EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER WEIGHT UPON THE A PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS QUALITY AND AND CUTS , . WM “9....de ~ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Jab“ Andmw EWIGrsan :1 :1: :7 .1 . T962 T I II 2’} This is to certifg that the thesis entitled EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER WEIGHT UPON THE PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS, QUALITY AND CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY 0F PORK CARCASSES AND CUTS presented by John Andrew Emerson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Food Science fl» 62W Maji? professor Date May 14 1962 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University NAEHJ LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES w111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 200 A277 ABSTRACT EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER.WEIGHT UPON THE PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS, QUALITY AND CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY 0F PORK CARCASSES AND CUTS By John Andrew Emerson Forty Yorkshire and 40 crossbred hogs were used to study the effect of slaughter weight upon the acceptance, quality and processing charac- teristics of pork carcasses. The 80 animals were equally divided into 4 slaughter weight groups: 100-120 1b.; 130-150 1b.; 160-180 1b.; and 190-210 1b. Each group contained equal numbers of purebreds, crossbreds, barrows and gilts. The carcasses were dressed packer style, cut and measured using standard techniques. As slaughter weight was increased, there was an increase in backfat thickness, carcass length, dressing percentage and loin eye area, and a decrease in the percentages of primal and lean cuts. Chemical analysis of the rough ham indicated that as slaughter weight was increased, there was a significant decrease in the percentages of protein and moisture, whereas, the percentage of ether extract increased significantly. Chemi- cal analysis of the E, dgggi muscle showed similar trends except that no significant difference was observed in the percentage of ether extract as slaughter weight was increased. Physical separation of the rough ham showed that as slaughter weight decreased, the percentage of bone and per- centage of lean increased significantly, whereas, the percentage of separ- able fat decreased. Taste panel scores based on the nine point hedonic scale indicated that the palatability of smoked hams and bacons was acceptable regardless of slaughter weight. Differences in percentages of smoked yields attri- butable to slaughter weight were not significant, except in the case of John Andrew Emerson bacons from the lightest weight group where the yield was significantly lower (P-< .01). Slaughter weight had no significant effect on either palatability or percentage of cooking losses from fresh pork chops. Munsell color measurements of hue and value were not significantly affected by slaughter weight; however, significant decreases in chroma were noted as slaughter weight decreased. The difference in age between the animals from the heaviest weight group and those from the lightest weight group was approximately 3 months. Thus, if the concentration of the muscle pigment myoglobin does in fact increase with age, this could possibly account for the increases in chroma as found in this study. The water-holding capacity of the L. gg£§i_muscle was studied by the filter paper-press technique. Differences in the water-binding pr0perties due to slaughter weight were found to be non-significant. It was noted, however, that the amounts of eXpressible moisture were somewhat higher in the case of the 2 lightest weight groups. A second method of deter- mining water-holding capacity was develOped during the course of this study. The method proved to be both rapid and repeatable. Consumer studies conducted on fresh-frozen pork chops, Boston butt roasts, and loin roasts indicated strong consumer preferences for the chOps and butt roasts from both the heaviest and the lightest weight groups. In the case of the loin roasts, however, the preference was de- cidedly in favor of the heaviest weight group. Thus, it appeared that certain cuts from lightweight hogs would be favorably accepted by the consumers. The smaller size of some of these cuts seemed to be one of their more desirable attributes. However, it was apparent that consumers will strongly object to cuts which are too small. Such appeared to be the case with the loin roasts. Family size also had a strong influence John Andrew Emerson upon selection. As family size increased, the demand for cuts from the heaviest weight groups became more pronounced. The difference in the breeding of the animals was found to have had considerable influence on various characteristics of the carcasses. The crossbred hogs had significantly higher dressing percentages (P'< .01) and larger loin eye areas (P'< .059, whereas, they were shorter in carcass length (P'< .01) and produced a lower percentage of primal cuts (P‘< .05). No significant differences were found between the Yorkshire and crossbred hogs in percentage of lean cuts or in backfat thickness. Chemical analy- sis indicated that the rough hams and loin eye muscles from the carcasses of Yorkshire hogs were significantly higher in percentage of protein, but lower in percentage of ether extract. Physical separation data on the rough hams indicated that carcasses from the Yorkshires had significantly higher percentages of bone than those from the crossbreds; however, no significant differences in the percentage of separable lean or percentage of separable fat were observed between breed groups. Taste panel evaluation of smoked hams and bacons indicated no signi— ficant differences in palatability due to breed. The smoked yields of the hams did not differ significantly between breeds, however, the bacon from the crossbred hogs had a significantly higher (P'< .01) yield than that from Yorkshire hogs. The fresh pork chOps from the Yorkshire hogs were found to be more tender than those from the crossbreds; however, the latter were rated higher in overall acceptability by the taste panel. The chOps from the Yorkshire hogs had significantly lower cooking losses than those from the crossbreds. The carcasses from gilts were generally superior to those from barrows. The gilts produced higher percentages of lean and primal cuts, were longer John Andrew Emerson in carcass length and had larger loin eye areas. Carcasses from barrows had significantly more backfat thickness. Chemical analysis indicated that the rough hams from the carcasses of gilts were significantly higher in percentage protein and percentage moisture, but were lower in percent- age ether extract. The loin eye muscles from the gilts contained signi- ficantly less ether extract, but no significant differences occurred in percentage protein or moisture. Physical separation data of the rough hams indicated that those from gilts contained significantly lower per- centages of separable fat and higher percentages of separable lean than those from barrows. The palatability of the smoked hams and bacons did not differ signi- ficantly between sexes. The smoked yields of hams were similar regardless of sex, however, bacon from barrows was higher (P‘< .05) in percentage of smoked yield than bacon from gilts. No significant differences due to sex were found between the taste panel scores and percentages of cooking losses of the fresh pork ch0ps. The results of this investigation indicated that the acceptance, quality and processing characteristics of carcasses from hogs slaughtered at weights as low as 100 pounds compared very favorably with those from hogs slaughtered at normal market weights. EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER WEIGHT UPON THE PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS, QUALITY AND CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF PORK CARCASSES AND CUTS By John Andrew Emerson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Food Science 1962 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author, John Andrew Emerson, was born February 13, 1928, in Haverhill, Massachusetts. He graduated from Berkeley Preparatory School of Boston, Massachusetts, in February, 1946. In March, 1946, he enrolled as a student at Tufts College, Medford, Massachusetts, and received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Economics from that institution in June, 1950. In July, 1952, he entered the United States Navy and was released from active service in June, 1955, with the rank of Lieutenant (junior grade). In September, 1955, he enrolled in the University of Florida and received the degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from that in- stitution in June, 1957. As a University of Florida undergraduate, he was a member of the University Meats Judging Team and Alpha Zeta, agricultural honorary fraternity. In June, 1957, he commenced his graduate studies in the Animal Husbandry and Nutrition Department of the University of Florida and re- ceived the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture in January, 1959. In March, 1959, he entered the Graduate School of Michigan State University, Department of Food Science. He is a member of the American Society of Animal Production, the Reciprocal Meats Conference, the Insti- tute of Food Technologists, and the Society of Sigma Xi. He is now a candidate for the degree of Doctor of PhiloSOphy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his deep appreciation to Dr. A. M. Pearson, Professor of Food Science, for his guidance and assistance throughout this study and in the preparation of this manuscript. To Dr. B. S. Schweigert, Head of the Department of Food Science, Professor L. J. Bratzler, and to Dr. J. A. Hoefer, Dr. P. E. Reineke and Dr. R. W. Luecke, members of the author's guidance committee, sincere appreciation is expressed for their cooPeration and council. Special gratitude is extended to Mrs. Dora Spooner for her invalu- able asSistance with the chemical analyses, conduction of the taste panels and the statistical analyses. The author sincerely thanks Mrs. Beatrice Eichelberger for her excellent typing of this manuscript. Above all, the author wishes to thank his wife, Louise, who made all this worthwhile. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . Effect of Growth and Development on Carcass Effect of Sex on Carcass Composition . . . Effect of Breed on Carcass Composition . Indices of Carcass Composition . . . . . . Physical Separation . . . . . . . . . Backfat Thickness . . . . . . . . . Loin Eye Area . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . Composition . Effect of Slaughter Weight on Carcass Composition . . . Consumer Acceptance Studies . . . . . . . Meat Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muscle Pigments . . . . . . . . . Factors Affecting Muscle Color . . . . Disk Colorimetry . . . . . . . . . . . The Water-Holding Capacity of Meat . . . Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Water-Holding Capacity . Basic Concepts of Meat Hydration . . . Factors Affecting Meat Hydration . . Methods of Measurement . . . . . . . . iii Page 10 12 15 15 16 17 19 19 19 19 22 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ExPerimental Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Slaughter Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Carcass Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Cutting Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Area of Lean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Specific Gravity Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Physical Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Preparation of Samples for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Chemical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Color Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Curing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cooking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Taste Panel Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Shear Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Consumer Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Water-holding Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 'Method I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Method II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Carcass Cut-out Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Effect of Slaughter Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Effect of Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Effect of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Chemical Analysis of the Rough Hams and Loin Eye Muscle . . 45 Effect of Slaughter weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Effect of Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Effect of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Physical Separation of the Rough Ham . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Effect of Slaughter weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Effect of Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Effect of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Smoked Hams and Bacons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Effect of Slaughter weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Effect of Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Effect of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Palatability and Cooking Losses of Fresh Pork Ch0ps . . . . 54 Effect of Slaughter weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Effect of Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Effect of Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 'Surface Color of Fresh Pork ChOps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Effect of Slaughter weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Effects of Breed and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 'Water-Holding Capacity -- Method I . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Effect of Slaughter Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Effects of Breed and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Water-Holding Capacity -- Method II . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Consumer Preference Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Effect of Slaughter Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Effect of Family Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page SUAMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . APPENDIX . . . vi Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LIST OF TABLES Smoking schedule for hams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan’s Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight group on carcass cut-out value . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of breed on carcass cut-out value; from analysis Of variance 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O The effect of sex on carcass cut-out value; from analysis Of variance 0 o o o o c o o o o o o 0 O o O O O O o o o o Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the chemical analysis of the rough ham and the L. dorsi The effect of breed on the chemical analysis of the rough hams and loin eye muscles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of sex on the chemical analysis of the rough hams and loin eye muscles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the physical separation data of the rough ham . . . . The effect of breed on the physical separation data of the rough ham 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The effect of sex on the physical separation data of the r0 ugh h am 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I C O O O Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons The effect of breed on the taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons from carcasses of barrows and gilts . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the palatability and percentage of cooking losses of fresh pork loin chOps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of breed on various palatability characteristics and cooking losses of fresh pork loin chOps . . . . . . . Effect of sex on various palatability characteristics and cooking losses of fresh pork loin chops . . . . . . . . . vii Page 32 41 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Table 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the surface color renotations of hue, value and chroma of fresh pork chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The effect of breed and sex on the sUrface color renotation values of the L. dorsi muscles from fresh pork chOps . . 60 Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- The effect of slaughter weight on the water-holding capacity of the L, dorsi muscle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 The effect of breed and sex on the water-holding capacity of loin eye muscles of fresh pork ch0ps as determined by Method I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Basis for selection of pork chops . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Basis for selection of Boston butt roasts . . . . . . . . 67 Basis for selection of loin roasts . . . . . . . . . . . 69 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Relationship of free moisture (mg.) to wetted area (Sq. in.) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 38 2 Rate of consumer preference - PORK CHOPS . . . . . . . . 64 BOSTON BUTTS . . . . . . . 66 3 Rate of consumer preference 4 Rate of consumer preference LOIN ROASTS . . . . . . . . 68 5 Consumer preference; effect of family size - PORK CHOPS . 71 6 Consumer preference; effect of family size - BOSTON BUTTS 72 7 Consumer preference; effect of family size - LOIN ROASTS 73 ix Appendix A A_ LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Slaughter data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (continued) Slaughter data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (continued) Slaughter data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (continued) Slaughter data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams . . (continued) Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . O O O O O O O 0 (continued) Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams . O O O O O O O O C C O C O O O O O O O O 0 0 (continued) Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and r0 ugh hams O O O Q Q . O O O . O O O O C O . O . o o 0 Physical separation data of rough ham . . . . . . . . (continued) Physical separation data of rough ham . . . (continued) Physical separation data of rough ham . (continued) Physical separation data of rough ham . . . Palatability and cooking loss data of pork chOps . (continued) Palatability and cooking loss data of pork ch0ps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (continued) Palatability and cooking loss data of pork Chop S O O . O O C O O O O 0 C . C O O O O C C C . C (continued) Palatability and cooking loss data of pork Chop S O O O O O O O O O C O C C O O C O O O O O O O O O Palatability data of hams and bacons; overall acceptabi- lity O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Munsell color renotation values . . . . . . . . . . . . water-holding capacity data; Methods I and II . . . . . Page 85 . 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 . 93 . 94 . 95 96 . 97 . 98 99 100 101 102 103 (continued) water-holding capacity data; Methods I and II 104 (continued) water-holding capacity data; Methods I and II 105 X Appendix G H LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (continued) (continued) Water-holding capacity data; Methods I and II Smoked yields of hams and bacons . . . . . . . . . . . . Composition of grower ration . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . Composition of finishing ration . . . . . . . . . . . . Carcass data sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taste panel evaluation sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taste panel data sheet (loin ch0ps) . . . . . . . . . . Consumer's questionaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water—holding capacity. Tabulation of free moisture area vs. free moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of hot and cold carcass dressing percentages . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage of lean cuts on the live and carcass bases . . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage of primal cuts on the live and carcass bases . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage of average backfat thickness, carcass length, loin eye area, and Specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage protein, ether extract and moisture of the rough ham and L. dorSi O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the physical separation data of the rough ham . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of taste panel test scores and percentages of smoked yield for smoked hams and bacons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean squares from the analysis of variance of various palatability characteristics and percentages of cooking loss of fresh loin pork chops . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the surface color renotations of hue, value and chroma of fresh pork Chop S O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O 0 Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the water- holding capacity (MethodI) of L. dorsi muscles expressed in terms of percentage of free moisture . . . . . . xi Page 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 INTRODUCTION Numerous consumer acceptance studies have indicated leanness to be the most important criterion in the selection of meats. Consumer resis- tance to fat has placed increased emphasis upon production of hogs that will yield leaner, meatier carcasses that satisfy consumer demands. A number of methods have been proposed for increasing the leanness of pork carcasses. Selection and breeding towards certain carcass traits has resulted in considerable improvement of carcass meatiness in recent years. The use of breeds having superior muscling has become increasing- ly popular in crossbreeding programs. High-fiber diets from various sources have been utilized to restruct the energy intake and, therefore, to reduce the overall fatness of swine (Bohman gt gl., 1955; Merkel gt_§l., 1958; Hochstetler gt EA~2 1959; Larsen 2; al., 1960). The influence of limited feeding as a means of producing leaner swine carcasses (Lucas and Calder, 1956; Brunstad and Fowler, 1959; Self gt gl., 1960) has been in- vestigated. A method of reducing fatness, which has recently stimulated mush interest, is the slaughtering of hogs at lighter weights than the usual 200-220 pounds. Recent investigations (Mullins-QEH§;., 1960; Field 25 gl., 1961) have indicated this method to be as effective as breeding and high- fiber diets in increasing carcass leanness and more efficient in terms of feed savings. The current study was conducted in order to determine the quality and processing characteristics of carcasses from hogs slaughtered at weights ranging from 100 to 200 pounds. Any undesirable effects of prac- tical consideration, other than production factors, resulting from -1- slaughtering hogs at lighter weights should become apparent within this weight range . The specific objectives were to observe the effect of slaughter weight on: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) carcass cut-out data, the chemical composition of the loin eye muscle and the rough ham, percentages of bone, lean, fat and skin of the rough ham as determined by physical separation, yields and panel ratings of smoked hams and bacons, percent cooking losses and panel ratings of fresh pork ch0ps, surface color of fresh pork chOps, the water-holding capacity of the L, dgggi muscle, and the consumer acceptance of pork chops, Boston butts, and loin roasts. