T h is is to c e r tify th a t th e
th e s is e n title d

1IETF0DS FOR ESTIMATING CARCASS
CHARACTERISTICS IN REEF

p re s e n te d b y

Leon Edwin Orme

has b e e n a c c e p te d to w a rd s f u lf illm e n t
o f th e re q u ire m e n ts fo r
Ph«D>

d e g re e in

A n»

H usb,

M a jo r p ro fe s s o r

Date May 21, 1958_______

0 -1 6 9

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS IN BEEF

By
LEON EDWIN ORME

AN ABSTRACT

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Animal Husbandry

1958

Approved .

Af.

y

ABSTRACT
One of the handicaps in improvement of beef cattle is the
lack of an accurate method of measuring carcass traits in breeding
stock*

In the past, most improvement has been made through visual

evaluation, but accuracy in prediction of carcass traits by visual
methods is at best limited*

The objectives of this study were first

to correlate objective and subjective live animal measurements with
carcass attributes, and secondly, working with certain cuts of meat,
to evaluate and develop objective measures of muscling, marbling
and tenderness*
High repeatability estimates were obtained between both the
various live animal and carcass measurements studied, while good
agreement was found between the two subjective methods of live
animal evaluation*

Certain subjective and objective measurements

were highly associated with various carcass measurements studied
and also with carcass grade.

However, the objective live animal

measurements were found to be more highly related in most instances*
The relationship between objective and subjective live animal
scores was found to be quite low in most cases.
Live animal circumference measurements of hind and fore
flanks and circumference of middle were most highly related to
rib-eye area, and with the effects of live weight removed circum­
ference of fore flank accounted for 8l percent of the variation
in rib-eye area.

Rib-eye area was also found to be highly related

to such carcass measurements as width of shoulders, width of
rump and width of round*

The width and circumference measure­

ments of the fore and hind cannons were associated with 15 to 25
percent of the variation in rib-eye area when the effects of live
weight were eliminated.

Radiographic measurements of the dorsal

and lateral view of the lumbar vertebrae disclosed that the width
of the body of the lumbar vertebrae and width of the vertical
processes, accounted for 22 to 20 percent of the variation in
rib-eye area.

When live weight was held constant, the width of

the transverse processes and height of the anterior articular
processes were equally as good.
Specific gravity of the Longissimus dorsi muscle of the
9-10-11 rib section was determined in order to test the usefulness
of specific gravity as an objective measure of marbling.

A correla­

tion coefficient of - . 8 1 and a regression equation of -413*50 with
a standard error of 1.20 was obtained with percent fat in the ribeye on specific gravity.

No definite relationship was evident be­

tween blood fat levels and measures of degree of finish or amount
of muscling.

Using the Longissimus dorsi muscle and comparing

the various measures of tenderness, good agreement was obtained
between hot and cold shear values and chew count, while muscle
fiber extensibility seemed to be more highly influenced by the
amount of intramuscular fat.

METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS IN BEEF

BSr
LEON EDWIN ORME

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Animal Husbandry
1958

ProQuest Number: 10008586

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

uest
ProQuest 10008586
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Sincere thanks and appreciation are extended to Dr. A. M.
Pearson, Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry for the guidance
incentive and assistance which he has rendered to the author for
the completion of this study.
The author also wishes to extend appreciation to Professor
L. J. Bratzler, Dr. R. J. Deans and Dr. G. A. Branaman for their
suggestions and assistance in setting up the project, to Dr. W. T
Magee for his statistical advice and to Dr. A. C. Wheeler, radio­
logist.

His thanks are also extended to Mrs. Dora Spooner, Mrs.

Beatrice Eichelberger, Mr. Larry K. Johnston, Dr. William E.
Townsend and Mr. Robert L. Saffle for their assistance.
In addition he wishes to thank his wife for the encourage­
ment and sustenance she has given, to his children for their
understanding and also to his parents for their inspiration in
this regard.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION............................................. 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Growth and Body Measurements. • • • • •

............

