the ham end of the loin; and 4) the side, including the spareribs, was the remaining portion ventral to the loin. Figure 1 illustrates the division of the four compartments. In all cases, the cuts from both sides of the carcass were included. Each compartment was then sealed in a separate plastic bag, frozen and held at ~29°C. until removed for sawing and grinding. A11 compart- ments with the exception of the blood were sawed into strips approximately 4.0 mm. thick. They were then ground once through a 12.7 mm. plate, twice through a 6 mm plate, once through a 3.2 mm. plate, and twice through a 2.0 mm. plate. To reduce the quantity of substance to be ground, a divider was attached to the grinder head for the third and all subsequent grindings. The divider separated the components into two approximately equal portions. One portion was discarded after each grinding. A final sample weighing about 70 gm. was taken from each compartment of each pig, placed in sample jars, frozen and held at -29°C. until used for analysis. After thawing and before analysis, the contents of each sample jar were thoroughly mixed using a plastic stirring blade on an electric stirrer. Flame Photometpy The procedures used for flame photometry varied slightly. Thus, they are described below with emphasis upon differences in methodology. Figure 1. -19- Shoulder Loin Division of pork carcasses into various compartments. -20- Instrumentation. A Beckman, Model D. U., SpectrOphotometer with a model 9200 flame attachment was connected to a dual pressure system, which controlled the flow of hydrogen and oxygen to the burner. The hydrogen pressure was regulated at 7 lb. per square inch and oxygen at 12 lb. per square inch as recommended by the manufacturer of the atomizer. The photometer's power supply was set at a sensitiVity of 5, while the selector switch on the photometer was set at 0.1. Potassium deter- minations were made on photo tube 1 with the filter in, at a wavelength of 768 mu and a slit width setting of 0.15 to 0.3. Sodium readings were ‘made using a wavelength of 589 mu.and a slit width of 0.01 - 0.03, while photo tube 2 was utilized with the filter in the out position. The Opera- tion and maintenance of the flame photometer is described in Beckman Instrument Manual 334-A. Extraction, Filtration and Dilution of Samples. Sodium and potassium must be extracted from the tissues before flame photometry can be employed to measure concentration. The elements must be in solution, and free from all particles that might clog the fine atomizer tube of the burner. Kirton (1962) compared four different methods of extraction and concluded that a modification of the TCA extraction procedure of Mounib and Evans (1957) offered better repeatability and was more readily adapt- able. Thus, the TCA.method was adapted for these studies. Following the procedure outlined by Kirton (1962), homogenous samples of ground muscle ‘were weighed accurately into aluminum dishes and transferred by washing into aluminum blender jars. The samples were homogenized for 5 min. in -21- 150 ml. of 2% TCA solution and transferred to 250 ml. Erlenmeyer flasks, which were stoppered and stored in a cooler at 3.3°C. for at least 2 hr. The solutions were then filtered through Whatman No. 40 filter paper into polyethylene bottles. Five ml. of the filtered solution was made up to a volume of 15 ml. by adding 10 ml. of 2% TCA with a pipette. Test tubes containing the diluted samples were covered with "Parafilm", mixed thor- oughly and transferred to cuvettes for atomizing and reading. To avoid possible errors encountered in transferring samples and in making a second dilution, the procedure used in the first study on swine was modified. Homogenous samples of ground tissue were weighed (1.5-3.0 gm.) on ashless filter paper and placed inside stainless steel jars (paper and sample). Then 200‘m1. of 2% TCA solution was added using an automatic pipette and each mixture was blended for 4 min. with "VirTis" blender at high speed. Each mixture was stored for at least 2 hr. in a 250 mi. stoppered Erlenmeyer flask, then filtered and stored in a poly- ethylene bottle. The samples were read directly from the bottles by using a polyethylene tube connected to the atomizer-burner. This proce- dure appeared to reduce errors and was adOpted for all other studies. Due to the fluid nature of the blood samples, however, they were trans- ferred directly by washing from the aluminum dishes rather than by using filter paper. Preparation of Standard Solutions. A stock solution containing 1000 ppm. potassium and 200 ppm. of sodium was prepared using analytical grade KCL and NaCl as suggested by Dean (1960). A 2% TCA solution prepared with de-ionized water was used for making up the stock solution. In the -22- first study on swine, 15 ml. of the stock solution was diluted to 500 ml. with 2% TCA solution. This gave a final concentration of 30 ppm. potassium and 6 ppm. sodium in the primary standard. A series of standards were then made from.the primary standard by dilution with 2% TCA. The stan- dards were used in plotting the standard curve and contained 30, 22.5, 15, 9, 3 and 0 ppm. of potassium and 6, 4.5, 3, 1.8, 0.6 and 0 ppm. of sodium. In order to allow easier calculation of the concentration of the standards and to provide closer dilution intervals, the standard solutions were prepared differently for use in the sheep, steer and second swine study. Although the same stock solution was used, 50 m1. rather than 15 were made up to a volume of 500 ml. with 2% TCA. This gave a primary standard containing 100 ppm. potassium and 20 ppm. of sodium. Standards ‘were then prepared from this primary standard by dilution with 2% TCA. The potassium concentration in this series of standards ranged from 0 to 65 ppm. at intervals of 5 ppm. to give 0, 5, 10, ...65 ppm. of potassium, while the sodium concentration ranged from 0 to 20 ppm. at intervals of 1 ppm. Readipgs. All muscles from each animal were run concurrently with standards of similar strength. The same standard curve was employed to calculate the concentration of sodium or potassium in order to avoid possible daily fluctuations. As many compartments of the pig as possible (about six) were run concurrently with standards and utilized the same standard curve. Similar compartments from each pig were run simultaneously rather than all compartments from the same pig. Calculations. A standard curve was made by plotting percent trans- mittance against the concentration of standard solutions of sodium and potassium. The sodium and potassium concentration for each sample was then determined from the standard curve using the necessary dilution factor. The formula for calculating the dilution factors in the last three studies was: ml. 2% TCA'+ sample wt. (gmgl sample wt. (gm{Y In the study on swine muscles, however, a factor of three was used to allow for the second dilution. Chemical Analysis The percent moisture was determined using the oven drying procedure outlined by Benne gpugl. (1956), except that 15 mm. deep aluminum cups without lids were used. The percent fat was determined on oven dried samples by an ether extraction procedure described by Hall (1953). Samples of 2.5-5.0 gm. were accurately weighed to the fourth place and used in these determinations. The protein determinations for the steer study and the first pig study were made following the procedure of Benne gpflpl. (1956). iflth.the sheep study and the second swine study, however, a micro-Kjeldahl procedure outlined by Brent (1965) was adopted. The samples varied in size from 1.3-1.6 gm. in the macro-Kjeldahl analysis and from 0.4-0.7 gm. in the mdcro-Kjeldahl analysis. Statistical Analysis After an analysis of variance was applied to the data as shown in the appendix tables, Duncan's multiple range test was used to test for signi- ficance between means (Duncan, 1955). in?!“ *A—‘fin “I 1 _ L RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Variation of Potassium in PigpMMscles —— Tr__- -__._ .- The data on the potassium content of different muscles of the pig are summarized in Table 1. on a wet basis (gm. of potassium per kg. of fresh muscle tissue), a fat- free, moisture-free basis (gm. of potassium per kg. of fat-free, moisture- free muscle) and on a protein basis (gm. of potassium per kg. of protein). Breed comparisons are also shown. For purposes of comparison, they are expressed Table 1. Potassium content of different muscles of the pig. Meani— iMuscle Yorkshire Hagpshire Both S.D.b Range Wet tissue basis, gm./kg. u Rectus femoris 4.05c 4.17c 4.11c 0.14 3.78:4.23 Semimembranosus 3.88°:d 3.96d 3.92c 0.13 3.61-4.10 Longissimus dorsi 3.82d:e 3.87d:e 3.85c 0.13 3.54-3.96 Biceps femoris 3.71d:e 3.85e 3.78°:d 0.17 3.34-3.95 Semitendinosus 3.65e 3.71f 3.68‘1:e 0.10 3.49-3.82 Psoas major 3.64e 3.6of 3.62e 0.18 3.35-3.93 Fat-free, moisture-free basis, gm./kg. Rectus femoris 17.30%cl 18.45c 17.88c 0.98 16.15-19.44 Semitendinosus 17.48c 17.84¢:d 17.66c 0.67 16.12-18.50 gaps femoris 16.85°:d:e 17.80_r_s_i_ and semimembranosus muscles of 60 pigs on a protein basis. Calculation of the mean content of potassium in the longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus muscles of the barrows (male castrates) indicated that the values were lower for the two muscles than those in the present study. The semimembranosus muscles from the study of Pfau 91; 21. (1963) contained 16.0 gm. of potassiun compared to 18.75 gm. in this study, while the longissimus dorsi contained 16.1 gm. compared to 17.73 gm. of potassium per gm. of protein in the present study. The semitendinosus and M femoris muscles in this study were both intermediate in potassium content, with 18.73 and 18.64 gm. /kg. of protein, respectively. Potassiun variation among breeds. Table 1 compares the average potassium content for all six muscles on a breed basis. Hampshire con- tained more potassium than Yorkshires in all muscles, except the p_§_9_a_s_ _m_a_1o_r_, regardless of the basis of comparison. The mean content of potassium of the ppgap 313.jpg muscle from the Hampshires was lower than that from the Yorkshires on both a wet basis and a fat-free, moisture- free basis, but not on a protein basis. -30- When the statistical analysis was carried out on the total potassium content of all muscles combined together on a protein basis, highly signi- ficant differences occurred between breeds. The Hampshire had a mean value of 19.29 gm. of potassium per kg. of protein compared to 17.51 gm. for the Yorkshires. Thus, the constancy of the potassium-protein rela— tionship between breeds becomes questionable when the differences are based on the total potassium per unit of protein for all six muscles. Regardless of whether or not the animals used are indicative of the breed as a whole, the variation between individual animals and strains appears to be real and shows that the potassium content per unit of protein is not cons tant 0 Variation of Sodium in Muscles of the Pig Table 2 summarizes the data on the sodium content of different muscles from the pig. For purposes of comparison, the gm. of sodium per kg. of tissue are expressed on a wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. The mean content of muscles by breed are also shown for comparison. Sodium variation on a wet basis. The sodium content of the six muscles studied was relatively constant on a wet basis. Only the longissimus dorsi muscle was significantly different from all other muscles studied. The mean ranking of muscles in descending concentration of sodium was as follows: the semitendinosus, biceps femoris, pimp 331213, rectus femoris, semimem- branosus and Msimus dorsi. The semitendinosus and biceps femoris muscles were highest in sodium content, each having a mean of 0.51 gm per kg. of wet tissue. The lowest muscle, the loggissimus dorsi, had a -31- wable 2. Sodium content of different muscles of the pig. ‘— Meana Muscle Yorkshire Hampshire Both S . D . b Range Wet tissue basis, gm. lkg. Semitendiposus 0. 53c 0. 49° 0. 51° 0. 05 0. 42-0. 62 1316ng femoris 0.52c 0.50c 0.51c 0.03 0.47-0.56 Psoas maflr 0.50c 0.49c 0.49c 0.04 0.42-0.56 Rectus femoris 0.490 0.47c 0.48c 0.04 0.42-0.56 Semimembranosus 0.50c 0.46s,d 0.48° 0. 04 0.44-0.55 Longissimus dorsi 0.45(1 0.42(1 0.43(1 0.03 0.41-0.51 Fat-free, moisture-free basis, gm./kg. Semitendinosus 2. 54° 2 . 37c 2. 45° 0. 23 2. 00-2. 86 Biceps femoris - 2.34c,d 2.31%d 2.326,(1 0.16 2.06-2.63 Psoas major 2.22d,e 2.16°:d 2.19d:e 0.22 1.67-2.60 Rectus femoris 2.11e 2.08d,e 2.099 0.19 1.88-2.42 Semimembranosus 2 . 083: f 1. 99e 2. 04e 0. 14 1 . 83-2. 33 Logipssimus dorsi 1.88f 1.843 1.8615 0.11 1.71-2.12 Mean 2. l9** 2. 12 aQMeans within treatment in the same column not bearing the same superscript are significantly (P < .05) different. 1)Standard deviation of the overall mean. “P < .01. mean sodium content of only 0.43. The difference between the two highest muscles Qemitendinosus and biceps femoris) and the lowest muscle amounted to a 15.7 percent decrease. The rectus femoris and semimembranosus muscles each contained 0.48 gm. of sodium, while the psoas major contained only slightly more (0.49 gn./kg.). After converting the mean sodium values from the studies of Lawrie and Pomeroy (1963) from percent to gm. /kg., a comparison with the values of this study is possible. Inboth studies, the concentration of sodiun in three muscles was determined, namely: the psoas major, rectus femoris and the longissimus dorsi. Values for these three muscles were 0.49, 0.48 and 0.43 gm., respectively, in the present study, while Lawrie and w ' ' L 5'3”me Pomero muscle § moistu betwee rankir placir mainec by the while i nifici the if -32.. Yomeroy (1963) reported a value of 0.50 gm. /kg. for each of the three muscles . Sodium variation on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis. On a fat-free, moisture-free basis, a larger number of significant differences existed between the sodium content of muscles than on the wet basis. The mean ranking of muscles according to sodium concentration was not altered by placing them on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis. The semitendinosus re- mained highest with a mean value of 2.45 gm. of sodium.per kg. followed by the biceps femoris, psoas major, rectus femoris and semimembranosus, while the longissimus dorsi ranked last with a mean value of 1.86 gm. The sodium content of the semitendinosus and pipgpp_femoris was sig- nificantly higher than that of the rectus femoris, semimembranosus and the lopgissimus dorsi. However, the difference between the biceps femoris and the psoas majpr was not significant. Mean sodium values of 2.32, 2.19, 2.09 and 2.04 gm./kg. were obtained for the biceps femoris,_psoas m_§j__or_, rectus femoris and longissimus £19531: muscles, respectively, on a fat-free, mpisture-free basis. The longissimus dorsi contained signifi- cantly (P‘< .05) less sodium than all other muscles. The percent decrease between the means of the lopgissimus gpppi and semitendinOsus was 24.1 a1 a fat-free, moisture-free basis compared to 15.7 percent on a wet basis. This difference is larger than that for potassium, and was also increased when placed on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. It therefore appears that the sodium-lean ratio is even more inconsistant than that of potassium and lean. ‘K—Wa‘n Air-Q compa large the 5 they used 1 -33- S¥odium variation amongfibreeds. In every case, the mean content of Sodium from the Hampshires was lower than that of the Yorkshires regard- less of the basis of comparison. However, the difference between breeds was not significant when each muscle was analyzed separately, but was highly significant when all muscles of each breed were considered together. The mean sodiun content of all muscles from the Hampshires was 0.47 gm./ kg. compared to 0.50 gm. for Yorkshires on a wet tissue basis, while on a fat-free, moisture-free basis, the Hampshires averaged 2.13 gm. /kg. compared to 2.20 for the Yorkshires. These breed differences are not as large as those for potassium, yet they indicate a lack of constancy in the sodium-lean ratio between the breeds and/or strains studied. However, they may not be indicative of the breeds as a whole since the numbers used were small . Content of FatJ Protein and Moisture in Pig Muscles Table 3 shows the mean percent of fat, moisture and protein of the six pig muscles studied. The semitendinosus muscle ranked highest in percent fat with a mean value of 6.03, followed by the biCELS femoris (5.05), the longissimus dorsi (4.76), the psoas maflr (2.77) and the sepi- membranosus (2.70), while the rectus femoris ranked last with a mean value of 1.29 percent. The semimembranosus and rectus femoris contained signi- ficantly less fat than the longissimus dorsi, biceps femoris and semiten- dinosus, but did not differ significantly from the ,Lspgg Egg; The protein content did not differ significantly between any of the six muscles, while only the rectus femoris and longissimus dorsi muscles .TJ‘ v'au—r'a A Table 3. Percent fat, moisture and protein in muscles of the pig. Meana Muscle Fat Moisture Protein Semitendinosus 6. 03b 73.13b: c 19. 68b Bic_eps femoris 5.05b 73.11b,c 20. 32b Longissimus dorsi 4. 76b 72 . 01° 21 . 52b Psoas major 2.771%c 74.59b:° 20.99b Semimemb ranosus 2. 70c 73.801), ° 20. 99b Rec tus femoris 1. 29¢ 75 . 69b 20. 61b aMeans in the same column not bearing the same superscript are signifi- cantly (P < .05) different. differed in moisture content (P < .05). The mean moisture content of the rectus femoris (highest) was 75.69 percent, while the lopgissimus dorsi (lowest) muscle contained 72.01 percent. The mean percentage of protein in the lppLissimus dorsi (highest) was 21.52 percent, while the percent protein in the semitendinosus (lowest) muscle was 19.68. Variation of Potassium in Steer Muscles Table 4 summarizes the data on the variation of potassium in differ- ent steer muscles. The mean content of potassium and the ranges are reported on a wet-basis, on a fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis in order that comparisons might be made. Potassium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis (gm. potassium/kg. muscle) the overall mean ranking of muscles in order of descending concen- tration of potassimn was as follows: semitendinosus, semimembranosus, rectus femoris, biceps femoris, M91123.) longissimus dorsi, triceps brachii and appraSpinatus. The semitendingsus was highest in potassium ‘- odGHUflJE hgum EDOflkfixr N0 uflUuEOO gunman-HON .mV DNANH ado-5am was moaumsa ~303qu moan—om Loud.“ on”. a.“ season some uonuo onu mum-#3 «sum-E unofiumonu man mo momma-ms. mo uoou ohm-Lows .Amo. v my goo-oumam hauamoamaswwm our udwuomuodnm mama on”. magnum-n uon nan-Hoe mean a.“ ado-Boon”. 3H5?» warm-MN an.a~a o-.~m m~.o~ smog-o mumoooum o-.o~-oo.ma mm.-H Na.ma-am.mu am.o- s~.o-am.m ma.m Amoaomaa H-mv ommuosm ma.ma-om.m- meq.-H om.ma-m~.ma omom.m- mo.m-am.m mom.m Ammv mason-mmmummw. m-.m--om.o- mom.a- om.m--nm.m- oma~.o- so.m-mm.m mmo.m Arse «aroma-.mmmmmmm oa.ma-mm.ma oo-.- Hm.aa-am.oa o¢o.ou am.m-an.m momo.m Ange Hmuom mos-mo-mmoa oo.ma-mo.o- omm.