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Effect of Growth and Development on Carcass Composition Many studies have been made of the changes in body composition and measurements of farm animals from birth to maturity. Meek (1901), Brody and Ragsdale (1924), and Lush (1928), studying changes in live weight and external body measurements of cattle during growth, found the skeleton to be more completely develOped at birth than muscle or fat, whereas, it is the latter which makes up the greater proportion of the adult animal's ' weight. Hammond (1932) completely dissected bodies of sheep from birth to four years of age. His study showed that the developmental changes in the animal are caused by a primary growth wave originating at the cranium. This wave moves forward to the facial parts of the head and posteriorly to the lumbar region. A secondary growth wave, originating at the meta- carpals and metatarsals, was found to continue down to the digits and upwards along the limbs and trunk to the lumbar region. Consequently, the lumbar region is the last to attain maximum growth since it is the latest maturing part of the animal. The results of Hammond were confirmed by Wellace (1948), and Palsson and Verges (1952a, 1952b). MCMeekan (1940, 1941), studying growth in pigs, reported findings similar to those of Hammond. He found that growth in body pr0portions exhibits a well-defined anterior-posterior gradient from the earlier to the later developing regions. The limbs developed relatively early, with the forelimbs deve10ping slightly earlier than the hindlimbs. The growth and development of the major body tissues were found to occur in a well- defined order commencing with the skeleton, then muscle, and lastly, fat. -3- Effect of Sex on Carcass Composition Callow (1949) considered gilts to be physiologically younger than barrows of the same chronological age. ‘WOodman (1937) and Callow (1949) reported gilts to have a greater growth of muscle and bone and to deposit fat more slowly than barrows. Hetzer pp El- (1950) noted that gilts yielded a higher percentage of primal cuts and a higher percentage of lean in the ham than barrows of comparable live weight. Fredeen 23 3;, (1955) reported gilts to yield heavier, longer, leaner hams than barrows. Hetzer gt a1. (1956) found barrows to be fatter than gilts, and gilts to be fatter than boars when compared at 250 pounds live weight. Fredeen and Lambroughton (1956) studied more than 1,300 pork car- casses and found the gilts to be superior to barrows in many desirable attributes, including less backfat and a larger loin eye area. Bruner_gt .EL. (1958) observed differences in 385 littermate barrow and gilt pairs. The barrows gained faster than the gilts. The gilts produced leaner carcasses than the barrows, based on percent of lean cuts, backfat thick- ness, loin eye measurement, and the weight of the loins and hams. Wallace ._§__l. (1959), studying the effect of slaughter weight on hogs, found that barrows gained faster than gilts; however, gilts had less backfat and larger loin eye muscles. Judge gt EA- (1959), studying fresh pork loins from 321 carcasses, found no significant differences in the color or firmness of the L, dgggi muscle due to sex differences. The difference in marbling approached significance with the barrows having more intra- muscular fat than the gilts. Effect of Breed on Carcass Composition Enfield and Whatley (1961) studied the heritability of carcass length, backfat thickness, and loin eye area using pigs of Duroc, Beltsville No. 1, and Hampshire breeding. According to the authors, the heritability estimates indicated that all three traits are moderately heritable (car- cass length, 0.52; backfat thickness, 0.63; loin eye area, 0.44). The phenotypic correlations reported were: carcass length to backfat thick- ness, -0.36; carcass length to loin eye area, 0.10; and loin eye area to backfat thickness, -0.27. These results are consistent with the findings of Whiteman and Whatley (19539 and Hazel and Kline (1952). Aunan and Winters (1949) and Brown 35 El! (1951) have reported that the correlations between carcass length and backfat thickness are negative, but of varying magnitude. Estimates of phenotypic correlation coefficients between loin eye area and carcass length have varied from -O.18 (Stothart, 1938) to 0.38 (Aunan and Winters, 1949). Enfield and Whatley (1961) concluded that selection for backfat thickness and loin eye area should be slightly effective in reducing car- cass backfat and increasing loin lean area. Although carcass length appears to be quite heritable, it is only moderately related to other measures of carcass leanness. Zobrisky pp pl. (1954, 1959), while investigating the effect of car- cass length on the yield of lean, found no strong relationship between the two. However, the data indicated that the effect of length on the yield of lean varies between breeds. The correlations obtained were as follows: Landrace-Poland crosses, -0.20; Hampshires, 0.12; and Durocs, 0.36. Pearson gt 3;. (1959) compared seven breeds of hogs as to backfat thickness, carcass length, loin eye area, and percentage of the various trimmed wholesale cuts. It was found that highly significant differences occurred between some breeds for all traits investigated. Ranking of the breeds according to yield of primal or lean cuts was not found to be a true indication of actual carcass value. Certain breeds were proportion- ately higher in percentage ham.and loin, whereas others were higher in percentage shoulder and belly. Judge 22 El: (1959) compared the loins from six breeds of swine as to color, marbling and finmness. It was found that certain of the breeds tended to produce light colored, slightly marbled, soft muscles, whereas, other breeds frequently produced dark, abundantly marbled, firm loins. Rupnow and Weller (1961), comparing 12 Hampshire and 12 Palouse hogs, determined the effect of breed on tenderness as indicated by the Werner- Bratzler shear method. It was found that loin chops from the Hampshire breed were significantly more tender than the chOps from the Palouse hogs. Indices of Carcass Composition Physical Separation Hammond's (1932) work with sheep introduced the concept of dividing the carcass into well-defined anatomical sections. The procedure for dissecting these sections into skin, bone, tendon, muscle and fat has been described in detail by MCMeekan (1940). This technique has also been utilized by Pomeroy (1941). Lush (1926), using the 9-10-11th rib cut of beef, was the first to study the relationship between the composition of a single cut and that of the entire carcass. The value of the 9-10-llth rib cut was subsequently confirmed by Hopper (1944), and Hankins and Howe (1946). Utilization of the percentages of separable lean, fat and bone of the ham as an index of pork carcass composition has been studied by many in- vestigators. Hankins and Ellis (1934) found a high association (r = 0.93) between the fat content of the right ham and that of the edible portion of the carcass. McMeekan (1941) reported highly significant correlations between the total weight of bone, muscle and fat (r = 0.94, 0.98, and 0.98, resPectively) in the loin plus the ham and the total weight of these tissues in the entire carcass. High correlations also existed when either the loin or ham mmmm considered separately. The percentage of separable lean and fat of the ham was found by Aunan and Winters (1949) to closely parallel the percentages of these tissues in the carcass. Backfat Thickness Scott (1927) demonstrated that the differences in percentage of ham, loin and other pork cutsznn.primarily due to differences in the degree of fatness of the carcass. The significance of backfat thickness in carcass evaluation studies has been studied by many researchers (Hankins and Ellis, 1934; MCMeekan, 1941; Aunan and Winters, 1949; Reynolds and Kiehl, 1952; Zobrisky 25 gl., 1954). Studies conducted by Engleman g; 3;. (1950), Wiley gt El. (1951), and Fox 3; pi. (1953) indicate that as backfat thick- ness increases, carcass value decreases. These investigations indicated backfat thickness to be a simple, rapid, practical estimator of carcass fatness, However, its relationship to cut-out value is generally lower than would be desirable. Loin Eye Area The use of loin eye area has been used extensively as a tool in pork carcass evaluation. The measurement has usually been taken across the tenth and/or the last rib, and the values have been used alone or in com- bination with other carcass measures to predict carcass leanness. The general practice amongst investigators to select relatively posterior locations of the loin for loin eye area measurements is consistent with the findings of earlier workers (Hammond, 1932; McMeekan, 1940, 1941) which indicate this area to be one of the latest developing parts of the carcass. A part, which grows late in the development of an animal, forms the best index of the state of development of the carcass as a Whole. Whiteman and Whatley (1953a) compared two methods of measuring loin eye area (length by width estimate and planimeter reading) to other indices of carcass leanness. Both loin eye measures appeared to be about equal in value for predicting carcass merit. Kline and Hazel (1955) compared loin eye areas taken at both the tenth and last rib in regards to their absolute size, relationship to each other, and accuracy in predicting lean cut-out values. The loin area at the last rib averaged 0.43 square inches greater than that at the tenth rib, which was a large and highly significant difference. No significant difference was found amongst the correlations between percent lean cuts and loin eye area at the tenth or last rib. However, the latter area was slightly more closely related to percent loin. Pearson ggugi. (1956a) investigated the use of the cross-sectional fat/lean ratio of the rough loin at the last rib as a measure of carcass leanness. The area of lean at the tenth or last rib was found to be only slightly less reliable (r = 0.52) than the ratio of fat to lean (r = -0.60) for estimating carcass cut-out. Zobrisky (1959) reported that the cross- sectional area of loin eye, the cross-sectional area of lean in the ham, and dressing percentages were significantly correlated with percentage carcass lean, with values of 0.60, 0.46, and 0.36, resPectively. Hegarty (1960) obtained correlations between loin eye area and percentage lean cuts of 0.67 and 0.60, when measured at the last and tenth rib, respect- ively. He indicated that there may be a higher relationship between percent lean cuts and loin eye area when measured at the last rib than when measured at the tenth rib. Specific Gravity Many investigators have reported the use of specific gravity as a tool for estimating carcass composition. Brown 33 3;. (1951), Whiteman _§Efl§l, (1953b), and Kraybill 25 El: (1953) reported specific gravity values to be more accurate than backfat thickness in predicting carcass cut-out value. Kline gt 3;. (1955) indicated that the use of specific gravity as a measure of fatness requires standardized conditions. Studying 40 car- casses, he found the average Specific gravity after 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours chilling at an unSpecified temperature to be 0.997, 1.021, 1.025 and 1.028, respectively. Pearson 25 EA- (1956) evaluated the specific gravity of several single cuts as estimators of carcass fatness and leanness. The specific gravity of a single untrimmed ham was found to be a slightly more reliable index of the specific gravity of the entire carcass than were the specific gravi- ties of the rough loin and the untrimmed shoulder. Specific gravity of either the entire carcass or a single ham was shown to be superior to backfat thickness as an indicator of carcass cut-out value. Whiteman g5 .31. (1953b) reported a high correlation (r = 0.95) between Specific gravi- ties of the half carcass and the ham. Price gt_§l. (1957) indicated that the chemical composition of the ham, the area of the loin eye at the tenth -10- or last rib, and the backfat measurements were more closely associated with carcass specific gravity than with the specific gravity of the ham. Barton and Kirton (1956) reported a correlation of 0.88 between the reciprocal of specific gravity and the percentage of ether extract in half-carcasses of sheep. An identical correlation was obtained between Specific gravity and the ether extract in the 9-10-llth rib cut. In a later study, Kirton and Barton (1958) found that the relation between car- cass fat and Specific gravity is non-linear. The largest deviation from the linear regression occurred in data obtained from very lean ewes. Animals having a very low fat content had lower specific gravity values than would be predicted from a linear regression fitted to data from animals of medium fatness. At the other extreme, the Specific gravity decreased faster than would be predicted from the same linear regression equation. Effect of Slaughter Weight on Carcass Characteristics Wellace gt EA° (1959) studied hogs slaughtered at 150, 180, 210 and 240 pounds. It was found that as slaughter weight decreased, dressing percentage, backfat thickness, and loin eye area at the 10th rib decreased. Percentage lean cuts increased when slaughter weight was decreased. Mullins 25 ET. (1960) studied the carcass characteristics and consumer acceptability of pork cuts from 160- and 2207pound hogs. The heavier car- casses dressed 3 percent higher and were about 2.5 inches longer than those of the lighter weight group. The lighter carcasses had about 0.4 inches less backfat and 0.6 square inches more loin eye area per 100 pounds of chilled carcass. The carcasses of the lighter weight group produced 4 percent more lean cuts and 5 percent less trimmed fat. The wholesale value -11.. of the pork cuts from the lighter group was about $2.00 more per hundred- weight of carcass. Consumer acceptance was studied on ham roasts, ham center slices, loin roasts, loin chaps, picnics, Boston butts and bacon. Loin blade roasts, Boston butts, picnics and bacon from both weight groups were rated lower on general acceptability and were consistently criticized for being too fat. MbCampbell and Baird (1961) conducted a study on purebred Poland China hogs slaughtered at 170, 190, 210 and 230 pounds. Dressing percent- ages were similar for all groups. Although carcass length and backfat thickness increased with slaughter weight, loin eye area increased only slightly. The percentage lean and primal cuts decreased as slaughter weight increased. The average returns in dollars per head above the costs of production were $9.22, $10.02, $11.05 and $10.37, respectively, for the 4 weight groups. Field 2E ET. (1961) studied the effect of slaughtering hogs at 160 and 220 pounds. It was found that the lighter hogs required significantly less feed per 100 pounds of gain than the heavy animals. Twenty-five packers from 13 states were asked for their Opinions on the merits of slaughtering hogs at the two weights. Eighty-three percent of the packers preferred hogs weighing 200 to 225 pounds. The meat packers estimated processing costs to be 20 percent greater per unit weight for hogs weighing under 175 pounds. Because of the greater processing costs, the packers estimated that the lighter hogs were worth about $1.50 less per hundred- weight than the 220-225 pound hogs. The packers cited the following reasons for the greater production costs: (a) "It takes practically the same time and facilities to dress, chill and cut the light weight hog as -12- it does a hog which yields twice as many pounds of pork”, (b) ”Lesser value of the thin bellies from light hogs", and (c) ”The yield of the lighter hogs is less”. The same authors asked 73 retailers from 19 states to indicate the size of hams, loins, picnics and Boston butts that they preferred to mer— chandise. In general, they preferred smaller cuts than were commonly available. Some of their reasons included: (a) consumer acceptance, (b) balanced movement of retail cuts, (c) profit cut-out, (d) more flavor and tenderness, (e) consistently leaner, and (f) more attractive unit cost. A survey was conducted of consumers' reactions to fresh center pork chops, whole and sliced Boston butts, cured hams, cured picnics and Sliced bacon from hogs of the two weight groups (Field EEHEL-: 1961). The con- sumers indicated that a higher percentage of the cuts from the heavier group were too fat and that the whole hams and center chops were too large. A consumer-panel found no significant differences in tenderness or flavor of cuts from either weight group. Similarly, a laboratory taste panel did not show a significant preference between the two weight groups. Loin roasts from the lighter hogs had a significantly lower shrinkage than those from the heavier group, which was probably due to increased rendering of fat. Carcass data indicated no significant difference in dressing per- cent. The lighter hogs produced significantly more lean and primal cuts, which made the lighter carcasses worth $1.27 more per hundredweight. The increased value of the carcasses offset the added processing costs which had been estimated by the packers. Consumer Acceptance Studies Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the factors which consumers consider most important in selecting meat cuts. The results of -13- these studies have generally made it apparent that consumers are demand— ing leaner cuts of beef and pork. Such considerations as tenderness, color, overall size, flavor and amount of bone have also been shown to be important attributes. However, one of the most important factors in the initial selection of a cut of meat appears to be its lean content. ’ Studies conducted in St. Louis, Missouri,(Rhodes, 1955), and Phoenix, Arizona (Campbell, 1956), have indicated strong consumer rejection of beef cuts containing excess fat. The objections were not limited to trimmable fat alone, but included marbling as well. The majority of con- sumers preferred cuts from cattle of the Good and Standard grades. Studies with pork indicate similar preferences. Vrooman (1952) con- ducted a survey of pork product preferences in five Oregon cities. A clear-cut preference for lean pork was expressed in all cities regardless of income group. Birmingham 53 EA. (1954) studied consumer preference for pork in Columbia, Missouri. Cuts from both the Medium and Choice No. 1 grades were presented for evaluation before and after cooking. Prior to cooking, a definite preference for bacon and pork chops and a slight preference for ham slices from the Medium grade was found. Lean- ness was the characteristic most often mentioned as the reason for select- ion of cuts from the Medium grade hog carcasses. Consumers selecting cuts from Choice No. 1 carcasses gave apparent freshness as the basis for their selection. Color appeared to be more important in the selection of cured meats. Only a small percentage of the panelists gave marbling as a cri- terion for selection. After the cuts were cooked, the panelists continued to prefer the cuts from the Meditnlgrade carcasses. The principal reason given for selection of the cooked pork of both grades was flavor, whereas, less importance was placed on tenderness and leanness. -14- Larzelere and Gibb (1956) studied consumer Opinions of quality in pork chops in the Detroit area. Where fat covering was the only variable, chops having 1/8-inch fat covering were preferred first. Chops with 1/29 inch fat covering were preferred last. 'Where color of lean and fat covah ing constituted the only variables, the amount of fat appeared to be the major criterion for selection. Where amount of marbling, size of loin eye, color and firmness were variables, the respondents rated size of eye muscle most consistently as being the deciding factor in making their selection. Gaarder g£_§T. (1960) surveyed pork preference in the Des Moines, Iowa, area. Income and family size were the most important factors in- fluencing total pork consumption. As family size increased, pork consump- tion increased. As income increased, pork consumption gradually declined. The favorite pork dishes were usually pork chops and ham. Eighty-nine percent of those interviewed preferred lean or medium chops over the fat chops. Chops having a larger-than-average size eye muscle area (about 6 square inches) were preferred. Bone and texture were relatively unimpor- tant factors. Kauffman (1960) cited a study conducted at Madison, Wisconsin, on consumer reaction to marbling in pork. A definite preference for lean, unmarbled pork chops was found. However, upon tasting and comparing un- marbled and marbled chops, the majority of the consumers indicated will- ingness to pay more for the marbled chops. Similar findings were reported by Naumann EE.2A~ (1960) in Columbia, Missouri. Although a laboratory panel indicated no clear cut preference between chops differing in marbling, a consumer panel preferred heavily marbled chops over those with sparse marbling. -15- Meat Color Muscle Pigments The ideal color for fresh pork muscle is generally considered to be grayish-pink (Ziegler, 1958; Briskey SE g;., 1959a). However, there ap- pears to be some question as to the degree of importance that consumers place on color in their selection of fresh pork. Larzelere and Gibb (1956) found that a large scale consumer panel selected a chop of "inferior" color as their first choice in one test, but in another test a similar chop was fifth choice. Early workers (Hoagland, 1915; Brooks, 1933) stated that oxyhemoglo- bin was the muscle pigment responsible for the color of red meat. Brooks (1937) later reported the color to be due primarily to myoglobin. Although myoglobin is located within the muscle fiber and is largely responsible for muscle color, the total color of meat is probably influenced by hemo- globin as well. Husaini g£_§l. (1950) found that the total pigment extracted from beef muscle was 90-95 percent myoglobin. Broumand (1953) stated that the bright red color of beef is due to the presence of 90-100 percent oxymyoglobin and 0—10 percent hemoglobin. Craig et a1. (1959) reported the composition of total muscle pigment to be 65 percent myoglo- bin and 35 percent hemoglobin. In cured meats (Wilson, 1960), myoglobin and/or metmyoglobin are converted to nitrosomyoglobin, which in turn may be converted to nitroso- hemochrome, a stable pink pigment. This is accomplished, in the case of myoglobin, by reacting the pigment with nitric oxide which replaces the water attached to the heme portion of the molecule forming a nitroso- complex. The iron of the heme remains in the ferrous state. Metmyoglo- bin (ferric) must first be reduced and then reacted with nitric oxide to -l6- form nitrosomyoglobin. Nitrosomyoglobin may then be converted to nitro- sohemochrome by the addition of heat which denatures the globin portion. It is probable that the denatured globin is detached from the heme pigment at this point. Another pathway exists for attaining nitrosohemochrome where metmyoglobin may be heated directly to form denatured metmyoglobin, which in turn may be reduced and reacted with nitric oxide to form the desired pigment. Factors Affecting Muscle Color There appears to be considerable disagreement as to the effect of myoglobin concentration on muscle color and also as to the factors which cause changes in myoglobin concentration. Kennedy gp_§L. (1926) stated that myoglobin concentration could be increased in dogs by exercise. Brooks (1933) stated that myoglobin concentration also depends on other factors, such as age, breed, and type of ration fed. According to Milli- kan (1939), myoglobin concentrations are higher in muscles which are normally more active. Hall g£_gl. (1944) and Poel (1949) also attribute higher myoglobin content to increased activity. Lawrie (1950) concluded that activity is the fundamental factor reSponsible for controlling the amount of pigment in any muscle. However, he also stated that variations of pH cause color differences in muscles having a similar myoglobin con- tent. Muscles appeared darker at pH 7.0 than at 6.3. Mitchell (1933), however, found no differences in muscle pigmenta- tion between exercised and unexercised cattle. Bull g£.