4

Live Animal Measurements.............................. 5
Grade................................................. 9
9-10-11 Rib Analysis................................. 10
Specific Gravity..................................... 10
Blood Fat............................................ 11
Cannon Bones......................................... 12
Tenderness.............

13

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Source of Material.................................. 18
Subjective Live Animal Evaluation.................... 18
Adjusted Live Animal Evaluation................... 19
Unadjusted Live Animal Evaluation. . . . . . . . .

20

Objective Live Animal Evaluation..................... 23
Weighing......................................... 23
Measurements...................................... 23
Slaughter and Carcass Data........................... 36
Slaughter.

..................................... 36

Carcass

Photographs.............................. 39

Carcass

Measurements............................ 4-2

Grading

and Estimated Marbling....................4-3

Cutting

Tests.................................... 43

Page
Bone Studies...................................... 44
X-Rays............................................ 46
Specific GravityExperimental Ribs.

......................... 50

Specific Gravity Determination.................... 50
Grinding and Chemical Analysis.................
Blood Fat Determination.

51

.................... 51

Tenderness
Preparation...................................... 51
Mechanical Shear Values...............

52

Muscle Extensibility.............................. 53
Number of Chews.
Statistical Analysis.

............................. 55
.......................

55

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Subjective Live Animal Evaluation
Comparison of Subjective Scores................... 56
Comparison of Unadjusted Scores and Live Animal
Measurement®...................................... 60
Comparison of Unadjusted Scores and Carcass
Measurements........ • • • • • • • ................ 60
Comparison of Adjusted and Unadjusted Scores to
Carcass Grade.

............................. 62

Objective Live Animal Evaluation
Repeatability Estimates for Live Animal Measure­
ments.

....................................... 65

Page
Comparison of Live Animal and Photographic Measure­
ments............................................. 67
Comparison of Objective Live Animal and Carcass
Measurements...................................... 70
Comparison of Objective Animal Measurements to
Carcass Grade........ . ........................... 73
Relationship of Live Animal Measurements to Ribeye Area.......... ..........

75

Relationship of Various Live Animal Measurements
to Live Animal Weight.................

77

Relationship of Live Animal Measurements With
Primal Cuts.............

79

Relationship Between Various Live Animal Measure­
ments and Weights of Various Wholesale Cuts. . . • 8l
Carcass Evaluation
Repeatability Estimates for Carcass Measurements. .91
Comparison of Carcass and Carcass Hhotographic
Measurements. . . . . .

........................

93

Relationship Between Carcass Measurements and Ribeye Area, Live Weight and Percent Primal Cuts. . . 95
Relationship of Rib-eye Area to Percent of Various
Carcass Parts............................. . . . . 9 7
Relationship of Animal Weight With Weights of
Carcass Parts............ * ....................... 99
Cannon Bones

Page
Degree of Muscling.

....................... 101

Breaking Moments................................... 106
X-Rays.......................................
Specific Gravity.

.109

.................... 114-

Blood Fat............................................. 122
Tenderness
124

Longissimus dorsi Muscle........................
Semit endinosis Muscle.

.................

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

129
.134

LITERATURE CITED......................................... 139
APPENDIX................................................. 146

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Adjusted and
Unadjusted Scores for the Same Subjective Live Animal
Measurement

57

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Various Live Animal
Measures and Actual Dressing Percentage, Rib-eye Area
and Fat over 12th Rib with Appraisal of the Live Animal
by the Unadjusted Method
59
Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Linear Carcass
Measurements and Unadjusted Live Animal Scores. . . .
6l
Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Carcass Grades
and Adjusted and Unadjusted Live Animal Evaluation. • 63
Repeatability Estimates for Live Steer Measurements. • 66
Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Various Live
Animal Measurements and Measurements Taken from Live
Animal Photographs...............................

68

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Linear Carcass
and Live Animal Measurements.......................... 71
Correlation Coefficients Between Carcass Grade and
Various Live Animal Measurements. . . . . ........