-H N-.ma-mo.m- omo.o- mm.m-mm.m omo.m Ammo mmflmm_moomm m~.ma-oa.oa omm.aa am.aa-am.m- moao.o- o~.m-mm.m mms.m Ammo oumoaou mmmo-m Ha.oa-mm.oa o~m.ma -.m--oa.oa o-.aa mo.o-am.m mma.m Amav mamoaom msuooa m-.o~-mo.a- ooH.mH ~m.as-mm.m- omam.o- mo.o-oa.m o-m.m Azmv.m=ooamumaoaaaom om.ma-nm.-H roo.ma Ha.ma-¢m.ma oaH.sH am.o-am.m mmm.m flame moron-oaouaaom ammum mama: swarm some: owdmm mama: odomaz Haouo>o Haouo>o aamno>o mfimon awououm manna mommaousumwoa_ manna umz «moumuumm mammau mo .wfl\.aw .ssqmmmuom odmfiumfla ngm gOHHM> MO UGOUH—OO gfimmmuom ..u 0."an- ‘with.a.mean value of 3.95 gm./kg. It contained significantly more potass- ium than all other muscles studied. The semimembranosus ranked second in potassium with a mean content of 3.87 gm./kg., which was significantly higher than all muscles except the semitendinosus. The significant difference between the mean content of potassium in the semimembranosus (3.87 gm./kg.) and the longissimus dorsi (3.68 gm./ kg.) was in contrast to the work of Pfaugppupl. (1963) and Gillett pp 31. (1965) who compared the potassium content of the same muscles from the pig and found the differences were not statistically significant (P<< .05). The rectus femoris (3.79 gm-lkg.) and biceps femoris (3.78 gm./kg.) were not significantly different in their content of potassium, yet both con- tained significantly more potassium than the psoas majpr, longissimus dorsi, triceps brachii and supraspinatus. The content of potassium in the lopgissimus dorsi (3.68 gm./kg.) did not differ significantly from that of the psoas major (3.69 gm./kg.) nor the triceps brachii (3.62 gm./kg.), while the sppraspinatus contained significantly less potassium than all other muscles studied (3.44 gm./kg.). The supraspinatus and triceps brachii, which are both located in the front quarter, were the two lowest muscles in potassium content. This suggests that differences in the location and/or function of muscles may have a bearing on their potassium content. Lawrie and Pomeroy (1963) in studying pig muscles suggested that variation in the content of connective tissue of different muscles may have caused the differences that they found in the potassium content of muscles. They further speculated that the differ- ence might be related to the function of the muscles. Ea». with r of the and PC MtClain pp 31. (1965) reported highly significant differences between the alkali-insoluble collagen content of the triceps brachii, semimem- branosus and longissimus gpppj muscles. As alkali insoluble collagen is a measure of total connective tissue, there appears to be a difference in connective tissue content of different muscles. If potassium ions are localized in contractile protein as reported by Nesterov (1964), connect- ive tissue would be low in potassium. This being the case, differences in connective tissue content would be reaponsible for some of the varia- tion in potassium content between muscles. Thus, variation in connective tissue content may account for some of the variation in potassium content between the triceps brachii and semimembranosus of the present study. McClain 33; 31. (1965) working with bovine muscles, which they classified as "less tender" reported 4.98 percent of the protein of the triceps brachii was alkali-insoluble collagen and 3.14 percent of the semimembrano- .ppp_and only 2.20 percent of the longissimus dorsi was alkali insoluble collagen. This would suggest that the variation in the potassium-protein ratio can at least partially be explained by differences in the connective tissue content. The percent decrease between the mean values of the semitendinosus (3.95 gm./kg. - highest) and the supraspinatus (3.44 gm./kg. - lowest) ‘was 12.91 percent on a wet basis. These results are in general agreement with mean differences reported by Gillett egugl. (1965) on six muscles of the pig, but somewhat lower than values for the pig reported by Lawrie and Pomeroy (1963). These workers found the percent decrease between the means of the longissimus dp£p$_and the extensor pp;pi_radialis muscles of the pig to be 30 percent. -38- Potassium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. Since mois- ture and fat may contribute to some of the variation in the potassium content of different muscles, they were compared on a fat-free, moisture- free basis (gm. potassium/kg. fat-free, moisture-free tissue). hsults indicate that fat and moisture contributed to the variation in potassimn content, since the number of means showing significant differences were reduced on correcting the data for fat and moisture. The percent decrease between means of the highest (pectus femoris - 17.27 gm. Ikg.) and lowest (longi_ssimus .d_o_1_:_s_i_ - 16.04 gm./kg.) muscles was reduced to 7.85 on the fat-free, moisture-free basis. Although the variation was reduced on a fat-free, moisture-free basis, significant differences still occurred. The rectus femoris and semitendinosus muscles had mean potassimn values of 17.27 and 17.17 gm./ kg., respectively. They were not significantly different from each other, but were significantly higher in potassium than all other muscles studied. The psoas major ranked third in potassimn content (16.68 gm. /kg.) and contained significantly more potassium than the semimembranosus, supra- spinatus, triceps brachii and the longissimus dorsi muscles. However, the 255333. 9.193. was not significantly different from the biceps femoris (16.41 gm./kg.). Although the lopgissimus dorsi was lowest in potassium content (16.04 gm. /kg.), the differences between it and the semimembranosus (16.37 gm./kg.), the supraSpinatus (16.30 gm./kg.) and the triceps brachii (16.27 gm. /kg.) were not statistically significant (P < .05). The latter three muscles were, however, significantly lower in potassiun content than all other muscles, except for the longissimus dorsi and biceps femoris. _ _ ',_ -,~,.¢_—.- (196 mois free COHS pota. valug tassi agree -39- The variation in the potassium content of steer muscles is in agree- ment with the results of Gillett 35 pl. (1965) and Lawrie and Pomeroy (1963), who compared the potassium content of pig muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. The results are, however, in contrast to the work of Pfau and Kallistratos (1963), who concluded that the fat-free, moisture- free potassium content of all muscles from a single pig were relatively constant. Since the literature contains little information on the potassium content of bovine muscles, it was not possible to compare the values for cattle with those from other studies. Potassium variation on a Jrotein basis. The concentration of po- tassium on a protein basis (gm. potassium/kg. protein) was in close agreement with the values obtained on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. The ranking of means in order of descending concentration of potassium was as follows: the semitendinosus, rectus femoris, semhembranoa , then the psoas major, biceps femoris (both the same), followed by the ppppp- spinatusg triceps brachii and lopgissimus dorsi. The muscles seemed to fall into three groups with regard to their potassium content. The semitendinosus and rectus femoris were significantly higher in potassium than all other muscles studied with values of 18.60 and 18.47 gm. /kg., respectively. The semimembranosus, biceps femoris and psoas major muscles were intermediate in potassium content, with mean values of 18.10, 17.98 and 17.98 $11. of potassium per kg. of protein, respectively. This inter- mediate group of three muscles did not differ significantly from each other, but they did have significantly less potassium than the two highest F; b: J"Mimi 'muscles, i.e., semitendinosus and rectus femoris, and significantly more potassium than the supraspinatus, triceps brachii and longissimus dorsi. The latter three muscles were significantly lower in potassium than all other muscles, but they did not differ from each other (P‘< .05). Mean values of 17.44, 17.39 and 17.14 gm. of potassium per kg. of protein were obtained for the supraspinatus, triceps brachii and longissimus dorsi, respectively. In contrast to the work reported on pig muscles (Pfau e5 21., 1963; Gillett SE 21., 1965), where the semitendinosus and longissimus dorsi muscles did not differ significantly from.each other, the same muscles from.the steers did differ significantly in potassium content (P < .05) on a protein basis. The variation in potassium content between muscles was reduced when the data were placed on a protein basis. There were fewer muscles showing significant differences than on the wet basis, and the percent decrease between the means of the highest and lowest muscles was smaller (6.91 percent). The semitendinosus was highest with 18.60 gm. of potassium per kg. of protein compared to 17.14 gm./kg. for the longissimus dorsi 6 the lowest muscle. Although variation was reduced on a protein basis or when corrected for fat and moisture, differences still existed in the potassium-protein ratio and the potassium-lean ratio. This indicates a lack of constancy in the potassium-protein relationship, and could represent an important source of error in the use of potassium for predicting the composition of cattle. Since the lack of constancy is based on mean values, even larger differences would be expected between individual animals. -41- Variation in potassium among the steer muscles appeared to be less than that of the pigs in the present investigation, yet constancy was lacking in both cases. This indicates a general lack of accuracy in predicting composition from total potassium or potassium-4O counts. Potassium variation among breeds. The error mean square used for testing breed differences was obtained by removing the effects of muscle, breed and the muscle x breed interaction. Breed differences in potassium content of Hereford and Angus steers did not exist when individual muscles were analyzed. 0n considering all eight muscles together, however, significant breed differences occurred in the total potassium content on a protein basis (P < .01) and on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis (P < .05), but not on a wet basis. This indicates that fat and moisture did not contribute to the variation between breeds in this study. The percent decrease between the potassium content of the Angus muscles and that of the Herefords only amounted to 2.13 and 1.79 percent on a pro- tein basis and on a fat-free, moisture-free basis, respectively. Such low values for percent decrease between breeds indicate that the differ- ence in potassium content between breeds was not an important consider- ation in the potassium-protein or potassium-lean ratio for cattle and, furthermore, the breed difference was less for cattle than for pigs. Variation of Sodium in Steer Muscles Table 5 summarizes the data on the sodium content of the steer muscles. The sodium content of all eight muscles are listed on a wet F L 1 1‘ .- fr noun-03E Menu-... QDOHHU> NO uCOuCOO Snip-0m .m. UHAHH .maoaaao poo moaomsa_aoosuon doauoo unsung osu ma assume some Honuo onu 0H053_noua unoauomuu onu mo oodoHHm> mo uoou phenom» .Amo. v my amorous-m handsoMMHnmwu who unauomsoasn seam one magnum; uon nasaoo meow ow udofiumouu aH£u«3.maoo£m nqm.m¢ mmm.mm 005.5 wuouno mummamum No.3-am.a om.~ Hm.m-so.a om.~ Hm.o-mm.o ~n.o “mo-oooa.uamv ommuo>m om.~-am.u «so.~ mo.~-mo.- mom.a om.o-mm.o ooe.o Ange amuom mas-mm-mmma . m3.~-ms.- mmH.~ om.N--o.- mmm.a mm.o-mm.o oom.o Azmv osmonoumeoaasom mm No.~-mm.a omm.u um.~-mm.a 65-.N am.o-Ns.o mon.o Aamv moooa-mmoo-aom Ho.m-om.a mooo.~ om.~-~a.a oma~.~ so.o-am.o mom.o Ammo roams omomm m~.m-m-.N moon.~ ao.m-ao.~ ooo.~ so.o-~o.o omm.o Arse H-aoomm ammo-mm. s~.m-o~.~ omo.~ No.m-oH.N omm.~ mm.o-as.o osm.o Ammo m-ooaom maroon mo.m--.~ moam.~ Ha.~-oo.~ momm.~ mo.o-¢o.o oom.o Ammo mauoaom.moommm. No.3-mm.~ mm~.m Hm.m-am.~ rmo.m Hm.o-om.o moo.o Ammo msommwammmmmm. Itwwwum muons .wwdmm [meomz wwdum Hmmomz immomaz swoon owououm mamas ooumnousumwoa mamas ups «ooHMuuom mammau mo .w£\waw.asapom moan-woe ...-ovum. macaw-g mo unouaoo gavom .n man—on. kg. 1 £011( Conte f0ur‘ being kg. lower per k iron I PQrce] relat: -43- basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis for purposes of comparison. Ranges are also included on each muscle as an indication of maximum variation within and between muscles. Sodium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis (gm. of sodium per kg. of wet tissue) the ranking of muscles from highest to lowest was as follows: the sppraspinatus (highest); the biceps femoris, EEEEHE femoris and triceps brachii (all containing the same amount); followed by the Ipppp§_pgjpg and semitendinosus (each with the same amount); and finally the semimembranosus and longissimus £121.11. The sppraspinatus was much higher than the other muscles (P < .05) in sodium content. By comparing the mean of the supraspinatus (0.64 gm./kg.) with the mean values of the next three muscles, i.e., the biceps femoris, rectus femoris and triceps brachii (each with 0.54 gm. of sodium per kg.) a 15.4 percent decrease was obtained. The latter three muscles were significantly higher in sodium content than all other muscles except the supraspinatus. The remaining four muscles fell into two pairs with the ppppp yelp; and semitendinosus being intermediate in sodium concentration and each containing 0.50 gm./ kg. The semimembranosus and lopgissimus dp£§i_muscles were significantly lower than all other muscles and contained 0.46 and 0.44 gm. of sodium per kg., reapectively. These two muscles did not differ significantly from each other. The large variation between the means of the highest (sppraspinatus) and lowest (longissimus dpgpi) muscles amounted to a 30.7 percent decrease. Variation of such a magnitude in the sodium-muscle relationship would undoubtedly be reflected in estimates of composition It I)! on using sodiun concentration as an index of composition. Lack of con- stancy in the sodimn-lean relationship accounts for at least part of the error involved and explains why Kirton and Pearson (1963) found the relationship between sodium content and composition to be too low for practical use. Sodium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. On a fat-free, moisture-free basis, the variation between muscles was greater as evi- denced by more differences between individual muscles (P < .05) and larger differences between extreme means. The supraepinatus muscle re- mained significantly higher in sodium content than all other muscles of the study. It was followed by the rectus femoris (2.45 gm./kg.), triceps brachii (2.40 gm./kg.), M femoris (2.35 gm./kg.), WEE (2.27 gm./kg.), semitendinosus (2.17 gm./kg.) and the_ semimembranosus (1.95 gm./ kg.) , while the lopgissimus dorsi was lowest with only 1.94 gm. of sodium per kg. of fat-free, moisture-free tissue. The rectus femoris, triceps brachii and biceps femoris did not differ significantly in sodium content, however, each of these muscles contained more sodium (P < .05) than the semitendinosus, semimembranosus and lggissi- ELEM muscles. The _b_i_c_e_ps_ femoris and pe9a_s _1pa_jo_r were not signifi- cantly different, while the semitendinosus contained significantly more sodium than the semimembranosus and longissimus dorsi. Although the peas—s 2.3.123 contained more sodium than the semitendinosus the difference was not significant (P < .05). The percent decrease between extreme means for the highest (pgpgg— spinatus - 3.03 gm./kg.) and the lowest (longissimus dorsi - 1.94) muscles 81 me we Sodi Pl'ot fat-; ass t0 th Moist Prote large pEI‘Ce °n a -45- was 36.0 percent. Such variation represents a lack of constancy in the sodium-lean ratio of considerable magnitude, and thus suggests that sodium is not a good index of composition. These studies are in agree- ment with the work of Kirton and Pearson (1963), who found that potassium was more closely related to composition than sodium. 0n comparing the ranking of muscles for potassium and sodium, it can be observed that the supraspinatus muscle was highest in sodium, but quite low in potassium. This is in agreement with the work of Flear pp .21. (1965), who observed an inverse relationship between sodium and potassium concentration in human muscle biopsies. However, they indicated that the inverse relationship was not quantitative for all muscles. Sodium variation on a protein basis. When the concentration of sodium among muscles was compared on a protein basis (gm. sodium per kg. protein), the ranking was quite similar to that on a wet basis or on a fat—free, moisture-free basis. The extreme variation between the highest mean (3.25 gm./kg. - supraspinatus) and the lowest (2.07 gm./kg. - lopgissi- E 51559;) amounted to a 36.3 percent decrease. This was almost identical to the 36.0 percent decrease found on the same muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. The variation between muscles was increased on a protein basis compared to the wet basis as evidenced by the fact that a larger number of muscles showed significant differences and a greater percent decrease occurred between extreme means. The mean ranking of muscles in descending concentration of sodium on a protein basis was as follows: supraspinatus (3.25 gm./kg.), rectus femoris (2.62 gm./kg.), biceps femoris (2.57 gm./kg.), triceps brachii (2.56 gm./kg.), ppppp_pejp£_(2.44 gm./kg.), semitendinosus (2.34 gm./kg.), semimembranosus (2.16 gm./kg.) and'the longissimus dorsi (2.07 gm./kg.). The supraspinatus had significantly more sodium than all other muscles, while the semimembranosus and lopgissimus dorsi had less than all other muscles (P'< .05). The'gepppp_femoris, biceps femoris, triceps brachii and‘ppppp p512; were relatively high in sodium and did not differ signi- ficantly from each other. The semitendinosus was significantly higher than the two lowest muscles (the semimembranosus and longissimus dorsi), but lower than all other muscles on a protein basis. The extreme variation in sodium on any basis of comparison suggests that sodium would be a rather poor index of composition and errors of considerable magnitude might be expected. Constancy does not exist in the sodiumemuscle, sodium-lean, or sodium-protein ratio, which makes the use of sodium as an index of composition impractical. Sodium variation amopg breeds. Differences in sodium content of various muscles from.Angus and Hereford steers were not significant on any basis of comparison (P < .05). This suggests that breed differences were not an important consideration in predicting composition from sodium content. The fact that breed differences were small and unimportant in this study does not necessarily eliminate the possibility that larger differences may exist between breeds as only two breeds were compared and the number of animals in each was small. Furthermore, the animals may not have been representative of the breeds studied. -47- Content of Fat, Protein and Moisture in Steer Muscles Table 6 shows the percent fat, moisture and protein for individual muscles. As might be expected, large differences occurred in percent fat between muscles and between individual steers. The ppppp ma or was highest with a mean value of 7.40 percent, and contained significantly more fat than all other muscles. Table 6. Percent fat, moisture and protein in various steer muscles Meana Fat Moisture Protein Muscles % % . % Pie-gs £123.; (PM) 7.40b 70.48d 20.53e Longissimus dorsi (LD) 6.21c 70.83d 21.50b m femoris (RF) 5.80<=d 72.26° 20.52e Sppraspinatus (sp) 5.4551 73.41b 19.77f Triceps brachii (TB) 5.42d 72.31c 20.84de m femoris (BF) 4.46e 72.52c 21.05Cd Semitendinosus (ST) 3.57ef 73.41b 21.26bc Semimembranosus (SM) 3.18f 73.18b 21.40bc Average (all muscles) 5.18 72.30 20.86 Standard errorg 4.29 .1823 .1351 aMeans within treatment in same column not hearing the same superstript are significantly different (P < .05). 