§l. (1942) and Craig 3; El- (1959) have made similar observations. Briskey 35 ET. (1959b), studying the effect of exercise on hogs, found no significant differences between myoglobin content of muscles from exercised and unexercised ani- mals. His observations on the effect of pH were similar to Lawrie's (1950) -17- in that exercised muscles were higher in pH and darker in color. Rongey (1958) also verified the effect of pH on ham muscles. On the other hand, Wilson g3 ET. (1959) concluded that the condition of "two-toning" in hams was due primarily to differences in myoglobin concentration and suggested that these differences were heritable characteristics. Briskey EEHEA- (1959c, 1960a)studied the effect of ration and exer- cise on pork ham muscles. He observed that exhaustive exercise produced hams of dark color and that high sucrose rations produced hams of very light color. However, muscles were similar in color from hogs that were both exercised and fed the high sucrose ration and from hogs that received the basal ration and were unexercised. It is therefore doubtful if muscle color can adequately be explained on the basis of myoglobin concentration, muscle pH, muscle activity, or ration alone, but a combination of these factors is probably responsible for the variations observed. Disk Colorimetgy The theory and application of disk colorimetry is explained in detail by Nickerson (1946). The method involves the use of spinning colored disks and the Munsell system of numerically notating colors to scales of hue, value and chroma. Munsell hue is defined as "that attribute of certain colors in respect to which they differ characteristically from a gray of the same lightness and which permits them to be classed as reds, yellows, greens, blues, or purples". Value "is that attribute of all colors which permits them to be classed as equivalent to some member of a series of grays that are equally spaced under the standard conditions for which the scale was derived. The Munsell scale of grays extends from 0, black, to -18- 10, white . . .” Chroma "is that attribute of all colors possessing hue which determines their degree of difference from a gray of the same value. The notation is numerical, with 0 at gray, extending outward from the neutrals toward 10 or more for the strong colors." Nickerson further states that on comparing the spinning disks to a sample, a difference in hue would be recognized where the disks appeared redder or less red (or yellower, etc.) than the sample. A difference in value could be told where the disks appeared lighter or darker; and chroma, where one appeared stronger or weaker. Thus, hue is the actual color observed, value its degree of lightness or darkness, and chroma is the concentration or amount of color. An example of numerical notation is given below: 5YR 6/4 In this example, the hue is yellow—red, the value is 6 and the chroma is 2. A notation of 6YR 4/2 compared to the above would indicate a color whose hue is still yellow—red, but containing a greater proportion of yellow. The value is numerically less indicating a higher proportion of black to white, hence darker. The chroma of 2 would indicate a lesser total amount of yellow-red pigment. The spinning disks are slotted so that they may be fitted together. Normally, four disks are used and, in the example above, would be red, yellow, black, and white. The proportionate area exposed by any of the disks may be changed by the operator until their combined amounts produce a color which matches that of the sample. -19- The Water-holding Capacity of Meat Definition Hamm (1960), in his extensive review of the biochemistry of meat hydration, defines water-holding capacity as the ability of meat to hold fast to its own or added water during application of any force, such as pressing, heating, grinding, etc. The amount of immobilized water deter— mined depends on the method used; therefore, water-holding capacity must be expressed in terms of the method of measurement. The water-holding capacity of meat can be expressed in terms of the amount of free water related to the total content of moisture in the muscle. Importance of Water-holding Capacity According to Hamm (1960), water-holding capacity is one of the most important features of meat quality, as indicated by its role in the fol- lowing areas. It is closely related to taste, tenderness and color, and is influenced by the treatment that the animal receives prior to slaughter. In addition, it affects the quality of meat during almost all processing operations after slaughter. It plays an important role in the production of such meat products as frankfurter-type sausages and canned hams. It is of economic importance in problems of weight losses during storage, cooking, freezing and thawing of meat. Water-holding capacity investiga- tions give information on changes in the charges and structure of muscle proteins. Basic Concepts of Meat Hydration Hamm (1960) presented the following basic concepts of meat hydration. Muscle proteins are responsible for the binding of water in meat. About 34 percent of the muscle proteins are water soluble, the remainder repre- -20- senting the structural substance. The Structural proteins consist of 34-38 percent myosin, 13—15 percent actin, 7 percent X—protein, and 15—17 percent stroma proteins. Also present is tropomyosin which is similar to myosin. Changes of the water-holding capacity of meat may mainly concern actin and myosin or the actomyosin complex. Hamm cites Fujimaki and Nakajima (1958) as reporting that the globular proteins also have an effect on water-holding capacity. Meats containing a greater quantity of globular proteins, as between certain species, seemed to have greater water-binding properties. According to Hamm, different kinds of water-binding exist in muscle tissue with no sharp distinction between tightly bound and loosely bound water. Certain hydroPhilic groups play a role in the binding of water to proteins. water molecules, being dipolar, are attracted by all types of polar groups in the protein and are bound by hydrogen bonds. Water mole— cules are initially bound to proteinSLby single molecules of water being bound to single polar groups. The affinity for water of the different polar groups varies. Thus, water attaches first to the most active groups, and then to the less active. The true water of hydration of muscle is that which is attached to proteins by mono- or multimolecular absorption. The physical preperties of this bound water are different from those of "free” water. The bound water has a lower freezing point, a lower vapor pressure, and a lower dissolving power than normal water by virtue of its association with the protein. Hamm (1960) cites several investigations in which one or more of the above properties were used to measure the amount of bound water in muscle. The results of these studies indicated that the amount of water bound by ‘ 7 , , vow.” I | \, . ,' (_ .K _ ( . . -21- hydration varies from 16-50 g. per 100 g. of protein. This, however, does not nearly account for the total water in muscle. The remaining water must, therefore, be "free" water. According to Hamm (1960), it has the same physical properties as normal water, and there is no indica— tion that it is tightly bound to the protein molecule. This water appears to be mechanically immobilized by the network of the cellular protein membranes, protein filaments, and perhaps even by cross linkages and electrostatic forces between the peptide chains. Changes in the water- holding capacity of meat do not affect the tightly bound water except under conditions of high temperature, high concentrations of salts, or other drying procedures. It appears that although the polar groups of a protein may hold the protein chains together by electrostatic forces, these same polar groups may be completely available for the coordination of small dipolar molecules, such as water. Thus, the state of dissocia- tion does not seem to affect the binding of water of hydration. Briggs (1931, 1932), as cited by Hamm (1960), found that changes in pH or the addition of salts to proteins does not affect the water of hy- dration, but does affect the absorption of ”free" water. The "free" water retained within the protein structure appears to have a continuous transition to the "loose" water, which is forced out by applications of very low pressures. The amount of free water immobilized within the tissue is dependent upon the spatial structure of the muscle tissue. A tightening of the network of proteins decreases immobilized water and increases easily expressible water. A loosening of the protein network has the opposite effect. -22- Factors Affectipngeat Hydration Grau §£_§ip (1953) indicated the relationship which exists between pH and water-holding capacity. They found that as the pH approached the isoelectric point of muscle proteins, at about pH 5, the water-holding capacity decreased accordingly. A number of investigations have indicated that the relationship between pH and water-binding is rather high (Wier- bicki gpflgi., 1956; Judge pp EA-: 1959; Swift and Berman, 1959; webb, 1959; Hamm and Deatherage, 1960; Briskey g£.§T., 1960b; and Sherman, 1961b). Various mineral ions have been found to affect the water-binding prOperties of muscle. The increase in water-holding capacity by the addition of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium chlorides has been studied by Wierbicki 2E EA- (1957) and Hamm (1960). Swift and Berman (1959) found a positive correlation between water-binding and zinc. Haum (1960), Sherman (1961b) and Mahon (1961) investigated the mech- anism in which polyphOSphates increase the water-holding capacity of meat. Hamm (1960) indicates that polyphOSphates chelate calcium, magnesium and zinc in the raw meat, thus removing them from the protein molecule and thereby increasing the water-holding capacity. Sherman (1961b), however, considers the effect primarily due to solubilization of the protein, particularly actomyosin. Mahon (1961) observed the effect of phOSphates in increasing the water-binding of cured meats. Hamm (1960) cites a number of German investigations of the effect of Specie, sex, and age of animals on water-holding capacity. The studies indicated that water-binding is higher in pork than in beef, that veal has higher binding pr0perties than older cattle, and that cows have a higher water-binding capacity than bulls. The following series in increas- ing water-holding capacity was presented: _23_ Bull < 0x < Heifer < Cow < Calf < Pig However, the data presented by Wierbicki and Deatherage (1958) do not appear to support these conclusions. An arrangement of the four species studied according to increasing water-holding capacity would be as fol— lows: Lamb < Pork < Veal < Beef Methods of Measurement The methods which are appropriate for the study of water—holding capacity, according to Hamm (1960), are those which measure changes in the binding of ”free” water. These methods are based on measuring the loose water liberated upon application of pressure to the tissue. This pressure may be applied in several ways: sedimentation, centrifugation, filtration, or pressing between two plates. Sedimentation (Hamm, 1960) which is normal acceleration by gravity, although a very simple method, has many disadvantages for studying water- holding capacity in meats. The predominant disadvantage being the long duration of time required which makes it unsuitable for studies of post- mortem changes. The use of centrifugation has been reported by several investigators (Bendall, 1954; Swift and Ellis, 1956; Wierbicki et a1., 1957; webb, 1959; Sherman, 1961a, 1961b). The method is quite suitable for studying the effect of heating on the water-holding capacity of meat, but according to Hamm (1960), it has certain severe disadvantages. Considerable amounts of water must be added which makes conditions quite different from those in fresh or processed meats. If water is not added, it may not be possi- ble to separate any juice from the tissues even at high speed centrifuga- tion. If no water is added and the meat is heated to only 40°C., the -24_ amount of juice separated is within the range of experimental error (Wier- bicki and Deatherage, 1958). Although adding water is not necessary if the meat is heated to 70°C., the resulting denaturation often masks the changes of hydration that one wishes to observe. A method of filtration was used by Lloyd and Moran (1933) for deter- mining bound water in gelatin. However, this method usually involves long periodsof time and, therefore, is not suited for studying meats. The press method was first used primarily to determine the water- holding capacity of cooked meats. Various "pressometers" were used to study the juiciness of meats (Sartorius and Child, 1938). With the use of filter paper, the method was transformed to a quantitative technique. Grau and Hamm (1953, 1957) developed the combination press and filter paper method for determining water-holding capacity. Tissue samples weighing 300 mg. are placed on filter paper and pressed between two Plexi- glas plates. The meat is pressed to a round thin film and the expressed juice is assumed to be proportional to the amount of loose water. Within the area of pressed meat the pressure is so high that the paper absorbs almost no water. Grau and Hamm showed that the pressure of screwing the plates together by hand is so great that individual differences of press- ure do not significantly affect the amount of expressed loose water. The results of Grau and Hamm were confirmed by Wierbicki and Deatherage (1958)° The method has been modified by several authors using hydraulic presses to maintain constant pressures (Wierbicki and Deatherage, 1958; Briskey e_t. E” 19609.; Henry, 1962). EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Experimental Animals A total of 80 animals were studied, consisting of 40 Yorkshire and 40 crossbred hogs. The hogs were produced at the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Farm and received standard growing and finishing rations (Appendix I and J). The crossbred hogs represented various com— binations of Hampshire, Chester White, Yorkshire, and Duroc breeding. As the animals attained a weight of 70-90 pounds, they were randomly divided into 4 slaughter weight groups. Each group was balanced as to breeding (purebreds and crossbreds) and sex (barrows and gilts). The weight ranges of the 4 groups were: Group I, 190-210 pounds; Group II, 160-180 pounds; Group III, 130-150 pounds; and Group IV, 100-120 pounds. The hogs were weighed and taken off feed 24 hours prior to slaughter. Fresh water was provided EH.AER$EEE during the pre-slaughter period. They were weighed again just prior to slaughter. This weight was con- sidered as the slaughter weight, and was used in computing dressing percentagesand the percentages of primal and lean cuts on the live basis. Slaughter Procedure Slaughtering was conducted at the Michigan State University Meats Laboratory. All animals were dressed packer style with head off, jowls attached, and leaf-fat and kidneys loosened. The hams were faced with the facings left attached. The carcasses were weighed to the nearest 1/2 pound prior to chilling. The hot weights (less leaf-fat and kidney weights) were used to calculate hot dressing percentage and cooler shrinkage. The carcasses were chilled at approximately 36°F. for 48 hours prior to cutting. -25- -26- Carcass Measurements Approximately 24 hours after slaughter, carcass length and backfat measurements were obtained. The length of carcass was measured to the nearest 1/10 inch from the anterior edge of the first rib to the anter- ior edge of the aitch bone. Backfat measurements were taken to the nearest 1/10 inch opposite the first, seventh and last ribs, and the last lumbar vertebra. The 4 measurements were averaged to give mean backfat thickness, which was used in all comparisons. Prior to cutting, the leaf-fat and kidneys were removed and the chilled carcasses were weighed to the nearest 1/2 pound. Chilled carcass weight was used to calculate cold dressing percentage, cooler shrink, percentage primal and lean cuts on the carcass basis, and percentage of lean and fat trimmings. The weight of the leaf-fat was included in the fat trimmings. Cutting Procedure Conventional cutting procedures were used as outlined by Cole (1951) with some modifications. The hind foot was removed by sawing through the bony projection on the inside of the hook. The front foot was removed approximately 1/2 inch above the knee joint. The rough ham was removed at the 4th sacral vertebra and perpendi- cular to the long axis of the leg. After sawing through the vertebra, a knife was used to complete the separation through the loin portion. After severing the loin muscle, the knife was angled toward the hock and around the ham. The flank meat was left on the untrimmed belly. A 2 l/2-rib shoulder was removed by sawing across the 3rd rib per- pendicular to the general line of the back. The neck bones were removed -27- from the shoulder leaving as little lean as possible. The jowl was then separated from the shoulder by cutting parallel to the loin cut. The jowl was squared and the trimmings were separated into lean and fat trimmings. The collar portion of the shoulder was removed so as to make a smooth juncture at the shank and main portion of the shoulder. The rough shoulder was skinned by removing the clear plate from the outside of the shoulder to within 4 inches of the base of the shank. Approxi- mately 1/4 inch of fat covering was left on the skinned shoulder. The New York shoulder was then separated into the picnic and Boston butt by cutting about 1/2 inch below the scapula and parallel to the backline. The rough loin was separated from the belly and spareribs by cutting from a point just below the p§g§§_mgjp£ on the loin end to a point about 1 inch below the juncture of the ribs and backbone at the blade end. The cut followed the general curvature of the back in order to give the loin uniform thickness. The spareribs were removed from the rough belly by cutting through the secondary flank muscle and as close under the ribs as possible. The belly was then trimmed by cutting just inside and along the teat line and squaring the flank end. The rough loin from the right side of the carcass was divided between the 10th and 11th ribs and just posterior to the last rib by sawing through the backbone at a right angle to the backline. Tracings of the loin eye muscle at these locations were made on acetate paper for subsequent area measurements. The back— fat was removed from the rough loin so as to expose the false lean at the blade end and leaving about 1/4 inch fat covering over the remainder of the loin. The right ham remained unskinned for subsequent physical separation. The left ham was skinned by first removing the tail and the sacral -28- vertebra, then cutting along the natural seam between the flank and ham to remove the flank meat. The cut was continued to the outside of the ham where the excess fat, including the ham facing, was removed from the butt-end down to approximately two-thirds of the distance to the hock. Approximately 1/4 inch of fat covering was left on the ham. Fat trimmings included all cutting fat in addition to the leaf-fat, while the lean trimmings consisted of all small pieces of lean removed during trimming. Weights of the various rough and trimmed cuts were recorded on car- cass data sheets (Appendix K). Since the right ham was not skinned, the weight of the left ham after skinning was doubled for use in calculating the percentage of primal and lean cuts. Area of Lean Tracings made of the loin eye muscle at the 10th and last rib were measured to the nearest 0.1 square inch by means of a Keuffel & Esser compensating polar planimeter. The average of 3 measures which did not vary over 0.1 square inch was used in all comparisons. Specific Gravity Determination The rough ham from the right side of the carcass was weighed to the nearest 0.1 pound in air. This weight was converted to grams by multi- plying by 453.6. The ham was then weighed to the nearest gram under water. Weights under water were obtained by suspending the ham from a gram balance and submerging the ham in water at a temperature of about 13°C. Specific gravity was calculated according to the following formula: Wt. in air (grams) S ecific ravit = p g y Wt. in air (grams) - Wt. in water (grams) -29- Physical Separation The rough hams from the right side of the carcass were physically separated into fat, skin, lean, and bone. The ligaments and tendons were included with the bone. The 4 components were weighed separately to the nearest gram. Preparation of Samples for Analysis The composite sample consisting of the lean, fat and skin from the physically separated right ham was ground 5 tines through a 3-mm face plate with subsequent mixing after each grinding. The procedure was the same for the samples from the L. gpggi muscle of the posterior section of the right loin except that a 2-mm face plate was used. The grinders were thoroughly washed and dried after each sample was ground. The ground samples were placed in glass jars, sealed, frozen and stored at -20°F. until removed for chemical analysis. Chemical Analyses Twelve hours prior to analysis, the sample jars were removed from the freezer and held at room temperature to allow the contents to thaw before weighing. The samples were then thoroughly mixed with a spatula. Approximately 5 grams of the ground sample were placed in tared dispos- able aluminum dishes and weighed to the nearest .0001 gram. The sample weight was then obtained by difference. The samples were dried at 100°C. for 24 hours, placed in a dessicator and cooled to room temperature. The dried samples were weighed and moisture losses were determined and used for calculation of percentage moisture. Percentage moisture was calculated according to the following formula: Percentage moisture = Wt' 0f dried sample (grgmg) X 100 Wt. of fresh sample (grams) -30- The dish was folded over the dried sample leaving each end open to facilitate extraction. Each sample was placed in an alundum cup which in turn was placed in a metal sample holder and extracted for 4 hours with anhydrous diethyl ether on a Goldfisch Fat Extractor (Hall, 1953). During extraction, the ether and ether extract were collected in a tared glass beaker. After extraction, the ether was distilled off and collected for re-use. The beaker and ether extract were dried to a constant weight at 100°C. and the weight of the ether extract was obtained by difference. Percentage ether extract was determined using the following formula: Wt. of ether ggtract (grams) X 100 Wt. of fresh sample (grams) Percentage ether extract = Percentage protein was determined by weighing approximately 1.5 grams of the ground sample on a piece of tared, nitrogen-free, parchment paper. The paper was then folded about the sample and dropped into a Kjeldahl flask (Benne 2; al., 1956). Standard Kjeldahl procedures were then employed (A.0.A.C., 1960). Color Measurement The L. ggggi muscle was excised from a chop removed at the 10th rib and "butterflied” so as to expose a fresh-cut surface. The muscle was placed in a Cryovac bag which was then filled with air and sealed. Prior to color measurement, the muscle was placed in a 36°F. cooler for 1 1/2 hours. Hue, value, and chroma renotations were determined using the Munsell spinning disk method as described by Voegeli (1952). After the color measurements were taken, muscle pH was measured with a Beckman, Model G, pH meter by inserting the glass electrodes into the tissue. -31.. Curing Procedure The following basic curing formula was used for curing the bellies and hams removed from the left sides of the carcasses. Salt 8.0 pounds Sugar 2.0 pounds Sodium nitrate 1.0 ounces Sodium nitrite 1.5 ounces The fresh bellies were rubbed with 22 grams of dry cure mixture per pound. The bellies were placed in a pressure—type, metal bacon box and cured for 7 days per inch of thickness. After removal from the cure, they were soaked in fresh water for 15 minutes, then hung on bacon combs and allowed to dry in a 36°F. cooler for 15-18 hours. After drying, the bacons were smoked for approximately 8 hours beginning with a smokehouse temperature of 130°F. When the internal temperature of the bacon reached 120°F., the smokehouse temperature was reduced to 120°F. for the remainder of the smoking period. To insure that all bacons were smoked for a period proportionate to their individual weights, the following formula was used to calculate total smoking time for each bacon: Total smoking time (hr.)