•

7^

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of Rib-eye
Area With Live Weight and Various Live Animal Measure­
ments, and Standard Partial Regression Coefficients
with Weight Constant. ..............................
76
Correlation Coefficients Between Various Live Animal
Measurements and Percent Primal Cuts.............

80

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the
Weight of the Wholesale Rib with Live Weight and
Various Live Animal Measurements, and Standard Partial
Regression Coefficients with Weight Constant. . . . .
83
Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the
Weight of the Wholesale Sirloin plus Round with Live
Weight and Various Live Animal Measurements, and
Standard Partial Regression Coefficients with Live
Weight Constant.

86

Page
13*

Simple and Multiple Correlatinn Coefficients of the
Weight of the Wholesale Shortloin with Live Weight
and Various Live Animal Measurements, and Standard
Partial Regression Coefficients with Live Weight
held Constant.............................. . . . .

88

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the
Weight of the Wholesale Chuck with Live Weight and
Various Live Animal Measurements, and Standard
Partial Regression Coefficients with Live Weight
held Constant...................... ...............

90

15-

Repeatability Estiamtes for Carcass Measurements. •

92

16.

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Actual
Carcass Measurements and Measurements Taken from
Carcass Photographs................................

94

Correlation Coefficients Between Various Carcass
Measurements and Rib-eye Area, Live Weight and
Percent Primal Cuts................................

96

Simple Correlaion Coefficients of Rib-eye Area with
Percent of Hind and Fore Quarters, Percent Primal
Cuts, Percent Wholesale Cuts and Percent Semitendinosis and Psoas Major..............................

98

14.

17*

l8.

19*

Correlation Coefficients of Live Animal Weight with
Weights of Wholesale Cuts and Psoas Major and
Semitendinosis Muscle.............................. 100

20.

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Various Cannon
Bone Measurements with Primal Cut Weights, Percent
Primal Cutsand Estimated Percent of Carcass
Lean. ® 102

21.

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficientsof Ribeye Area with Live Weight and Various Measurements
of the Fore and Hind Cannon Bones, and Standard
Partial Regression. • .......... • ..............

104

22.

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Breaking
Moments of Fore and Hind Cannons and Shear Values. • 108

23.

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of
Rib-eye Area with Live Weight and Various Average
Lumbar Vertebrae Measurements, Also Standard
Partial Regression Coefficients with Live Weight
Constant.........................................

110

Page
24*

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Various
Measurements of the Transverse Processes of the
Lumbar Vertebrae with Cannon Bone Weight and
Weight of Bone and Percent Bone in 9-10-H Pib
Section............................................ 113

23* Mean and Range for Various Measures By Grades. • •

115

26. Correlation Coefficients of Specific Gravity with
Chemical Analysis and Grade.............

117

27* Simple Correlation Coefficients of Blood Fat with
Various Measures of Finish and Muscling. • • * • .

123

28. Analysis of Variance for Various Measures of Tender­
ness Using Longissimus dorsi Muscle................ 125
29*

Correlation Coefficients Between Measures of Tender­
ness of Longissimus dorsi Muscle, Chemical Analysis,
Subjective Quality Evaluation, Cooking Losses and
Breaking Moments of Cannon Bones ................... 126

30.

Analysis of Variance for Various Measures of Tender­
ness Using the Semitendinosis Muscle. • • • • • • . 130

31.

Correlation Coefficients With Various Measures of
Tenderness for Semitendinosis Muscle, Grade, Percent
Cooking Loss and Breaking Moments of the Cannon
Bones..................
132

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.

Adjusted Live Animal Score Sheet . • . . ..........21

2.

Unadjusted Live Animal Score Sheet ........

3*

Measuring Devices............... •• .............. 23

4.

Width of Shoulder

5*

Width of Rib Over Crops. • • • • • • .............. 28

6.

Body Length............................... . . 2 9

7*

Height at Hump..................