8Square root of variance of the treatment mean where the error mean square is the interaction between muscles and animals. The lopgissimus dorsi and rectus femoris were not significantly different from each other, nor were the rectus femoris, supraspinatus ‘W‘t‘v—r: -48- and triceps brachii or the semitendinosus and the semimembranosus (P < .05). The semitendinosus and semimembranosus with mean values of 3.57 and 3.18 percent fat, respectively, were lower in fat than all muscles except the biceps femoris (P < .05). The biceps femoris contained significantly less fat than the psoas major, longissimus dorsi, rectus femoris, sppra- spinatus and triceps brachii but significantly more than the semimembrano- _s_t_1_§. The lopgjpsimus dorsi contained significantly more fat than the supraflinatus, triceps brachii, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, and 5gp;- membranosus, but less than the psoas major. The supraspinatus and semitendinosus, both with mean values of 73.41 percent, and the semimembranosus with a mean value of 73.18 percent con- tained more moisture (P < .05) than all other muscles. The psoas major and lopgissimus $9351. with mean values of 70.48 and 70.83 percent, respectively, contained significantly less moisture than all other muscles studied. The biceps femoris, triceps brachii and rectus femoris muscles with mean values of 72.52, 72.31 and 77.26 percent moisture, respectively, were intermediate in moisture content. They did not differ from each other (P < .05), but they were significantly different from all other muscles. The mean ranking of muscles in percent protein from highest to lowest was as follows: the lopgissimus dorsi (21.50 percent), semimembranosus (21.40 percent), semitendinosus (21.26 percent), 1_3_i_c_eps_ femoris (21.05 percent), triceps brachii (20.84 percent), p_sp§_§ m (20.53 percent), rectus femoris (20.52 percent) and the supraspinatus with only 19.77 per- cent protein. The three highest muscles Qongissimus dorsi, semimembran- osus and semitendinosus) did not differ in percent protein (P < .05), -49‘ but they contained significantly more protein than the psoas mejog, rectus femoris, supraspinatus and triceps brachii. Significant differences did not occur between the semimembranosus, semitendinosus, and biceps femoris nor between the biceps femoris and triceps brachii. Similarly, the triceps brachii, psoas majgr and rectus femoris did not differ significantly in protein concentration. The appra- spinatus with a mean protein content of 19.77 percent contained less protein than all other muscles. It was followed by the rectus femoris and mm muscles, which had significantly less protein than all 'muscles except the supraepinatus and triceps brachii. The percent decrease between the muscle highest in protein (longissimus dpppp - 21.50 percent) and the lowest (supraspinatus - 19.77 percent) was 8.0 percent. This indicates an unusually large amount of variation in the protein content of various muscles. However, the effects of variation in protein were presumably removed by calculating the potassium-protein and sodium-protein ratios. Variation of Potassium in Sheep Muscles '1' 1‘ M I J 1 fl :1 I! i. 1 Table 7 summarizes the data on the potassium content of various lamb lai'f'. ‘ muscles. The mean potassium concentration of the four muscles studied 3 are shown along with ranges for the muscles. To provide a comparison, all muscles are shown on a wet tissue basis, a fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. uwhwlufiw .mUHuwfiE AEUH DDOHHH> N0 UGUUCOO Eflflnufluom .k flunflh .maoaaao new moaomsa.doosuon oofiuoouounw on» ma season Game nouns sou muons.:ooa_uaoafloouu man no oudmauu> mo uoou ouoovmm .umomomm-m Ame. v_mv hauooUHMHame who udwuomuodom mama on» wsfiuoon uon denaoo 080m man ea uooauoosu ownuqs.mnomzm mHmo.o NHHH.o mnao.o mmm mo.mH wm.eH an.m owouo>o Haouo>o «H.HNIMN.mH n~o.oa mH.NHIme.mH nwm.nH mN.¢soH.m onm.m «anon m:EAmmenog mm.HN1no.oH oom.mH mm.manma.¢a omN.oH oo.¢1HH.m U¢Q.m mnmonmnnemaflaom 0H.ounnm.ma nom.ma oo.omuon.¢a AHo.NH Hm.¢nmN.m own.m mfluofiom manomm so.m--om.m- osm.m- om.--om.o- oom.a- mo.3-m~.m osm.m msmon-maoo-aom owomm some: mwdmm some: madam some: sauna: wanna oaouonm mamas mamas uo3 moumuouaumwos ooMMuuom .moaomaa mama moofium> mo udouaoo asammouom .n manna conc jgpp signi and c was 5 gpgpi 0f 3.! 1 is is. (P A 0f the higher 0.30 pe Percen on sepa in this differe to am 1. differe Ih ‘ 3,37 I to 8‘0 Potassium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis (gm. of potassium per kg. of fresh tissue), the ranking of means in order of descending concentration of potassium was as follows: the semitendinosus, rectus femoris, semimembranosus, and lopgissimus'gpgei. The semitendinosus was significantly higher in potassium concentration than all other muscles and contained 3.87 gm. of potassium per kg. of tissue. The rectus femoris was second highest in potassium content with a mean value of 3.78 gm./kg. and was significantly higher than the semimembranosus and longissimus dorsi muscles. The semimembranosus muscle with a mean potassium content of 3.64 gm./kg. was significantly higher than the longissimus dorsi. The lopgissimus.gp£giywas lowest in potassium with a mean content of 3.56 gm./ kg. (P < .05). A range of 0.31 to 0.45 percent was observed in the potassium content of the four lamb muscles in the present study. These values are slightly higher than the following ranges reported in the literature: 0.20 to 0.30 percent for lamb muscle (Toscani and Buniak, 1947), 0.27 to 0.31 percent on sheep muscle (Harris e5 §;., 1952), and 0.27 to 0.34 percent on separable lean from lamb (Kirton and Pearson, 1963). The higher values in this study may have been because different muscles were used or because differences existed in the fat or moisture content of the muscles. Animal to animal variation can not be overlooked as a possible cause of the difference. The percent decrease between the means of the highest (eemitendinosus - 3.87 gm./kg.) and the lowest (longissimus dorsi - 3.56) muscles amounted to 8.0 percent on a wet basis. The variation in potassium content between mu tit pol afi and pot: free mois rank follc lppgj and E and h these more p The 33% signif of the W1 and 1c». 8 fat. variatJ suggest -52- muscles indicates that constancy is lacking in the potassium muscle rela- tionship on a wet basis. Unless the muscle to muscle variation in potassiun content is due to differences in fat or moisture, it would affect the accuracy of the potassium-composition relationship for sheep. Potassium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. Since fat and moisture could be responsible for some of the variation in muscle potassium, their effects were removed by converting the values to a fat- free, moisture-free basis, i.e., gm. of potassium per kg. of fat-free, moisture-free tissue. A comparison on this basis did not alter the ranking of means. They ranked from high to low in potassium content as follows: the semitendinosus, rectus femoris, semimembranosus and the longissimus dorsi. The two highest muscles, i.e., the semitendinosus and rectus femoris, did not differ significantly in potassium content and had mean values of 17.86 and 17.61 gm. /kg., respectively. Although these latter two muscles were not significantly different, both contained more potassiun than the semimembranosus and longissimus dorsi (P < .05). The semimembranosus with a mean potassium content of 16.25 gang. had significantly more potassium than the lon issimus siege}, the lowest muscle of the study. When the means of the highest (the semitendinosus - 17.86 gm. /kg.) and lowest (lopgissimus dorsi - 15.58 gm. Ikg.) muscles were compared on a fat-free, moisture-free basis a 12.77 percent decrease occurred. This variation in extreme means was higher than it was on a wet basis and would suggest that the variation of potassium in the lamb muscles was not due but1 pota: of fa betwe able lack. flect< ships. 1 indivi Pearsc Separa over t Conten higher a fat. bu gm. of Signif fat‘fr °°ntail lVe ly’ to fat or moisture. However, one can also note that the difference be- tween the semitendinosus and rectus femoris was significant on a wet basis, but not on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. Thus, the variation in potassium was reduced between these two muscles on removing the effects of fat and moisture. Nevertheless, the differences in potassium content between the other mmecles are of great enough magnitude to make question- able the constancy of the potassium-lean ratio in lamb muscles. The lack of constancy in the potassium-lean ratio would undoubtedly be re- flected in a reduction of accuracy in the potassium composition relation- ships. The literature contains no information on the potassium content of individual sheep muscles on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis. Kirton and Pearson (1963), however, reported that the potassium content of the separable lean increased by 0.025 to 0.34 percent on a fat-free basis over the wet basis, the amount of increase being dependent upon the fat content of the sample. Since the mean moisture content is about 15-fold higher than the average fat content, if the data had been calculated on a fat-free, moisture-free basis the values would be much higher. Potassium variation on a protein basis. On a protein basis, i.e., gm. of potassium per kg. of protein, the mean ranking of muscles and the significant differences between muscles were identical to those on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. The semitendinosus and rectus femoris contained 18.97 and 18.90 gm. of potassium per kg. of protein, respect- ively, and were higher (P < .05) than the other muscles of this study, 1'- a lac of th for a total CODtEI the p1 1.21an than blood b100d blood a Stax aPPrm as the Potass (Kerr but were not significantly different from each other. The semimembranosus contained 17.56 gm. of potassium per kg. of protein and was significantly higher than the longissimus Eggs; muscle. The longissimus _d_o_r_s_i_ muscle was lowest in potassium with a mean content of 16.67 gm./kg. .A 12.12 per- cent decrease existed between the semitendinosus and longissimus gpgpp muscles on a protein basis compared to 8.01 and 12.77 percent, respectively, on a wet basis and fat-free, moisture-free basis. These results indicate a lack of constancy in the potassium content of lamb muscles regardless of the basis of comparison. The lack of constancy in potassium accounts for at least part of the error involved in determining composition from total potassium or potassium-40 and limits the usefulness of potassium content for estimating body composition. Potassium.variation in blood as related to muscle variation. When the potassium content of the blood of the 25 lambs was determined, the lambs fell into two groups. Four lambs contained much more blood potassium than the remainder. The blood samples from.the lambs, which were high in blood potassium, had a mean content of 1.44 gm. of potassium per kg. of blood with a standard deviation of 0.117. The 21 lambs with low potassium blood had 0.42 gm. of potassium per kg. of blood on the average, with a standard deviation of 0.076. The high blood potassium lambs contained approximately three and one half times as much potassium in the blood as the low potassium group. The difference between the high and low potassium blood group is in close agreement with work reported earlier (Kerr, 1937; Mbunib and Evans, 1958; Kidwell epugl,, 1959). r4 1 a I a f? :h' ence potas (1960 pipgp werel made Regar body ’ Count: Potas; liVe-V the 1; c(Jute: tact °f p0 p°tass baged Since there may be a carry over of potassium from blood to muscle, the potassium content of the muscles from the two blood types (high and low potassium) was compared. A statistical analysis of the data from.the two blood types indicated that a significant difference did not exist between the potassium content of muscles taken from the two blood types on any basis of comparison. The failure to find a significant differ- r‘ ence between the potassium content of muscles from.low and high blood potassium type sheep was in agreement with the work of M0unib and Evans 1. (1960), who failed to find a difference in the potassium content of the biceps femoris muscle of high and low blood types. Since only four lambs were of the high potassium type blood, definite conclusions cannot be ‘made as to the effect of blood potassium content on the amount in 'muscles. Regardless of this relationship, since blood composes part of the sheep body, estimates of composition from total potassium or from potassium-40 counts on live sheep would be subject to error with the inclusion of the two blood types (high and low). In order to determine the influence of different blood types on the potassium content of lamb, the effect was calculated using an average live-weight of 23.2 kg. as obtained in the present study, and assuming \fi-A‘L. - . 11"“ the lambs contained 8 percent blood (Dukes, 1955). USing a potassium content of 1.77 gm./kg. on the whole body (Kirton'epnel., 1961), the in- tact lamb would contain 41.0 gm. of potassium. If the value of 41.0 gm. of potassium represented the low blood potassium group, the high blood potassium lambs would have a calculated value of 42.9 gm. of potassium, based on values of 0.42 and 1.44 gm. of potassium per kg. of blood (present 3100 e m and means scrip basis therej -55- study). The difference between lambs representing the two groups would amount to a 4.4 percent decrease. Although 4.4 percent is not a large error, it would involve a consistent source of variability between high and low blood potassium lambs. Since high and low potassium blood types have not been found (1966) in swine and cattle, the errors due to the variation in potassium content of blood are apparently negligible in these species. Variation of Sodium in Sheep Muscles Table 8 lists the content of sodium in various sheep muscles by means and ranges. The significant differences are indicated by super- scripts. Comparisons are shown on a wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. The animals were not selected by breed and therefore breed differences are not shown. Table 8. Sodium content of various lamb muscles. Fat-free, 'moisture-free -_H§t basis basis Protein basis ‘Muscle Mean8 Range Mean5 Rapge Mean3 Range Longissimus dorsi 0.73b 0.59-1.00 3.21b 2.61-4.62 3.44b 2.77-4.82 Rectus femoris 0.65c 0.53-0.78 3.03c 2.42-4.11 3.25c 2.54-4.22 Semitendinosus 0.63(1 0.54-0.72 2.89d 2.39-3.36 3.08(1 2.52-3.60 Semdmembranosus 0.62(1 0.53-0.74 2.77e 2.38-3.46 3.00d 2.52-3.67 Overall average 0.66 2.98 3.19 sgf 0.076 0.039 0.041 aMeanswithin treatment in.the same column not bearing the same super- fscript are significantly (P < .05) different. Square root of variance of the treatment mean where the error mean square is the interaction between muscles and animals. Th< wit fro stud of 0 (194: for s 0.069 reDori I'- ‘ Jm-I'f' ..b 1‘ -57- Sodium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis (gm. sodium per kg. wet tisue), the mean ranking of muscles in descending concentration was as follows: the longissimus dorsi, rectus femoris, semitendinosus and semimembranosus. The longissimus dorsi was significantly higher in sodium than all other muscles with a mean content of 0.73 gm. /kg. Although the rectus femoris had less sodium (P < .05) than the longissi- _r_n_1_1_e _c_l_9_r:_s_i_._ it contained significantly more than the other two muscles. The semitendinosus and semimembranosus were lowest in sodium content with 0.63 and 0.62 gm. /kg., respectively, and did not differ significantly from each other. The overall range in sodium content for the four muscles of this study was 0.053 to 0.100 percent. These values are lower than the range of 0.079-0.140 percent for lamb muscle observed by Toscani and Buniak (1947), but agree closely with the figures of 0.073 and 0.074 percent for sheep muscles reported by Blaxter and Rook (1956) and figures of 0.069-0.081 percent observed on the separable lean from lamb carcasses reported by Kirton and Pearson (1963). The overall mean sodiLm content of 0.066 percent of this study agrees closely with the figures of 0.062 and 0.064 percent reported by Harris e}; 31. (1952). Mounib and Evans (1960) reported values of 0.050 to 0.045 percent on the fat-free, blood-free ill-222.9. femoris muscle of sheep. Since the muscles in the present study are not on the same basis, they cannot be compared. However, removal of effects of fat in the study of Mounib and Evans (1960) should increase the percentage of potassium. On the other hand, correcting for blood would decrease it, since blood has approximately tr~"-‘ v. . . ‘ anus.“ C1 61" ‘11] f0: -58.. four times as much sodium as muscle. Thus, removal of the blood may account for the low values reported by these workers. In the present study, a 15.1 percent decrease occurred between the highest (longissimus dore;)and lowest (semimembranosus) muscles in sodium content. This represents a larger variation (15.1 vs 8.0 percent) than existed in the case of potassium on comparing extreme means. The potassium -1 -muscle relationship was more constant than the sodiumamuscle relationship for sheep, which indicates that sodium is a poor index of lean content. Sodium variation on a fat-freepgmoisture-free basis. By comparing the data on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (gm./kg.), the number of ‘means showing significance was increased while the percent decrease be- tween extreme means for sodium was reduced to 13.7 percent. The mean ranking remained the same as on a wet basis, but all muscles were signi- ficantly different from each other. The longissimus dorsi (3.21 gm./kg.) was highest followed by the rectus femoris (3.03 gm./kg.), then the semitendinosus with 2.89 gm. of sodium per kg., and finally the semimem- branosus (lowest) with 2.77 gm./kg. The overall mean content of the four muscles was 2.98 gm. of sodium per kg. on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. Comparisons are not available in the literature on this basis. Constancy is lacking in the sodium-lean ratio, and therefore sodium content provides a poor index of composition. Corrections for fat and moisture content did not alter the variation between sodium and lean content in this study. pro: prot good 3808] found .8. r1" *3 -59- Sodium variation on a protein basis. The ratio of sodium to protein (gm./kg.) was significantly different for all muscles, except the semi- tendinosus and semimembranosus, which had 3.08 and 3.00 gm./kg., respectively. The longissimus eggpi was highest with 3.44 gm. of sodium per kg. of protein and was followed by the rectus femoris muscle with 3.25 gm. /kg., while the semitendinosus and semimembranosus were lowest. The ranking of means and the means showing significant differences were identical to that for the wet basis. However, the percent decrease be- tween extreme means was decreased slightly (15.1 vs 12.8 percent) on a protein basis. The lack of constancy in the sodium-muscle, sodium-lean and sodium- protein ratios in lamb muscle indicates that sodium content is not a good indicator of composition on any basis. These conclusions are in general agreement with the work of Kirton and Pearson (1963), who also found that sodium lacks precision as an index of body composition. Content of Fae, Protein and Moisture in Sheep Muscles Table 9 summarizes the data on the fat, protein and moisture content of the four lambs muscles studied. The semitendinosus was highest in fat (4.90 percent) and contained significantly more fat than all other *muscles. It was followed by the longjssimus dorsi muscle, which contained 4.06 percent. The semimembranosus was third from the highest in fat content (3.64 percent), but did not differ significantly from the longissimus'gppp£_(4.06 percent) nor the Eeepp§_fomoris (3.56 percent). However, the igngiesipps dgrsi and zeejg§,femg;i§;were significantly -60- Table 9. Fat, moisture and protein in lamb muscles Meana IMuscle Fat Meisture Protein Semitendinosus 4.90b 73.38d 20.42c Longissimus dorsi 4.06c 73.09e 21.35b Semimembranosus 3.64Cd 73.96c 20.72c Rectus femoris 3.56d 74.93b 20.00d Overall average 4.04 73.84 20.65 sf .159 . 