=Time (hr.) to reach internal temp. of 120°F x 1.6 After smoking, the bacons were returned to a 36°F. cooler for 15 hours. Then weights were recorded to the nearest 0.1 pound and used for calculation of smoked yields. The hams were cured by injection of a 75° (salometer reading at 40°F.) pickle. The pickle was injected into the femoral artery, and the ham was pumped to a final weight of 110 percent. After pumping, the surface of the ham was rubbed with dry cure. The hams were cured on a shelf in a 36°F. cooler for 3/4 day per pound of ham. After curing, the -32- hams were soaked in fresh water for 15 minutes, placed in stockinette, and dried in a 36°F. cooler for 15 hours. The hams were then smoked according to the following schedule. Table 1. Smoking schedule for hams. Dry bulb Wet bulb Relative Time tgmp. tgmp. hpmidity (hr.) (°F.) (°F.) (7°) 1 120 minimum ~— 1 120 100 49 2 130 108 48 2 140 116 47 2 150 125 47 2 160 131 45 The final dry and wet bulb temperatures were maintained until the inter— nal temperatures of the hams reached 142°F., which took approximately 10-12 hours. They were then cooled in a 36°F. cooler for 15 hours, after which, the weight was recorded to the nearest 0.1 pound. Smoked yield was then calculated. The hams and bacons were then held at 36°F. until removed for taste panel evaluation. Cooking Procedures Two l-inch thick center ham slices were removed by cutting 1 inch posterior and parallel to the aitch bone. The semimembranosus muscle from each slice was excised and roasted in an electric oven at 300°F° to an internal temperature of 170°F. The cooked ham muscles were placed in a 36°F. cooler for 30 minutes, then they were brought to room tempera— ture for subsequent taste panel evaluation. Twelve bacon slices, 3-mm in thickness, were removed from the anter— ior portion of the bacon beginning at the last rib. The slices were roasted at 350°F. to medium doneness, as estimated visually. The bacon was allowed to cool to room temperature before taste panel testing. -33- One-inch thick pork chops were cut from the center and blade end of loins from the right side of the carcass. Three chops, one each from the blade end, 9th rib, and 12th rib, were thawed at 36°F. for 12 hours. The chops were deep-fat fried at 300°F. to an internal temperature of 170°F. They were stored at 36°F. for 24 hours before subsequent tender— ness evaluation by the Warner-Bratzler shear method. The remaining portions of the loin were cut into l—inch thick chops and thawed at 36°F. for 12 hours. They were weighed to the nearest gram and roasted at 300°F. to an internal temperature of 170°F. After cook- ing, the chops were blotted dry and weighed to the nearest gram. Cooking losses were then calculated. The chops were cooled at 36°F. for 15 minutes, after which they were brought to room temperature before taste panel testing. Taste ngel Procedure Samples were evaluated by a 12-member taste panel. The judges were picked at random for each session. Panels were conducted during mid- morning and/or mid—afternoon, and only one type of meat was evaluated during any one session. Not more than 6 samplesmere presented to each judge at any one sitting. All samples were coded in such a manner that panelists could not compare scores. Judges were given no information regarding the samples and were asked to evaluate each sample independently of the others. The scoring system used was the 9—point hedonic scale where 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. The judges were re- quested to indicate the description most accurately describing their taste sensation on the evaluation sheet provided (Appendix L and M). The hams and bacons were evaluated only for overall acceptability. The pork chops were evaluated for tenderness, flavor, juiciness, and -34- overall acceptability. Shear Values Cores l/2-inch in diameter were removed from the L, dorsi muscles of deep-fat fried pork chops. Each core was cut parallel to the direct— ion of the muscle fibers. Two to 5 cores were removed from each chop, the number of cores being dependent on the size of the muscle. Care was taken to avoid the inclusion of large pieces of connective tissue or fat. Three shear values were obtained from each core using the Warner-Bratzler shear apparatus. Mean shear values were calculated by averaging all readings obtained from the three chops. Consumer Acceptance A study of the consumer acceptance of fresh-frozen cuts represent- ing the 4 slaughter weight groups was conducted at the University Meats Laboratory. The cuts studied were 7-rib loin roasts, Boston butt roasts, and center-cut loin chops. All cuts were uniformly trimmed to about 1/4 inch of fat covering. The cuts were weighed to the nearest 0.1 pound and packaged in transparent bags. Four chops from each loin were pack- aged together in such a manner that the loin eye muscles were visible. The roasts were packaged singly and were coded to provide the following information: (1) the slaughter weight group; and (2) the ranking of the out within its respective slaughter weight group according to the indi— vidual weight for the roasts or the area of loin eye for the chops. The sale of the cuts was advertised on the University campus, and was conducted in 3 sessions with one for each of the 3 outs. Each session was completed before commencing with another. The cuts were presented in an open top display case which was held at 0°F. Twelve cuts were randomly arranged in the case so that there -35- were 3 cuts from each slaughter weight group. All cuts were priced the same per pound regardless of their weight group. The lightest roasts or the chops having the smallest loin eye areas from each weight group were displayed first. As a cut was selected and removed from the dis- play case, it was replaced by another from its corresponding group. Each person was allowed to complete his selection(s) prior to ad- mitting the next respondent. Each respondent was limited to 2 selections. When the selection was made, the respondent was asked to fill out the questionaire provided (Appendix N), and the display case was replen- ished. The session was terminated when all of the cuts from any one of the slaughter weight groups were sold. Water-holding Capacity Two methods of determining water—holding capacity were compared using fresh, unground L, dp£§L_muscle from adjacent loin chops. Each of the 80 loins were studied using Method 1. Later in this study, Method II was developed and 56 loins were evaluated by it. Both methods of determination utilized the filter paper-press technique. Method 1: This method employed a hand press Similar to that described by Grau and Hamm (1953). The calculation of water-holding capacity was a modification of the method described by Weirbicki and Deatherage (1958). The press consisted of two 6 x 2 1/2 x 3/8 inch steel plates joined by 2 thumbscrews. Two 6 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 inch Plexiglas plates were placed between the steel plates. A freshly-cut 200- to 4dfl}mg. sample was weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg. The sample was placed on a 9—cm. No. l Whatman filter paper, which had been held in a desiccator over saturated potassium chloride solution in order to maintain a constant moisture —36- content. The filter paper and meat sample were then placed between the Plexiglas plates and the press was tightened by hand. The sample was pressed for a period of 5 minutes. During pressing, the meat formed an almost circular film (meat film), whereas, the expelled water was ab- sorbed by the filter paper forming a circular area (free moisture area) around the meat film. Immediately after pressing, the Plexiglas plates and the meat sample were removed. The meat film area was traced with a pencil on the oppo- site side of the filter paper since the meat film usually adhered to the upper plate. It was not necessary to trace the free moisture area as the juice permanently stained the filter paper. The paper was then re- moved from the plate and the total area and the meat film area were Subsequently measured by a planimeter in the manner previously described for loin eye area. The free moisture area was obtained by subtracting the meat film area from the total area. The total moisture (mg.) in the sample was determined by oven drying as previously described. In order to estimate the weight (mg.) of free moisture per unit area (sq. in.) of free moisture after pressing, a regression equation was calculated by the following procedure. Forty grams of frozen and thawed loin eye muscle, which had been ground in the manner previously described, was placed in a 125 ml. centrifuge bottle. The sample was warmed at room temperature for 30 minutes and then centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 30 minutes. The juice was decanted from the bottle, filtered through No. 1 Whatman filter paper, and the clear juice stored at 36°F. for 2 hours. The moisture content of the juice was found to average 85.26 percent as determined by the oven drying method previously described. The juice was then transferred, dropwise, in increasing amounts on tared No. l -37- ‘Whatman filter paper, weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg., and pressed under standardized conditions. The areas of pressed juice were measured by planimeter and tabulated along with the corresponding weight of water in the juice (Appendix 0). The latter was obtained by multiplying the juice weight by 85.26 percent. The free moisture area was related to the weight of the free moisture in the juice by the following equation: A Y=bX+a2tsx.y where: A Y = estimated mg. of free moisture b = 52.02 a = -l.92 SX'Y = ill-.12 Thus, the equation of the line (figure 1) may be written as: Is Y = 52.02 X - 1.92 i 4.12 Water-holding capacity (Method 1), expressed in terms of free mois- ture, was calculated according to the following formula: (total area - meat film.area) x 52.02 x 100 total moisture (mg.) in muscle sample % Free moisture = Method 11 In method 11, a hydraulic press having plates with relatively large surface areas waseemployed for the direct determination of meat film weight. From this weight and that of the initial sample, the weight of the expressed juice was determined by difference. This approach had several distinct advantages: (1) sample size could be markedly increased and, therefore, reduce sampling errors; (2) the pressume applied could be more accurately controlled; and (3) the time required for the calcula- tion of percent free moisture was reduced to where results could be immediately compared. -38- 1 J 11 l I l 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 wetted Area (sq. in.) Figure 1. Relationship of free moisture (mg.) to wetted area (sq. in.). Free Moisture (mg.) -39- A Carver Press was modified by the replacement of the original 6 x 6 inch plates with circular plates having a useable surface of 12 inches in diameter. A pressure gauge calibrated from 0 to 20,000 psi was used. Six to 8 gram sections of the L, gppgi were removed from each chop and weighed to the nearest .0001 gram. Each sample was placed between two, 18.5 cm. No. 1 Whatman filter papers. The filter papers and meat sample were pressed between two 17 x 11 x 1/4 inch Plexiglas plates at an initial pressure of 4500 psi. The sample was pressed for 5 minutes, during which, the pressure slowly lowered to about 3900 psi. After pressing, the filter papers containing the pressed sample were removed. Using scissors, the excess filter paper, which included the wetted area, was cut away from the meat film area. The meat fihn-filter paper disk was immediately weighed to the nearest .0001 gram. After weighing, the area of the meat film was traced on a clean, dry filter paper, out out and weighed. This weight was multiplied by 2 and subtracted from the weight of the filter paper-meat film disk to estimate the weight of the meat film alone. Percentage of free moisture was calculated according to the follow- ing formula: of muscle sample - wt. of meat film)x85.26 x 100 Total moisture (grams) in muscle sample % free moisture = AWt° The pH of the chOps used in methods I and II were measured in the same manner as described for surface color measurement. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance, simple correlation coefficients, standard de- viations and predicting equations were computed as outlined by Snedecor -40- (1959). ‘Multiple range and Multiple F Test Tables (Duncan, 1955) were used for testing significance between means. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carcass Cuteout Value For the purpose of clarity, the carcass measures and cut-out data are discussed on a basis of the effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex. The tables of mean squares from the analysis of variance are given in the Appendix (Tables P through 8). The significance of differences between means was tested by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. Effect of Slaughter weight: The effect of slaughter weight on var- ious carcass measurements and cut-out values is shown in table 2. The data show that as slaughter weight decreased, both hot and cold dressing Table 2. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of Slaughter weight group on carcass cut-out value"; 'weight groups I II III IV (200#) (170#) (14o#) (110#) Hot dressing % 75.8 75.5 74.3 72.7 Cold dressing % 73.5 73.0 71.7 69.9 % lean cuts, live 39.2g/ 39.7 40.72] 40.1 % lean cuts, carcass 53.2 54.4 56.9 57.5 % primal cuts, live 48.5 48.9 49.2 48.2 % primal cuts, carcass 65.9 67.1 68.8 69.0 Backfat thickness (in.) 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.9 Carcass length (in.) 30.4 28.9 27.0 25.6 Loin eye area (in.2) 3.8 3.5 3.2 2.8 L/Means underscored by same solid line are not significantly different at P < .05. Means underscored by same broken line are not significantly different at P1< .01. L/The means of groups I and III are significantly different (P‘< .05). -41- .1__:) {ft-'3115.L .v ,- '.| ’. 1'1"" _., le;€l.|’5&’. -: I. ) 'ifji‘éfly- ' . - :aaQJaQ' ‘ — '1' ,1, _' . ‘ 1:331:11 -42- percentage decreased. The differences were highly significant except for those between groups I and 11. As slaughter weight decreased, there appeared to be a slight trend for an increased percentage of lean cuts on the live basis. A significant difference was observed between group I and group III, however, no sig- nificant differences were found between groups I, II and IV. ‘When based on carcass weight, there was a definite increase in percentage lean cuts due to lowered slaughter weight, although the differences between groups I and II were not significant. No trend nor significant differences were found between means of percentage primal cuts based on live weight. It appears that the inclusion of the belly with the 4 lean cuts (ham, loin, Boston butt, picnic shoulder) eliminated the slight trend observed in percentage lean cuts, live basis. There was an increase in percentage primal cuts based on carcass weight as slaughter weight decreased. How- ever, the differences were not as pronounced as those found between the percentage lean cuts, carcass basis. Again, this was probably due to the inclusion of the belly with the 4 lean cuts. Slaughter weight had a highly significant effect on backfat thick- ness, carcass length and loin eye area (table 2). As slaughter weight was lowered, the corresponding reduction in carcass fatness was reflected by the decrease in backfat thickness from 1.5 inches to 0.9 inches. The animals in group IV were slaughtered at an age approximately 3 months younger than those in group I, and as a result, were nearly 5 inches shorter in carcass length. The reduction of slaughter weight markedly reduced loin eye area from 3.8 square inches in group I to 2.8 square inches in group IV. -43- Effect of Breed: Table 3 presents the effect of breed on various carcass measurements and cut-out values. The crossbred hogs produced carcasses that were higher (P‘< .01) in dressing percentage when calcu- 1ated on both the hot and cold carcass weights. No significant differences were observed due to breed in percentage of lean cuts, live or carcass basis, nor in percentage primal cuts, live basis. However, the carcasses from Yorkshire hogs produced a Significantly higher percentage of primal cuts when based on carcass weight. Table 3. The effecf/of breed on carcass cut-out value; from analysis of variance»— Yorkshires Crossbreds Hot dressing % 73.8 75.3 ** Cold dressing % 71.4 72.7 ** % lean cuts, live 39.9 40.0 % lean cuts, carcass 55.9 55.0 % primal cuts, live 48.6 48.8 % primal cuts, carcass 68.2 67.1 * Backfat thickness (in.) 1.2 1.2 Carcass length (in.) 28.6 27.6 *? Loin eye area (in.2) 3.2 3.4 * _1._/*P<.05 ** P < .01 No difference was noted in backfat thickness between the 2 breed groups, although the Yorkshire hogs are generally considered to be a leaner breed than those breeds from which the crossbred hogs were largely derived (Hampshire, Chester White, Duroc). The greater (P‘< .01) carcass -44- 1ength exhibited by the Yorkshires was expected as the breed is noted for its body length. The crossbred hogs excelled the Yorkshires in loin eye area with 3.4 compared to 3.2 square inches. The difference was statis- tically significant. Effect of Sex: Differences in various carcass measurements and cut- out values between carcasses from barrows and gilts are shown in table 4. Although no significant differences due to sex were observed in either hot or cold dressing percentages, the carcasses from gilts excelled those from barrows in most other resPects. The percentages of lean cuts based on both live and carcass weight were higher (P‘< .01) in carcasses from gilts. Carcasses from gilts produced higher (P‘< .01) percentages of Table 4. The effect of sex on carcass cut-out value; from analysis of variance“— Barrows Gilts Hot dressing % 74.3 74.8 Cold dressing % 71.8 72.2 % lean cuts, live 39.0 40.9 ** % lean cuts, carcass 54.3 56.7 ** % primal cuts, live 47.9 49.5 ** % primal cuts, carcass 66.8 68.6 ** Backfat thickness (in.) 1.3 1.1 *7 Carcass length (in.) 27.9 28.4 as Loin eye area (in.2) 3.0 3,6 ea l/*P<.05 ** P‘< .01 -45- primal cuts on both the live and carcass bases. The gilts had less (P‘< .01) backfat thickness and were longer (P < .01) in carcass length. The gilts also produced carcasses having 0.6 square inches larger (P‘< .01) loin eye areas than the barrows. The overall superiority of carcasses from gilts, as indicated in this study, is in agreement with the findings of many workers (Fredeen and Lambroughton, 1956; Bruner pp 2L., 1958; 'Wallace pp §A°2 1959). Chemical Analysis of the Rough Ham and Loin Eye Muscle The following discussion is based on the effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex on the percentages of protein, ether extract, and moisture as indicated by analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from analysis of variance are presented in Appendix T. Effect of Slaughter weight: Table 5 shows the results of chemical analysis of the rough ham and L,_Q93§L, The effect of slaughter weight on percentage protein was similar for both the ham and L, gpggL. Highly significant differences were noted between all groups other than adjacent groups. As slaughter weight was lowered, the percentage ether extract in the ham decreased. Although the differences between the 2 heaviest weight groups and those between the 2 lightest weight groups were not signifi- cant, all other differences were significant at the P‘< .01 level. The percentage of ether extract in the L, gpggi decreased with the reduction of slaughter weight, however, the differences were not significant. This would indicate that the animals had attained nearly as much marbling in the loin eye muscle at 100 pounds as they attained at 200 pounds. As slaughter weight decreased, percentage moisture in the ham increased. -46- Although no significant difference was observed between groups I and II, a difference significant at the P‘< .05 level was found between groups III and IV. All other differences were highly significant. There was a trend for percentage moisture in the L, gpggL to in- crease with lowered slaughter weight, although no significant differences were observed between groups I and II, and between groups 111 and IV. Table 5. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the chemical analysis of the rough ham and the L, dorsi"; weight groups I II III IV (200#) (l70#) (l40#) (110#) Rough ham Z protein 15.6 16.0 16.5 16.9 Z ether extract 30.5 28.7 25.1 23.2 Z moisture 52.9 54.4 .RZ;2_ _H_ _ _ HELL. L, dorsi Z protein 21.8 21.8 21.2 21.3 Z ether extract 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.2 Z moisture 73.3 73.7 74.4 74.5 L/Means underscored by same solid line are not significantly different at P‘< .05. Means underscored by same broken line are not significantly different at P‘< .01. Effect of Breed: It may be seen in table 6 that breed differences had a marked effect on the chemical composition of the carcasses as indi- cated by analysis of the rough hams and L, dorsi muscles. Percentage protein was higher (P‘< .01) in both the hams and loin eye muscles of carcasses from the Yorkshire hogs. This appears to be partially due to -47- the higher percentages of ether extract found in the hams (P‘< .05) and loin eye muscles (P‘< .01) of the crossbred hogs. The difference in the fat content of the L, gp£§L_was eSpecially noteworthy. The crossbred hogs contained over twice as high a percentage of ether extract in the L, ggggL muscle as did the Yorkshire hogs. Thus, the muscles of crossbred hogs presumably contained a greater amount of visible marbling. No signifi- cant differences due to breed were noted in the moisture content of the hams or loin eye muscles. Table 6. The effect of Breed on the chemical analysis of the rough hams and loin eye muscles. Yorkshires Crossbreds ijp: Z protein 16.9 15.6 as Z ether extract 25.7 28.1 a Z moisture 56.4 55.3 L, dorsi Z protein 22.6 20.5 as Z ether extract 1.6 3.4 as Z moisture 73.8 74.1 * P‘< .05 ** P‘< .01 Effect of Sex: The effects of sex on the chemical analysis of the rough hams and L, dorsi are presented in table 7. The hams from carcasses of gilts were higher (P'< .01) in percentage of both protein and moisture, whereas, barrows produced carcasses with hams containing a higher (P‘< .01) percentage of ether extract. Chemical analysis of the L, dorsi showed no -48- significant differences in percentage of protein or percentage of mois- ture. However, the generally greater leanness of gilts as against barrows is reflected in the significantly lower percentage of ether extract contained in the loin eye muscles from the carcasses of gilts. Table 7. The effect of sex on the chemical analysis of the rough hams and loin eye muscles. Barrows Gilts THE? Z protein 15.8 16.7 as Z ether extract 28.5 25.3 as Z moisture 54.7 57.0 ** L. dorsi Z protein 21.4 21.6 Z ether extract 2.9 2.1 a Z moisture 73.9 74.1 * Pt< .05 ** P-< .01 Physical Separation of the Rough Ham The effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex on the physical sep- aration data were determined by testing the significance of differences between means by analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from the analysis of variance are presented in Appendix U. Effect of Slaughter Weight: Table 8 depicts the effect of slaughter weight on the physical separation of the rough ham. As slaughter weight was decreased, the percentage of bone increased, although the difference -49- between the 2 lightest weight groups was not significant. Percentage of lean increased as slaughter weight decreased, however, the differences between groups I and II and between groups 111 and IV were not signifi- cant. Reduction of slaughter weight resulted in a corre3ponding reduction of fat, although again, the differences between the 2 lightest groups were not significant. No significant difference due to slaughter weight was observed in percentage of skin. These results indicate that as Table 8. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the physical separation data of the rough ham,_/ weight groups I II III IV (200#) (170#) (140#) (110#) Z bone 7.9 8.8 9.6 10.0 Z lean 58.2 59.9 62.4 63.5 Z fat 29.5 27.4 23.9 22.0 Z Skin 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.5 Z lean (fat-free) 83.1 82.5 81.9 81.4 Z fat (lean-free) 71.4 68.3 63.4 60.3 L/Means underscored by same solid line are not significantly different at P‘< .05) Means underscored by same broken line are not significantly different at P‘< .01. slaughter weight was increased, the rough hams decreased in percentage of lean and increased in percentage of fat. This is true when the percent- ages of the individual components are based on the weight of the entire ham. These results do not imply that as an animal matures, it will con— tain less total muscling. When percentage of lean was calculated on the fat-free basis (table 8), the effect of slaughter weight changed in 2 -50- respects: (1) differences between weight groups became non-significant, and (2) there was a trend for an increase in percentage of lean with in- creased slaughter weight. 'When percentage of fat was calculated on the lean-free basis, the increase in fat corresponding with slaughter weight became even more evident. A relatively high relationship between percentage of separable lean of the ham and percentage of lean cuts, carcass basis, was found (r = 0.81). It was interesting to note that when percentage of separable fat was com- pared to percentage of lean cuts, a slightly higher correlation (r = 0.86) was obtained. Effect of Breed: The effects of breed on the physical separation data of the rough ham are presented in table 9. The Yorkshire hogs pro- duced hams having a higher (P‘< .01) percentage of bone than the hams from the crossbred hogs. Although the differences were not significant, there was a trend towards higher percentages of lean in the hams from the Yorkshire hogs, and higher percentages of fat in the hams from the cross- bred hogs. Table 9. The effect of breed on the physical separation data of the rough ham. Yorkshires Crossbreds Z bone 9.7 8.7 ** Z lean 61.4 60.3 Z fat 25.0 26.4 Z skin 3.9 4.3 ** P‘< .01 -51- Effect of Sex: Table 10 illustrates the effect of sex on the physi- cal separation data of the rough hams. There was no significant differ- ence in the percentage of bone attributable to sex. However, the hams from gilts were distinctly more desirable in terms of leanness. The gilts produced hams that were markedly leaner (P‘< .01) and lower in fat (P < .01). No significant differences were found between percentages of skin. Table 10. The effect of sex on the physical separation data of the rough hams. Barrows Gilts Z bone 9.27 9.12 Z lean 59.19 68.80 ** Z fat 27.51 23.86 ea Z skin 4.02 4.20 ** P‘< .01 Smoked Hams and Bacons The effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex were determined by testing the significance of differences between means by analysis of var- iance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from the analysis of variance of the percentages of smoked yields and the taste panel eval- uation data are presented in Appendix V. Effect of Slaughter weight: The effects of slaughter weight on the taste panel scores and the smoked yields of the hams and bacons are pre- sented in table 11. No significant differences due to slaughter weight were observed in either the hams or the bacons. The taste panel gave an -52.. average rating of at least ”7" (like moderately) for samples of both products regardless of the slaughter weight groups from which they ori- ginated. Table 11. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons”. weight groups I II III IV (200#) (l70#) (140#) (110#) Taste panel Hams 7.1 7.3 7.2 7.4 Bacons 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 Z yield Hams 100.3 99.5 98.5 99.5 Bacons 83.2 83.1 81.6 78.3 I/Means underscored by same solid line are not significantly different at P‘< .05. The smoked yields of the hams were not significantly different be— tween weight groups. The hams had average final yields approaching 100 percent, which commercial packers normally try to attain. In the case of the bacons, there was a trend for lower yields as slaughter weight decreased. However, no significant differences were observed in the smoked yields of bacons from groups I, II and III, with yields ranging from about 81 to 83 percent. The yield of bacons from group IV, the lightest weight group, was only 78.3 percent, a reduction in yield which was significant at the P‘< .01 level. The decrease in yield was probably due to the extreme thinness (approximately 3/4 inch) of the bacons of this grOUp, which resulted in an increased surface area per unit of weight. -53- Effect of Breed: Table 12 depicts the effect of breed on the taste panel evaluation and smoked yields of hams and bacons. No significant differences were observed due to breed between taste panel scores of hams or bacons, nor between the smoked yields of the hams. However, the smoked yields of the bacons from carcasses of Yorkshire hogs were de- cidedly lower (P‘< .01) than those from the crossbred hogs. Table 12. The effect of breed on the taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons. Yorkshires Crossbreds Taste panel Hams 7.2 7.3 Bacons 7.1 7.0 Z yield Hams 98.9 100.0 Bacons 78.8 84.2 ** ** P‘< .01 Effect of Sex: The effects of sex on the taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons are presented in table 13. No significant differences were noted in taste panel evaluation of hams and bacons from carcasses of barrows and gilts. The difference be- tween the smoked yields of hams from carcasses of barrows and gilts was not significant. However, it was found that bacons from carcasses of barrows had a significantly higher smoked yield than the bacons from carcasses of gilts. This was probably due to the barrows being generally fatter than the gilts and thus producing thicker bellies which appear to shrink less during the smoking process. -54- Table 13. Taste panel scores and smoked yields of hams and bacons from carcasses of barrows and gilts. Barrows Gilts Tasteypanel: Hams 7.2 7.3 Bacons 7.1 7.0 Z yield Hams 99.8 99.1 Bacons 82.9 80.2 x * P'< .05 Palatability and Cooking Losses of Fresh Pork Chops The effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex on the taste panel scores, warner-Bratzler shear values, and percentages of cooking loss were determined by testing the significance of differences between means by analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from the analysis of variance of palatability and cooking losses appear in Appendix W. Effect of Slaughter weight: Table 14 presents the effects of slaughter weight on the palatability and cooking loss data of fresh pork chops. It was found that slaughter weight had no significant effect on the tenderness of roasted pork chops as evaluated by the taste panel, nor on the tenderness of deep-fat fried chops as measured by the warner- Bratzler shear. Therefore, although the animals in group I were about 3 months older than those in group IV, this age difference apparently had no effect on tenderness. The differences due to slaughter weight in flavor, juiciness and overall acceptability were all non-significant. -55- The 1ack of significant differences in percentage of cooking losses is probably due to the lack of variation of the fat content of the E, dogs; muscles between the 4 weight groups. Thus, a reduction in slaughter weight to as low as 100 pounds did not produce any appreciable differences in the overall palatability or cooking losses from fresh loin chops. Table 14. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the palatability 7nd percentage of cooking losses of fresh pork loin chops“; Weight groups I II III IV (200#) (l70#) (l40#) (110#) W-B shear 8.6 8.8 8.4 8.4 Taste panel Tenderness 7.0 6.7 7.0 6.7 Flavor 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.5 Juiciness 6.7 6.6 6.9 6.6 Overall 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.5 Cooking loss (Z) 20.6 20.5 20.1 20.7 l/Means underscored by the same solid line are not significantly differ- ent at P-< .05. Effect of Breed: Table 15 illustrates the effect of breed on the palatability and the percentage of cooking losses of the fresh pork chops. The Yorkshire hogs produced loin chops that were superior in tenderness (P‘< .01) to those of the crossbred hogs when tested by either the warner- Bratzler shear or by taste panel. It had been previously shown that the loin eye muscles of the crossbred hogs contained over twice the amount of fat as did the Yorkshire hogs. Thus, it appeared that the relation- -56- ship between the fat content of the muscles and tenderness was low. This was found to be true as indicated by the correlation coefficient of 0.27 between percentage of ether extract and taste panel tenderness scores. The results do indicate that the differences in tenderness of the animals studied may be primarily due to heritability. No significant differences due to breed were found in flavor or juiciness. However, there was a trend for the taste panel to rate the chops from the crossbred hogs some- what higher in both instances. Table 15. Effect of breed on various palatability characteristics and cooking losses of fresh pork loin chops. Yorkshires Crossbreds 'W—B shear 8.1 9.0 ** Tasteypanel Tenderness 7.1 6.5 xx Flavor 6.6 6.7 Juiciness 6.6 6.8 Overall acceptance 6.5 6.8 ** Cooking losses (Z) 19.2 21,8 x. ** P < .01 It was found that the chops from the crossbreds were rated signifi- cantly (P‘< .01) higher in overall acceptance than those from the York- shires. This general preference for the chops from the crossbred hogs occurred even though the same chops were rated lower in tenderness than those from the Yorkshire hogs. Thus, it appears that flavor, juiciness and perhaps other unSpecified palatability factors were more important -57- from the standpoint of acceptance than the differences occurring in 'tenderness. Cooking losses were significantly (P'< .01) greater in the case of chops from the crossbred hogs. This may have been due to the higher content of intramuscular fat in the chops from the crossbred hogs, resulting in an increased rendering of fat from the tissues. It may also have been due to the chops from crossbred hogs having larger loin eye muscles and, thus, more surface area of lean exposed for moisture loss. Effect of Sex: The effects of sex on the palatability and percent cooking losses of fresh pork ch0ps are presented in Table 16. The differ- ences were highly significant when tenderness was measured by the warner- Bratzler shear. Although the differences in taste panel scores were not significant, there was a slight difference in tenderness in favor of the barrows. Thus, the chops from the carcasses of barrows appeared to be somewhat more tender than those from the carcasses of gilts. Table 16. Effect of sex on various palatability characteristics and cooking losses of fresh pork loin chops. Barrows Gilts 'W-B shear 8.1 9.1 ** Taste panel Tenderness 7.0 6.7 Flavor 6.6 6.7 Juiciness 6.6 6.7 Overall acceptance 6.7 6.6 Cooking losses (Z) 20.2 20.8 ** P'< .01 ~58- No significant differences due to sex were found in panel evaluation of juiciness or flavor. The difference in overall acceptability was not statistically significant as would be expected by the proximity of the two means (6.7 vs. 6.6 for barrows and gilts, reSpectively). In general, it does not appear that sex influenced palatability to any appreciable extent. The differences in cooking loss due to sex were not significant, although they were slightly higher in the case of the gilts. This is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the barrows were somewhat fatter and had more marbling. 0n the other hand, the area of the loin eye was larger for the gilts and may have more than compensated for the greater amount of fat in the chops from barrows. Surface Color of Fresh Pork Chops The effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex on the surface color measurements were determined by testing the differences between means by analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from the analysis of variance of hue, value and chroma appear in Appen- dix X. Effect of Slaughter Weight: The effects of slaughter weight on the renotations of hue, value and chroma are shown in table 17. No signifi- cant differences in hue were observed due to slaughter weight. Thus, the actual color of the muscles did not vary between weight groups. No significant differences were observed in the renotations of value between weight groups. Therefore, slaughter weight had no effect on the degree of lightness and darkness of the surface color measurements. However, significant differences due to slaughter weight were found between the renotations of chroma, that is, the concentration of hue. As slaughter -59- weight decreased, the values of chroma increased correspondingly. Al- though the differences in chroma between adjacent weight groups were not significant, all other differences were significant at the P‘< .05 level. In addition, the difference in chroma between the heaviest weight group (I) and the lightest weight group(IV) was significant at the P‘< .01 level. Thus, the changes in the total color of the muscles studied, ap- peared to be due to an increased inta1sity of hue or increased chroma as slaughter weight was increased. This change may have been due to an in- crease in the myoglobin content of the muscle fibers, although no Speci- fic measurements of myoglobin were made in this study to support this contention. However, Henry (1959), in a study with pork, found a highly significant correlation (r = -.69) between the index of fading of surface color renotations and the concentration of myoglobin in the loin eye muscle. Table 17. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- Effect of slaughter weight on the surface color renotations of hue, value and chroma of fresh pork chops.l/ Weightggroups I II III IV (200#) (170#) (l40#) (110#) Hue (YR) 6.04 6.02 6.36 6.64 Value 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 Chroma 3.33 3.27 3.09 2.97 —---_-_---_—------— l/Means underscored by same solid line are not significantly different at P'< .05. Means underscored by same broken line are not significantly different at P‘< .01. -60.. Effects of Breed and Sex: The effects of breed and sex on the sur- face color of loin eye muscles is shown in table 18. It can be seen that no significant differences were found in color renotations due to either breed or sex. Table 18. The effect of breed and sex on the surface color renotation values of the L, dorsi muscles from fresh pork chops. Breedl/ Sexl/ Yorkshires Crossbreds Barrows Gilts Hue (YR) 6.14 6.38 6.44 6.11 Value 5.38 5.48 5.50 5.36 Chroma 3.17 3.16 3.13 3.20 l/Differences were not significant at P < .05. water Holding Capacityg-- Method I 'The effects of slaughter weight, breed and sex on the water-holding capacity of loin eye muscle were determined by testing the differences between means by analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The mean squares from the analysis of variance appear in Appendix Y. Effect of Slaughter weight: The effect of slaughter weight on the water-holding capacity of loin eye muscles as measured by Mathod I is presented in table 19. Although the percentages of free moisture in groups I and II are somewhat lower, and therefore, they are higher in water holding capacity than those values of groups III and IV, there was no significant difference due to slaughter weight. -61- Table 19. Duncan's Multiple Range Test -- The effect of slaughter weight on the water-holding capacity of the L, dorsi muscle”; weight groups I II III IV (200#) (l70#) (140#) (110#) Z free moisture 55.74 55.24 57.29 58.61 l/Means underscored by the same line are not significant at P‘< .05. Effects of Breed and Sex: The effects of breed and sex on the water holding capacity of the E, dgggi muscle are presented in table 20. Al- though the water holding capacity of the loin eye muscles from gilts was somewhat higher than that of the barrows, the difference was not signifi- cant. However, a highly significant difference was found due to breed. The loin eye muscles from the Yorkshire hogs contained only 51.9 percent free moisture versus 61.5 percent in muscles from the crossbreds, a large and highly significant difference. Table 20. The effect of breed and sex on the water holding capacity of loin eye muscles of fresh pork chops as determined by Method I. Breedl/ Sexl/ Yorkshires Crossbreds Barrows Gilts Z free moisture 51.93 61.50 57.29 56.14 'l/The differences were not significant at P<< .05. water Holding Capacity -- Method II Due to the limited number of samples (56) for which the water hold- ing capacity was determined by Method II, the results were not compared as to the effect of slaughter weight, breed or sex. The 56 samples were considered as a single group and their water holding capacity values were compared to those determined by Method I on correSponding samples. -62- The 2 methods were compared by calculating the standard deviations from the means of duplicate determinations. The standard deviations were used to indicate the repeatability of each method. The standard deviation of Method I was found to be i 2.17 percent versus i 1.08 percent for Method II. Thus, the ability to obtain repeatable results between repli- cated pressings was in favor of Method II. A second comparison was made in order to determine if each method measured differences in water holding capacity in the same direction and to the same extent. A comparison of the corresponding data using the 2 methods produced a highly significant correlation of r = .43. Although this correlation coefficient was statistically significant, only 18.5 percent of the variation in water holding capacity as determined by one method was accounted for by a corresponding variation in the other. Briskey gt 31. (1960b) reported significant correlations between the percent of expressible moisture and the pH of certain pork muscles. How- ever, in other muscles the relationship was not significant. The correla- tion coefficients between water holding capacity and pH values for Methods I and II were found to be .51 (P < .01) and .30 (P < .05), respectively. Although the water holding capacity as determined by both methods correlated significantly with pH, neither correlation was particularly high. Due to the limited number of determinations conducted using Method II, it is not felt that a full evaluation of its merit can be made at this time. Although the correlation between Methods I and II was not as high as might be considered desirable, the Speed and repeatability of Method II would warrant further investigation of this procedure. -63- Consumer Preference Study Effect of Slaughter weight The effects of slaughter weight on selection of frozen pork loin ch0ps, Boston butt roasts and 7-rib loin roasts by consumers was studied. The effect of slaughter weight on selection is illustrated (figures 2, 3 and 4) by plotting the percentage of cuts sold per weight group against the percentage of total cuts sold. Thus, a curve was plotted for the cuts from each weight group which indicates the "rate" at which they were selected in relation to those cuts from the other weight groups. In figure 2, the selection rates for pork chops are presented. The strongest preference was in favor of the ch0ps from the heaviest group (1), however, it was followed by a nearly equal preference for chOps from the lightest group (IV). Thus, it appears that the consumers had a de- finite preference for either relatively large chops or for relatively small chops. No particular trend in preference was indicated between the chops from groups II and III. The respondents were asked to indicate on the questionaire (Appen- dix N) the reason or reasons for making their selections. Table 21 pre- sents the number of times each factor was given as the basis of selection of the pork chOps. Results show that the size of the cut and relative Table 21. Basis for selection of pork chops Weight groups Total Reasons I II III IV responses (200#) (l70#) (l40#) (110#) Size of cut 11 6 5 10 33 Color of cut 5 2 3 2 12 Amount of fat 20 9 9 17 55 None of above 1 0 1 l 3 -64- .325 v22 u 00:830.:— Hofi-odoo mo 3am .N 3...me 30» 3:0 douou acouuom oh co Om O.» on ON ea c _ a q _ Ix xl>H 95.5 o.