092 .111 'aMeans within treatment in the same column not bearing the same super- script are significantly (P < .05) different. Square root of variance of the treatment mean where the error mean square is the interaction between muscles and animals. different (P < .05). The rectus femoris had the lowest fat content. A 27.3 percent decrease existed between the rectus femoris (lowest and semitendinosus (highest) muscles, while a 12.3 percent decrease existed between the rectus femoris (lowest) and the longissimus dorsi (second highest) muscles. These values reflect wide variation in the fat con- tent of the muscles studied. All of the muscles differed significantly (P < .05) in moisture content. The rectus femoris (highest) had 74.93 percent moisture, while the longissimus $252; (lowest) had 73.09 percent. The percent decrease between these two means amounted to only 2.5 percent, which indicates very little variation occurred between muscles, even though the differ- ences were large enough to be significant (P < .05). The semimembranosus and semitendinosus muscles were intermediate in moisture content and contained 73.96 and 73.38 percent moisture, respectively. th (:81 01'. Pete to m relat will taSsi m“$01 hemee and sh baSis -51- The longissimus dorsi was significantly higher in protein than all other muscles with 21.35 percent protein. It was followed by the 222i? membranosus (20.72 percent) and the semitendinosus (20.42 percent) muscles, which did not differ significantly, but contained more protein than the rectus femoris (P‘< .05). The rectus femoris was lowest in protein with a mean value of 20.00 percent. Even though the actual differences between the high and low muscles amounted to only 1.25 percent protein, the per- cent decrease was 6.3 percent. The effect of variation in fat, moisture and protein on the potassium content is removed by placing the data on a fat-free, moisture-free basis or on a protein basis. Potassium and Sodium Variation Between Species Among the various muscles utilized in this study, four were common to swine, cattle and sheep. Since it was of interest to compare the relative amount of potassium and sodium in muscles of these animals, they will be discussed separately under potassium and sodium. Potassium. Table 10 shows a comparison of the mean content of po- tassium in four individual muscles and the combined mean of all four 'muscles. As an indication of the extent of variation, the percent decrease between the highest and lowest means are also included. Swine, cattle and sheep are shown separately on a wet basis, a fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. ..r. __.l—I—r—l-.--—u_... .1._—'—._--_'.-'_'.—"-—'_.— _ . - -—‘-———.-- —Ir--=‘-- I 4.4' It'lcnh-h- b c r3” Table 10. Potassiun content of muscles by species. Mean Muscle Swine Cattle Sheep Wet tissue basis, gm./kg. Rectus femoris 4.05 3.79 3.78 Semimemb ranosus 3. 88 3. 87 3 . 64 Longissimus dorsi 3.82 3.68 3.56 Semitendinosus 3 . 65 3. 95 3. 87 Average of four muscles 3.85 3.80 3.71 Percent decreasea 9.9% 6.8% 8.0% Fat-free, moisture-free basis, gm./kg. Semitendinosus 17 . 48 17 . 17 17 . 86 Rectus femoris 17.30 17.27 17.61 Semimembranosus 16.21 16.37 16.25 Longissimus dorsi 16.11 16.04 15.58 Average of four muscles 16.78 16.71 16.82 Percent decreasea 7.8% 7.1% 12.8% Protein basis, gm. /kg. Rectus femoris 19.01 18.47 18.80 Semitendinosus 18. 02 18. 60 18. 97 Semimembranosus 17 . 70 18. 10 17 . 56 Lopgissimus dorsi 17.00 17.14 16. 67 Average of four muscles 17.93 18.08 18.00 Percent decreasea 10.6% 7.8% 12.1% the percent decrease is calculated from the highest and lowest means within species. -63.. On a wet basis, the difference between the overall averages for the species studied were small. The differences between muscles within a species appear to be larger than the differences between species. On a fat-free,*moisture-free basis or on a protein basis, the variation in potassium content between species was reduced. The differences between species based on the overall average of the four muscles from each species were all very small on either a fat-free, moisture-free basis or on a protein basis. Judging from the small differences between species, there appears to be little difference in the potassium content of skeletal 'muscle if the muscles utilized in this study are representative. On a wet basis, muscle to muscle variation occurred within all Species, and the ranking of muscles by mean content of potassium was extremely variable between all species. Although some muscle to muscle variation was evident on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis and on a protein basis, the ranking of means according to their potassium concentration was very r- 93 similar between species. Only a limited number of muscles varied in the order of ranking from one species to the next, in which case the means involved were generally not significantly different in potassium concen- tration. "‘32-, Sodium. Table 11 compares the average sodium content for each of the four muscles, the overall mean sodium content, and percent decrease between extreme muscle means within each species. Sodium values are listed for swine, cattle and sheep on a wet basis and on a fat-free, Inoisture-free basis. The magnitude of the percent decrease between ex- treme muscle means indicates large muscle to muscle variations in sodium -- -..,-.- -m- -54- content, regardless of the basis of comparison or species examined. Un- like potassium, the ranking of means for sodium concentration was highly variable between species on both a wet basis and a fat-free, moisture- free basis. Table 11. Sodium content of muscles by species. Mean Muscle Swine Cattle Sheep . Wet tissue basis, gm./kg. Semitendinosus 0. 53 0. 50 0. 62 Semimembranosus 0. 50 0. 46 0. 63 Rectus femoris 0.49 0.54 0.65 Longissimus dorsi 0.45 0.44 0.73 Average of four muscles 0.49 0.49 0.66 Percent decreasea 15.1% 18.5% 15.1% Fat-free, moisture-free basis, gm./kg. Semitendinosus 2 . 54 2. l7 2 . 89 r Rectus femoris 2.11 2.45 3.03 . Semimembranosus 2. 08 l . 95 2. 77 Longissimus dorsi 1.88 1.94 3.21 Average of four muscles 2.15 2.13 2.98 Percent decreasea 26.0% 20.8% 13.7% e aPercent decrease is calculated from highest and lowest means within species. Results indicate a general lack of constancy in sodium content among species as well as between individual muscles. The ranking of muscles in order of sodium content was also erratic between species. These fac- tors further verify the low relationship between sodium content and body composition. a. p-f‘ #‘ -65- Variation of Potassium in Body Compartments of Swine Table 12 shows the potassium content of the six compartments of the pig in addition to the whole animal and carcass. The data are compared on a wet basis, a fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. Superscripts are used to denote significance between means. Table 12. Potassium content of various compartments of the pig (gm./kg.) Meana Fat-free Compartment Wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Ham 2.65b 13.65c 15.33b Shoulder 2.339 12.80(1 14.66Cd Loin 2.1899 13.329 15.13bc Side 1.79h 14.01b 14.06e Blood 2.07f8 10.06e 14.44de 01 and head 1.998 11.37d 10.53f Carcass 2.27cd 13.35c 14.57de Animal - whole 2.16ef 12.82d 14.87bed sii .02415 0.11814 0.13534 aMeans within the same column not bearing the same superscript are signi- ficantly different (P < .05). 1Standard error of the mean (8;). Potassium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis, the four com- partments comprising the carcass (the ham, shoulder, loin and side) all had significantly different concentrations of potassium. The ham was -66- highest with 2.65 gm./kg. followed by the shoulder with 2.33 gm./kg., then the loin with 2.18 gm./kg. and finally the side with only 1.79 gm. of potassium per kg. of fresh tissue. The potassium content of the blood (2.07 gm./kg.) and the GI tract and head (1.99 gm./kg.) did not differ significantly. When these two compartments were included with the car- cass compartments, 2.16 gm. of potassium per kg. of tissue were obtained for the whole animal compared to 2.27 gm. for the carcass compartments alone. Neither the shoulder nor the loin with 2.33 and 2.18 gm./kg., respectively, were significantly different from the carcass (2.27 gm./kg.). Although the loin (2.18 gm./kg.) and blood (2.07 gm./kg.) differed signi- cantly in potassium content, neither compartment showed significance when compared to the value for the whole animal (2.16 gm./kg.). The ham with 2.65 gm./kg. contained significantly more potassium than all other compartments, including the carcass and whole animal, while the side with only 1.79 gm./kg. contained significantly less potassium than all other compartments. The percent decrease between the potassium content of the highest (ham) and lowest (side) compartments for both the carcass and the whole animal was 32.4 percent. Although the percent decrease in potassium is quite large between the ham and side, it is not surprising since the ham has a higher concen- tration of protein than the side. The shoulder, likewise, would be ex- pected to have more potassium than the loin, since the loin compartment included the fatback. In order for potassium differences between indivi- dual compartments to be of major importance, the data must be corrected for fat and moisture. W.rzv‘: - . ‘ ' ‘ . o u ' I . - . v p . - c c o o . v . . c . n s n a v . ~ 0 o . r r v . . o - . -67- ‘Pptassium'variation on a fat-freep_mcisture-free basis. On placing the data on a fat-free,‘moisture-free basis, the ranking of means in descending order of potassium concentration was as follows: the side, ham, carcass, loin, whole animal, shoulder, GI tract and head and the blood. On this basis of comparison, the various compartments (including the total carcass and animal) fell into four groups. The side was high- est in potassium with a mean content of 14.01 gm./kg., which was signi- ficantly greater than all other compartments. It was followed by the ham, carcass and loin with 13.65, 13.35 and 13.32 gm./kg., respectively, which did not differ significantly from each other. The content of potassium in the whole animal (12.82 gm./kg.), the shoulder (12.80 gm./ kg.) and the GI tract and head (11.37 gm./kg.) were not significantly different from each other, but all were significantly lower than the ham, carcass and loin. The blood was lowest in potassium with a mean content of 10.06 gm./kg. and was significantly lower than all other compartments. An 8.6 percent decrease in potassium occurred between extreme means of the carcass compartments (side vs shoulder), while a considerably larger percent decrease (28.2 percent) occurred between the extreme means of the total animal compartments (side vs blood). Extremes of this magnitude indicate that constancy does not exist in the potassium-lean ratio of carcasses or whole animals and reflect an important source of error in determining composition from total potassium or potassium-40. However, judging from the differences in the percent decrease of carcass compartments versus animal compartments, one should be able to predict composition of carcasses much more accurately than that of live animals. Pptassium variation on a protein basis. On a protein basis, the ranking of means according to potassium concentration from high to low was as follows: the ham (15.33 gn./kg.), loin (15.13 gm./kg.), whole animal (14.87 gm./kg.), shoulder (14.66 gm./kg.), intact carcass (14.57 gm./kg.), blood (14.44 gm./kg.), side (14.06 gang.) and finally the GI tract and head compartment (10.53 gm. lkg.). The ham was significantly higher in potassium content than the shoulder or side, but did not differ significantly from the loin. The shoulder contained more (P < .05) potassium than the side on a protein basis, but the difference between the loin and shoulder was not signifi- cant. The concentration of potassium in the whole animal (14.87 gm. /kg.) was significantly higher than the concentration of the side and also the GI tract and head, while the difference between the whole animal and all other compartments were not significant (P < .05). The carcass contained more potassium (P < .05) than the GI tract and head, but significantly less than the ham or loin. Differences between the carcass and the re- maining compartments, including the total animal, were not significant (P < .05). The percent decrease between the extreme means for carcass compart- ments (ham vs side) was 8.3 percent, while it was 31.3 percent for the animal compartments (ham vs GI tract and head). Thus, variation in the potassimn-protein ratio of various compartments of the pig suggest that the theoretical basis for using potassium or potassium-40 in determining composition of the intact pig is questionable. -69- Eelationship of Potassium to Cppposition Table 13 shows the correlation coefficients between the potassium content of each compartment and the percent fat, protein and moisture of the same compartment, the intact carcass and the whole animal. The relationship between total carcass potassium and composition of the carcass are also indicated by correlation coefficients, while similar relation- ships are shown for the whole animal. The ham seems to be more closely related to the composition of the carcass and whole animal body than any other compartment. Highly significant correlation coefficients of -.86, 0.83 and 0.87 were obtained when the potassium concentration of the hams was related to carcass fat, protein and moisture, respectively. Slightly higher values of -.87, 0.84 and 0.87, respectively, were obtained on the whole animal when the same comparisons were made. When the potassium content of each carcass compartment was related to the composition of the carcass or the whole animal, all relationships were highly significant. However, the potassium content of the blood was not related to body composition (P < .05). The content of the GI tract and head was related (P < .05), but the relationships were too low to be useful. On comparing the potassium content of the carcass with the percent fat, protein and moisture of the carcass, correlation coeffi- cients of -.90, 0.81 and 0.92 were obtained, respectively. When the jaotassium of the whole animal was related to the fat, protein and moisture «:ontent of the whole animal, correlation coefficients of -.93, 0.77 and -70- we lawf- .ooao> one ouamoeoo oHAoHum> uaoooononnfl can now omonu one uaoauumdaoo noon: no>aw maoauoaouuooo .Ho>oH NH no unooHMflame one H0.0 m munoqoammooo moguoaouuoon .Ho>oa N0 no uaoofimaomfim was 00.0 A muaowoflmwooo ooauoaouuomm. 00.0 55.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 am.- 00.0 00.0 00.1 Hoaaao +M 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 H0.0 00.1 00.0 00.0 H0.u mmoouno_tm 00.: ~H.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.1 H0.u 00.0 :1 pooan ax 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.0 05.0 00.: 000: one He +M 50.0 00.0 50.- 50.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 50.0 00.: .805 ex 00.0 05.0 00.: 00.0 05.0 00.: 00.0 05.0 00.: 000m +u 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.0 50.0 H0.u 00.0 05.0 00.: aaoa +M 05.0 00.0 05.1 05.0 00.0 05.: 05.0 00.0 05.1 Hovasonm +M ounumaoz_ awououm pom ounumwoz. aaououm pom ounumwoz awouonm pom A.mx\.ewv N N N N N N N N N moanoauo> Hoaflao oaocz mmmouoo mmaoauuomeoo unannoaoonH moannauo> unavaomwn osm.m000 mo ooHuHmooeoo 50on mo monsoonaoo Houdaono man 0am aswmmouoo consume ofinmnoauoamm .0H manna o . . o - - a < v _ . . . . . - 0 . . . . . o » « ~ . a . . 1 3 v . - . 7 . , r , . . - a ~ 1 - 0 ~ 0 o . . . 7 - 0 o . . 0 -71- and 0.94, respectively, were obtained. A11 correlation coefficients for the carcasses and whole animals were highly significant on relating potassium concentration to the chemical components (fat, protein and moisture). Table 14 contains regression equations for predicting the composition of swine carcasses and of the whole animal from the potassium concentration of the ham, carcass or whole animal. The square root of the error'mean square represents the variation from the regression equation which might be expected to occur. The percent moisture of the carcass can be pre- dicted within i 1.13 percent from the total potassium of the carcass. This gives a total range of 2.26 percent which represents approximately 21.8 percent of the entire range in moisture content between the carcasses used in this study. Percent fat can be predicted within i 5.08 percent, which gives a range of 10.16 percent and represents 74.8 percent of the entire range in fat content of the carcasses. The percent protein of a carcass can be predicted within i 0.56 percent. This gives a range of 1.12 percent and represents 31.1 percent of the entire range in protein content in this study. In view of the magnitude of the standard errors, potassium does not appear to accurately discriminate between individual carcasses. It should also be pointed out that when total potassium is used to predict the composition of the whole animal, plus or minus one standard error includes 19.4 percent of the total range in percent water, 74.5 percent of the range in fat content and 32.7 percent of the range in pro- tein content. This suggests that potassium does not accurately discrimin- ate between individual animals or carcasses. -72- Table 14. Regression equations for predicting fat, protein and moisture of swine carcasses and animal bodies from potassium concentra- tion. Independent Dependent Square rootF— variable variable error 00 (Y) Regression equation mean square (sm- /ks-) (percent) fl Potassium ham fat carcass Y = 14.72 - 15.62X 4.98% Potassium ham protein carcass Y = 3.80X + 5.22 0.53% Potassium ham moisture carcass Y = 12.04X + 16.97 1.42% Potassium ham fat animal Y a 64.34 - 12.77X 4.05% Potassium ham protein animal Y = 3.51X + 5.53 0.47% Potassium ham moisture animal Y = 10X + 23.78 1.18% Potassium carcass fat carcass Y = 14.15X + 16.73 5.08% Potassium carcass protein carcass Y = 4.12X + 5.92 0.56% Potassium carcass moisture carcass Y = 14.15X + 16.73 1.13% Potassium animal fat animal Y = 70.22 - 18.38X 4.17% Potassium animal protein animal Y = 4.33X + 5.47 0.55% Potassium animal moisture animal Y = 14.55X + 18.85 0.82% v I vl M.