— .OIIIOAHH gouu {II-913 83o ow a T? H macaw m a on .u. . a n .3 3 9 C o .I- P on d a 1 A 8 w w... .3 2 m .o .m ow \ X x\ cm x \x x 1 cog -65- leanness were the fundamental reasons for selection. These factors seemed to be of equal importance in the selections from both groups I and IV. However, it is possible that the way in which the question was phrased or the order on the questionaire may have biased the reSpondents' answers. The question was phrased as follows: ”If your selection was based upon one or more of the following factors, please make a check beside it (or them)." ( ) Size (weight) of cut ( ) Color of‘cut ( ) Amount of fat ( ) None of above Thus, the respondents may have been unintentionally led to believe that a "correct" selection should have been based on size, color, or fat con- tent. Such was not intended, nor is it known that this was the case. Figure 3 presents the data on consumer selection for Boston butt roasts. As in the case of the pork chops, strong preferences were shown for the cuts from the heaviest and lightest weight groups. However, in this instance, the preference was strongest for cuts from group IV. Once again, there was only a mild and generally equal preference for the cuts from groups II and III. Although the total number of cuts involved in this study were relatively small, the results do indicate that the con- sumers would purchase Boston butt roasts from hogs slaughtered at the extremely light weight of 100-120 pounds, and that the demand for the light-weight roasts was equal to that for roasts from hogs slaughtered at normal market weights. .mH—bm 20.58 a ouaouomoam Hon-undo». «0 31m .m aha-mam vac» ausu ~Iu0u uaoouom ~66- 65 co on 0% on 1 . a . . lxlxl >H guano IT¢.I HHH gouu .: HH ECHO .\\ lollol H 9.5.5 x.\ d e 1 \X\ 1 on m x u -\ 3 a.“ n a \- pv on 8 o I p \ 1 S .m 1 m. X 1 Oh ence: «J. .n \x .1 cm W \x x .. cm X on: -67- Table 22. Basis for selection of Boston butt roasts. Weight groups Total Reasons I II III IV responses (200#) (l70#) (l40#) (110#) Size of cut 15 9 9 12 45 Color of cut 8 4 l 5 18 Amount of fat 13 7 7 13 40 None of above 2 0 1 2 5 Table 22 suggests that the size of cut and amount of fat were the 2 factors which primarily influenced the selections of Boston butt roasts. Although the limitations of these data have been recognized, results in- dicate that the high preference which existed for the Boston butt roasts from the light-weight hogs (figure 3) was due in large part to their smaller size. Thus, the reduction in the size of certain pork cuts by the use of lower slaughter weight may be as important to certain consum- ers as would be the resulting increase in leanness. Figure 4 illustrates the demand for 7-rib loin roasts from the 4 weight groups. It can be seen that the demand for these cuts is consider- ably different than that found for pork chops and butt roasts. A very strong preference was shown for cuts from the heaviest weight group. Only a mild preference was indicated for those cuts from groups II and III. There appeared to be a strong rejection of the cuts from group IV since only 1 cut from this group was selected out of the total of 31 roasts selected in this session. .mfimdg ZHOA .. ouaouuwoum ugmaoo mo Unix 3‘ 0.535 vaoo muse Hauou uaoouom as 00 on 0% _ on em OH o a a a _ 4 Z d .x lxlxl >H macaw . . . . L ed IOIUIHHH macho :1 HH EOHG . . L ON IOIIIOI. H gnome . wa . . on u a . u 3 . L 3 m .4 . . 8 Ru 8 6 . on o _ J m . .d a . .. 8 x m . I. a. Q J O“ 3 co . 1 o . 4 cm .m . 1 cm . cod -69- Table 23. Basis for selection of loin roasts. weight groups Total Reasons I II III IV responses (200#) (170#) (l40#) (110#) Size of cut 14 3 2 O 19 Color of cut 3 2 1 l 7 Amount of fat 14 4 4 0 22 None of above 2 O 0 0 2 The definite preference for loin roasts from carcasses of the heavi- est weight group (figure 4) appears to have been due primarily to size and amount of visible fat as indicated in table 23. These data imply, therefore, that the rejection of the roasts from group IV was due to their small size. However, the manner in which the cuts were displayed may have been reSponsible in part for the preference against these cuts. The 3 lightest roasts from each weight group were presented in the diSplay case at the start of the study. Therefore, if the cuts di8p1ayed from group IV remained unsold as a result of their size, then this method of presenting the cuts prevented the consumers from indicating their reaction to the heavier cuts from group IV. Possibly the heavier cuts would not have been considered as being so objectionable. However, the redeeming fact remains that only a slight preference was indicated for the cuts from groups II and III, these cuts being larger than the heaviest from group IV. Effect of Family Size: The effect of family size was studied by dividing the selection data into 3 groups on the basis of families consisting of 2, 3, or 4 or more -70- persons. The percentages of cuts sold per slaughter weight group were plotted against the total number of cuts sold per family group. The effect of family size on the selection of pork ch0ps is presented in figure 5. The numbers in parentheses at the top of the graphs repre- sent the total number of cuts sold to each family group. Thus, only 16 cuts were sold to families which consisted of 2 persons. However, the respondents from this family size seemed to favor those cuts from the lightest slaughter weight group (IV). In families consisting of 3 per- sons, a preference for cuts from both the heaviest and the lightest slaughter weight group was indicated. When family size was increased to 4 or more persons, the majority of the reSpondents favored the cuts from the heaviest weight group, although a considerable preference for cuts from group IV was still evident. Therefore, it appeared that small fami- lies preferred the ch0ps from the lightest carcasses, and as family size increased, the demand for the heavier cuts increased. Figure 6 shows the effect of family size on the preference for Bos- ton butt roasts. The resPondents from the smallest sized family seemed to prefer the cuts from either the heaviest or lightest weight group with possibly a somewhat higher preference for those cuts from group IV. Al- though the data indicates that the respondents from families of 3 persons preferred the cuts from groups III and IV, an insufficient number (12) of cuts were involved to make any valid conclusions. As family size in- creased to 4 or more persons, nearly 50 percent of the total cuts sold were from group I, indicating a marked preference for cuts from the heaviest slaughter weight group. Thus, as with the pork ch0ps, a definite demand for lighter butt roasts existed amongst small families, and the _71- .mmomu Much a cage haqEIm we woommo mooaouomoun unanuaoo on ouowum anonuom=+¢ . uddwuom m. «doauvm.m a a la H: .l, J. 3 1L, 2 HHH E m B . H 25 I! 83 as ..o~ .ON . .om p109 sgno 1930) jo uncured .mHPpm zOHmCM . exam kHHEmm wo moowqo ”oo:osowoze po:5m:OU ., ocsmflm -72- sung 1v303 jo w:0mpoe .q m:0maum m mCOmaom m HHH 1 OH Hg H HHH HH 1 cm HH H >u 1 ea H 28V 8: $3 nuooxad [3108 .mwmfior 3H0; s cram >Hflimw wo mooawo ”oosopowoa; aurjm:cu .\ visas; f .u mCOmwoa -q chmpoe m m:0mpoc m -73- . >H FHH HH Ha H; I 1 S HH p—J Amav AHHV Ace om sans {9303 go JUODlad p105 -74- demand for heavier roasts increased as size of family increased. In figure 7, which depicts the effect of family size on the selection of 7-rib loin roasts, it is apparent that, regardless of the number of persons in the family, the preference was definitely for those cuts from the heaviest slaughter weight group. The factors which may have accounted for this have been indicated previously (discussion of figure 4). SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was conducted in order to determine the effect of slaugh- ter weight upon the acceptability, quality and processing characteristics of pork carcasses. A total of 80 animals were studied, consisting of 40 Yorkshire and 40 crossbred barrows and gilts. The animals were divided into 4 slaughter weight groups ranging from 100 to 200 pounds. As slaughter weight was lowered, there was a decrease in carcass length, dressing percentage and loin eye area, and an increase in the percentage of primal and lean cuts. Chemical analysis of the rough ham indicated that reduction in slaughter weight resulted in higher percent- ages of protein and moisture, and lower percentages of ether extract. Analysis of the L, dggsi muscle showed similar trends except no signifi- cant differences were observed in the percentage of ether extract as slaughter weight was decreased. Physical separation of the rough ham showed that the percentage of lean increased and the percentage of fat decreased as slaughter weight was reduced. Taste panel scores indicated that fresh pork ch0ps, smoked hams and bacons from the 4 weight grOUps were equally acceptable. Differences in cooking losses of the fresh ch0ps and the smoked yields of the hams and bacons were not statistically significant. Surface color renotations of hue and value were not affected by slaughter weight, however, significant decreases in chroma were noted as slaughter weight decreased. The water-holding preperties of the loin eye muscles were not found to be significantly affected by changes in slaugh- ter weight. A second method of determining water-holding capacity developed during the course of this study proved to be both rapid and repeatable. -75- -76- Consumer studies indicated strong preferences for ch0ps and Boston butt roasts from both the heaviest and lightest weight groups. However, the preference for loin roasts was decidedly in favor of the heaviest weight group. The size of the cuts and their degree of leanness appeared to be two of the more important considerations in selection. Family size also seemed to strongly influence selection. As family size increased, the demand for cuts from the heaviest weight group became more pronounced. No differences were found between the Yorkshire and crossbred hogs in percentage of lean cuts or backfat thickness, however, the crossbreds had significantly larger loin eye areas. Taste panel evaluation of pork ch0ps favored the Yorkshires somewhat in tenderness, although the cross- breds were rated higher in overall acceptability. The L, dorsi muscles from the Yorkshire carcasses were higher in water-holding capacity than those from the crossbred carcasses. The carcasses from gilts were generally superior to those from barrows in cut-out value. No significant differences attributable to sex were noted in palatability or water-holding capacity. BIBLIOGRAPHY A.O.A.C. 1960. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, washington, D.C. (9th ed.) Aunan, W. J. and L. M; Winters. 1949. A study of the variations of muscle, fat and bone of swine carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 8(2):187. Barton, R. A. and A. H. Kirton. 1956. Determination of fat in mutton carcasses by measurement of specific gravity. Nature. 178:920. Bendall, J. R. 1954. The swelling effect of polyphOSphates on lean meat. J. Sci. Food Agr. 5:468. Benne, E. J., Nancy H. Van Hall and A. M. Pearson. 1956. Analysis of fresh meat. J.O.A.C. Birmingham, E., D° E. Brady, S. M. Hunter, J. C. Grady and E. R. Kiehl. 1954. Fatness of pork in relation to consumer preference. ‘Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 549. Bohman, V. R., J. E. Hunter and J. A. McCormick. 1955. The effect of graded levels of alfalfa and aureomycin upon growing-fattening swine. J. Animal Sci. 14:499. Briskey, E. J., R. W. Bray, W. G. Hoekstra, P. H. Phillips and R. H. Grum- mer. 1959a. The chemical and physical characteristics of various pork ham muscle classes. J. Animal Sci. 18(1):l46. Briskey, E. J., R. W. Bray, W. G. Hoekstra, R. H. Grummer and P. H. Phillips. 1959b. The effect of various levels of exercise in altering the chemical and physical characteristics of certain pork ham.muscles. J. Animal Sci. 18:153. Briskey, E. J., R. w. Bray, W. G. Hoekstra, R. H. Grummer and P. H. Phillips. 1959c. The effect of eXhaustive exercise and high sucrose regimes on certain chemical and physical pork ham muscle characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 18:173. Briskey, E. J., R. W. Bray, w. G. Hoekstra, P. H. Phillips and R. H. Grum- mer. 1960a. Effect of high protein, high fat and high sucrose rations on the water-binding and associated prOperties of pork muscle. J. Animal Sci. 19:404. Briskey, E. J., H2 G. Hoekstra, R. w. Bray and R. H. Grummer. 1960b. A comparison of certain physical and chemical characteristics of eight pork muscles. J. Animal Sci. 19:214. Brody, S. and A. C. Ragsdale. 1924. The changes of form with age in the dairy cow. Univ. of Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 67. IBrooks, J. 1933. The effect of carbon dioxide on the colour changes or bloom of lean meat. J. Soc. Chem. Industry. 52:17. -77- ~78- Brooks, J. 1937. Color of meat. Food Res. 3:75. Broumand, H. 1953. The development of a spectrophotometric method for estimation of the pigmented compounds of meat. Ph.D. Thesis. Rutgers Univ. Brown, C. J., J. C. Hillier and J. A. Whatley. 1951. Specific gravity as a measure of the fat content of the pork carcass. J. Animal Sci. lO(l):97. Bruner, w. H., V. R. Cahill, W. L. Robison and R. F. Wilson. 1958. Per- formance of barrow and gilt littermate pairs at the Ohio Swine Evaluation Station. J. Animal Sci. 17:875. Brunstad, G. E. and S. H. Fowler. 1959. Some carcass characteristics of swine in the eighth generation of production under four combinations of full and limited feeding. J. Animal Sci. 18:211. Bull, S. and H. P. Rusk. 1942. Effect of exercise on quality of beef. III. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 488:105. Callow, E. H. 1949. Comparative meat studies: III. Rates of fattening in relation to the percentage of muscular and fatty tissue in a carcass. J. Agr. Sci. 39:352. Campbell, G. W. 1956. Consumer acceptance of beef. Phoenix, Arizona. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rep. 145. Cole, J. W. 1951. Slaughtering, chilling and cutting methods for pork carcass evaluation. Proc. 4th An. Reciprocal Meats Conf. 4:111. Craig, H. B., T. N. Blumer and E. R. Barrick. 1959. Effect of several combinations of grass and grain in the ration of beef steers on the color characteristics of lean and fat. J. Animal Sci. 18:241. Duncan, D. R. 1955. The Multiple Range and Multiple F-Test. Biometrics. 11:1. Enfield, F. D., and J. A. Whatley. 1961. Heritability of carcass length, carcass backfat thickness and loin lean area in swine. J. Animal Sci. 20(3):631. Engleman, G., A. A. Dowell, E. F. Ferrin, and P. A. Anderson. 1950. ‘Marketing slaughter hogs by carcass weight and grade. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 187. Field, R. A., W. Y. Varney and J. D. Kemp. 1961. Processing costs, ‘market values, and consumer acceptance of light and normal weight hogs. J. Animal Sci. 20:742. Fox, R. L., A. E. Wheeler and C. G. Randall. 1953. ‘Measuring the marketa- bility of meat-type hogs. U.S.D.A. Circ. C-152. -79- Fredeen, H. T., G. H. Bowman, and J. G. Slothart. 1955. Relationships between certain measurements of ham and carcass quality. Can. J. Agr. Sci. 35:98. Fredeen, H. T. and D. B. Lambroughton. 1956. Evaluation of carcass quality in swine as influenced by the differential performance of barrows and gilts. Can. J. Agr. Sci. 36:435. Gaarder, R. 0., N. V. Strand and W. R. Maki. 1960. Consumer preference for pork, Des Moines, Iowa. Iowa State Agr. and Home Ec. EXp. Sta. Res. Bul. 477. Grau, R. and R. Hamm. 1953. Eine einfache methode zur bestimmung der wasserbindung im muskel. Naturwissenschaften. 40:29. Grau, R. and R. Hamm. 1957. Uber das wasserbindungsvermogen des saugetier- muskels. II. Mitt. Uber die bestimmung der wasserbindung des muskels. Z. Lebensm. Untersuch. u. Forsch. 105:446. Hall, J. L., E. E. Latscher and D. L. Mackintosh. 1944. Dark cutting beef. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 58, Part IV. Hall, J. L. 1953. Ether extraction method of estimating degree of fat- ness in carcasses and cuts. Proc. 6th An. Reciprocal Meats Conf. P. 122. Hamm, R. 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Adv. Food Res. 10:355. Hamm, R. and F. E. Deatherage. 1960. Changes in hydration, solubility and protein charges of muscle proteins during heating of meat. Food Res. 25:587. Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and Development gf_Mutton Qualities in_§hg Sheep. Edinburgh. Hankins, O. G. and N. R. Ellis. 1934. Physical characteristics of hog carcasses as measures of fatness. J. Agr. Res. 48:260. Hankins, 0. G. and P. E. Howe. 1936. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 296. Hazel, L. N., and E. A. Kline. 1952. ‘Mechanical measurement of fatness and carcass value on live hogs. J. Animal Sci. 11:313. Hegarty, G. R. 1960. The relationship between various physical factors of swine carcass characteristics. M.S. Thesis. Kansas State Univ. Henry, W. E. 1959. The effects of mineral supplementation on the color and myoglobin concentration of pork muscle. M.S. Thesis, Mich. State Univ. -80.. Henry, W. E. 1962. The anabolic response of swine to 4-hydroxy-l7-alpha- methyltestosterone and relationships between chemical and physical characteristics of pork carcasses. Ph.D. Thesis. ‘Mich. State Univ. Hetzer, H. 0., J. H. Zeller, and O. G. Hankins. 1956. Carcass yields as related to live hog probes and various weight and locations. J. Animal Sci. 15(1):257. Hill, R. 1933. Oxygen affinity of muscle hemoglobin. Nature. 132:897. Hoagland, R. 1915. Coloring matter of raw and cooked salted meats. J. Agr. Res. 3:211. H0pper, T. H. 1944. Methods of estimating the physical and chemical com- position of cattle. J. Agr. Res. 68:239. Hochstetler, L. N., J. A. Hoefer, A. M. Pearson and R. W} Luecke. 1959. Effect of varying levels of fiber of different sources upon growth and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 18:1397. Husaini, S. A., F. E. Deatherage and L. E. Kunkle. 1950. Studies on meat II. Observation on relation of biochemical factors to changes in tenderness. Food Technol. 4:366. Judge, M. D., V. R. Cahill, L. E. Kunkle and W. H. Bruner. 1959. Pork quality. I. Influencesof some factors on pork muscle characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 18:448. Kauffman, R. G. 1960. Pork marbling. Proc. 13th An. Reciprocal Meat Conf., p. 31. Kennedy, R. P. and G. H. Whipple. 1926. The identity of muscle hemoglobin and blood hemoglobin. Am. J. Physiol. 76:685. Kline, E. A. and L. N. Hazel. 1955. Loin area at tenth and last rib as related to leanness of pork carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 14:659. Kline, E. A., G. C. Ashton, and J. Kastelic. 1955. The effect of the chilling time upon the Specific gravity of hog carcasses and upon the correlation between Specific gravity and measures of fatness. J. Animal Sci. 14:1230. Kirton, A. H. and R. A. Barton. 1958. Specific gravity as an index of the fat content of mutton carcasses and various joints. New Zealand J. Agr. Res. 1:633. Kraybill, H. F., E. R. Goode, R. S. B. Robertson, and H. S. Sloane. 1953. In vivo measurement of body fat and body water in swine. J. Applied Physiol. 6(1):27. Larsen, L. M., Patricia Berton, D. C. England and J. E. Oldfield. 1960. Effect of barley hulls and purified cellulose in swine rations on carcass composition. J. Animal Sci. 19:969 (Abstract). -8l- Larzelere, H. E. and R. D. Gibb. 1956. Consumer's opinions of quality in pork ch0ps. IMich. Agr. EXp. Sta. Quarterly Bull. 39(2):327. Lawrie, R. A. 1950. Some observations on factors affecting myoglobin concentrations in muscle. J. Agr. Sci. 40:356. Lloyd, D. J. and T.Moran° 1933. Bound water of gelatin gels. Nature. 132:515. Lucas, I. A. M. and A. F. C. Calder. 1956. The reSponse of different types of pigs to varying levels of feeding from weaning to bacon weight with particular reference to carcass quality. J. Agr. Sci. 47:287. Lush, J. L. 1926. Practical methods for estimating the prOportions of fat and bone in cattle slaughtered in commercial packing plants. J. Agr. Res. 32:727. Lush, J. L. 1928. Changes in body measurements of steers during inten- sive fattening. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 385. Mahon, J. H. 1961. TripolyphosPhate-salt synergism and its effect on cured meat volume. A.M.I.F. Circ. 64. MaCampbell, H. C. and D. M. Baird. 1961. Carcass evaluation of swine slaughtered at 170, 190, 210 and 230 pounds. J. Animal Sci. 20:919. (Abstract). McMeekan, C. P. and John Hammond. 1940. The relation of environmental conditions to breeding and selection fér commercial types in pigs. Empire J. of Exp. Agr. 8:6. McMeekan, C. P. 1941. Part IV. The use of sample joints and of carcass measurements as indices of the composition of the bacon pig. J. Agr. Sci. 31:1. 'Meek, A. 1901. Growth of farm ungulates 1. Approach from a study of the external characters. The Veterinarian 74:335. ‘Millikan, G. A. 1939. Muscle hemoglobin. Physiol. Rev. 19:503. Mitchell, H. H. and T. S. Hamilton. 1933. Effect of long-continued exer- cise upon the chemical composition of the muscle and other tissues of cattle. J. Agr. Res. 46:917. Merkel, R. A., R. W. Bray, R. H. Grummer, P. H. Phillips and G. Bohstedt. 1958. The influence of limited feeding, using high fiber rations, upon growth and carcass characteristics of swine. I. Effect upon feedlot performance. J. Animal Sci. 17:3. Mullins, A. M., D. M. Thrasher, R. F. Boulware, G. L. Rebertson and E. Guillet. 1960. Carcass characteristics and consumer acceptability of pork cuts from 160- and 200pound hogs. J. Animal Sci. 19:1240 (Abstract) -82- Naumann, H. D., V. J. Rhodes and J. D. Volk. 1960. Sensory attributes of pork differing in marbling and firmness. J. Animal Sci. 19:1240 (Abstract). Nickerson, Dorothy. 1946. Color measurement and its application to the grading of agricultural products. U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 580. Palsson, H. and J. B. Verges. 1952a. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part I. The effects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages. J. Agr. Sci. 42:1. Palsson, H. and J. B. Verges. 1952b. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part 11. Effects on lambs of thirty pounds carcass weight. J. Agr. Sci. 42:93. Pearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler, J. A. Hoefer, J. F. Price, w. T. Magee, and R. J. Deans. 1956a. The fat-lean ratio in the rough loin as a tool in evaluation of pork carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 15(3):896. Pearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler, R. J. Deans, J. F. Price, J. A. Hoefer, E. P. Reineke, and R. W. Luecke. 1956b. The use of Specific gravity of certain untrimmed pork cuts as a measure of carcass value. J. Animal Sci. 15:896. Pearson, A. M., w. T. Magee, L. J. Bratzler and J. A. Hoefer. 1959. Car- cass characteristics and cut-outs of some different breeds of swine. J. Animal Sci. 18(4):1482 (Abstract). Poel, w. E. 1949. Effect of anoxia on myoglobin concentrations in striated muscle. Am. J. Physiol. 156:44. Pomeroy, R. w. 1941. The effect of a submaintenance diet on the composi- tion of the pig. J. Agr. Sci. 31:50. Price, J. F., A. M. Pearson and E. J. Benne. 1957. Specific gravity and composition of the untrimmed ham as related to leanness of pork carcass. J. Animal Sci. 16(1):85. Reynolds, J. W. and E. R. Kiehl. 1952. A determination of objective car- cass grade standards for slaughter hogs. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 507. Rhodes, V. J., E. R. Kiehl and D. E. Brady. 1956. Visual preferences for grades of retail beef cuts. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 583. Rongey, E. H. 1958. Color stability and uniformity of cured hams. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Missouri. Rupnow, E. H. and Margaret weller. 1961. Tenderness of pork as effected by breed, ration and cooking method. J. Animal Sci. 20(3):683 (Abstract). Satorius, M. J. and A. M. Child. 1938. Problems in meat research. I. Four comparable cuts from one animal. II. Reliability of judges scores. Food Res. 3:627. -83- Scott, E. L. 1927. Some factors affecting the killing quality of hogs. The American Society of Animal Production Meetings, p. 121. Self, H. L., R. H. Grummer, O. E. Hays and H. G. Spies. 1960. Influence of three different feeding levels during growth and gestation on reproduction, weight gains and carcass quality in swine. J. Animal Sci. 19:274. Sherman, P. 1961a. The water binding capacity of fresh pork. I. The influence of sodium chloride, pyroPhOSphate, and polyphOSphate on water absorption. Food Technol. 15:79. Sherman, P. 1961b. The water binding capacity of fresh pork. III. The influence of cooking temperature on the water binding capacity of lean pork. Food Technol. 15:90. Snedecor, G. W. 1959. Statistical Methods. (5th ed.) The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Stothart, J. G. 1938. A study of factors influencing swine carcass measurements. Sci. Agr. 19:162. Swift, C. E. and R. Ellis. 1956. The action of phOSphateS in sausage products. I. Factors affecting the water retention of phOSphate- treated ground meat. Food Technol. 10:546. Swift, C. E. and M. D. Berman. 1959. Factors affecting the water reten- tion of beef. 1. Variation in composition and pr0perties among eight muscles. Food Technol. 13:365. Voegeli, M. M. 1952. The measurement of fresh beef muscle color changes by disk colorimetry. Ph.D. Thesis. Mich. State Univ. Vrooman, C. W. 1952. Consumer report on pork products. Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 521. 'Wallace, L. R. 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth in rela- tion to the level of nutrition. Part I. J. Agr. Sci. 38:93. wallace, H. D., G. E. McCabe, A. Z. Palmer, M. Koger, J. W. Carpenter and G. E. Combs. 1959. Influence of slaughter weight on economy of production and carcass value of swine. J. Animal Sci. 18:1484 (Abstract). webb, N. B. 1959. The tenderness of beef as related to tissue components, age, stress and post-mortem biochemical changes. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of'Missouri. Whiteman, J. V. and J. A. Whatley. 1953a. An evaluation of some swine carcass measurements. J. Animal Sci. 12(3):591. ~84- Whiteman, J. V., J. A. Whatley and J. C. Hillier. 1953b. A further in- vestigation of Specific gravity as a measure of pork carcass value. J. Animal Sci. 12(4):864. Wierbicki, E., L. E. Kunkle, V. R. Cahill, F. E. Deatherage. 1956. Post- mortem changes in meat and their possible relation to tenderness together with some comparisons of meat from heifers, bulls, steers, and diethylstilbestrol treated bulls and steers. Food Technol. 10:80. Wierbicki, E., L. E. Kunkle and F. E. Deatherage. 1957. Changes in the water-holding capacity and cationic shifts during the heating and freezing and thawing of meat as revealed by a simple centrifugal method for measuring shrinkage. Food Technol. 11:69. Wierbicki, E. and F. E. Deatherage. 1958. Determination of water-holding capacity of fresh meats. J. Agr. Food Cehm. 6:387. Wiley, J. R., D. Paarlberg, and R. G. Jones. 1951. Objective carcass factors related to slaughter hog value. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 567. Wilson, G. D., Irene D. Ginger, B. S. Schweigert and W. J. Aunan. 1959. A study of the variations of myoglobin concentration in "two-toned" hams. J. Animal Sci. 18:1080. Wilson, G. D. 1960. The Science of Meat and Meat Products. American iMeat Institute Foundation. W. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco and London. Page 328. Woodman, H. E., R. E. Evans, and W. G. Turpitt. 1937. The influence of high-protein intake on protein and mineral metabolism. J. Agr. Sci. 27:581. Ziegler, P. T. 1958. The Meat we Eat (3rd ed.). The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, Illinois. Zobrisky, S. E., J. F. Lasley, D. E. Brady and L. A. weaver. 1954. Pork carcass evaluation. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 554. Zobrisky, S. E., D. E. Brady, J. F. Lasley and L. A. Weaver. 1959. Significant relationships in pork carcass evaluation. I. Lean cuts as criteria for live hog value. J. Animal Sci. 18(1):420. APPENDIX -85: No.¢ moo.a o.Hm mm H N.wo m.mm n.mm N.H¢H m.¢m m.o¢ m.qn m.¢aa owe: Ho.¢ woo.H w.am om.H w.Hm N.mm w.Nn m.mma N.Nm H.m¢ w.¢m o.me mumH ma.m wmo.H m.om mm.H w.oo H.¢m m.~n o.N¢H ¢.w¢ N.mm w.¢n o.o¢H Nina mH.q Noo.H ¢.om mH.H m.mo N.om m.Nm o.wMH N.on o.o¢ ¢.¢m o.HmH onma qm.¢ moo.H m.om om.H N.No o.mm m.mm m.me n.w¢ m.mm o.¢m o.ama qum wo.m wmo.a o.Hm mm.H “.mo o.¢m ¢.mm o.omH N.w¢ o.mm 0.05 m.qom qu "quflw om.m mmo.H m.om mm.H m.mo N.Nm H.mm o.m¢H m.nq a.mm N.mm m.wma com: om.m moo.H N.Hm ©¢.H m.mo m.mm o.qn m.a¢a ¢.Hm o.aq N.on o.~o~ qa-ma mm.m qmo.H o.Hm o¢.H m.oo w.mm o.mn m.m¢a w.w¢ m.mm ¢.mn m.o¢a Hauma ma.m mmo.H o.Hm wN.H m.mw o.mm m.mn m.wMH m.n¢ ¢.wm w.¢n o.HmH mnwa Hm.m qmo.a N.mN OH.N n.No m.wq m.mh m.N¢H H.oq w.mm m.mm o.qu wuoa mm.m omo.a H.Hm mo.H H.mo m.m¢ m.mn o.HmH o.mq m.mm n.mm o.mom wnNH ”msouumm pmunousm N¢.¢ qmo.a m¢.mm ¢¢.H m.oo H.¢m m.¢n N.oma N.m¢ a.o¢ w.om m.NoN cam: wm.¢ qoo.a 0.0m o¢.H m.oo m.¢m m.mn m.o¢H m.om m.a¢ o.mm o.¢ma mica HN.¢ Hmo.H o.om mq.a H.m© m.Nm w.¢m o.¢ma o.w¢ m.mm N.mm o.oom Hnmm mw.q omo.a N.om N¢.H ¢.mo w.~m w.an m.HmH a.o¢ m.nm m.mn o.HHN mumm mN.q mmo.H m.om mN.H m.wo m.mm o.mn o.omH N.Hm w.H¢ ¢.mn o.ooN Huwm NH.¢ mqo.a m.mN do.a w.mo o.¢m m.¢n o.m¢H m.w¢ N.o¢ H.mm m.oo~ Huom ”muafiw mm.m mqo.a m.mN mm.H m.mo m.om H.¢m m.w¢a m.m¢ m.mm q.os m.oom com: mo.m ¢¢O.H m.mN mm.H m.oo m.w¢ ¢.¢m m.mmH m.m¢ q.om m.om o.moN oHuNm om.m o¢0.H m.mm wo.H m.mo o.Hm o.mn o.omH o.o¢ o.mm n.0n o.NHN oumm mm.m oqo.a w.wm NN.H o.No w.o¢ m.mm m.m¢H H.m¢ o.mm o.nm m.mmH manwm om.m m¢O.H H.Hm mm.H ¢.oo ¢.mm n.mm m.H¢H o.mq m.mm H.0m o.Nma wumm om.¢ mmo.a w.mm m¢.H o.mo o.mm N.mm o.N¢H ©.n¢ N.mm m.mm o.¢ma wand “meosumm wounmmoso 3: a3 3.3 3.3 an: and pan nuoH .Hw. suwama mmmdxofisu muse muse N .uB muso muse N .uB Hanson poem .mm .osmu ummxomn assasa Gama .Hw .osmo Hugged coma .up .am Hmefla< .3. a. a 38 38 a. .1. pom mmvssom‘oHN ou omH unwwoB Houswsmamv H asosw .mamm swunwsmHm .¢ mapnmee< -86- ¢N.m moo.H m.m~ mN.H m.wo 0.0m N.Nm w.mma w.mq N.o¢ o.mm «.ona coo: wN.m mmo.a m.wm cm.H N.mo H.Hm o.¢m m.¢NH o.w¢ H.wm o.on o.moa unom mm.¢ omo.H H.Hm Ho.a m.mm m.Ho o.mn m.m~a H.qm o.m¢ o.on o.oNH Numa dm.m moo.H o.m~ mm.H o.wo H.0m m.HN o.mHH o.m¢ H.0q o.¢n o.me puma mm.m moo.H «.mm ma.a m.wo N.om m.NN m.oNH m.m¢ N.o¢ o.mm o.mNH Hume NH.¢ Noo.H m.m~ wN.H m.mo m.¢m m.HN m.mNH o.w¢ m.wm o.mm o.oma Nuw ”muaww ma.m wmo.a H.mm mm.H m.mo N.mm o.~m N.¢NH a.~¢ N.wm o.mm o.HNH coax mo.m Nmo.H o.mN mN.H o.mo ¢.Hm m.mm m.HNH o.o¢ N.Nm m.qm o.on N:wa no.m wmo.H o.wm mm.H m.mo o.Nm o.NN o.NNH ¢.N¢ N.wm m.¢m o.on Hausa mm.m Noo.H m.wm N¢.H m.mo w.¢m «.mm o.¢NH q.m¢ N.o¢ m.mn o.m©H muoa wq.m Nmo.a N.mm mm.H m.mo ¢.om N.NN m.mNH m.m¢ ¢.om o.¢n o.HNa NHnNH om.m Noo.H m.om mH.H o.ao o.mm o.mm o.omH 0.0m ¢.H¢ o.mn o.mNH one “m30usmm wounosom om.m mmo.a o.aN mN.H N.m© H.mm n.mm o.mNH m.mq ©.oq m.on H.mma com: mm.m mmo.H N.mN mH.H m.mo o.¢m o.NN o.NNH w.mq N.mm m.mm o.woa quom no.m Hmo.H m.mm o¢.a m.ao ¢.mm m.mn o.NmH o.m¢ N.mm m.mm o.owH Numm ao.¢ mmo.a m.mm mm.H w.mo H.mm m.mm m.¢mH H.0m m.o¢ ¢.NN o.mwa mumw mm.q omo.H o.NN mN.H m.wo o.mn H.¢N m.NNH w.om m.N¢ m.mN o.NNH ann mm.m Nmo.H o.wm mN.H o.mo 0.0m ¢.an o.mNH m.Hm o.a¢ q.om m.mna Huam ”muaww mN.m qmo.H o.wm mm.a 5.00 ¢.mm w.mm ©.NNH o.wq m.mm N.mm m.moH com: Hm.m Hmo.H o.w~ w¢.H m.oo o.mm H.mm m.oma m.wq w.mm H.0n m.wma Nanmm oa.m wmo.H o.NN wm.~ w.mo «.mm ¢.NN m.oHH H.m¢ H.o¢ H.mn o.HoH mawm 0H.m wmo.H «.mm mH.H N.wo m.¢m m.Nm o.HNH m.m¢ w.mm «.mm o.ooa Haumm oN.m omo.H w.NN N¢.H m.¢o m.am o.NN o.mHH H.m¢ m.mm N.mm o.¢oa m:om om.m Hmo.H w.mm N¢.H ¢.oo m.mm m.mn 0.0NH N.wq m.wm m.om o.NNH mama "msousmm pounmmouo A.a..s.v A.:.v A.c.v Amaav Amaav nan nuoa .Hw Suwaoa mmmaxoflsu muse muso N .uB muse muse N .u3 Hmnamm. mon< .mm .oumu umwxomn Hmaeum coma .Hw .osmo Hmaesm nova .Hu .Hm Hmeaa< .>¢ N N waoo paoo N N pom Naposoa owH ou 00H uzwwms.uoufimsmamv HH osouw NomscquOOV .mumv Houfiwdmam .< xwwaonam -87- 0..0 .00.. 0.00 0... 0.00 ...0 0... 0.00 0.00 0..0 ..0. 0.00. 000: 0..0 000.. 0.00 0... 0..0 ..00 0.0. 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0..0. .-.0 00.0 000.. 0..0 00.. 0..0 0.00 0.0. 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.0. 0.00. .-.. 00.0 000.. 0.00 .0.. 0... 0.00 0.0. 0.0.. 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. .-0. 00.0 0.0.. 0..0 .0.0 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0-0. 00.0 0.0.. 0.00 00.0 0.0. 0..0 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0-0. 0...0 00.0 .00.. ...0 0... 0.00 ..00 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. ...0. 000: 00.0 000.. 0..0 00.0 ...0 ..00 ..0. 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0..0. 0-0. 00.0 000.. 0..0 0... 0..0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 ..0. 0.00. 0-0. 00.0 000.. 0..0 0... 0.0. ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. ..-0. 0..0 000.. 0..0 00.. 0..0 0.00 0.0. 0..0. 0..0 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0.-0. 00.0 000.. 0.00 00.. ..0. 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0.00 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0-0. umBOHme 60H QQHD-m 00.0 000.. 0..0 0... ..00 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0.00 ..00 0.0. 0..0. 000: .0.0 .00.. ...0 0... 0.00 0..0 0... 0.00 0.00 ...0 0.0. 0.00. 0-00 .0.0 000.. 0..0 .0.. 0..0 0.00 0.0. 0.0.. 0.00 0.00 .... 0.00. 0-00 00.0 000.. 0..0 .0.. 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0.00 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0-00 00.0 000.. ...0 00.. ..0. 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0..0 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0-00 00.0 000.. 0.00 00.0 0... 0.00 0... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.00. 0-00 ”00.00 00.0 000.. 0.00 0... 0..0 0.00 0... 0.00. 0.00 ..00 0.0. 0.00. 000: 0..0 .00.. 0.00 00.. 0.00 0.00 ..0. 0..0. ..00 0..0 ..0. 0.00. 0-00 00.0 000.. 0.00 0... 0.00 0.00 0... 0.00. ...0 0.00 0.0. 0..0. .-00 00.0 000.. 0.00 00.. 0.00 0.00 0... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0..0. 0-00 om.m mmo.H m.om 0N.H ..0. 0.5m 0.0N m.om o.m0 m.o¢ 0.0N 0.0m. atom 00.0 000.. 0.00 00.. ..00 0..0 0... 0..0. 0.00 0..0 0.0. 0.00. 0-00 .msonumm pounmmouo ..0..000 ..0.. ..0.. A00.0 000.0 nan suoa .uw sumaoa mmoaxofisu muso muse N .uS muse muso N .uB Hones: mou< .mm .oymo umwxomn HmEHHm coma .Hw .oumo Hmaeua coma .Hw .Hm Hugged .00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 .0: Ampasomioma ou omH u£w0o3 Hmufiwsmamv HHH mwoww Awmsowucoov .mumo Houamsmam .< xfivaoae< . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . s . u u 0 ¢ 0 . .. a - - - - 0 . . 0 o . . o . r . . - 0 . 0 1 . I v . r c a 0 .. 0 ~ - 0 - u - - a a u 0 u . . u 0 . ~ 0 _ . . u . . . . . 0 . 0 . . . u ~ 0 0 . . . . ,~ . 0 o 0 ~ 0 . 0 - 0 . . . . u . v 0 — 0 0 0 0 ~88- 00.N 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 G002 00.0 050.0 0.00 05.0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 5.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 50.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 5.50 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 5.00 0.50 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.500 0:0 00.0 050.0 5.0N 00.0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0:0 "00.00 50.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.000 0002 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 5.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 500.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.00 5.00 0.05 0.500 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.05 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 00:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.05 0.000 00:00 00300000 wmunmusm 50.N 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 ammz 00.0 000.0 0.00 50.0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 5.50 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 500.0 0.00 05.0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 05.0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.500 0.00 00.N 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.00 N.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00.N 500.0 0.0m 00.0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.N5 0.000 0:50 “0..00 50.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.55 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.000 0002 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 50.N 000.0 0.0m 00.0 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 00:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 N.5m 0.05 0.000 00:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 50.0 0.00 5.00 0.05 0.05 0.50 0.00 5.05 0.000 0:00 00.0 000.0 0.00 00.0 N.05 0.00 N.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.000 0:00 00300000 000000000 0.00.000 0.0.0 0.0.0 000.0 000.0 000 0u00 .00 suwnm0 mmwaxo0nu 00:0 0050 N .uB 0050 0050 N .03 000855 mwn¢ .00 .0000 0000000 008000 $000 .00 .0000 008000 0000 .00 .0M ~0802< .>0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 .00 - mqusoa 0N0 on 000 0&0003.Hmu£wsm0mv >0 0:000 :IIIIIIIIIIIIIII AwwSGHucooM .0... ...0-..0.; . Ufiw 0 v o » ~ — : - . v . J . - . . A . . . . . . . . ¢ ‘ - n a , . : ~ . . . _ . : . ‘ , - . . . . . . c . . . . A . 1 ~ . 0 , . r : _ _ . 0 ~ , . . - . . D . r ~ . v - : . , , . . , . . ‘ : . , . . » . . , ,. , n . . . \ g 7 o - v - r r -, r » - - , ~ 0 . u . . , o . - & : 0 . . . . , . , . r. . - - q . . . n . o . . , , . . . . . . 0 . . _ - . . V ‘ . . _ . . . r 4 . , A . .. : , . . a _ , , . _ , z . . . . .7 . .. . n . . - . . . -89- Appendix B. Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams Group I (slaughter weight 190 to 210 Bounds) Loins Rough hams Animal Ether Ether number Moisture extract Protein Moisture extract Protein (2») (7°) (Z) (7.) (7°) (7°) Crossbred Barrows: 47-8 72.22 6.96 19.59 54.52 29.25 15.31 52-8 73.62 2.03 20.44 49.58 34.94 14.41 58-13 72.53 4.66 21.84 48.06 36.82 14.69 92-6 73.10 4.68 21.00 50.84 33.51 14.53 92-10 72.85 4.77 20.47 48.20 36.06 13.84 Mean 72.86 4.62 20.67 50.24 34.12 14.56 Gilts: 50-1 71.95 5.92 19.34 51.43 33.25 14.66 58-1 73.86 2.62 20.88 55.46 26.06 16.91 92-5 74.08 3.46 20.79 53.28 30.37 15.19 93-1 74.81 1.56 21.34 52.89 31.05 15.25 96-5 74.53 1.51 21.88 54.62 28.08 16.06 MEan 73.85 3.01 20.85 53.54 29.76 15.61 Purebred Barrows: 12-8 71.29 6.24 21.50 47.42 37.89 14.09 16-8 72.06 0.80 23.09 49.73 34.14 15.31 18-5 73.71 1.34 22.84 53.22 30.73 15.06 19-11 73.49 3.48 22.41 52.96 30.86 15.75 19-14 73.52 2.29 23.53 56.36 25.53 17.66 Mean 72.81 2.83 22.67 51.94 31.83 15.57 Gilts: 4-2 74.15 2.33 22.00 53.40 30.23 16.41 5-4 73.12 0.89 23.22 55.84 26.09 17.09 12-6 72.58 2.07 23.13 56.02 25.71 16.53 15-2 74.47 0.18 22.97 55.57 27.00 15.25 19-3 73.52 1.39 24.13 58.41 22.43 18.38 MQan 73.57 1.37 23.09 55.85 26.29 16.73 -90- Appendix B. Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams (continued) Group IIAgslaughter weight 160 to 180 pounds) Loins Rough hams Animal Ether Ether number Moisture extract Protein Moisture extract Protein (7°) (7») (7.) (‘0 (7.) (7:) Crossbred Barrows: 49-7 74.56 1.81 21.41 53.12 30.97 14.94 50-5 72.16 7.45 18.78 53.05 32.08 14.19 52-11 74.35 3.40 20.03 56.89 26.32 16.16 58-9 74.46 3.94 20.25 55.92 27.41 15.56 58-12 73.56 3.98 21.31 52.56 31.03 15.53 Mean 73.82 4.12 20.36 54.31 29.56 15.28 Gilts: 54-1 73.26 4.63 21.41 56.18 26.77 16.63 78-2 72.74 5.55 19.84 54.05 29.77 15.31 89-5 74.06 0.54 23.19 50.85 32.66 15.00 92-2 74.05 3.75 20.09 52.03 31.99 15.28 96-4 75.54 0.80 20.72 53.41 30.27 14.91 Mean 73.93 3.05 21.05 53.30 30.29 15.43 Purebred Barrows: 6-6 74.06 0.49 23.19 56.40 25.65 17.16 12-12 72.38 4.46 22.53 49.75 34.56 15.16 16-9 73.78 0.40 22.31 54.49 27.94 16.53 17-11 72.98 2.94 22.78 51.66 31.30 16.44 18-7 72.94 2.03 22.72 53.25 29.52 16.16 Mean 73.23 2.06 22.71 53.11 29.79 16.29 Gilts: 8-2 73.49 1.89 22.38 55.41 26.95 16.72 12-1 73.03 2.13 23.31 56.21 26.33 16.75 15-6 74.15 0.16 22.91 56.89 25.37 17.09 19-2 74.37 1.37 23.47 62.62 17.12 18.59 20-2 74.26 0.56 22.31 52.50 30.62 15.84 Mean 73.86 1.22 22.88 56.73 25.28 17.00 -91- Appendix B. Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams (continued) Group III (slaughter weight 130 to 150_poundsl Loins Rough hams Animal Ether Ether number Moisture extract Protein Moisture extract Protein CZ») (7») (7») (7°) (7°) CZ») Crossbred Barrows: 42-8 75.39 2.78 20.72 51.40 33.56 14.34 50-9 71.96 8.20 18.06 57.33 26.99 14.63 58-6 74.54 5.22 19.47 58.75 24.84 15.59 58-7 74.21 2.88 21.91 53.27 30.40 15.59 92-8 75.73 2.20 20.47 60.83 21.29 17.09 Mean 74.37 4.26 20.13 56.32 27.42 15.45 Gilts: 49-2 75.71 0.90 20.19 60.67 21.07 17.06 54-4 73.01 6.32 19.91 59.02 23.94 16.47 92-3 76.28 0.45 20.41 56.67 26.04 15.94 92-4 75.54 0.68 20.41 56.69 25.90 16.56 94-3 75.34 2.10 20.50 56.12 27.04 16.31 Mean 75.18 2.09 20.28 58.83 24.80 16.47 Purebred Barrows: 10-6 75.89 1.10 21.69 60.29 22.03 17.13 12-10 73.29 1.62 21.94 52.26 24.74 15.66 16-11 74.36 0.39 23.09 55.76 26.56 17.38 18-6 73.92 0.53 22.66 53.63 29.50 15.91 19-9 74.63 1.80 21.16 60.37 21.13 17.56 Mean 74.42 1.09 22.11 56.42 24.79 16.73 Gilts: 10-3 74.62 0.46 22.06 62.50 18.44 17.84 12-4 73.74 1.90 22.53 57.51 24.20 17.59 16-1 74.27 0.16 22.19 60.16 20.54 17.78 17-1 73.47 2.93 22.63 53.85 28.97 16.50 21-1 73.57 1.74 22.72 56.51 25.57 16.91 Mean 73.93 1.44 22.43 58.11 23.54 17.32 -92- Appendix B. Chemical analysis of loin eye muscles and rough hams (continued2_ Group IV (slaughter weight 100 to 1204pounds) Loins Rough hams Animal Ether Ether number Moisture extract Protein Moisture extract Protein (7») (”4) (7») CB (Z) (7°) Crossbred Barrows: 50-8 72.09 7.14 18.88 60.70 21.78 16.03 58-8 75.70 1.63 20.81 57.35 26.42 15.38 58-10 74.67 2.98 21.34 55.53 28.40 15.38 58-11 75.83 1.99 21.09 55.50 28.60 15.16 95-5 75.01 2.04 20.28 53.18 31.14 14.94 Mean 74.66 3.16 20.48 56.45 27.27 15.38 Gilts: 47-1 73.25 5.53 19.63 62.49 18.84 17.28 54-2 71.49 7.10 19.69 58.40 24.34 16.50 95-3 75.72 2.25 19.44 61.03 21.24 16.25 96-1 76.07 0.40 20.47 61.94 19.28 16.94 96-2 75.24 0.80 20.47 59.13 22.54 16.59 Mean 74.35 3.22 19.94 60.60 21.25 16.71 Purebred Barrows: 12-11 73.79 2.10 22.41 59.01 22.91 17.69 16-10 74.36 0.38 23.16 59.41 23.17 17.56 18-4 75.84 0.52 22.38 59.89 21.82 18.31 19-8 74.58 0.96 22.09 61.34 19.92 17.06 20-8 75.54 1.10 20.97 54.78 28.10 16.22 Mean 74.82 1.01 22.20 58.89 23.18 17.37 Gilts: 4-4 73.25 1.74 22.91 61.43 18.49 18.91 8-5 74.14 1.40 22.50 59.24 22.36 17.78 12-5 73.09 2.36 22.41 55.97 26.63 16.72 15-5 75.06 0.18 22.00 60.10 22.46 16.50 16-5 74.06 1.20 22.44 64.80 15.05 19.88 Mean 73.92 1.38 22.45 60.31 21.00 17.96 -93- Appendix C. Physical separation data of rough ham. Group I (slaughter weight 190 to 210 pounds) Specific Animal gravity number % bone % lean % fat % skin of bone Crossbred Barrows: 47-8 8.45 60.31 27.41 3.83 1.2660 52-8 8.74 54.07 33.36 3.81 1.2618 58-13 7.91 50.96 36.42 4.71 1.2650 92-6 7.43 55.32 33.50 3.73 1.3062 92-10 7.05 52.98 36.25 3.70 1.2884 Mean 7.92 54.73 33.39 3.96 1.2775 Gilts: 50-1 7.81 54.84 31.42 5.93 1.2817 58-1 8.19 60.59 26.21 5.01 1.2938 92-5 7.25 59.74 29.27 3.73 1.2686 93-1 6.74 58.91 31.08 3.25 1.2867 96-5 7.86 61.78 26.20 4.14 1.3000 Mean 7.57 59.17 28.84 4.41 1.2861 Purebred Barrows: 12-8 9.69 52.49 34.56 3.24 1.2722 16-8 8.36 54.28 33.21 4.13 1.3030 18-5 9.85 57.17 29.12 3.84 1.2379 19-11 8.67 58.30 29.69 3.33 1.2477 19-14 8.27 64.92 23.85 2.93 1.2890 Mean 8.97 57.43 30.09 3.49 1.2700 Gilts: 4-2 8.87 58.26 29.80 3.05 1.2869 5-4 9.44 61.49 25.04 4.00 1.3219 12-6 9.48 61.34 25.73 3.42 1.2803 15-2 9.40 60.39 25.86 4.33 1.2580 19-3 9.51 66.01 21.17 3.29 1.2816 Mean 9.34 61.50 25.52 3.62 1.2857 -94- Appendix C. Physical separation data of rough ham. (continued) Group II (slaughter weight 160 to 180 pounds) Specific Animal gravity number % bone % lean % fat % skin of bone Crossbred Barrows: 49-7 7.74 58.62 29.66 3.97 1.2927 50-5 8.56 58.33 28.86 4.26 1.2239 52-11 9.87 64.14 22.62 3.36 1.2520 58-9 8.64 61.47 25.57 4.32 1.2552 58-12 8.82 56.77 29.61 4.78 1.2887 Mean 8.73 59.87 27.26 4.14 1.2625 Gilts: 54-1 8.49 63.78 23.97 3.77 1.2772 78-2 6.95 62.41 26.98 3.65 1.2768 89-5 8.35 56.49 31.55 3.59 1.2661 92-2 8.46 57.20 30.05 4.27 1.2455 96-4 7.48 58.48 30.79 3.23 1.2658 Mean 7.95 59.67 28.67 3.70 1.2663 Purebred Barrows: 6-6 10.61 60.42 25.15 3.80 1.2450 12-12 8.88 54.57 33.46 3.07 1.2825 16-9 8.97 58.27 28.67 4.06 1.3091 17-11 8.92 56.68 29.65 4.73 1.2786 18-7 9.55 58.10 28.60 3.73 1.2541 Mean 9.39 57.61 29.11 3.88 1.2739 Gilts: 8-2 8.72 60.53 26.73 4.00 1.2810 12-1 9.12 61.88 25.26 3.72 1.2972 15-6 9.61 61.64 24.45 4.28 1.2455 19-2 9.94 70.53 16.16 3.35 1.2543 20-2 7.62 58.41 30.47 3.48 1.3118 Mean 9.00 62.60 24.61 3.77 1.2780 -95- Appendix C. Physical separation data of rough ham. (continued) Group III (slaughter weight 130 to 150 pounds) Specific Animal gravity number % bone % lean % fat % skin of bone Crossbred Barrows: 42-8 9.46 51.70 33.96 4.86 1.2517 50-9 9.93 60.97 24.25 4.84 1.2115 58-6 9.50 62.12 24.69 3.69 1.2061 58-7 9.42 56.65 29.41 4.52 1.2488 92-8 9.60 67.18 19.95 3.24 1.2973 Mean 9.58 59.72 26.45 4.23 1.2431 Gilts: 49-2 9.98 66.19 18.42 5.41 1.2622 54-4 9.13 65.19 21.05 4.62 1.2266 92-3 8.56 63.03 23.76 4.63 1.2308 92-4 7.92 70.29 18.00 3.78 1.2791 94-3 8.05 63.13 25.06 3.73 1.2587 Mean 8.73 65.57 21.26 4.43 1.2515 Purebred Barrows: 10-6 10.64 69.29 14.75 5.30 1.2650 12-10 10.16 55.80 30.47 3.58 1.2628 16-11 9.69 60.45 25.35 4.52 1.2672 18-6 9.74 57.68 29.09 3.50 1.2652 19-9 9.50 65.58 21.81 3.09 1.2568 Mean 9.95 61.76 24.29 4.00 1.2634 Gilts: 10-3 12.81 58.87 23.22 5.08 1.2690 12-4 10.41 63.95 20.89 4.75 1.2612 16-1 8.82 66.47 21.80 2.89 1.3341 17-1 9.18 59.32 27.45 4.03 1.3296 21-1 8.60 63.21 24.07 4.09 1.2626 Mean 9.96 62.36 23.49 4.17 1.2913 x - a I o a a a u o l o o a u - o I u o . o o A v o o . 1 u l . A o . r .- n . . n . a v . o u . u . . . . . . . _ . - c u a - . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . o y . -96- Appendix C. Physical separation data of rough ham. (continued) Group IV (slaughter weight 100 to 120 pounds) Specific Animal gravity number % bone % lean % fat % skin of bone Crossbred Barrows: 50-8 10.40 65.40 20.30 4.00 1.2244 58-8 10.12 59.48 25.33 5.05 1.2061 58-10 9.38 59.20 27.21 4.19 1.2539 58-11 8.58 58.18 28.69 4.53 1.2491 95-5 8.35 57.11 30.59 3.94 1.2780 Mean 9.37 59.87 26.42 4.34 1.2423 Gilts: 47-1 10.40 67.60 15.70 6.40 1.2480 54-2 9.50 62.80 18.60 9.05 1.2401 95-3 8.68 67.66 20.13 3.51 1.2492 96-1 9.69 67.71 18.83 3.57 1.2486 96-2 9.39 65.35 21.06 4.18 1.2101 Mean 9.53 66.22 18.86 5.34 1.2392 Purebred Barrows: 12-11 11.48 62.57 22.67 3.28 1.2191 16-10 9.71 62.74 22.41 5.14 1.2500 18-4 10.90 64.53 21.82 3.45 1.2550 19-8 10.32 64.73 21.18 3.77 1.2561 20-8 9.08 58.01 27.80 5.09 1.2939 Mean 10.30 62.52 23.04 4.15 1.2548 Gilts: 4-4 12.37 66.10 17.93 3.60 1.2675 8-5 10.90 63.63 20.34 5.13 1.2700 12-5 10.21 60.62 25.12 4.05 1.2456 15-5 10.86 64.10 20.52 4.50 1.2868 16-5 9.94 72.11 14.42 3.53 1.2633 Mean 10.86 65.31 19.67 4.16 1.2666 -97- Appendix D. Palatability and cooking loss data of pork ch0ps. Grgpp I (slaughter weight 190 to 210 poundslp Z Tenderness Panel Animal % cooking number drip loss Panel Shear Flavor Juiciness Overall Crossbred Barrows: 47-8 2.98 22.05 7.1 7.4 52-8 .57 23.83 7.3 6.1 58-13 .10 21.12 6.7 6.4 92-6 .54 23.30 6.5 6.3 92-10 1.33 20.69 7.2 7.3 Mean 1.10 22.20 Gilts: 50-1 2.40 19.35 7.3 7.8 58-1 .60 20.84 7.2 7.8 92-5 .63 20.82 7.1 6.7 93-1 1.33 23.48 6.6 6.3 96-5 1.16 25.06 6.0 5.3 Mean 1.22 21.91 Purebred Barrows: 12-8 .91 15.22 7.8 16-8 .86 18.57 6.5 18-5 .25 17.61 6.6 19-11 .20 18.37 5 4 19-14 1.17 18.41 6.7 Mean 0.68 17.64 Gilts: 4-2 1.13 23.16 6.9 5-4 .18 18.05 6 4 12-6 1.23 19.26 6 3 15-2 .32 19.75 6 9 19-3 .09 22.42 7.1 Mean 0.59 20.53 -98- Appendix D. Palatability and cooking loss data of pork chops. (continued) Group II (slaughter weight 160 to 180 pounds) Z Tenderness Panel Animal Z cooking number drip loss Panel Shear Flavor Juiciness Overall Crossbred Barrows: 49-7 3.89 22.58 6.5 50-5 2.60 21.45 8.2 52-11 .70 27.25 6.3 58-9 1.78 23.77 7.2 58-12 1.75 18.77 6.5 Mean 2.14 22.76 6.9 Gilts: 54-1 3.73 22.57 6.2 78-2 .66 23.84 6.4 89-5 1.01 20.27 6.5 92-2 1.01 21.23 7.0 96-4 1.59 24.02 6.1 Mean 1.60 22.39 6.4 Purebred Barrows: 6-6 1.17 18.41 .0 6.2 6.2 12-12 1.02 15.39 .9 5.9 5.7 16-9 1.12 17.76 .6 6.8 7.1 17-11 .22 19.76 .6 6.3 6.8 18-7 .81 21.60 .6 5.8 6.3 Mean 0.87 18.58 .3 6.2 6.4 Gilts: 8-2 2.30 17.78 .5 5.8 6.4 12-1 1.48 19.97 .8 6.2 5.1 15-6 1.47 20.12 .3 6.7 6.0 19-2 1.80 16.99 .3 7.8 6.9 20-2 1.04 16.86 .8 6.6 7.0 Mean 1.62 18.34 6.6 -99- Appendix D. Palatability and cooking loss data of pork ch0ps. (continued) Grogp III (slaughter weight 130 to 150 pounds) Z Tenderness Panel Animal Z cooking number drip loss Panel Shear Flavor Juiciness Overall Crossbred Barrows: 42-8 1.65 18.49 6.3 6.7 6.5 6.8 6.3 50-9 1.51 21.49 7.3 5.7 6.4 7.3 6.3 58-6 1.15 27.55 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.0 58-7 .33 23.62 7 5 7.5 6.3 5.9 6.7 92—8 .69 18.89 7.9 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.8 Mean 1.07 22.01 7.3 7.0 6.7 6.9 6.8 Gilts: 49-2 1.01 20.28 6 6 11.0 6.9 8.1 6.8 54-4 1.30 20.81 7.3 7.0 6.9 7.4 7.1 92-3 2.11 20.00 8.1 7.3 6.6 6.9 7.0 94-3 1.65 19.77 8.0 7.9 7.0 7.4 7.7 92-4 3.21 20.97 7 3 8.8 6.3 7.0 7.0 Mean 1.86 20.37 7.5 8.4 6.7 7.4 7.1 Purebred Barrows: 10-6 .35 20.02 5.3 10.3 6.7 6.3 5.9 12-10 1.93 20.61 6.9 9.6 7.2 6.6 6.8 16-11 2.60 19.73 6.8 9.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 18-6 1.49 17.70 6.8 8.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 19-9 .66 15.94 7.9 6.4 6.8 6.8 7.0 Mean 1.41 18.80 6.7 8.9 6.8 6.6 6.6 Gilts: 10-3 2.00 21.44 5.7 9.2 5.8 6.3 5.8 12-4 1.74 17.49 7.1 9.0 6.7 7.1 7.0 16-1 .86 18.59 7.1 8.4 6.7 7.0 6.9 17-1 1.76 18.16 5.8 9.8 6.4 6.3 6.1 21-1 1.48 20.70 5.8 10.6 6.5 6.3 5.7 Mean 1.57 19.28 6.3 9.4 6.4 6.6 6.3 -100- Appendix D. Palatability and cooking loss data of pork chops. (continued) Group IV (slapghter weight 100 to lZQppounds) Z Tenderness Panel Animal Z cooking number drip loss< Panel Shear Flavor Juiciness Overall Crossbred Barrows: 50-8 1.47 21.69 6.5 8.7 5.8 7.1 6.3 58-8 1.37 18.98 7.5 7.0 5.9 6.2 6.6 58-10 1.83 14.67 6.7 6.4 6.7 5.6 6.4 58-11 1.56 16.33 6.4 7.5 6.7 6.2 6.5 95-5 .20 23.23 7.6 8.6 6.8 7.2 7.2 Mean 1.29 19.98 6.9 7.6 6.4 6.5 6.6 Gilts: 47-1 1.84 21.50 5.7 10.6 6.2 6.3 6.2 54-2 1.40 18.90 7.2 6.0 6.5 6.7 6.4 95-3 1.11 22.35 7.0 10.0 6.9 7.7 6.9 96-1 .91 26.53 6.3 9.9 6.8 6.4 6.4 96-2 .84 22.83 7.8 8.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 Mean 1.22 22.42 6.8 8.9 6.7 6.8 6.6 Purebred Barrows: 12-11 1.61 19.58 7.3 6.5 7.2 6.7 7.1 16-10 2.08 18.94 6.8 9.7 6.0 6.7 6.5 18-4 1.81 18.85 6.9 8.2 6.2 7.3 6.6 19-8 1.52 18.11 6.6 8.6 6.4 6.8 6.4 20-8 1.20 22.09 7.0 8.1 7.0 5.9 6.6 Mean. 1.64- 19.51 6.9 8.2 6.6 6.7 6.6 Gilts: 4-4 1.80 17.00 4.9 9.3 6.0 6.9 5.7 8-5 1.97 22.61 6.5 8.7 7.1 6.8 7.0 12-5 1.69 20.13 6.4 7.7 6.5 6.3 6.1 15-5 1.94 21.48 6.0 9.7 6.5 6.3 6.3 16-5 2.43 23.95 7.2 9.3 6.4 5.6 6.3 Mean 1.97 21.03 6.2 8.9 6.5 6.4 6.3 awe: -101- mumH HIHN NuON msmH man HnNH NumH NumH muNH HuoH man mnNH m-m «-mH H-NH ¢-m ¢nd mnOH Nuw Nnd HwuHHw HmuHHw "muHHw umuHHU N N q N H N m N N m H N m m w 0 Gem: N o o N mION m N o N mumH N m m N anH H o m m dHnaH m N o N wumH H N N N muwH N m m m HHuNH m N m o HHumH N N N N quwH w o m N HHumH w m N N mumH N N c N muwH N N N N oHumH o N o m oHnNH m m m N NHINH a m m m wan m N m N HHnNH H N H m ouoH m o N N mum m o H N wuNH ”mBOHHmm "mechpmm "msohuom "maouumm wounmgsm Goo: Nnom Muqm qnom mnmm Hamm quNm NuNm Hnmm mnmm muNm mumw muNm Nnom quqm anN Huwm Hqu Numq Huem Huom "muHHw HmuHH-U nmuHHw HmuHHu N.N N.N H.N N.N N.N m.N H.N m.N new: m.m m.N mnmm m.N N.N wnNm o.w m.N NH-wm m.N ¢.N oHnNm m.N H.N HHuwm w.m ¢.N Numm N.N m.N mumm o.N m.N mnNm m.N m.N oHuwm m.N m.N mnwm m.m N.N HHnNm w.© q.N MHuwm ¢.N w.o wuwm H.N o.N mnom m.N o.N muom H.N N.© wuNm m.N N.N mnom w.m m.m wan ¢.N ¢.N Numq H.N m.N wqu "mBOHHmm unsouumm unsouumm umzonumm pounmeHo aoomm H.8wm Monasn Goomm 8mm Honesd doomm awm HonESG noomm awm Hogan: HMEHG< Hwafln< Hmawc< Hmafia< .mnH ONHnooH .uB .Hm .mnH omHuomH .uB .Hm .mnH owHuomH .uB .Hm .mnH oHNnomH .uB .Hm >H msouw HHH msouw HH msouw H gsouw muHHHnwuaoooo HHMHo>o wmdoomn mam mama mo meow huHHHboumHmm .m Nwwcomam Munsell color renotation values. Appendix F. lOO-120 lbs. Group IV 81. wt. Animal 130-150 lbs. Group III 31. wt. Animal 160-180 lbs. Group II 31. wt. Animal 190-210 lbs. Group I 81. wt. Animal number Hue Value Chroma number Hue Value Chroma number Hue Value Chroma Chroma number Hue Value Crossbred Barrows 47-8 Barrows: 50-8 Barrows: 42-8 Barrows: 49-7 5.4 2.6 5.9 6.4 7.1 5.7 3.1 6.8 5.6 3.3 5.0 6.5 2.7 7.6 2.7 5.2 3.3 50-5 6.5 5.9 3.4 50-9 6.3 6.0 3.5 58-8 3.0 6.7 52-8 6.0 5.6 2.9 6.5 58-10 5.6 3.2 8.3 58-6 7.4 6.3 6.8 5.7 3.5 52-11 58-9 4.4 58-13 92-6 3.0 6.1 4.0 58-7 5.0 5.3 3.2 58-11 5.6 3.4 3.1 5.5 7.4 8.1 5.2 5.8 2.3 92-8 7.5 5.5 3.3 95-5 5.9 5.2 2.8 58-12 5.4 5.7 92-10 Mean 2.8 5.6 6.4 5.6 3.3 6.8 5.8 3.2 6.2 3.2 6.8 Gilts 47-1 Gilts 49-2 Gilts 54-1 Gilts: 50-1 5.4 3.2 5.6 6.5 5.5 2.9 3.2 5.7 3.4 5.2 6.6 5.7 3.5 6.2 3.1 3.5 54-2 5.0 5.8 54-4 6.5 3.3 7.4 6.0 4.5 6.2 3.1 78-2 58-1 -102- 3.6 92-3 4.6 5.1 3.2 95-3 8.1 4.8 3.0 5.6 7.4 5.5 3.4 89-5 3.1 8.1 92-5 2.8 5.8 4.5 3.0 96-1 5.4 7.0 6.4 5.3 3.2 92-4 5.9 5.8 92-2 7.6 5.5 93-1 2.8 2.7 96-2 5.2 8.8 6.0 5.6 3.6 96-4 3.8 5.3 4.0 96-5 3.0 5.2 5.4 3.1 5.8 5.5 3.5 6.3 3.3 5.7 6.4 an Purebred Barrows 12-8 Barrows 12-11 Barrows 10-6 Barrows 6-6 0 In 5.6 3.1 6.9 5.6 2.7 6.4 4.2 5.7 2.7 5.5 8.1 3.8 5.3 4.7 4.3 12-10 5.2 3.3 16-10 5.0 5.6 3.1 18-4 16-11 18-6 2.9 3.4 12-12 8.0 3.3 16-9 5.1 16-8 5.4 3.0 5.5 7.1 2.8 4.6 7.4 5.1 3.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.8 18-5 3.2 6.4 9.0 3.2 19-8 4.9 4.0 4.9 17-11 18-7 2.9 3.3 5.4 5.9 7.2 19-11 2.6 5.3 5.9 3.1 19-9 7.6 5.8 2.7 20-8 8.4 6.6 7.2 19-14 Mean 5.5 3.0 6.9 5.2 2.9 6.1 3.3 5.3 5.2 3.3 5.7 Gilts: 4-4 8-5 Gilts 10-3 Gilts: 8-2 Gilts: 4-2 5.7 3.4 7.7 5.6 3.6 2.8 4.7 5.3 5.6 3.7 4.5 5.0 5.6 3.3 4.5 3.1 5.4 5.3 5.2 12-4 8.2 2.5 3.0 12-1 5.9 4.7 4.5 5-4 12-6 3.1 3.4 15-6 4.5 5.3 3.6 16-1 7.6 5.8 3.1 12-5 7.5 2.8 5.9 5.0 5.0 2.7 5.0 5.9 3.7 15-5 8.8 5.1 3.1 17-1 5.6 5.8 19-2 5.1 6.0 5.6 15-2 3.1 2.6 16-5 5.9 5.0 3.6 20-2 4.1 4.6 3.5 21-1 6.6 5.4 19-3 5.4 3.1 6.9 5.4 3.1 6.7 5.1 3.3 5.1 5.2 3.2 5.1 Mean ~103- Appendix G. water holding capacity data; Methods I and II. Group I (slaughter weight 190-210 pounds) Method I Method II Z H-ion Z H-ion Animal free conc. free conc. number H20 pH (x107) H20 9H (x1071 Crossbred Barrows: 47—8 60.0 -- -- -- -- -- 52-8 61.2 5.57 25.12 51.0 5.55 25.12 58-13 55.0 5.64 25.12 46.5 5.63 25.12 92-6 62.9 5.50 31.63 48.3 5.65 19.95 92-10 61.1 5.60 25.12 45.9 5.50 31.63 Mean 60.0 Gilts: 50-1 56.6 5.55 25.12 46.7 5.60 25.12 58-1 52.1 5.58 25.12 45.9 5.62 25.12 92-5 59.5 5.59 25.12 43.1 5.53 31.63 93-1 64.4 5.50 31.63 47.1 5.51 31.63 96-5 66.3 5.40 39.81 46.0 5.28 50.13 Mean 59.8 Purebred Barrows: 12-8 52.0 5.82 15.85 43.7 5.83 15.85 16-8 54.5 5.86 12.59 47.5 5.70 19.95 18-5 49.3 5.96 10.00 43.3 5.85 12.95 19-11 53.0 5.56 25.12 47.0 5.71 19.95 19-14 53.8 5.73 19.95 45.6 5.72 19.95 Mean 52.5 Gilts: 4-2 50.3 5.59 25.12 48.3 5.59 25.12 5-4 50.4 5.78 15.85 42.9 5.87 12.59 12-6 50.1 5.81 15.85 42.6 5.86 12.59 15-2 51.3 6.14 7.94 42.9 6.20 6.31 19-3 50.9 5.59 25.12 47.9 5.59 25.12 Mean 50.6 ~104- Appendix G. Water holding capacity data; Methods I and II. (continued) Group II (slaughter weight 160 to 180 pounds) Method I Method II Z H-ion Z H-ion .Animal free conc. free cone 7 . 7 number H70 pppH (x10 ) H20 pd (x10 ) Crossbred Barrows: 49-7 56.4 -- -- -- -- -- 50-5 54.4 -- -- -- -- -- 52-11 55.1 -- -- -- -- -- 58-9 52.6 -- -- -- -- -- 58-12 57.9 5.56 25.12 43.7 5.83 15.85 Mean 55.3 Gilts: 54-1 62.5 -- -- -- -- -- 78-2 66.3 5.55 25.12 44.7 5.68 19.95 89-5 61.7 5.62 25.12 47.3 5.60 25.12 92-2 60.9 5.63 25.12 49.9 5.65 19.95 96-4 61.1 5.45 31.63 48.2 5.50 31.63 Mean 62.5 Purebred Barrows: 6-6 54.9 5.68 19.95 49.1 5.68 19.95 12-12 53.8 6.10 7.94 40.6 6.10 7.94 16-9 52.8 5.80 15.85 46.3 5.80 15.85 17-11 50.6 5.76 15.85 45.5 5.63 25.12 18-7 48.9 5.59 25.12 44.0 5.59 25.12 Mean 52.2 Gilts: 8-2 49.2 5.72 19.95 44.1 5.53 31.63 12-1 49.9 5.88 12.59 42.4 5.73 19.95 15-6 55.6 5.63 25.12 47.8 5.73 19.95 19-2 51.0 5.77 15.85 47.6 5.77 15.85 20-2 49.1 6.12 7.94 44.8 5.96 10.00 Mean 51.0 -105- Appendix G. 'Water holding capacity data; Methods I and II. (continued) Group III (slaughter weight 130 to 150ppounds) Rbthod I ‘Method II Z H-ion Z H-ion Animal free conc. free conc. number H90 pH (x107) H20 pH (x107) Crossbred Barrows: 42-8 68.1 -- -- -- -- -- 50-9 70.7 -- -- -- -- -- 58-6 68.6 -- -- -- -- -- 58-8 64.5 -- -- -- -- -- 92-8 60.8 5.55 25.12 47.6 5.61 25.12 Mean 66.5 Gilts: 49-2 56.0 5.72 19.95 52.9 5.66 19.95 54-4 59.0 -- -- -- -- -- 92-3 59.6 5.76 15.85 51.7 5.62 25.12 92-4 61.7 5.65 19.95 48.8 5.65 19.95 94-3 58.6 5.51 31.63 47.3 5.60 25.12 Mean 59.0 Purebred Barrows: 10-6 59.1 5.62 25.12 46.6 5.70 19.95 12-10 53.0 5.63 25.12 44.4 5.85 12.59 16-11 51.9 -- -- -- -- -- 18-6 49.3 5.94 10.00 45.3 5.90 12.59 19-9 56.8 5.66 19.95 44.5 5.80 15.85 Mean 54.0 Gilts: 10-3 54.0 5.98 10.00 49.8 5.99 10.00 12-4 49.1 -- -- -- -- -- 16-1 53.5 5.77 15.85 44.7 5.70 19.95 17-1 49.6 5.77 15.85 43.2 5.77 15.85 21-1 41.8 5.50 31.63 46.5 5.70 19.95 Mean 49.6 -106- Appendix G. water holding capacity data; Methods I and 11. (continued) Group IV (slaughter weight 100 to 120 pounds) Method I Method II Z H-ion Z H-ion Animal free conc. free conc. number H20 pH (x1072 H20 pH (x107) Crossbred Barrows: 50-8 66.1 -- -- -- -- -- 358-8 64.7 -- -- -- -- -- 58-10 64.2 -- -- -- -- -- 58-11 66.6 -- -- -- -- -- 95-5 65.5 5.58 25.12 49.4 5.71 19.95 Mean 65.4 Gilts: 47-1 75.0 -- -- -- -- -- 54-2 60.1 -- -- -- -- -- 95-3 63.3 5.60 25.12 51.5 5.58 25.12 96-1 61.0 5.62 25.12 49.5 5.62 25.12 96-2 57.9 5.62 25.12 52.7 5.55 25.12 Mean 63.5 Purebred Barrows: 12-11 52.3 -- -- -- -- -- 16-10 50.9 5.78 15.85 45.1 5.64 25.12 18-4 49.3 -- -- -- -- -- 19-8 55.4 5.87 12.59 47.3 5.85 12.59 20-8 53.5 5.61 25.12 49.6 5.53 31.63 Mean 52.3 Gilts: 4-4 53.3 -- -- -- -- -- 8-5 51.9 -- -- —- -- -- 12-5 53.2 -- -- -- -- -- 15-5 55.0 5.90 12.59 44.0 5.80 15.85 16-5 52.9 5.56 25.12 47.0 5.40 39.81 Mean 53.3 -107- o.mN o.mm m.mN m.Nm N.oN o.Nm w.wN o.mm cmoz ©.mN m.Nm mnoH m.wN ¢.om H-HN N.qw m.NoH N:ON m.oN o.NoH mumH m.0N o.mm mumH m.¢m o.wm H-NH m.NN N.NOH Nan q.ow m.Nm NumH N.oN m.HOH muNH «.mN N.mm Han m.wN w.OOH man o.ow N.ooH onNH numN o.ooH mum w.ON o.mm quH o.ow o.ow H-NH N.mN m.moH Hrm m.mN o.ooH quq ©.wN H.mm m-0H m.mN m.wm Nuw w.oN m.mm qu N.NN N.ooH N.NN m.oa o.Hw N.ooH N.Hw N.ooH coo: m.mw w.OOH wION o.Hw H.mm mumH N.mw N.HOH NuwH N.Hw m.HoH anaH o.oN N.Nm mumH m.Nw m.Na ouwH m.NN o.mm HHuNH o.wN H.Nm HHan m.mN 0.00H qan N.mN m.mm HHnoH w.mw H.MOH mamH N.NN m.¢oH man H.0N 0.00H OHan H.NN 0.0m oHuNH 0.0m H.am NHuNH N.ow N.mm wnoH m.mN N.NoH HHuNH N.¢N N.mm oIOH o.ow N.moH cum m.qw m.HoH wuNH m.©N m.Nm m.ow m.OOH m.mw N.ooH H.mw N.ooH coo: H.HN N.¢m Numm m.wN o.ooH muqm o.ww o.HoH Humm m.mw o.ooH mnmm o.mo H.Nm Huom H.HN $.00H ¢uNm w.ow N.Nm N-Nm m.Nw m.moH Hnma m.mo m.mm mnmm N.NN o.am muNm o.mw w.OOH mnmw m.mm 0.0m muNm N.ww N.NoH qum m.mm o.HOH ¢n¢m m.mw o.ooH anN N.mw o.ooH Hnwm H.mm m.NoH HnNd m.¢m m.ooH Nnmq m.mw N.OOH Hu¢m o.¢m w.moH Huom o.qw m.ooH m.wm o.ooH m.mw o.ooH H.Nw o.ooH com: m.Nw m.HOH mnmm m.wN m.¢m wuNm H.Hm m.NoH NHuwm N.mw w.©a OHuNm N.mw q.Nm HHnwm N.Hm o.HOH anm H.mw m.HoH oswm H.Hw w.mm onNm N.mw m.HOH oHuwm 0.0m m.OOH onwm o.mN m.wm HHuNm o.ww H.moH mHnwm N.qw m.HOH mnwm N.ow o.HOH mnom H.0w w.HOH mnom m.wm w.OOH muNm H.mw N.HoH wuom H.om o.NoH wqu q.om N.¢m Namq N.om N.moH wnNd Sb So .oz 3b a 62 ob go 62 oh qt 62 Goomm Sow HmEHd¢ noomm Ema HoEHG¢ fioomm 8mm HMEHS< noomm 8mm HoaHa¢ >H msoww HHH miouw HH msouw H mDOHU maoomn paw mam: Ho mpHlorpoonm .m wacoaa¢ -108- Appendix 1. Composition of grower ration Ingredient Percentage Corn 76.7 Soybean oil meal (44Z protein) 16.0 Meat and bone scraps (SOZ protein) 2.0 Fish meal (6OZ protein) 1.0 Alfalfa (17Z protein) 2.5 Limestone .7 Dicalcium phosphate .3 Trace mineral salt (1) .5 Vitamin B mixture (2) .1 Pfizer 9+ (3) .05 A & D mixture (4) .025 Aurofac 10 (5) .125 100.000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Trace Mineral Salt: .4OOZ manganese; .OllZ iodine; .330Z iron; .048Z c0pper; .022Z cobalt; .800Z zinc. Vitamin B mixture: 2000 mg./1b. Riboflavin; 4000 mg./1b. Pantothenic acid; 9000 mg./1b. Niacin; 8679 mg./1b. Choline. Pfizer 9+: 9 mg./1b. Vitamin B12 A & D mixture: 10,000 I.U. Vitamin A/g.; 1,250 I.U. Vitamin Dz/g. Aurofac 10: 10,000 mg./1b. Aureomycin TM 10: 10,000 mg./1b. Terramycin ~109- Appendix J. Composition of finishing ration Ingredient Percentage Corn 86.3 Soybean oil meal (44Z protein) 7.0 Meat and bone scraps (5OZ protein) 2.0 Fish meal (60Z protein) 1.0 Alfalfa (17Z protein) 2.0 Limestone .7 Dicalcium phosPhate .3 Trace mineral salt (1) .5 Vitamin B mixture (2) .l A & D mixture (3) .025 Aurofac 10 (4) .050 TM 10 (5) .025 100.000 (1) Trace mineral salt: .400Z manganese; .OllZ iodine; .33OZ iron; .048Z c0pper; .022Z cobalt; .800Z zinc. (2) Vitamin B mixture: 2000 mg./1b. Riboflavin; 4000 mg./lb. Pantothen- tic acid; 9000 mg./lb. Niacin; 8679 mg./lb. Choline. (3) A & D mixture: 10,000 I.U. Vitamin A/g.; 1,250 I.U. Vitamin Dz/g. (4) Aurofac 10: 10,000 mg./1b. Aureomycin. (5) TM 10: 10,000 mg./1b. Terramycin. -110- Appendix K. Carcass data sheet. Hog No. Lot No. Breed Sex Date weighed Date slaughtered Date cut Feedlot wt. Slaughter wt. Hot dressing Z 24 hr. shrink lbs. Hot carcass wt. Cold dressing Z 24 hr. shrink Z Cold carcass wt. Cooler shrink lbs. Cooler shrink Z Backfat thickness: lst rib Last rib Average B.F. 7th rib Last lumbar Carcass length Leaf fat & kidney lbs. Viscera lbs. Heart gms. Head (less tongue) lbs. Viscera Z Liver gms. Tongue gms. Ham: Left Right Total Z live wt. Z carcass wt. Untrimmed ham Untrimmed ham (right); Wt. in water gms.; Specific gravity Skinned ham Loin: Rough loin Trimmed loin Marbling score (10th rib) Ares L.D. 10th Last Area fat 10th Last §houlderz N.Y.Shoulder Total lean cuts Belly: Trimmed belly Total primal cuts Trimmings: Fat trimmings Lean trimmings -111- Appendix L. Taste panel evaluation sheet. Preference Test Name Plate No. Date Code Code Code Code Like Like Like Like extremely extremely extremely extremely Like Like Like Like very much very much very much very much Like Like ' Like Like moderately moderately moderately moderately Like Like Like Like slightly slightly slightly slightly Neither like Neither like Neither like Neither like nor dislike Dislike slightly Dislike moderately Dislike very much Dislike extremely Comments: nor dislike Dislike slightly Dislike moderately Dislike very much Dislike extremely Comments: nor dislike Dislike slightly Dislike moderately Dislike very'much Dislike extremely Comments: nor dislike Dislike Slightly Dislike moderately Dislike very'much Dislike extremely Comments: Appendix M. Name Plate No. Directions: -112- Taste panel data sheet (loin chops) Rate each sample as to its Tenderness, Flavor, Juiciness and its 0verall Acceptability. Do not compare samples as each judgement is independent. Determine the suitable Sample Description and write the corresponding numerical Score in the space provided. Sample Description Like extremely Like very much Like moderately Like slightly Neither like nor dislike Dislike slightly Dislike moderately Dislike very muCh Dislike extremely Sample Identification Tenderness Flavor Score 9 8 Juiciness Overall Acceptance -1l3- Appendix N. Consumer's questionaire CONFIDENTIAL Do not sign, this information is for research purposes only. 1. First of all, what is your relationship to your family: Wife , Husband , Child , Maid , Other 2. What are the approximate ages of the heads of your household? Please check the one which fits best. Female head Male head ( ) under 30 yrs. ( ) 46-60 ( ) under 30 yrs. ( ) 46-60 ( ) 30-35 ( ) over 60 ( ) 30-35 ( ) over 60 ( ) 36-45 ( ) 36-45 3. Who does most of the food buying for your family? (Check one) Male head , Female head , Both , Other 4. How many persons are there in your household? That is, how many eat their meals regularly in your home? 5. About how many years of formal education (including elementary) have you completed? yrs. 6. About what is the total income (combined income) of your family? Less than $80 per week $141-200 per week ($7-10,000/yr.) $80-1OO per week($4-5,000/yr) Over $200 per week($10,000/yr.) $101-14O per week($5-7,000/yr.) 7. About how often is fresh pork served in your household? (Any type cut) times a week ( ) 1 time a month ()2 ) 3 ) 2 times a week times a month ) 1 time a week AAA 8. If your selection was based upon one or more of the following factors, please make a check beside it (or them). ( ) size (weight) of cut ( ) Amount of fat ( ) color of cut ( ) none of above 9. Which do you consider as being your home state? (the state in which you Spent the majority of your youth) Thank you for your c00peration. -114- Appendix 0. ‘Water-holding capacity. Tabulation of free moisture area vs. free moisture. Free moisture area Free moisture 3.41 44(sq. in.) 0mg.) (X) (Y) .57 28.1 .60 25.6 .61 26.4 . 72 35.4 1.25 70.3 1.20 59.7 1.29 64.2 1.20 59.7 2.10 104.0 1.70 87.1 1.76 93.0 2.10 108.3 3.11 157.0 3.04 157.7 2.43 124.6 2.44 130.8 3.21 173.9 3.02 155.3 3.30 161.6 171.2 ~115- Appendix P. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of hot and cold ‘ carcass dressing percentages. Mean square Source of variance d.f. Hot dressing Z Cold dressing Z weight group (WC) 3 39.95** 52.26** Breed (B) 1 42.63** 35.65** Sex (S) l 4.14 3.12 B x S l 2.81 4.51 B x WC 3 0.54 2.09 S x WC 3 0.65 0.69 B x S x WC 3 0.03 0.19 Error __64_ 1.62 1.80 Pooled error 74 1.49 1.74 * P'< .05 **P < .01 Appendix Q. Source of variance ‘Weight group (WC) Breed (B) Sex (S) B x S B x WG S x WG B x S x WG Error Pooled error .f. 64 74 -ll6- Mean Z lean cuts (live basis) 8.76* 0.49 76.63** 0.83 0.88 0.29 1.08 3.22. 2.89 Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage of lean cuts on the live and carcass bases. square Z lean cuts (carcass basis) 82.22** 17.77 114.96** 0.00 3.35 2.74 1.17 49.2. 5.50 in" P < .01 I -1l7- Appendix R. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage of primal cuts on the live and carcass basis. ‘Mean square Z primal cuts Z primal cuts Source of variance d.f. (live basis) (carcass basis) weight group (WC) 3 4.32 42.93** Breed (B) 1 0.94 23.43* Sex (S) 1 49.77** 68.63** B x S 1 0.21 0.64 B x WC 3 0.74 3.11 S x WC 3 0.13 1.79 B x S x WC 3 1.34 1.97 Error ‘_§4_ 3.26 4.98 Pooled error 74 2.92 4.59 * P‘< .05 ** P'< .01 -118- Appendix S. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of average back- fat thickness, carcass length, loin eye area, and specific gravity. Mean square Average backfat Carcass Loin eye Specific Source of variance d.f. thickness length area gravipy (x10‘3) weight group (WC) 3 0.9 ** 82.09** 4.2 ** 0.267** Breed (B) 1 0.03 17.58** 0.65* 1.030** Sex (S) 1 0.41** 6.67** 6.01*= 0.495** B x S l 0.01 1.38 0.14 .009 B x WC 3 0.01 0.14 0.17 .001 S x WC 3 0.05 0.35 0.23 .019 B x S x WC 3 0.01 0.47 0.01 .015 Error 64 0.03 0.58 0.14 .021 Pooled error 74 0.026 0.56 0.14 .020 * P4< .05 ex P.< .01 -ll9- Appendix I. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of percentage protein, ether extract and moisture of the rough ham and L. dorsi. ‘Mean square Source of variance d.f. Protein Ether extract Moisture (7°) (7.) (Z) Rough ham: 'weight group (WC) 3 5.90** 222.00** 153.66** Breed (B) 1 31.8 *7 109.87** 24.17 Sex (S) l 13.67** 207.21** 107.50** B x S 1 .08 .46 2.18 B x WC 3 .34 .80 2.69 S x'WC 3 .43 12.26 5.73 B x S x WC 3 .41 18.50 11.42 Error 64 .76 11.57 7.76 Pooled error 74 .70 11.30 7.54 L. doggi: weight group (WC) 3 1.90* 2.66 6.85** Breed (B) 1 88.03** 71.44** 1.87 Sex (S) l .84 12.64** .79 B x S l .14 3.18 .81 B x'WC 3 .007 .07 .22 X x‘WC 3 .31 2.66 1.88 B x S x WC 3 .36 1.65 .71 Error 64 .68 3.36 1.11 Pooled error 74 .62 3.13 1.08 a P < .05 in? P < .01 Appendix U. -120- Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the physical separation data of the rough ham. Mean squares Specific gravity of Source of variance d.f. Z fat Z lean Z skin Z bone bone, (xlO'J) weight group (WC) 227.34** 112.80** 1.83 10.27** 3.032* Breed (B) 40.23 12.26 3.47* 22.02** 4.147* Sex (S) 265.32** 260.97** 0.64 0.49 1.870 B x S 2.22 4.96 0.32 1.77 .548 B x WC 9.67 8.45 0.41 0.39 1.037 S x WC 14.96 4.94 0.54 0.91 .233 B x S x WG 29.08 26.30 0.39 0.07 .090 Error ._14;§9 13.80 .gng 0.68 .588 Pooled error 14.65 13.61 0.73 0.66 .571 * P < .05 ** P < .01 -121- Appendix V. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of taste panel test scores and percentages of smoked yield for smoked hams and bacons. Mean squares Taste panel scores Zpyield Source of variance d.f. Hams Bacons Hams Bacons 'weight group (WC) 3 0.26 0.08 10.61 102.98** Breed (B) 1 0.52 0.97 26.68 571.92** Sex (S) l 0.04 0.15 12.01 159.27* B x S l 0.01 0.02 0.99 19.67 B x WC 3 0.37 0.45* 17.17 4.67 S x WC 3 0.04 0.16 8.34 14.28 B x S x WC 3 0.07 0.07 6.74 45.55 Error _§£;_ ‘Qggg .leg ‘lngi 24.06 Pooled error 74 0.19 -- 12.26 23.69 * Pi< .05 ** Pi< .01 -122- mmOH onxooo Headmaoumma moumsom com: 0N.m 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.H an Henna 0eHooa NNJN. Hmam. .qum NHJN. HHJN. NNJH. mm. 00000 N0.e 00.0 N0.0 00.0 Hm.0 “0.0 m 03 x m x m HN.A 00.0 H0.0 0H.0 00.0 000.0 m 02 x m H0.0 0H.0 NH.0 NH.0 0N.0 0N.H m 02 x m 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H H m x m 0H.N 00.0 HH.0 H0.0 0N.H reH0.0H H A00 x00 ..H0.0NH .aem.N 00.0 00.0 r00.“ ar0N.eH H A00 00000 00.H 00.0 N0.0 mm.0 N0.0 0N.0 0 H030 0:000 newHaz ANM. HHmuo>o mmooHoHoh Ho>mHm mmoahopaoH H0050 ml: .H.p :oHumHHm> Ho wousom .mefio xHoa nHoH Hmoum mo mmoH waonoo Ho mowmuaoouum paw moHumHHouomHmso NHHHHnwumHmQ mDOHHm> Ho oocoHHm> Ho mehHmam onu ECHH moHMSUm new: .3 praommm -123- Appendix X. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the surface color renotations of hue, value and chroma of fresh pork chops. Mean squares Source of variation d.f. Hue Value Chroma weight group (WC) 3 1.76 0.01 0.53** Breed (B) 1 1.17 0.19 0.00 Sex (S) 1 2.41 0.40 0.09 B x S l 0.03 1.56** 0.03 B x WC 3 2.88 0.74** 0.08 S x WC 3 0.56 0.08 0.03 B x S x'WC 3 2.18 0.25 0.13 Error __64_ “1:93 lgglg ‘lefl Pooled error 74 1.90 1.56 0.13 ** Pi< .01 -124- Appendix Y. Mean squares from the analysis of variance of the water- holding capacity (Method I) of L, dorsi muscles expressed in terms of percentage of free moisture. Source of variation d.f. Mean squares Weight groups (WC) 3 46.98 Breed (B) 1 1831.70** Sex (S) 1 26.22 B x S 1 5.09 B x WC 3 21.52 S x WC 3 68.34 B x S x WC 3 36.98 Error _64_ 11.29 Pooled error 74 14.97 ** P < .01 mom ass 0va RG' "I7'11111117.1111111ITS