‘ __- -73- Variation of Sodium in Body Compartments of Swine Table 15 summarizes the sodium content of the compartments of the pig body. The content of sodium is expressed on a wet basis, a fat-free, ‘moisture-free basis and on a protein basis. The total animal includes the four carcass compartments and the remaining two non-carcass compart- ments, i.e., the blood and GI tract and head. Table 15. Sodium content of various compartments of the pig (gm./kg.). Meana Fat-free, .Qpppartment ‘Wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Blood 1.97b 9.50b 9.90b 01 and head 1.37c 7.82c 10.00b Shoulder 0.85de 4.65e 5.33d Ham, 0.82e 4.21f8 4.73e Loin 0.65g 3.98g 4.53ef Side 0.55h 4.30f 4.31f Carcass 0.73f 4.30f 4.79e Animal 0.83d 5.19d 5.90c sgi 0.01185 0.07440 0.08390 aMeanswithin a column not bearing the same superscript are significantly different (P'< .05). Standard error of the mean (Si). Sodium variation on a wet basis. On a wet basis, the ranking of means in descending order of sodium concentration was as follows: the blood, GI tract and head, whole animal, shoulder, ham, carcass, loin and -74- side. The blood with 1.97 and the GI tract and head with 1.37 gm. of sodium per kg. were significantly different from each other and were signi- ficantly higher in sodium content than all four carcass compartments, as well as for the carcass and total animel. Of the carcass compartments, the shoulder and ham were highest in sodium concentration with mean values of 0.85 and 0.82 gm. [kg., reSpectively. They did not differ significantly from each other, but were significantly higher in sodium than the carcass, loin and side. The carcass, loin and side with 0.73, 0.65 and 0.55 gm. of sodium per kg. of tissue, respectively, were relatively low in sodium, and each was significantly different from all other compartments including the total animal. The sodium concentration of the whole animal was 0.87 gm. Ikg., which was intermediate between the carcass and non-carcass com- partments (blood and GI tract and head). The percent decrease between sodium concentration of the shoulder (highest) and the side (lowest) was 35.4 percent on comparing the carcass compartments. When all compartments were compared, a 72.3 percent decrease occurred between the blood (highest) and the side (lowest). This value indicates that considerable variation exists in the sodium concentration between the body compartments as well as the carcass compartments. Sodium variation on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. On removing the effects of fat and moisture, large variations still occurred between com- partments. Among the carcass compartments, the shoulder (4.65 gum/kg.) was significantly higher in sodium content than the side (4.30 gm. /kg.) , ham (4.21 gm./kg.) and loin (3.98 gm./kg.). The ham did not differ _75- significantly from the side or loin in sodium concentration, however, the side and loin differed significantly from each other. The two non-carcass compartments (the blood and the GI tract and head) were significantly higher than all carcass compartments, including the total carcass and whole animal. The blood was significantly higher in sodium content than the GI tract and head. The blood had a mean sodium content of 9.50 gm./kg. compared to 7.82 gm./kg. for the GI tract and head. The whole animal with 5.19 gm. of sodium per kg. of tissue was intermediate in sodium content and was ranked between the carcass and non-carcass compartments. The carcass contained 4.30 gm. of sodium per kg. of tissue and contained significantly more sodium than the loin but less (P < .05) than the shoulder. The carcass contained the same concen- tration of sodium (4.30 gm./kg.) as the side and only slightly more than the ham (4.21 gm./kg.) on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. A 58.1 percent decrease in sodium occurred between extreme means for the animal compartments (blood vs loin), while a 14.4 percent decrease occurred between extremes in carcass compartments (shoulder vs loin). Variation of this magnitude indicates that constancy is lacking in the sodium-lean ratio, and since the values have been corrected for differ- ences in fat and moisture, the variation may be assumed to be actual. This indicates that sodium content is not a useful index of composition. Sodium variation on a protein basis. On a protein basis, the content of sodium in the two non-carcass compartments (GI tract and head, and blood) did not differ significantly from each other, but both contained a:~04..‘r.4> ...-. . ’of "r.- significantly more sodium than the whole animal, the carcass or any of the individual carcass compartments. The GI tract and head was highest in sodium with 10.00 gm. of sodium per kg. followed by the blood with 9.90 gm./kg. The content of sodium in the animal (5.90 gm./kg.) was next and again was intermediate between carcass and non-carcass compartments. The shoulder with 5.33 gm. of sodium per kg. ranked highest among the carcass compartments and differed significantly from all other compart- 'ments-as well as the total carcass (4.79 gm./kg.). The loin with 4.53 gm. of sodium per kg. of tissue did not differ significantly from the ham (4.73 gm./kg.), the side (4.31 gm./kg.) or the total carcass (4.79 gm./kg.). The difference between the sodium content of the side and the ham on a protein basis was significant. A 19.2 percent decrease occurred between the mean sodium content of the shoulder (highest) and side (lowest), when the carcass compartments were compared, while a 56.9 percent decrease occurred between the extremes in the animal compartments (GI tract and head vs side). Regardless of the basis of comparison, variation of considerable magnitude occurred between compartments. Thus, the sodium-muscle, sodium-lean and sodium- protein ratios lack constancy from compartment to compartment. Relationship of Sodium to Composition Table 16 shows correlation coefficients between sodium concentration and fat, protein and moisture of the carcass and whole animal. The con- centration of sodium in each compartment is related to the chemical com- ponents of the same compartment, as well as to the components of the QP“"‘.-J-_ O . . -. ~ ~.- '1 .“lt‘ .. J.‘ n- 0% -77.. .mooao> one ouamoodo manowuo> uaonooooooa sou now omoou one uaoeuuoeaoo noon: no>wm mooauoaonuouo .~o>oH NH um unmoamaomfim mum H0.0 m muooaoflmmooo doauoaouuoun .Ho>o~ N0 um unmoamaomam was 00.0 m muooeowmmooo nowuoaouuooo moanoauo> unopoooon 00.0 0~.0 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 0H.0 00.1 Huaflno +02 00.0 02.0 50.: 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.: mmooumo +02 55.0 00.0 00.- 0H.0 ~0.u NH.| 50.0 0H.0 an pooap +02 0H.0 00.: 0a.: 00.0 H0.0 0H.: 50.0 0~.0 00.: 000: 0nd H0 +02 «0.0 00.: 00.- 0H.0 HH.0 NH.: 0H.0 00.0 52.: .80: +m2 00.0 ~0.0 H0.u 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 50.0 00.: spam +02 00.0 H0.0 «0.1 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.: dHoH +02 00.0 5~.0 H0.n 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 0H.0 00.: Hopanonm +m2 ousumwoz. awououm umm ououmwoz owououm uom unnumfioz. awououm ooh N.wM\.awv N N N N N N N N N moanmaumb Hoaaao o~o03 mmoouoo ounoauummaoo uaopaoooonH nao.mwan mo nowuflmodaoo moon mo muaonooaoo dungeono won one soapom monsoon nqnmdowuoamm .0H nappy carcass and animal. The total sodium of the carcass and animal are also related to the percent fat, protein and moisture of the carcass and animal. Among the individual compartments of the animal, the sodium content of the side appeared to be most closely related to composition. It was more closely related to the composition of the carcass and whole animal than was the total potassium concentration of the carcass or animal. Although some of the correlation coefficients were significant at P < .05 and a few at P < .01, the values were all too low to be of practical significance. Therefore, regression equations were not calculated for sodium. In general, the relation- ships of sodium to composition was much lower than the same relationship for potassium. Content of Fatp Protein and Moisture in Body Compartments of Swine Table 17 shows the percent fat, protein and moisture in various compart- ments of the pig, including the total carcass and whole animal. On considering the four carcass compartments, the percent fat varied inversely with the per- cent protein and moisture. In every case, the differences between compart- ments in fat, protein and moisture were significant (P < .05). The side was highest in fat content with 48.22 percent followed by the loin (41.02 percent), shoulder (32.07 percent), and ham (26.90 percent). The carcass was intermediate in fat content and contained 36.12 percent, which was significantly lower than the side and loin, but higher (P < .05) than the shoulder and ham. The fat content of the blood was so low that it was not determined, while the GI tract and head was next to lowest with only 16.91 percent. The average content of fat in the whole animal amounted to 30.50 percent. WM”- --; . . its; ...: O n u . ‘Q . _ ‘ '-."~ \~-* "' --3. «'4 “2" '4- ’ atria-z -79- Table 17. Fat, protein and moisture content of various compartments of the pig. Meana Compartment % Fat % Protein % Moisture Side 48.22b 12.74h 39.00h Loin 41.029 14.43f 42.588 Shoulder 32.07e 15.90d 49.73e Ham 26.90f 17.299 53.68(1 Carcass 36.12d 15.28e 46.86f 01 and head 16.918 13.788 65.49c Blood --- h 20.048 79.20b Animal 30.50e 14.83ef 50.28e sgi 0.40476 0.14678 0.27202 'aMeanS'within a column not bearing the same superscript are significantly different (P < .05). Standard error of the mean (Si). The blood was highest in protein with 20.04 percent, while the GI tract and head component was next to lowest (13.78 percent). These two compartments are not considered part of the carcass. Among the carcass compartments, the ‘ham'was highest in protein (17.29 percent), followed by the shoulder (15.90 percent), then the loin with 14.43 percent and finally the side with only 12.74 percent. The carcass and animal contained an average of 15.28 and 14.83 percent protein, respectively. All compartments of the pig body were significantly different in moisture content except the whole animal and the shoulder. The two non-carcass compon- ents, i.e., the blood (79.20 percent) and the GI tract and head (65.49 percent) A I" -"‘_u‘ {I -80- were highest in percent moisture. Among the carcass compartments, the ranking was the same for moisture as for protein. The ham was highest in moisture content with 53.68 percent, the shoulder followed with 49.73, then came the loin with 42.58 and finally the side with only 39.00 percent. The total car- cass contained 46.86 percent moisture while the whole animal contained 50.28 percent. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In order to determine the possible sources of error involved in predicting composition from sodium and potassium content, muscle to muscle variation was studied in swine, cattle and sheep. In addition, variation of potassium and sodium in compartments of the pig body and variation in blood and muscles of low and high blood potassium type sheep was examined. 0n the basis of the results of these investigations, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. Potassium concentration was more closely related to composition than sodium in swine, cattle and sheep. 2. The regression equations for predicting composition from potass- ium have rather large standard errors and suggest that potassium does not accurately distinguish between individuals. 3. Muscle to muscle variation occurs in the potassium and sodium content for swine, cattle and sheep muscles regardless of the basis of comparison. 4. The ranking of muscles by potassium concentration on a fat-free, moisture-free basis or protein basis were generally the same for all species. The values obtained suggest that more variation exists between muscles within a species than between the same muscles from different species. 5. Although the number of lambs with high blood potassium was limited, the data suggest that the blood potassium level was not signi- ficantly related to muscle potassium concentration. -81- -82- 6. Variation of potassium and sodium between compartments of the pig body occurred regardless of the basis of comparison. 7. Constancy did not exist in the potassium-muscle, potassium- lean, or potassium-protein ratio in muscles or compartments and is re- sponsible for at least part of the error in predicting composition from total potassium or potassium-40. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, T. H., E. C. Anderson and W. H. Langham. 1960. Total body potass- ium and gross body composition in relation to age. J. Gerontol. 15:348. Anderson, E. C. 1957. Scintillation counters. The Los Alamos human counter. British J. Radiol., Suppl. No. 7:27. Anderson, E. C. 1958. The Los Alamos human counter. p. 211. Liguid Scintillation Counting. Permagon Press, New York - London. Anderson, E. C. and M. A. Van Dilla. 1958. Low-level gamma ray detection in humans. Ire transactions of the professional group on nuclear science. NS-5:194. Anderson, E. C. 1959. Application of natural gamma activity measurements to meat. Food Res. 24:605. Anderson, E. C. and W. H. Langham. 1959. Average potassium concentration of the human body as a function of age. Science 130:713. Anderson, E. C. 1962. Personal communications to Kirton, A. H., 1962 (see below). Archdeacon, J. W., W. R. Markesberg and B. R. Binford. 1961. Bone marrow cellularity and Na and K levels in fasting and inanition after bile duct ligation. Am. J. Physiol. 200:1207. Babineau, L. M. and E. Page. 1955. On body fat and body water in rats. Canad. J. Biochem. Physiol. 33:970. Benne, E. J., N. H. Van Hall and A. M. Pearson. 1956. Analysis of fresh meat. J. Assn. Official Agr. Chem. 39:937. Bergstrom, W. H. and W. M. Wallace. 1954. Bone as a sodium and potassium reservoir. J. Clin. Invest. 33:867. Blaxter, K. L. and J. A. F. Rook. 1956. The indirect determination of energy retention in farm animals. I. The development of method. J. Agr. Sci. 48:194. Brent, B. E. 1965. Personal communication. Brozek, J. and A. Henchel (Editors). 1961. Technigues for Measuring Body Composition. Proc. of Conference at Quartermaster Res. and Engin. Center, Natick, Mass., held Jan. 22-23, 1959. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, washington, D. C. -83- .. x... m i I. u. r .84- Burch, P. R. J. and F. W. Spiers. 1953. Measurement of the K - radiation from the human body. Nature 172:519. Casey, J. H. and B. Zimmermann. 1960. Bone sodium in surgical Operations and disease. Annals of Surgery 1522927. Cheek, D. B. and C. D. WESt. 1955. An appraisal of methods of tissue chloride analysis : The total carcass chloride, exchangable chloride, potassium and water of the rat. J. Clin. Invest. 34:1744. Clancy, R. L. and E. B. Brown, Jr. 1963. Changes in bone potassium in . response to hypercapnia. J. of Am. Physiol. 204:757. Conway, E. J. 1957. Nature and significance of concentration relations of potassium and sodium ions in skeletal muscle. Physiol. Rev. 37:84. Dean, J. A. 1960. Flame Photometry. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Drury, A. N. and E. M. Tucker. 1963. Red cell volume, potassium and haemoglobin changes in lamb. Res. in Vet. Med. 4:568. Dukes, H. H. 1955. The Physiology of Domestic Animals. 7th Edition. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1. Edelman, I. S., A. H. James, H. Baden and F. D. Moore. 1954a. Electro- lyte composition of bone and the penetration of radiosodium and deuterium oxide into dog and human bone. J. Clin. Invest. 33:122. Edelman, I. S., A. H. James, L. Brooks and F. D. Moore. 1954b. Body sodium and potassium. IV. The normal total exchangable sodium; its measurement and magnitude. Metabolism 3:530. Edelman, I. S., J. Eeibman, M. P. O'Meara and L. W. Birkenfeld. 1958. Interrelationship between serum sodium concentration, serum osmolarity and total exchangeable sodium, total exchangeable potassium and total body water. J. Clin. Invest. 37:1236. Edelman, I. S. 1961. Body water and electrolytes. See Brozek and Henschel, 1961. p. 140. Evans, J. V. 1954. Electrolyte concentrations in red blood cells of British breeds of sheep. Nature 174:931. -85- Evans, J. V. and J. W. B. King. 1955. Genetic control of sodium and potassium concentrations in the red blood cells of sheep. Nature 175:171. Evans, J. V., J. W. B. King, B. L. Cohen, H. Harris and F. L. warren. 1956. Genetics of hemoglobin and blood potassium differences in sheep. Nature 178:849. Flear, C. T. G., R. G. Carpenter and I. Florence. 1965. Variability in water, sodium,,potassium and chloride content of human skeletal muscle. J. of Clin. Pathol. 18:74. Forbes, G. B. and A. Perley. 1951. Estimation of total body sodium by isotOpe dilution. I. Studies on young adults. J. Clin. Invest. 30:558. Forbes, G. B. and A. M. Lewis. 1956. Total sodium, potassium and chloride in adult man. J. of Clin. Invest. 35:596. Gillett, T. A., A. M. Pearson and A. H. Kirton. 1965. Variation in potassium and sodium in muscles of the pig. J. of Animal Sci. 24:177. Guyton, A. C. 1956. Textbook of Medical Physiology. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London. Hall, J. L. 1953. Ether extraction method of estimating degree of fatness in carcasses and cuts. Proc. 6th Ann. Recip. Meats Conf. p. 122. HarringtOn, G. 1958. Pig Carcass Evaluation. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. Harris, H., I. R. MeDonald and W. Williams. 1952. The electrolyte ' pattern in experimental anuria. Australian J. Expt. Biol. Med. Sci. 30:33. Harrison, H. E. and D. C. Darrow. 1938. The distribution of body water and electrolytes in adrenal insufficiency. J. of Clin. Invest. 17:87. Hix, V. M., 1966. Determination of specific gravity of live hogs by a modification of the air displacement and helium dilution procedures. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. Howes, J. R.,_G. K. Davis, P. E. Loggins and J. F. Hentges. 1961. Blood potassium and sodium of Hereford and Brahman cattle and some breeds of sheep maintained in Florida. Nature 190:181. Kerr, S. E. 1937. Studies on the inorganic composition of blood. IV. The relationship of potassium to the acid soluble phosphorus fractions. J. of Biol. Chem. 117:227. If i 1 I; — , O. -—q f, -86- Keys, A. and J. Brozek. 1953. Body fat in adult man. Physiol. Rev. 33:245. Khattab, G. H., J. H. Wetson and R. F. E. Axford. 1964. Inherited phy- siological differences in red cell characteristics of Welsh mountain sheep. J. of Agric. Sci. 63:173. Kidwell, J. F., V. R. Bohman, W. A. wade, L. H. Haverland and J. E. Hunter. 1959. Evidence of genetic control of blood potassium con- centration in sheep. J. of Heredity 50:275. Kirton, A. H., A. M. Pearson, E. C. Anderson and R. L. Schuch. 1960. The use of naturally occurring K to determinine the carcass com- position of live sheep. J. of Animal Sci. 19:1237 (Abstract). Kirton, A. H., A. M. Pearson, R. W. Porter and R. H. Nelson. 1961. The use of natural gamma activity to measure the composition of pork and lamb samples. J. of Food Sci. 26:475. Kirton, A. H. 1962. The potassium, sodium and cesium content of animals and the relationship to composition. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. Kirton, A. H., R. H. Gnaedinger and A. M. Pearson. 1963. Relationship of potassium and sodium content to the composition of pigs. J. of Animal Sci. 22:904. Kirton, A. H. and A. M. Pearson. 1963. Comparison of methods of measur- ing potassium in pork and lamb and prediction of their composition from sodium and potassium. J. of Animal Sci. 22:125. Kulwich, R., L. Feinstein and E. C. Anderson. 1958. Correlation of potassium-40 concentration and fat-free lean content of hams. Science 127:338. Kulwich, R., L. Feinstein and C. Golumbic. 1960. Beta radioactivity of the ash in relation to the composition of ham. J. Animal Sci. 19:119. Kulwich, R., L. Feinstein, C. Golumbic, R. L. Hiner, W. R. Seymour and W. R. Kauffman. 1961a. Relationship of gamma-ray measurements to the lean content of hams. J. Animal Sci. 20:497. Kulwich, R., L. Feinstein, C. Golumbic, W. R. Seymour, W. R. Kauffman and R. L. Hiner. 1961b. Relation of gamma-ray emission to the lean content of beef rounds. Food Technol. 15:411. Lade, R. I. and E. B. Brown, Jr. 1963. Movement of potassium between muscle and blood in response to respiratory acidosis. Am. J. of Physiol. 204:761. "‘1! -87- Laug, E. P. and W. C. Wellace. 1959. A survey of radioactive residues in foods before and after 1945 : Evidence of possible fallout con- tamination. J. Assn. Official Agr. Chem. 42:431. Lawrie, R. A. and R. W. Pomeroy. 1963. Sodium and potassium in pig muscle. J. Agric. Sci. 61:409. Manery, J. F. 1954. water and electrolyte metabolism. Physiol. Rev. 34:334. McClain, P. E., A. M. Mullins, S. L. Hansard, J. D. Fox and R. F. Boulware. 1965. Relationship of alkali insoluble collagen to tenderness of three bovine muscles. J. of Animal Sci. 24:1107. Miller, C. E. and A. P. Remenchik. 1963. Problems involved in accurately measuring the K content of the human body. Ann. N.Y., Acad. Sci. 110:175. Moore, F. D., J. P. McMurry, H. V. Parker and I. C. Magnus. 1956. Total body water and electrolytes : Intravascular and extravascular phase volumes. Metabolism, Clin. and Exptl. 5:447. Mounib, M. S. and J. V. Evans. 1957. Comparison between three methods used for the preparation of tissues for determination of potassium and sodium. Analyst 82:522. Mounib, M. S. and J. V. Evans. 1960. The potassium and sodium contents of sheep tissues in relation to the potassium content of the erythro- cytes and the age of the animal. Biochem. J. 75:77. Muldowney, F. P. 1963. The value of muscle biopsy in the diagnosis of clinical alterations in total body water, body potassium, and body sodium. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110:654. Nesterov, V. P. 1964. Issledovanie mikroloaklizatsii Kaliya v miofibrille s pamoshchyu tetrafeniberata natriya i interferentsionnogo mikroskopa. Tsitologiya 6(6):754. Pfau, A., G. Kallistratos and J. Schroder. 1961. Zur estimmung des Fleischgehaltes in Schweineschinken mit Hilfe von 0K-Gammasktivita- tsmassungen. Atomprexis 7:279. Pfau , Von A., G. Kallistratos, B. Ossowski, H. Hoeck and Z. Zivkovic. 1963. Unfiersuchungen zur Bestimmung von Korperbestandteilen lebender Schweine uber 40K- Gamma- -Radioaktivitatsmessungen. I. Der Kaliumgehalt des M. longissimus dorsi und des M. semimembranceus bei 110 kg. sghweren Schweinen unterschiedlichen Geschlechts umd Rasse. Z. Tierz. Zuchtungsbiol. 78:179. ...-1mg ring I ‘qym -4 'mgzr-m -33- Pfau, Von A. and G. Kallistratos. 1963. Unterfiuch en zur Bestimmung von Korperbestandteilen lebender Schweine uber -Gamma-Radioakti- vitatsmessungen. II. Der Kali ehalt der Muskulatur eines 110 kg. schweren Schweines. Z. Tierz. Zuchtungsbiol. 79:249. Rasmusen, B. A. and J. G. Hall. 1966. Association between potassium concentration and serological type of sheep red blood cells. Science 151:1551. Robinson, J. R. 1960. MetabOlism of intracellular water. Physiol. Rev. 40:112. Sievert, R. M. 1951. Measurement of x’-radiation from the human body. Arkiv Fysik 3:337. Sievert, R. M. 1956. Untersuchungen uber die Gammastrahlung des mensch- lichen Korpers. Strahlentherapie 99:185. Smith, J. D. and J. H. Meyer. 1962. Interactions of dietary sodium and potassium and their influence on energy metabolism. Am. J. of Physiol. 203:1081. Spray, C. M. and E. M. Widdowson. 1950. The effect of growth and develoP- ment on the composition of mammals. British J. Nutr. 4:332. Suttle, A. D. Jr. and W. F. Libby. 1955. Absolute assay of beta radio- activity in thick solids. Application to naturally radioactive potassium. .Anal. Chem. 27:921. Toscani, V. and V. Buniak. 1947. Sodium and potassium content of meats. Food Res. 12:328. Van Dilla, M. A., G. R. Farmer and V. R. Bohman. 1961. Fallout radio- activity in cattle and its effects. Science 133:1075. Vinogradov, A. P. 1957. The isotOpe K40 and its role in biology. Biok- himiya 22:14. Cited by Kulwich e_t_ 31., 1960a. Wolstenholme, G. E. W. and M. O'Connor. 1958. Ciba Foundation Collosuia on Ageing. Vol. 4. 'Water and electrolyte metabolism in relation to age and sex. pp. 15, 102 and 199. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Wbodward, K. T., T. T. Trajillo, R. L. Schuch and E. C. Anderson. 1956. On the correlation of total body potassium with body water. Nature 178:97. Zeidberg, L. D., J. J. Schueneman, P. A. Humphrey and R. A. Prindle. 1961. Air pollution and health : General description of a study in Nashville, Tennessee. J. Air Pollution Control Ass,, 11:289. Zobrisky, S. E., H. D. Naumann, A. J. Dyer and EOxgo Anderson. 1959. The relationship between the potassium isotOpe, and meatiness of live hogs. J. Animal Sci. 18:1480. (Abstract). fir . l - ‘s‘k‘D—i . .. 4 H APPENDIX .4 v -. ‘ b v ‘ . - . f... . b l . . . 0 .3” (It i131: SM = ST = BF = TB = SS = SH = XI d.f. -89- List of Abbreviations Used in Appendix Tables Longissimus dorsi Semimembranosus Semitendinos us Psoas major Biceps femoris Rec tus femoris Triceps brachii Supraspinatus Shoulder compartment Loin compartment Side compartment Ham.compartment GI tract and head compartment Blood compartment Carcass (includes: shoulder, loin, side and ham compartments) Animal (includes carcass compartments plus blood and GI and head compartments) Standard error of the mean Mean = Degrees of freedom * = (P'< .05) **s N.S. (P‘< .01) = Not significant at 5% level ‘Jmfimninfl “4 ‘ ~v LD SM ST BF TB SS SH ”I d. f. -39- List of Abbreviations Used in Appendix Tables Longissimus dorsi Semimembranosus Semitendinosus Mm Biceps femoris Rectus femoris Triceps brachii Sppraspinatus Shoulder compartment Loin compartment Side compartment Ham compartment GI tract and head compartment Blood compartment Carcass (includes: shoulder, loin, side and ham compartments) Animal (includes carcass compartments plus blood and GI and head compartments) Standard error of the mean Mean = Degrees of freedom * = (P < .05) ** = (P < .01) IN.S. = Not significant at 5% level I“ 71"‘9—_ ‘__..——— Table 1. Potassium content of various swine muscles on a wet basis (gm- /kg. ) Muscles ‘ PigLNoL. LD SM 31‘ _y 1g RF Yorkshire 1 3.960 4.019 3.686 3.581 3.849 4.148 2 3.946 4.019 3.819 3.842 3.919 4.185 3 3.916 3.950 3.724 3.710 3.834 4.047 4 3.855 3.932 3.615 3.933 3.740 4.115 5 3.700 3.766 3.555 3.346 3.603 4.011 6 3.540 3.611 3.488 3.414 3.340 3.779 Hampshire. 7 3.883 3.988 3.645 3.419 3.841 4.173 8 3.734 3.830 3.734 3.564 3.845 4.198 9 3.963 4.095 3.775 3.701 3.954 4.228 10 3.802 3.890 3.587 3.539 3.720- 4.093 11 3.879 4.016 3.742 3.664 3.905 4.315 12 3.936 3.961 3.751 3.723 3.802 4.006 i Yorkshire 3.820 3.883 3.648 3.638 3.714 4.048 i Hampshire 3.866 3.963 3.706 3.602 3.845 4.169 x Total 3.833 3.923 3.677 3.620 3.779 4.108 ‘3 (hr; - Luge . a: Via-m": , “v .wer ,7 -91- Table 2. Potassium content of various swine muscles moisture free basis (gm./kg.). on a fat-free, Muscles 4_y Pig No. LD SM ST 2M7 4B3. RF Yorkshire 1 16.930 17.444 17.807 15.887 17.680 18.129 2 16.713 17.037 18.423 16.866 17.590 18.109 3 16.657 16.169 17.827 15.978 17.636 17.384 4 16.016 16.488 17.447 16.844 16.870 17.638 5 15.605 15.890 17.241 15.018 16.437 16.154 6 14.738 14.335 16.118 15.879 14.871 16.388 Hampshire 7 16.927 17.883 17.065 13.887 17.427 18.096 8 16.377 15.972 17.303 16.485 17.884 17.514 9 17.351 16.810 18.193 16.762 18.014 18.968 10 17.400 17.674 17.855 16.249 17.936 18.958 11 16.851 18.033 18.147 16.169 18.551 19.437 12 17.188 17.132 18.496 16.006 16.988 17.749 x Yorkshire 16.109 16.218 17.477 16.078 16.847 17.300 2 Hampshire 17.016 17.251 17.843 15.926 17.800 18.454 E Total 16.563 16.735 17.660 16.003 17.324 17.877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..I ..~ p . folk J. .0”‘ KNEW“ .‘. .4 I. 1:1w.fl,lw.)~mf1.vo-.0 .. . .92- Table 3. Potassium content of various swine muscles on a protein basis (gm-ks). Muscles __ Pig No. LD SM ST ABE 4§§___ Yorkshire 1 17.694 18.193 18.430 16.609 18.433 19.071 2 17.663 18.452 19.336 17.869 18.494 19.957 3 17.552 18.432 18.335 16.909 18.423 19.044 4 16.673 17.719 18.720 17.926 17.600 19.364 5 16.263 17.164 16.247 15.933 17.255 18.629 6 16.127 16.229 17.039 16.909 15.762 17.995 Hampshire 7 16.000 19.425 18.511 14.648 18.967 20.198 8 17.900 18.574 19.089 18.276 19.282 20.598 9 19.098 19.763 19.579 18.303 19.799 20.972 10 19.095 19.567 18.998 17.642 19.264 20.818 11 19.005 21.070 20.021 18.292 20.650 22.415 12 19.650 20.417 20.452 18.055 19.750 20.512 2 Yorkshire 16.995 17.698 18.017 17.025 17.661 19.010 x Hampshire 18.458 19.803 19.442 17.536 19.618 20.918 x Total 17.727 18.750 18.730 17.281 18.640 19.964 lull.» ...-ray . . v v . VJ Table 4. Sodium content of various swine muscles on a wet basis (gm./kg.) Muscles _ Pig No. LD §M ST BE, RF Yorkshire- , 1 0.451 0.447 0.495 0.487 0.493 0.442 2 0.430 0.549 0.532 0.539 0.543 0.484 3 0.412 0.484 0.522 0.491 0.481 0.476 4 0.467 0.498 0.544 0.475 0.533 0.524 5 0.405 0.467 0.471 0.453 0.483 0.475 6 0.508 0.544 0.618 0.559 0.560 0.558 Hampshire 7 0.419 0.451 0.501 0.460 0.500 0.465 8 0.417 0.484 0.478 0.418 0.516 0.467 9 0.409 0.446 0.415 0.498 0.452 0.418 10 0.441 0.492 0.561 0.551 0.546 0.511 11 0.409 0.437 0.522 0.532 0.502 0.518 12 0.417 0.439 0.470 0.465 0.473 0.432 x Yorkshire 0.446 0.498 0.530 0.501 0.516 0.493 x Hampshire 0.419 0.458 0.491 0.487 0.498 0.468 1 Total 0.432 0.478 0.511 0.494 0.507 0.481 §§V4M> ‘v-IT IL axial-1’“!- ‘i’l|‘l.| ‘1' Jw“ Table 5. Sodium content of various swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture- free basis (gm./kg.). -94- Muscles __ Pig No. LD A§M ST PM BF RF Yorkshire 1 1.928 1.940 2.391 2.161 2.264 1.932 2 1.821 2.327 2.566 2.366 2.437 2.094 3 1.752 1.981 2.499 2.114 2.212 2.045 4 1.940 2.082 2.625 2.034 2.404 2.246 5 1.708 1.970 2.284 2.033 2.203 1.913 6 2.115 2.160 2.856 2.600 2.493 2.420 Hampshire 7 1.826 2.022 2.346 1.868 2.269 2.016 8 1.829 2.018 2.215 1.933 2.400 1.948 9 1.791 1.831 2.000 2.255 2.059 1.875 10 2.018 2.235 2.792 2.530 2.632 2.367 11 1.777 1.962 2.532 2.348 2.385 2.333 12 1.821 1.899 2.318 1.999 2.113 1.914 i'Yorkshire: 1.877 2.076 2.537 2.218 2.335 2.108 2 Hampshire 1.843 1.994 2.367 2.155 2.310 2.075 2 Total 1.861 2.036 2.452 2.187 2.322 2.092 m -95- Table 6. Percent fat in various swine muscles. Muscles _ Pig No. LD gg ST 43g pg RF Yorkshire. 1 4.36 3.7 5.58 2.96 5.55 1.56 2 4.77 3.03 5.76 2.14 4.10 1.26 3 4.42 1.81 6.59 2.88 4.98 1.06 4 4.70 3.28 9.84 2.46 6.08 1.50 5 4.47 3.62 6.30 2.42 5.58 0.31 6 4.50 0.88 3.80 2.54 4.06 0.68 Hampshire 7 6.89 4.90 7.94 3.52 6.48 2.37 8 3.86 1.38 3.84 2.68 5.00 0.40 9 4.28 1.01 4.26 2.58 3.80 1.90 10 6.23 3.15 5.23 3.53 5.74 2.06 11 3.94 2.83 6.10 2.66 5.48 1.32 12 4.74 2.82 7.16 2.86 3.72 1.11 i Yorkshire 4.54 2.73 6.31 2.57 5.06 1.06 i Hampshire . 4.99 2.68 5.76 2.97 5.04 1.53 i Total 4.76 2.70 6.03 2.77 5.05 1.29 ‘3’“! fl .‘ -96- Table 7. Percent protein in various swine muscles. Muscles _ Pig No. LD SM ST PM iBF R§___ Yorkshire- 1 22.38 22.09 20.00 21.56 20.88 21.75 2 22.34 21.78 19.75 21.50 21.19 20.97 3 22.31 21.43 20.31 21.94 20.81 21.25 4 23.12 22.19 19.31 21.94 21.25 21.25 5 22.75 21.94 21.88 21.00 20.88 21.53 6 21.95 22.25 20.47 20.19 21.19 21.00 Hampshire. 7 21.44 20.53 19.69 23.34 20.25 20.66 8 20.86 20.62 19.56 19.50 19.94 20.38 9 20.75 20.72 19.28 20.22 19.97 20.16 10 19.91 19.88 18.88 20.06 19.31 19.66 11 20.41 19.06 18.69 20.03 18.91 19.25 12 20.03 19.40 18.34 20.62 19.25 19.53 i Yorkshire 22.48 21.95 20.29 21.36 21.05 21.29 i Hampshire 20.57 20.04 19.07 20.63 19.61 19.94 E Total 21.52 20.99 19.68 20.99 20.32 20.61 NJ. 0 arm —‘j-—- #1! ‘AF‘ -0 v-.-’ ' ‘W,mf, TE -97- Table 8. Percent moisture in various swine muscles. Muscles _ Pig No. LD s14 ST 114 93 RF Yorkshire 1 72.25 73.22 73.72 74.50 72.68 75.56 2 71.62 73.38 73.51 75.08 73.62 75.63 3 72.07 73.76 72.52 73.90 73.28 75.66 4 71.23 72.80 69.44 74.19 71.75 75.17 5 71.82 72.68 73.08 75.30 72.50 74.86 6 71.48 73.93 74.56 75.96 73.48 76.26 Hampshire. 7 70.17 72.80 70.70 71.86 71.48 74.57 8 73.34 74.64 74.58 75.70 73.50 75.63 9 72.88 74.63 74.99 75.34 74.25 75.81 10 71.92 74.84 74.68 74.69 73.52 76.35 11 73.04 74.90 73.28 74.68 73.47 76.48 12 72.36 74.06 72.56 73.88 73.88 76.32 x Yorkshire 4- 71.75 73.30 72.81 74.82 72.89 75.52 2 Hampshire. 72.29 74.31 73.47 74.36 73.35 75.86 x Total 72.02 73.80 73.14 74.59 73.12 75.69 ‘KWI—WT‘T ‘ Table 9. -93- Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm (both breeds). Source of Variance d.f. Mean square F Value Between muscles 5 269.837 9.4** Within muscles 66 28.426 Total 71 S; (Standard error mean) 0.04867 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 10. Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscle on a wet basis in ppm by breed. Mean 3 uare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hampshires Between muscles 5 149.936* 236.247** Within muscles 30 31.636 8.836 Total 35 s; (Standard error mean) .07261 .038375 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 11. Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square P value Between muscles 5 6,148.681 7.76** Within muscles 66 791.938 Total 71 3; (Standard error mean) .2569 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) {1 1.11.5 .-...RlunafalHVQ . -99- Table 12. Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm by breed. Mean 8 uare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hampshires Between muscles 5 2,336.729 N.S. 4,507.538* Within muscles 30 811.187 502.371 Total 35 Si (Standard error mean) .36769 .28936 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) N.S. (not significant) Table 13. Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a protein basis in ppm (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 10,469.718 6.70** Within muscles 66 1,561.766 Total 71 Sx (Standard error mean) 0.36076 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 14. Analysis of variance of potassium content of swine muscles on a protein basis in ppm by breed. WW - . \-..r nan—Fm Mean square Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hpgpshires Between muscles 5 3,314.941** 8,178.571** Within muscles 30 793.104 1,009.647 Total 35 Si (Standard error mean) 0.36357 0.41021 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) -100- Table 15. Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 9.782 6.01** Within muscles 66 1.627 Total 71 32 (Standard error mean) 0.01164 * (P < .05) 1 “(p < .01) 1 Table 16. Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a wet basis in ppm by breed. Mean sguare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hampshires Between muscles 5 4.962* 5.185** Within muscles 30 1.698 1.387 Total 35 Si (Standard error mean) 0.01682 0.01520 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 17. Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 533.301 14.87** Within muscles 66 35.849 Total 71 Si (Standard error mean) 0.05465 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) 1.15 new.“ ‘5" .a q -101- Table 18. Analysis of variance of sodium content of swine muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis in ppm by breed. Mean 3 uare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshire prpshire Between muscles 5 311.394** 230.764** Within muscles 30 31.125 43.510 Total 35 Sg (Standard error mean) 0.07202 0.08516 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 19. Analysis of variance of percent fat in various swine muscles (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 38.4266 33.95** Within muscles 66 1.132 Total 71 Si (Standard error mean) 0.30714 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 20. Analysis of variance of percent fat in various swine muscles by breed. ________lgfifll_§322£2_______.__. Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hampshires Between muscles 5 22.2694** 16.6416** Within muscles 30 1.0139 1.3476 Total 35 Si (Standard error mean) 0.4111 0.4739 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) -102- Table 21. Analysis of variance of percent protein in various swine muscles (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 4.8836 4.935* Within muscles 66 .98963 Total 71 Si (Standard error mean) 0.99480 * (P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 22. Analysis of variance of percent protein in various swine muscles by breed. Mean 3 uare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires prpshires Between muscles 5 3.41** 2.1564 N.S. Within muscles 30 0.26893 .49614 Total 35 S; (standard error mean) 0.21171 none calc. * (P < .05) **(P < .01) N.S. (not significant) Table 23. Analysis of variance of percent moisture in various swine muscles (both breeds). Source of variance d.f. Mean square F value Between muscles 5 19.8322 18.33** Within muscles 66 1.0822 Total 71 Si (standard error mean) 0.33031 **(P < .01) - “ I at: -103- Table 24. Analysis of variance of percent moisture in various swine muscles by breed. Mean spuare Source of variance d.f. Yorkshires Hampshires Between muscles 5 11.7874** 8.7747* Within muscles 30 0.8160 1.3344 Total 35 0.11662 0.47157 S; (standard error mean) * (P < .05) **(P < .01) -104- Table 25. Potassium content of various steer muscles on a wet basis (gm./kg.). “Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST PM BF RF TB SS Angus 1 3.659 3.786 3.956 3.693 3.731 3.603 3.635 3.438 2 3.569 3.796 3.856 3.425 3.577 3.660 3.436 3.341 3 3.871 4.062 4.270 3.977 4.001 4.060 3.783 3.657 4 3.694 3.993 4.117 3.885 4.264 4.040 3.940 3.584 5 3.519 3.888 3.815 3.432 3.533 3.667 3.510 3.350 6 3.786 3.810 3.913 3.608 3.791 3.793 3.613 3.393 7 3.874 4.021 4.088 3.750 3.405 3.867 3.596 3.369 Hereford. 8 3.597 3.701 3.850 3.553 3.706 3.794 3.466 3.506 9 3.608 3.756 3.809 3.561 3.558 3.573 3.579 3.421 10 3.545 3.836 4.003 3.696 3.684 3.746 3.657 3.490 11 3.861 3.897 3.954 3.765 3.747 3.848 3.667 3.463 12 3.835 3.945 3.897 3.854 3.805 3.899 3.669 3.455 13 3.512 3.754 3.887 3.689 3.836 3.611 3.633 3.384 14 3.691 3.873 3.978 3.673 3.749 3.839 3.664 3.515 Shorthorn. 15 3.560 3.923 3.927 3.907 3.792 3.794 3.584 3.428 16 3.700 3.863 3.902 3.564 3.755 3.780 3.547 3.307 i.Angus 3.710 3.908 4.002 3.681 3.829 3.813 3.645 3.447 R Hereford 3.664 3.823 3.911 3.684 3.726 3.759 3.619 3.462 R Shorthorn 3.630 3.893 3.915 3.736 3.779 3.787 3.566 3.368 2 Total 3.680 3.869 3.951 3.690 3.777 3.786 3.624 3.444 a‘mq‘fi—L ‘5 r .- Quin- ‘1~ ma ‘7 ~— v—‘I'qt" _1| . . - u . . . I . . u s . . . . . o . . o c . . r . 0 . . . . . o . -. V 1. ‘ '2 a o ‘ . ‘1 -' \ . - . . . v Q l ‘ . -105- Table 26. Potassium content of various steer muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (gm./kg.). Muscles Animal No. LD spy ST PM, BF RF, TB SS Angus 1 15.978 16.619 17.559 16.673 16.897 16.750 16.419 16.640 2 15.674 16.263 17.260 15.075 16.069 16.952 15.892 15.993 3 16.721 17.038 18.108 17.306 17.105 17.636 16.753 16.759 4 15.998 15.579 17.269 16.965 16.559 17.324 16.540 16.086 5 16.068 16.405 17.000 16.358 16.000 17.503 16.137 16.105 6 17.061 16.464 17.383 17.018 16.649 17.495 16.422 16.543 7 17.310 17.213 17.773 17.273 16.948 17.869 16.858 16.612 Hereford; 8 15.866 15.980 16.885 16.556 16.434 16.914 15.647 16.413 9 15.652 16.295 17.012 16.609 16.092 18.716 16.607 16.447 10 15.961 16.137 17.374 16.876 15.811 16.988 16.570 16.403 11 16.007 15.906 15.937 16.593 15.567 16.665 15.724 16.017 12 17.143 17.317 17.689 18.119 17.366 18.211 16.745 16.837 13 14.970 16.125 16.966 16.060 16.839 17.081 16.032 16.030 14 15.059 15.629 16.001 15.976 15.732 16.096 15.691 15.289 Shorthorn' 15 15.478 16.414 16.912 17.418 16.027 16.809 15.985 16.552 16 15.764 16.600 17.640 16.068 16.418 17.363 16.233 15.929 i Angus 16.401 16.511 17.478 16.666 16.603 17.361 16.431 16.391 i Hereford. 15.808 16.198 16.837 16.684 16.263 17.238 16.145 16.218 i Shorthorn' 15.621 16.507 17.271 16.743 16.223 17.086 16.109 16.241 x Total 16.044 16.374 17.173 16.684 16.407 17.273 16.266 16.297 W1?m? _ ....... ....... ....... ooooooo ....... ....... ....... -lO6- Table 27. Potassium content of various steer muscles on a protein basis (gm./kg.) Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST 43y BE 3? TB §§__ Angus 1 16.846 17.658 19.065 17.561 18.424 17.766 17.442 15.901 2 17.845 18.267 18.837 16.989 17.743 18.616 17.231 17.738 3 17.181 18.363 19.303 18.395 18.609 18.640 17.619 18.121 4 16.836 18.249 19.139 18.230 19.138 18.363 18.156 17.884 5 17.403 17.545 17.645 16.948 16.823 18.055 17.147 16.825 6 18.414 17.878 19.535 18.830 17.975 19.361 17.412 18.038 7 18.696 18.869 19.183 18.806 18.675 19.709 18.088 18.151 Hereford 8 16.777 17.465 17.725 17.331 17.698 17.646 16.356 17.027 9 16.377 18.101 17.849 17.396 17.280 18.924 17.433 16.868 10 16.808 17.365 18.353 18.135 17.336 18.219 17.735 17.617 11 17.526 17.689 18.801 18.312 17.403 18.517 17.387 17.534 12 18.235 18.590 18.637 19.603 19.226 19.583 18.002 18.184 13 15.985 17.850 18.589 17.995 18.567 18.758 17.508 17.661 14 16.006 17.091 18.057 16.650 16.759 16.850 16.423 16.988 Shorthorn. 15 16.976 18.409 18.620 19.236 18.108 18.363 17.646 17.606 16 16.285 20.161 18.199 17.284 17.932 18.243 16.668 16.881 i Angus 17.603 18.118 18.958 17.965 18.198 18.644 17.585 17.522 i Hereford 16.816 17.735 18.287 17.917 17.752 18.353 17.263 17.411 i Shorthorn 16.631 19.285 18.410 18.260 18.020 18.303 17.257 17.244 i Total 17.137 18.096 18.596 17.981 17.981 18.474 17.391 17.439 -107- Table 28. Sodium content of various steer muscles on a wet basis (gm./kg.). Muscles Animal No. LD §M47 ST PM .EE RF TB 4§§___ Angus 1 0.335 0.397 0.443 0.482 0.520 0.476 0 444 0.570 2 0.453 0.442 0.472 0.491 0.493 0.464 0 465 0.495 3 0.422 0.464 0.513 0.474 0.554 0.594 0.605 0.668 4 0.490 0.515 0.560 0.642 0.678 0.667 0.596 0.733 5 0.501 0.516 0.565 0.530 0.598 0.570 0.553 0.644 6 0.442 0.442 0.486 0.496 0.520 0.513 0 512 0.647 7 0.481 0.480 0.522 0.506 0.536 0.563 0.570 0.714 Hereford 8 0.394 0.409 0.433 0.439 0.465 0.472 0.484 0.548 9 0.332 0.460 0.475 0.368 0.489 0.420 0.463 0.513 10 0.540 0.547 0.572 0.568 0.630 0.666 0.677 0.807 11 0.483 0.486 0.514 0.500 0.538 0.545 0.533 0.644 12 0.484 0.453 0.487 0.505 0.514 0.526 0.528 0.699 13 0.359 0.375 0.419 0.427 0.494 0.516 0.499 0.598 14 0.473 0.469 0.535 0.565 0.563 0.529 0.554 0.664 Shorthorn 15 0.468 0.465 0.518 0.560 0.535 0.542 0.553 0.703 16 0.445 0.460 0.490 0.474 0.537 0.545 0.526 0.612 R Angus 0.446 0.465 0.508 0.517 0.557 0.549 0.535 0.638 i Hereford 0.437 0.457 0.490 0.481 0.527 0 524 0.534 0.639 R Shorthorn 0.457 0.463 0.504 0.517 0.536 0.544 0.540 0.658 E Total 0.4439 0.4613 0.5003 0.5017 0.5415 0.5380 0.5351 0.6411 I” Table 29. -108- free basis (gm./kg.). Sodium content of various steer muscles on a fat-free, moisture- Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST 12;, BF RF TB SS Angus 1 1.463 1.743 1.966 2.176 2.355 2.213 2.006 2.759 2 1.989 1.894 2.113 2.161 2.215 2.149 2.151 2.370 3 1.823 1.946 2.176 2.063 2.369 2.580 2.679 3.061 4 2.122 2.009 2.349 2.803 2.633 2.860 2.502 3.290 5 2.288 2.177 2.518 2.526 2.708 2.721 2.543 3.096 6 1.992 1.910 2.159 2.340 2.284 2.366 2.327 3.155 7 2.149 2.055 2.270 2.331 2.326 2.602 2.672 3.521 Hereford 8 1.738 1.766 1.899 2.046 2.062 2.104 2.185 2.566 9 1.440 1.996 2.121 1.716 2.212 2.200 2.148 2.466 10 2.431 2.301 2.483 2.594 2.704 3.020 3.068 3.814 11 2.002 1.984 2.072 2.204 2.235 2.360 2.286 2.979 12 2.164 1.989 2.211 2.374 2.346 2.457 2.410 3.406 13 1.530 1.611 1.829 1.859 2.169 2.441 2.202 2.833 14 1.930 1.893 2.152 2.458 2.363 2.218 2.373 2.888 Shorthornx 15 2.035 1.946 2.231 2.497 2.261 2.401 2.467 3.394 16 1.896 1.977 2.215 2.137 2.348 2.503 2.407 2.948 i Angus 1.975 1.962 2.221 2.342 2.412 2.498 2.411 3.036 i Hereford 1.890 1.934 2.109 2.178 2.298 2.400 2.381 2.999 R Shorthorn 1.966 1.962 2.223 2.317 2.305 2.452 2.437 3.171 2 Total 1.937 1.950 2.173 2.267 2.349 2.449 2.402 3.034 -109- Table 30. Sodium content of various steer muscles on a protein basis (gm-lkg.). Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST PM BF RF TB SS Angus 1 1.542 1.852 2.135 2.292 2.568 2.347 2.131 2.636 2 2.265 2.127 2.306 2.436 2.445 2.360 2.332 2.627 3 1.873 2.098 2.319 2.192 2.577 2.727 2.818 3.310 4 2.233 2.354 2.603 3.013 3.043 3.032 2.747 3.658 5 2.478 2.329 2.613 2.617 2.848 2.806 2.702 3.235 6 2.150 2.074 2.426 2.589 2.406 2.619 2.467 3.440 7 2.321 2.252 2.450 2.538 2.563 2.870 2.867 3.847 Hereford 8 1.838 1.930 1.994 2.141 2.221 2.195 2.284 2.661 9 1.507 2.217 2.226 1.798 2.375 2.225 2.255 2.530 10 2.560 2.476 2.623 2.787 2.965 3.239 3.283 4.074 11 2.192 2.206 2.260 2.432 2.499 2.623 2.527 3.261 12 2.301 2.135 2.329 2.569 2.531 2.642 2.591 3.679 13 1.634 1.783 2.004 2.083 2.391 2.681 2.405 3.121 14 2.051 2.070 2.429 2.561 2.517 2.319 2.483 3.209 Shorthorn 15 2.232 2.182 2.456 2.757 2.555 2.623 2.723 3.611 16 1.959 2.401 2.285 2.299 2.564 2.630 2.472 3.124 R Angus 2.123 2.155 2.407 2.525 2.644 2.680 2.580 3.250 R Hereford 2.011 2.116 2.266 2.338 2.499 2.560 2.546 3.219 i Shorthorn 2.096 2.292 2.571 2.528 2.560 2.627 2.598 3.368 Q Total 2.070 2.155 2.341 2.444 2.570 2.621 2.568 3.251 ‘5... “WW . 11‘; 0113378 8138846 94 5 1 8 8877615 4573993 11 3 9 S one... c an... .0 6533646 5674375 44 5 5 1689301 0608130 81 4 8 B 5684731 0350088 68 2 0 T nuns-o. c on... co - 5533548 7774474 42 5 6 6867432 0721184 08 9 6 fl 8010630 8612373 03 5 4 I IO... 0...... I O O I 6734746 4m74476 44 5 6 u 1 6053424 1551322 23 6 0 c w; "2.! 8.7.nuwlro 7:02nu.o 7.n.7. 18.6 o, as B noun-.- ...-no. 0.. o o N 5521523 4763464 32 3 5 S e d m 8461418 9585991 90 9 2 m_ 6026488 5209051 27 3 5 m ...-o a can... L o o o . e S r O m m u .... m l s W 2856000 e 7924318 r 49 9 6 . T A 3628093 r 3215214 0 78 1 1 S 01.0... e coo-coo h on o n N 3322423 H 4542453 S 22 3 4 .1- .... V 8083320 0734404 26 1 0 m 2966963 1924650 41 9 7 n ...-.... 0...... O. O .1. 3321223 4442243 22 2 3 t .4. 8180672 6078206 83 7 .m— D 5107698 8155757 03 2 I 0.... O 0.. I U C 0 e L 4855846 7694375 64 6 6 C a P . 0 d o 0 r M N ..m 1 1234567 8901234 56 m e e 11111 11 m r 1 m e a. ,m A H T A .x .x 4.17 5.42 2.29 2.82 3.23 4.19 3.75 3.57 7.40 4.46 5.80 5.42 3.18 5.21 6.21 x Shorthorn: x Total .JUI I n ' .10... Table 32. Percent moisture in various steer muscles. Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST PM BF RF TB SS Angus l 72.52 73.94 74.15 71.17 72.66 71.63 72.35 72.54 2 69.12 72.76 73.98 69.24 72.04 71.33 72.72 73.30 3 71.77 73.48 74.17 72.76 73.76 73.82 73.54 74.47 4 71.21 72.74 73.30 69.49 72.52 72.61 72.69 73.99 5 69.44 73.37 73.56 68.58 72.08 71.41 72.52 72.57 6 72.84 74.24 74.59 71.99 74.51 73.99 73.90 75.32 7 70.80 73.34 73.70 70.41 73.32 72.34 70.56 73.14 Hereford: 8 69.47 72.74 72.83 68.95 72.74 72.77 70.85 73.16 9 70.85 72.00 72.32 69.31 70.62 70.24 71.09 72.69 10 68.22 72.00 72.84 69.02 70.65 70.83 70.43 71.11 11 71.30 73.06 72.65 72.36 72.32 72.70 72.60 74.00 12 73.91 74.58 73.74 73.64 73.36 74.28 74.08 75.50 13 69.04 72.22 71.98 69.44 71.20 71.08 69.51 70.95 14 69.73 72.18 71.66 69.90 71.45 69.81 71.85 71.65 Shorthorns 15 70.92 73.68 74.04 70.28 72.52 73.43 72.90 75.10 16 72.20 74.57 74.99 71.12 74.50 73.85 75.34 75.10 i Angus 71.10 73.41 73.92 70.52 72.98 72.45 72.61 73.62 i Hereford. 70.36 72.68 72.57 70.37 71.76 71.67 71.49 72.72 i Shorthorn' 71.56 74.13 74.57 70.70 73.51 73.64 74.12 75.10 E Total 70.83 73.18 73.41 70.48 72.52 72.26 73.41 72.31 ~112- Table 33. Percent protein in various steer muscles. ‘Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST PM BF RF TB SS Angus l 21.72 21.44 20.75 21.03 20.25 20.28 20.84 21.62 2 20.00 20.78 20.47 20.16 20.16 19.66 19.94 18.84 3 22.53 22.12 22.12 21.62 21.50 21.78 21.47 20.18 4 21.94 21.88 21.51 21.31 22.28 22.00 21.70 20.04 5 20.22 22.16 21.62 20.25 21.00 20.31 20.47 19.91 6 20.56 21.31 20.03 19.16 21.09 19.59 20.75 18.81 7 20.72 21.31 21.31 19.94 20.91 19.62 19.88 18.56 Hereford 8 21.44 21.19 21.72 20.50 20.94 21.50 21.19 20.59 9 22.03 20.75 21.34 20.47 20.59 18.88 20.53 20.28 10 21.09 22.09 21.81 20.38 21.25 20.56 20.62 19.81 11 22.03 22.03 21.03 20.56 21.53 20.78 21.09 19.75 12 21.03 21.22 20.91 19.66 21.31 19.91 20.38 19.00 13 21.97 21.03 20.91 20.50 20.66 19.25 20.75 18.16 14 23.06 22.66 22.03 22.06 22.37 22.81 22.31 20.69 Shorthorn. 15 20.97 21.31 21.09 20.31 20.94 20.66 20.31 19.47 16 22.72 19.16 21.44 20.62 20.94 20.72 21.28 19.59 i Angus 21.09 21.57 21.12 20.50 21.03 20.46 20.72 19.71 i Hereford. 21.80 21.56 21.39 20.59 21.09 20.52 20.98 19.89 i Shorthorn; 21.85 20.24 21.27 20.47 20.94 20.69 20.80 19.53 2 Total 21.50 21.40 21.26 20.53 21.05 20.52 20.84 19.77 . , 'I' '-'.'-'V u-pfi' ‘iieih. Ma!!! ...—u- A I . E’s-r: . Table 34. Analysis of variance of potassium content of steer muscles on a wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis, and on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Moan squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. Wet basis 'moisture-free basis Protein basis Between muscles 7 0.390771** 3.152915** 4.386063** Between steers 15 0.097531** 1.645118** 2.287500** Error 105 0.006586 0.135846 0.260386 Total 127 Si (standard error mean) 0.020288 0.092143 0.127570 * (P < .05). **(P < .01). Table 35. Analysis of variance of sodium content of steer muscles on a wet basis, fat-free, moisture-free basis and on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Mean squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Between muscles 7 0.058680** 1.925604** 2.102941** Between steers 15 0.023214** 0.386128** 0.481118** Error 105 0.000950 0.022570 0.030063 Total 127 8; (standard error mean) 0.007763 0.037558 0.043347 * (P‘< .05). **(P < .01). Table 36. Analysis of variance of the percent fat, protein and moisture in steer muscles. Moan squares Source of variance d.f. % Fat % Protein %.Moisture Between muscles 7 31.16753** 5.282254** 20.004246** Between steers 15 12.96883** 2.862659** 10.665746** Error 105 0.82233 0.294079 -0.531949 Total 127 3x (standard error mean) 0.226706 0.13506 0.18234 * (p < .05). **(P < .01). "‘11:. ,'fi a; - . .....J . ‘3 o!.‘~nA.’ xiii-fl A ij‘l‘ . - -114- Table 37. Potassium content of lamb muscles and blood on a wet basis (gm. Ikg.). Muscles Animal No. LD $217 ST §£;7 B1921 1 3.512 3.488 3.782 3.546 0.351 2 3.252 3.372 3.545 3.495 0.357 3 3.567 3.636 3.959 3.809 0.371 4 3.198 3.284 3.278 3.330 0.349 5 3.370 3 532 3.599 3.314 0.343 6 3.160 3.111 3.412 3.245 1.329 7 3.600 3.631 3.923 3.916 0.470 8 3.718 3.497 3.905 3.781 1.434 9 3.431 3.579 3.781 3.757 0.396 10 3.592 3.651 3.848 3.861 0.596 11 3.449 3.505 3.892 3.888 0.467 12 3.534 3.558 3.908 3.799 0.456 13 3.659 3.692 3.729 3.758 0.493 14 3.746 3.792 4.127 3.964 0.426 15 3.339 3.669 3.868 3.762 0.436 16 3.668 3.748 3.980 3.773 0.448 17 3.482 3.585 3.792 3.694 1.632 18 4.288 4.060 4.482 4.315 0.543 19 3.792 3.835 3.839 3.853 0.350 20 3.606 3.879 3.993 4.008 0.494 21 3.565 3.615 3.960 3.762 1.368 22 3.559 3.633 3.777 3.769 0.337 23 3.489 3.681 4.075 3.936 0.279 24 3.713 3.916 4.216 4.123 0.393 25 3.669 3,947 4.113 3.984 0.358 i 3.558 3.636 3.871 3.778 0.579 a .«y ,.e,.T. 3| -115- Table 38. Potassium content of lamb muscles on a fat-free, moisture- free basis (gm./kg.). Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 14.743 14.836 15.998 16.999 2 14.102 15.141 16.128 16.010 3 15.981 16.655 18.456 17.992 4 13.631 14.866 14.839 15.677 5 14.153 15.230 17.178 16.087 6 14.183 14.160 15.004 14.756 7 15.597 15.974 17.896 18.393 8 16.755 16.033 18.298 17.709 9 15.323 16.209 18.013 17.015 10 16.100 16.633 18.159 17.260 11 15.784 15.924 18.682 18.764 12 15.706 16.063 18.338 17.793 13 16.916 17.333 18.216 18.403 14 16.343 16.551 18.556 17.287 15 15.877 16.761 18.384 18.069 16 16.073 16.532 18.366 17.923 17 14.995 15.772 17.346 16.836 18 16.372 18.936 21.342 20.596 19 16.515 16.739 17.914 17.537 20 15.404 17.426 16.507 18.226 21 15.100 16.081 18.115 17.123 22 15.049 15.271 16.847 16.744 23 15.759 17.265 19.405 19.135 24 17.150 16.256 19.260 19.168 25 16.000 17.542 19.139 18.643 i 15.584 16.248 17.855 17.606 J ..I u' ‘9 I .. Ir ‘ -116- Table 39. Potassium content of lamb muscles on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 16.350 16.421 17.214 18.287 2 15.434 15.625 16.666 17.904 3 16.392 17.565 19.425 19.035 4 14.464 15.446 16.292 16.387 5 15.374 17.137 17.816 16.847 6 15.287 15.370 16.766 16.225 7 16.378 16.671 18.539 19.130 8 17.181 16.636 19.613 19.154 9 16.252 17.190 18.914 19.246 10 17.755 18.227 19.493 19.237 11 17.082 17.782 18.929 19.626 12 16.725 16.999 19.279 18.732 13 17.625 18.562 19.261 19.431 14 17.669 18.301 19.765 20.142 15 16.570 18.100 19.846 19.164 16 17.053 18.177 19.433 18.883 17 16.150 17.310 18.497 18.451 18 18.643 20.099 21.884 21.141 19 17.244 18.115 18.699 18.905 20 16.112 18.453 18.897 19.031 21 16.451 17.222 19.084 17.922 22 16.104 17.144 17.883 18.640 23 16.575 17.929 20.395 19.949 24 18.192 18.927 20.505 20.340 25 17.698 19.539 21.211 20.578 § 16.670 17.558 18.972 18.895 “mt -117- Table 40. Sodium content of lamb muscles on a wet basis (gm./kg.). Animal NO. LD SM ST RF 1 0.755 0.588 0.566 0.629 2 0.734 0.596 0.622 0.634 3 0.715 0.601 0.578 0.653 4 0.735 0.616 0.586 0.598 5 0.718 0.636 0.676 0.709 6 0.790 0.675 0.692 0.679 7 0.645 0.574 0.535 0.569 8 0.599 0.552 0.567 0.601 9 0.740 0.623 0.680 0.667 10 0.688 0.617 0.603 0.646 11 0.647 0.672 0.596 0.586 12 0.588 0.527 0.561 0.577 13 0.613 0.565 0.576 0.573 14 0.773 0.605 0.618 0.636 15 0.972 0.681 0.702 0.781 16 0.726 0.635 0.618 0.651 17 0.643 0.596 0.595 0.648 18 0.999 0.742 0.706 0.861 19 0.729 0.614 0.613 0.605 20 0.700 0.588 0.640 0.624 21 0.674 0.556 0.572 0.532 22 0.777 0.662 0.717 0.694 23 0.737 0.653 0.697 0.715 24 0.867 0.665 0.659 0.688 25 0.741 0.665 0.709 0.687 i 0.732 0.620 0.627 0.650 fi.r v .‘n e.- . I k \ ‘7 V2 ,..._ . I v t" ' 7 " .4 ,4- :2 912.23 2» -‘.' ... 2 ‘ 1 : 5 ‘ '2 f, g ‘. ~ ~. 2' ' 'W' 1"" I . 2 ' 1 . t . K I... I ‘ ‘_ x -118- Table 41. Sodium content of lamb muscles on a fat-free, moisture-free basis. Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 3.169 2.501 2.394 3.015 2 3.183 2.676 2.830 2.904 3 3.203 2.753 2.695' 3.085 4 3.133 2.789 2.653 2.815 2 5 3.016 2.743 3.227 3.442 1 6 3.546 3.072 3.043 3.088 ; 7 2.795 2.525 2.441 2.673 [ ” 8 2.699 2.531 2.627 2.815 9 3.305- 2.815 3.239 3.021 10 3.084 2.811 2.846 2.878 11 2.961 3.053 2.861 2.828 12 2.613 2.379 2.633 2.703 13 2.834 2.653 2.814 2.806 14 3.373 2.641 2.695 2.774 15 4.622 3.111 3.337 3.751 16 3.181 2.801 2.852 3.093 17 2.769 2.622 2.722 2.954 18 3.970 3.461 3.362 4.110 19 3.175 2.680 2.860 2.754 20 2.990 2.642 2.646 2.838 g 21 2.855 2.473 2.617 2.421 f 22 3.285 2.783 3.198 3.083 E 23 3.329 3.063 3.319 3.476 ‘ 24 4.005 2.760 3.011 3.199 25 3.232 2.956 3.299 3.215 2 3.213 2.772 2.889 3.030 , .. , I..l I. u llllli.vaVu um .. l“n(.—l.. .' 'q““ l J i’ -119- Table 42. Sodium content of lamb muscle on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Muscles Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 3.515 2.768 2.576 3.243 2 3.483 2.761 2.932 3.247 3 3.285 2.903 2.836 3.283 4 3.324 2.897 2.912 2.942 5 3.275 3.085 3.347 3.604 6 3.821 3.334 3.400 3.395 7 2.934 2.635 2.528 2.780 8 2.768 2.626 2.847 3.044 9 3.505 2.992 3.401 3.417 10 3.400 3.080 3.054 3.219 11 3.240 3.409 2.899 2.955 12 2.782 2.518 2.767 2.845 13 2.952 2.840 2.975 2.962 14 3.646 2.919 2.960 3.231 15 4.824 3.360 3.602 3.979 16 3.375 3.080 3.018 3.258 17 2.982 2.877 2.902 3.236 18 4.521 3.673 3.447 4.218 19 3.315 2.900 2.985 2.968 20 3.127 2.797 3.028 2.962 21 3.110 2.648 2.756 2.534 22 3.516 3.124 3.394 3.432 23 3.501 3.180 3.488 3.623 24 4.248 3.214 3.205 3.394 25 3.575 3.292 3.657 3.549 :2 3.440 2.996 3.077 3.253 ......................... 9483959729148795045596077 6 M 5674970054054141531888730 5 00.000.00.00.......OOOOIOO O 4245224422446134333231432 3 1674643795922009946854674 0 T 8560512258061522030503509 9 S OOOOIOOCOOCIOOIOOOO...... 0 3457344546559345555163543 4 I S S e e 1 1.. c c w w m M m 2 .m 5237076952598652661416006 4 1 1 w 1440880520528907779834549 6 - ......OOOCCIOOIOI0.00.... O m 3346133434357234322241501 3 o .1 r a v n i a. f 3071218125329219 94553007 6 m 0658761254291632 53680525 0 t ...-0...... COOIOOIOIOOOI O m 4365143534547344403332 42 4 c a P O . o 3 N 4 1 e 1234567890123456789012345 1 1111111111222222 .x b a m T Table 44. Percent protein in various lamb muscles. M Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 21.48 21.24 21.97 19.39 2 21.07 21.58 21.21 19.52 3 21.76 20.70 20.38 20.01 4 22.11 21.26 20.12 20.32 5 21.92 20.61 20.20 19.67 6 20.67 20.24 20.35 20.00 7 21.98 21.78 21.16 20.47 8 21.64 21.02 19.91 19.74 9 21.11 20.82 19.99 19.52 10 20.23 20.03 19.74 20.07 11 20.19 19.71 20.56 19.83 12 21.13 20.93 20.27 20.28 13 20.76 19.89 19.36 19.34 14 21.20 20.72 20.88 19.68 15 20.15 20.27 19.49 19.63 16 21.51 20.62 20.48 19.98 17 21.56 20.71 20.50 20.02 18 23.00 20.20 20.48 20.41 19 21.99 21.17 20.53 20.38 20 22.38 21.02 21.13 21.06 21 21.67 20.99 20.75 20.99 22 22.10 21.19 21.12 20.22 23 21.05 20.53 19.98 19.73 24 20.41 20.69 20.56 20.27 25 20.73 20.20 19.39 19.36 i 21.35 20.72 20.42 20.00 Table 45. -122- Percent moisture in various lamb muscles. Animal No. LD SM ST RF 1 72.15 73.34 72.55 74.55 2 73.34 74.31 73.46 75.53 3 71.11 73.73 72.88 74.05 4 70.73 71.84 70.87 72.33 5 74.47 75.01 75.49 76.41 6 73.11 74.16 73.12 75.26 7 73.74 74.21 73.85 74.62 8 72.60 73.60 73.39 74.58 9 74.09 74.67 74.42 75.40 10 73.24 74.03 71.96 75.14 11 72.92 74.44 74.08 75.27 12 72.58 72.56 73.07 74.11 13 71.18 70.82 70.41 73.10 14 73.46 74.13 74.26 75.90 15 74.66 75.06 74.76 75.69 16 72.89 72.61 73.04 78.80 17 72.34 73.51 73.05 74.56 18 73.22 75.80 73.66 75.71 19 73.70 74.18 73.51 74.88 20 72.94 74.90 74.23 75.16 21 72.54 73.21 72.09 74.14 22 74.32 74.75 74.24 75.63 23 73.36 73.18 73.44 74.73 24 74.15 75.51 74.04 75.12 25 74.50 75.54 74.57 76.56 i 73.09 73.96 73.38 74.93 . 133.31 2. ‘J' h“ -123- Table 46. Analysis of variance of potassium content of various lamb muscles (gm./kg.). Moan squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Between lambs 24 0.1935105** 4.555024** 4.948083** Between muscles 3 0.4925730** 29. 29.532249** 30.901144** Error 72 0.0079683 0.308923 0.210880 Total 99 3; (standard error mean) 0.017853 0.111162 0.091843 * (P < .05). **(P < .01). Table 47. Analysis of variance of sodium content of various lamb muscles (8m. /kg. ) - Mean squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Between lambs 24 0.0160417** 0.3582195** 0.4346587** Between muscles 3 0.0661936** 0.9032909** 0.9708096** Error 72 0.0014580 0.0386903 0.0418330 Total 99 8;;(Standard error mean) 0.0763662 0.0393397 0.040’9062 * (P < .05). **(P < .01). Table 48. Analysis of variance of the percent fat, protein and moisture in lamb muscles. Mean 3 uares Source of variance d.f. Z fat % protein % moisture Between lambs 24 6.1539073** 0.8143198** 4.0919794** Between muscles 3 9.4823343** 8.1373467** l6.4396080** Error 72 0.6299454 0.1965675 0.2111408 Total 99 3; (Standard error mean) 0.1587382 0.1108398 0.0918999 * (P < .05). **(P < .01). E? ’3.” J Table 49 o ~124- Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a wet basis (gm./kg.). Animal No. \DCDNO‘UI-PUONI—l Pig compartments Total SH L S H GI B C A 2.384 2.153 2.077 2.704 2.162 2.021 2.353 2.241 2.215 2.300 1.597 2.610 1.889 1.977 2.209 2.099 2.583 2.457 1.918 2.854 1.875 2.033 2.505 2.328 2.261 2.108 1.606 2.365 1.886 2.082 2.119 2.035 2.238 2.084 1.625 2.419 1.755 2.160 2.131 2.020 2.292 2.151 1.539 2.491 1.789 1.965 2.166 2.040 2.484 2.049 1.723 2.624 1.796 2.018 2.263 2.118 2.296 2.064 1.517 2.447 1.778 2.129 2.125 2.011 2.276 2.092 1.721 2.507 2.037 2.050 2.181 2.104 2.110 2.069 1.480 2.311 2.028 2.174 2.034 1.992 2.085 2.475 1.997 2.744 2.054 1.984 2.349 2.219 2.412 2.150 1.903 2.668 2.011 1.971 2.308 2.180 2.383 1.934 1.694 2.609 2.060 2.030 2.185 2.103 2.466 2.335 1.841 2.628 2.044 1.850 2.363 2.236 2.223 2.086 1.566 2.522 2.001 1.679 2.141 2.060 2.426 2.388 1.872 2.875 2.028. 1.865 2.431 2.280 2.554 2.502 2.161 2.997 2.144 2.335 2.583 2.441 2.233 1.882 1.644 2.591 1.953 2.216 2.120 2.049 2.514 2.558 1.933 2.994 2.250 2.000 2.543 2.410 2.035 1.730 1.545 2.366 1.889 2.126 1.948 1.893 2.273 1.827 1.758 2.608 1.882 2.239 2.137 2.049 2.341 1.980 1.820 2.774 2.108 2.151 2.266 2.177 2.608 2.673 2.469 3.056 2.063 2.173 2.713 2.502 2.166 2.179 1.837 2.655 2.099 2.256 2.218 2.144 2.344 2.378 1.935 2.117 2.084 2.192 2.410 2.272 2.328 2.184 1.791 2.649 1.987 2.067 2.272 2.160 Table 50. -125- Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a fat-free, moisture-free basis (gm./kg.). Animal No. \DQNO‘UI-FMNH Pig cgmpartments SH 12.695 12.214 12.954 11.760 12.112 13.422 13.775 12.834 12.258 12.760 11.449 14.318 13.563 13.546 12.174 12.334 13.074 12.734 13.377 12.166 12.489 12.601 14.139 11.856 13.314 12.797 L 11.827 12.456 12.720 13.002 11.731 15.253 13.566 13.385 13.453 14.526 14.560 14.559 12.828 13.724 13.034 13.236 13.901 12.995 14.357 11.872 11.759 11.950 15.237 12.681 14.269 13.315 S 15.157 13.778 12.746 12.813 12.875 13.274 14.143 13.019 13.756 14.256 14.244 15.526 14.113 13.747 13.304 13.946 14.816 14.211 14.026 13.107 13.645 13.466 16.848 14.089 15.220 14.005 H 14.547 13.503 13.124 11.989 12.400 13.505 13.249 12.693 12.930 13.011 13.603 14.316 13.689 13.681 13.264 14.307 14.371 13.734 15.262 12.984 13.729 13.510 15.326 13.667 14.833 13.649 GI 11.461 9.806 9.800 10.300 8.446 11.216 10.274 10.027 11.015 11.669 12.258 12.409 12.730 11.202 11.991 11.472 12.708 11.282 12.998 10.865 11.405 12.960 12.855 10.678 12.398 11.369 B 10.407 10.040 9.839 10.158 10.104 9.750 9.888 10.552 10.288 10.716 9.809 9.491 10.127 10.055 10.055 8.881 10.174 9.778 9.902 9.569 10.213 10.465 10.372 10.293 10.462 10.055 Total C 13.346 12.832 12.920 12.287 12.198 13.838 13.616 12.951 12.961 13.473 13.295 14.559 13.488 13.661 12.874 13.373 13.925 13.299 14.264 12.479 12.826 12.834 15.145 12.907 14.266 13.345 A 12.876 12.131 12.299 11.857 11.395 13.073 12.825 12.240 12.435 12.955 12.921 13.871 13.171 12.982 12.538 12.848 13.538 12.782 13.868 12.035 12.481 12.732 14.500 12.364 13.732 12.818 -126- Table 51. Potassium content of various compartments of the pig body on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Pig cgmpartments Totgl Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 15.813 14.631 16.051 16.385 14.703 11.563 15.715 15.369 2 15.550 15.945 14.986 16.479 14.812 10.906 15.833 15.433 3 15.637 15.614 14.619 15.515 14.022 10.893 15.445 15.080 4 15.238 15.499 11.683 14.771 14.110 11.146 14.482 14.282 5 15.152 15.129 13.166 14.850 13.503 11.121 14.742 14.384 6 14.545 16.391 13.314 14.933 15.082 11.351 14.891 14.749 7 15.558 17.668 15.937 14.798 14.042 10.013 15.830 15.231 8 14.074 14.428 12.500 13.385 14.194 11.622 13.711 13.692 9 14.575 15.161 13.832 14.032 16.145 11.660 14.437 14.584 10 14.764 15.669 13.553 14.960 16.521 10.871 14.870 14.946 11 13.134 15.766 15.248 15.101 14.046 10.178 14.728 14.353 12 15.524 15.665 14.656 15.510 15.206 9.150 15.410 15.033 13 15.137 14.642 13.531 15.765 15.042 10.186 14.935 14.694 14 15.267 15.347 13.887 15.418 14.722 10.531 15.120 14.730 15 14.100 14.720 13.460 14.727 14.525 10.531 14.350 14.109 16 13.765 14.750 13.202 15.372 13.476 9.248 14.397 14.025 17 14.106 15.512 14.321 15.692 14.447 10.487 14.945 14.623 18 14.505 14.512 13.865 15.480 13.706 9.944 14.696 14.270 19 14.530 15.888 13.702 16.543 14.652 10.261 15.317 14.987 20 13.211 12.732 12.818 14.160 12.975 9.752 13.316 13.064 21 13.775 13.190 13.963 14.820 13.806 10.461 13.959 13.767 22 14.740 12.641 13.945 15.496 14.246 10.636 14.288 14.074 23 15.691 16.307 16.622 17.085 14.455 10.372 16.375 15.713 24 13.759 13.982 14.274 15.209 14.481 10.070 14.323 14.106 25 14.277 16.377 14.299 16.699 14.044 10.320 15.513 14.971 i 14.657 15.127 14.057 15.327 14.439 10.531 14.865 14.571 ~127- Table 52. Total potassium content of various compartments of the pig body (gnu) - Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 106.9 93.2 62.6 120.6 81.6 14.6 383.3 479.5 2 105.9 92.8 54.7 111.4 70.8 15.2 364.8 450.8 3 127.6 95.4 55.7 123.5 63.8 12.2 402.2 478.2 4 114.9 100.9 58.3 113.3 72.1 16.1 387.4 475.6 5 114.1 93.5 52.4 109.0 63.6 16.6 369.0 449.2 6 100.8 81.3 45.0 101.7 64.4 15.2 328.8 408.4 7 114.2 89.4 55.3 110.1 67.4 15.8 369.0 452.2 8 106.4 87.0 47.0 103.2 72.1 17.2 343.6 433.9 9 106.9 89.6 52.7 103.7 82.5 17.5 352.4 452.4 10 84.6 79.6 41.2 92.9 75.6 15.1 298.3 388.9 11 96.4 102.8 58.4 119.3 84.7 18.8 376.9 480.4 12 105.1 90.7 57.6 107.8 85.0 15.3 361.2 461.5 13 104.3 88.0 52.5 110.2 88.6 17.5 355.0 461.1 14 114.2 97.3 54.3 117.8 84.8 18.1 383.6 486.5 15 96.3 84.2 45.9 102.8 82.5 16.1 329.2 427.8 16 111.5 100.6 56.9 123.9 78.7 13.4 392.9 485.0 17 116.1 104.4 64.3 124.6 71.8 20.5 409.4 501.7 18 108.5 83.3 51.3 109.6 62.5 17.6 352.7 432.8 19 111.3 102.8 53.3 116.3 73.7 14.1 383.7 471.5 20 93.8 68.5 46.4 95.3 62.8 15.3 304.0 382.0 21 116.4 88.9 59.9 115.6 68.2 17.3 380.8 466.3 22 105.1 85.2 50.9 117.0 77.5 19.6 358.2 455.3 23 115.8 109.1 62.0 110.2 74.3 18.7 397.1 490.1 24 105.4 92.7 54.1 115.9 74.0 18.6 368.1 460.7 25 92.8 86.8 44.9 102.2 69.8 15.2 326.7 411.7 i 107.0 91.5 53.5 111.2 74.1 16.5 363.1 453.7 -128- Table 53. Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a wet basis (gm./kg.). Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 0.884 0.700 0.631 0.804 1.409 2.028 0.766 0.900 2 0.898 0.716 0.498 0.807 1.407 1.961 0.747 0.890 3 0.848 0.723 0.553 0.857 1.382 1.996 0.767 0.887 4 0.841 0.683 0.506 0.854 1.330 1.883 0.737 0.856 5 0.797 0.716 0.521 0.801 1.378 1.921 0.726 0.856 6 0.860 0.643 0.497 0.866 1.379 1.976 0.738 0.883 7 0.853 0.637 0.529 0.836 1.396 1.962 0.728 0.874 8 0.860 0.660 0.556 0.927 1.406 1.662 0.767 0.905 9 0.930 0.681 0.584 0.935 1.363 2.027 0.800 0.939 10 0.856 0.644 0.536 0.711 1.327 1.856 0.700 0.845 11 0.900 0.684 0.597 0.933 1.371 1.924 0.798 0.937 12 0.775 0.577 0.539 0.817 1.367 1.983 0.686 0.851 13 0.819 0.598 0.522 0.827 1.457 2.014 0.702 0.886 14 0.840 0.628 0.545 0.828 1.395 1.972 0.729 0.890 15 0.832 0.638 0.546 0.856 1.370 1.972 0.734 0.895 16 0.919 0.734 0.571 0.822 1.423 1.848 0.779 0.914 17 0.876 0.666 0.538 0.792 1.354 1.689 0.735 0.860 18 0.750 0.585 0.494 0.735 1.377 1.832 0.654 0.793 19 0.846 0.512 0.577 0.737 1.401 2.026 0.685 0.836 20 0.790 0.580 0.513 0.742 1.321 2.100 0.671 0.811 21 0.796 0.619 0.532 0.727 1.350 2.077 0.679 0.817 22 0.840 0.694 0.571 0.740 1.320 2.147 0.726 0.874 23 0.809 0.645 0.587 0.806 1.355 2.168 0.724 0.885 24 0.858 0.640 0.552 0.782 1.309 2.227 0.726 0.861 25 0.859 0.643 0.559 0.829 1.307 2.104 0.742 0.877 i 0.845 0.650 0.546 0.815 1.370 1.972 0.730 0.873 rmimm . Table 54. -129- Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a moisture-free basis (gm./kg.). Animal No. \OmVO‘U‘l-l-‘WNH Pig cggpartments Total SH L S H GI B C A 4.703 3.845 4.600 4.331 7.472 10.429 4.345 5.172 4.948 3.879 4.307 4.182 7.313 9.934 4.340 5.145 4.254 3.747 3.684 3.943 7.220 9.677 3.958 v4.686 4.371 4.214 4.044 4.328 7.271 9.177 4.272 4.989 4.310 4.028 4.128 4.107 6.640 8.963 4.152 4.827 5.033 4.559 4.277 4.701 8.378 9.807 4.714 5.663 4.729 4.219 4.271 4.224 7.988 9.625 4.384 5.292 4.813 4.277 4.765 4.809 7.929 8.221 4.674 5.506 5.012 4.384 4.674 4.825 7.370 10.235 4.755 5.550 5.173 4.526 5.156 4.006 7.635 9.149 4.634 8.493 4.906 4.023 4.244 4.629 8.191 9.531 4.515 5.457 4.605 3.900 4.394 4.382 8.438 9.255 4.239 5.413 4.655 3.965 4.355 4.335 9.009 10.058 4.335 5.547 4.614 3.695 4.076 4.309 7.649 9.457 4.213 5.164 4.564 3.994 4.638 4.503 8.212 8.880 4.411 5.545 4.668 4.066 4.265 4.088 8.047 8.808 4.285 5.150 4.482 3.702 3.687 3.795 8.035 7.363 3.963 4.768 4.272 4.041 4.266 3.897 7.960 8.055 4.103 4.944 4.507 2.877 4.184 3.858 8.095 10.000 3.844 4.812 4.721 3.986 4.350 4.074 7.595 9.438 4.298 5.158 4.367 3.981 4.123 3.824 8.177 9.467 4.079 4.979 4.520 4.194 4.233 3.603 8.110 10.428 4.113 5.112 4.383 3.673 3.995 4.047 8.443 10.333 4.043 5.130 4.702 3.871 4.245 4.021 6.652 10.166 4.225 4.965 4.878 3.859 4.407 4.369 7.780 10.069 4.393 5.304 4.648 3.980 4.295 4.208 7.824 9.501 4.295 5.191 ...................... ‘4‘ .. > y rilrln‘.‘v\u‘l‘”l f0 ~130- Table 55. Sodium content of various compartments of the pig body on a protein basis (gm./kg.). Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 5.858 4.757 4.872 4.878 9.586 11.587 5.117 6.173 2 6.300 4.966 4.685 5.104 11.046 10.791 5.356 6.546 3 5.135 4.599 4.226 4.661 10.330 10.714 4.731 5.746 4 5.663 4.992 3.687 5.332 9.961 10.069 5.036 6.009 5 5.392 5.194 4.221 4.918 10.616 9.866 5.018 6.093 6 5.455 4.899 4.290 5.198 11.616 11.418 5.072 6.389 7 5.341 5.494 4.813 4.718 10.917 9.747 5.097 6.285 8 5.278 4.610 4.574 5.071 11.223 9.054 4.948 6.160 9 5.959 4.941 4.698 5.237 10.802 11.600 5.297 6.509 10 5.986 4.882 4.901 4.605 10.810 9.281 5.115 6.337 11 5.668 4.356 4.543 5.139 9.386 9.892 5.002 6.062 12 4.993 4.197 4.148 4.748 10.340 8.922 4.582 5.866 13 5.196 4.536 4.175 4.993 10.645 10.116 4.800 6.189 14 5.201 4.132 4.118 4.856 10.052 9.206 4.663 5.863 15 5.286 4.510 4.692 5.000 9.947 9.706 4.917 6.128 16 5.210 4.531 4.037 4.392 9.452 9.172 4.613 5.622 17 4.836 4.131 3.563 4.144 9.135 7.590 4.253 5.150 18 4.866 4.512 4.162 4.393 9.671 8.192 4.533 5.519 19 4.896 3.184 4.087 4.182 9.125 10.362 4.128 5.200 20 5.127 4.275 4.254 4.443 9.070 9.618 4.586 5.598 21 4.817 4.466 4.219 4.128 9.899 9.697 4.439 5.492 22 5.288 4.362 4.384 4.132 8.915 10.598 4.579 5.651 23 4.864 3.931 3.941 4.513 9.494 10.333 4.371 5.559 24 5.457 4.268 4.301 4.475 9.022 9.946 4.689 5.664 25 5.231 4.434 4.140 4.918 8.813 9.932 4.777 5.782 i 5.332 4.526 4.309 4.727 9.995 9.896 4.789 5.904 ~131- Table 56. Total sodium content of various compartments of the pig body (8111'). Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H 1 GI B C A 1 39.6 30.3 19.0 35.9 53.2 14.6 124.8 192.6 2 42.9 28.9 17.1 34.5 52.8 15.0 123.4 191.2 3 41.9 28.1 16.1 37.1 47.0 12.0 123.2 182.2 4 42.7 32.7 18.4 40.9 50.9 14.5 134.7 201.5 5 40.6 32.1 16.8 36.1 50.0 14.7 125.6 190.3 6 37.8 24.3 14.5 35.4 49.6 15.3 112.0 176.9 7 38.2 27.8 16.7 35.1 52.4 15.4 118.8 186.6 8 39.9 27.8 17.2 39.1 57.8 13.4 124.0 195.2 9 43.5 29.2 17.9 38.7 55.2 17.4 129.3 201.9 10 34.3 24.8 14.9 28.6 49.4 12.9 102.6 164.9 11 41.6 28.4 17.4 40.6 56.6 18.3 128.0 202.9 12 33.8 24.3 16.3 33.0 57.8 14.9 107.4 180.1 13 35.8 27.2 16.2 34.9 62.7 17.4 114.1 194.2 14 38.9 26.2 16.1 37.1 57.9 17.4 118.3 193.6 15 36.1 25.8 16.0 34.9 56.5 16.5 112.8 185.8 16 42.2 30.9 17.4 35.4 55.2 13.3 125.9 194.4 17 39.8 27.8 16.0 32.9 45.4 14.8 116.5 176.7 18 36.4 25.9 15.4 31.1 41.1 14.5 108.8 167.4 19 37.5 20.6 15.9 29.4 45.9 14.3 103.4 163.6 20 36.4 23.0 15.4 29.9 43.9 15.1 104.7 183.7 21 40.7 30.1 18.1 32.2 48.9 16.0 121.1 186.0 22 37.7 29.9 16.0 31.2 48.5 19.5 114.8 182.8 23 35.9 26.3 14.7 29.1 48.8 18.6 106.0 173.4 24 41.8 28.3 16.3 34.1 46.1 18.4 120.5 185.0 25 34.0 23.5 13.0 30.1 43.8 14.6 100.6 159.0 E 38.8 27.4 16.4 34.3 51.2 15.6 116.9 184.5 \n “I .....- arr 1:" ' “4 cit-q L. "' “'3'; ”in. k ~132- Table 57. Percent fat in various compartments of the pig body. Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 29.88 38.29 43.96 26.23 15.36 --- 33.72 28.97 2 33.62 33.37 52.93 29.99 17.48 ~-- 36.63 31.22 3 25.27 33.12 40.11 21.79 18.14 --- 28.91 25.60 4 30.66 42.02 50.95 28.48 17.69 --- 37.09 31.90 5 31.72 40.27 48.20 27.69 18.01 --- 36.07 31.02 6 34.36 45.07 52.45 29.47 18.45 --- 39.19 33.03 7 31.69 45.43 49.45 26.06 15.25 --- 37.35 31.20 8 35.19 44.80 54.08 28.63 16.42 --- 39.60 32.82 9 31.56 42.62 48.91 24.78 16.19 --- 36.04 30.13 10 36.70 45.19 54.67 32.73 18.46 --- 41.25 34.51 11 31.28 38.82 45.00 26.67 15.36 --- 34.48 28.49 12 33.89 44.07 47.49 27.25 15.61 --- 37.55 30.87 13 33.71 46.63 50.45 28.03 15.39 --- 39.04 31.96 14 33.14 40.00 47.17 28.73 14.93 --- 36.23 29.89 15 34.61 44.52 52.73 30.06 17.94 --- 39.46 32.77 16 28.08 36.00 44.46 22.53 14.36 --- 31.75 26.73 17 26.51 36.12 41.27 22.02 14.68 --- 30.63 26.02 18 36.99 47.85 53.30 30.58 17.04 --- 41.31 35.12 19 28.61 33.35 44.51 22.20 15.84 --- 31.13 26.66 20 38.38 48.50 53.47 33.07 21.79 --- 42.49 36.45 21 32.74 43.24 49.25 28.21 20.92 --- 37.64 32.81 22 29.10 39.59 46.09 23.65 17.98 --- 33.51 28.50 23 28.07 33.93 38.96 21.00 16.19 --- 29.82 25.26 24 34.66 42.93 48.41 28.15 14.34 --- 37.59 31.39 25 31.27 39.65 47.34 24.41 19.04 --- 34.45 29.29 i 32.07 41.02 48.22 26.90 16.91 --- 36.12 30.50 ‘: Jun" ~133- Table 58. Percent protein in various compartments of the pig body. Pig compartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A 1 15.08 14.71 12.92 16.51 14.69 17.53 14.97 14.58 2 14.24 14.43 10.65 15.82 12.74 18.08 13.95 13.60 3 16.52 15.74 13.13 18.39 13.38 18.68 16.22 15.44 4 14.84 13.61 13.75 16.01 13.36 18.62 14.63 14.25 5 14.77 13.78 12.36 16.30 13.00 19.39 14.46 14.05 6 15.76 13.12 11.56 16.68 11.87 17.29 14.54 13.83 7 15.97 11.60 10.99 17.74 12.81 20.21 14.29 13.90 8 16.30 14.30 12.12 18.29 12.54 18.30 15.50 14.69 9 15.63 13.80 12.44 17.85 12.62 17.60 15.11 14.43 10 14.30 13.21 10.92 15.45 12.28 19.98 13.68 13.33 11 15.89 15.69 13.11 18.17 14.63 19.49 15.95 15.46 12 15.53 13.72 12.98 17.21 13.22 21.59 14.98 14.50 13 15.74 13.22 12.53 16.56 13.69 19.98 14.63 14.32 14 16.16 15.22 13.23 17.06 13.88 21.42 15.63 15.18 15 15.77 14.18 11.63 17.12 13.77 20.29 14.92 14.60 16 17.63 16.19 14.19 18.70 15.06 20.21 16.89 16.25 17 18.10 16.14 15.08 19.11 14.84 22.26 17.28 16.69 18 15.39 12.96 11.85 16.75 14.25 22.32 14.43 14.36 19 17.30 16.09 14.12 18.09 15.35 19.53 16.60 16.08 20 15.39 13.57 12.06 16.72 14.57 21.80 14.63 14.49 21 16.50 13.85 12.61 17.59 13.64 21.45 15.31 14.89 22 15.88 15.66 13.05 17.90 14.81 20.24 15.86 15.47 23 16.62 16.39 14.85 17.90 14.28 21.01 16.57 15.92 24 15.73 15.00 12.87 17.46 14.50 22.44 15.49 15.20 25 16.39 14.53 13.54 16.88 14.83 21.30 15.53 15.18 R 15.90 14.43 12.74 17.29 13.78 20.04 15.28 14.83 -134- Table 59. Percent moisture in various compartments of the pig body. Pigpcompartments Total Animal No. SH L S H GI B C A l 51.34 43.50 42.36 55.17 65.78 80.60 48.65 51.35 2 48.20 48.18 35.51 50.67 63.24 80.30 46.21 49.45 3 54.80 47.55 44.84 56.46 62.70 79.29 51.70 53.10 4 50.12 41.76 36.53 51.78 64.00 79.53 45.67 48.82 5 49.81 41.96 39.19 52.35 61.20 78.56 46.46 48.87 6 48.57 40.81 35.96 52.08 65.10 79.82 45.16 49.03 7 50.29 39.47 38.14 54.14 67.25 79.62 46.04 49.89 8 46.93 39.78 34.27 52.09 65.85 79.80 43.99 48.51 9 49.86 41.83 38.59 55.86 65.30 80.03 47.13 50.90 10 46.77 40.59 34.94 49.53 64.17 79.65 43.65 47.87 11 50.49 44.80 40.95 53.14 67.88 79.76 47.85 51.90 12 49.27 41.16 40.27 54.11 68.17 79.20 46.60 50.94 13 48.72 38.28 37.57 52.89 68.43 79.93 47.76 49.74 14 48.65 42.99 39.48 52.06 66.82 79.15 46.47 50.63 15 47.13 39.48 35.49 50.91 65.37 80.08 43.92 48.72 16 52.25 45.94 42.09 57.38 67.96 78.96 50.07 53.10 17 53.97 45.87 44.14 57.13 68.46 77.11 50.81 53.62 18 45.49 37.66 35.14 50.56 65.67 77.66 42.75 46.53 19 52.61 48.82 41.73 58.18 66.84 79.86 51.05 53.44 20 44.90 36.92 34.73 48.70 60.81 77.84 41.90 45.19 21 49.06 41.22 37.85 52.79 62.60 78.06 45.70 48.41 22 52.31 43.85 40.38 55.82 65.75 79.49 48.83 51.92 23 53.48 48.52 46.38 59.06 67.76 79.03 52.26 54.97 24 47.08 40.51 38.57 52.41 66.00 78.06 45.22 48.77 25 51.12 43.66 39.93 56.61 64.15 79.04 48.66 51.28 i 49.73 42.58 39.00 53.68 65.49 79.20 46.86 50.28 -135- Table 60. Analysis of variance of potassium content of various compart- ments of the pig body (gm./kg.). Mean squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. Wet basis 'moisture-free basis Protein basis Between pigs 24 0.168357** 3.3761992** 2.713408** Between compartments 7 1.616344** 43.4957843** 58.777723** Error 168 0.014586 0.3489043 0.457889 Total 199 E: (standard error mean) 0.024154 0.118136 0.135335 *(P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 61. Analysis of variance of sodium content of various compartments Of the pig bOdy (glib/kg.). Mean squares Fat-free, Source of variance d.f. ‘wet basis moisture-free basis Protein basis Between pigs 24 0.0072992** 0.4358854** 1.2005977** Between compartments 7 5.5471252** 103.9893168** 140.8647658** Error 168 0.0035083 0.1383771 0.1759954 Total 199 3‘ (standard error mean) 0.011846 0.074398 0.083904 * P < .05) **(P < .01) Table 62. Analysis of variance of percent fat, protein and moisture of various compartments of the pig body. Mean sqgares Source of variance d.f. % fat %_protein % moisture Between pigs 24 61.769790** 5.813932** 37.775576** Between compartments 7 5,599.103198** 129.171073** 4,294.590340** Error 168 4.095694 0.538624 2.663815 Total 199 3; (standard error mean) 0.40476 0.14678 0.27202 *(P < .05) **(P < .01) "r “a 2.733 u-wam: “may, I, p~\"Em'. t In! 0 .,c,4 n30.\.«quM\ “1.1145!“ 0 NW. 11111411310 17 H H Mm "- u S” N'lll 3 1293 0306 “n W