31

8.

Rump to Hocks..............................

32

9-

Length of Hind Leg.

...22

.............................26

.......................3^

10.

Circumference of Fore Leg Above Elbow..............35

11.

Spring of Rib

12.

Photographic Measurements..................

13*

Side View of Carcass..............................40

14.

Back View of Carcass........................

41

15*

Dorsal View Lumbar Vertebrae................

.47

16.

Lateral View Lumbar Vertebrae.

17*

Regression of Percent Fat on Specific Gravity.

■. 37
38

................49
• .119

1 8 . Regression of Percent Water on Specific Gravity.

.120

19. Regression of Percent Protein on Specific Gravity.121

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Page
I A.

Live Animal Evaluation - Adjusted.................. 146

I B.

Live Animal Evaluation - Unadjusted..............

lk7

I

B. Live

Animal Evaluation - Unadjusted Con't. . . . .

I

C. Live

Animal Evaluation - Body Measurements • • •

• IA9

1

Cm Live

Animal Evaluation - Body Measurements Con't

. 150

I

Cm Live

Animal Evaluation - Body

. 151

I D.

Measurements Con't

148

Live Animal Evaluation - Repeatability of Body
Measurements .................................... 152

I D.

Live Animal Evaluation - Repeatability of Body
Measurements Con't................................ 153

I D.

Live Animal Evaluation - Repeatability of Body
Measurements Con't................................ 15^

I D*

Live Animal Evaluation - Repeatability of Body
Measurements Con't.

I E.

...............

.155

Live Animal Evaluation - Photograph Measurements

• 156

II A.

Slaughter Data....................

157

II B.

Carcass Data...................................... 15&

II B.

Carcass Data Con't................................ 159

II C.

Carcass Data Repeatability of Measurements......... 160

II D. Carcass Data - Cutting T e s t s ......................l6l
II E.

Carcass Data - Percent Wholesale Cuts........

* • 162

III A.

Chemical & Physical Analysis.......................163

III A.

Chemical & Physical Analysis Con't................. l6k

Page
III B. Chemical Analysis.................................. 1 6 5
III C. Bone Studies.......................................166
III C.

Bone Studies Con't .................................167

IV A. Tenderness Studies.

........................... 168

INTRODUCTION
One of the handicaps in improvement of beef cattle is the
lack of an accurate method of measuring carcass traits in breed­
ing stock.

In the past, most improvement has been made through

visual evaluation, but accuracy in prediction of carcass traits
by visual methods is at best limited.

Progeny testing and evalua­

tion of parents and sibs by the carcasses of related animals is
necessarily slow and does not always give a true evaluation of each
animal, since inheritance is variable, even when the same mating
is repeated.

With changes in market demands, there has been more

and more emphasis placed on inherent muscling and freedom from ex­
cessive fatness.

This same problem has been of great concern to

the swine producer with efforts being directed toward production
of a meat type hog.

However, the problem is equally acute in the

production of superior beef cattle.
In the past, major emphasis has been placed on either the use
of visual estimates in evaluation of cattle from birth to slaught­
er, or solely on the evaluation of the carcass with no particular
attempt to relate carcass traits to those of the live animal.
Without a combination of these two aspects, it is impossible to
relate one to the other or to be able to ascertain which traits
are accurately appraised in the live animal and which in turn are
carried over to the carcass.

Clark (195^0 presented the following

estimates of heritability which pertain to beef cattle production
for such important items as birth weight — 71*6, gain in the feed

2

-

lot - 60.4, final feed lot weight - 84*0, dressing percentage 72.7 and area of the eye muscle - 67*0*

Such heritability esti­

mates of these important traits indicate that greater progress
could be made towards producing the type of cattle

which are pro­

duced most economically and yet hang up a heavier, more desirable
carcass, if such traits could be accurately identified and measured
in the live animal.
Another perplexing problem in evaluation of the beef carcass
is a definition and measure of quality.

Quality includes such items

as marbling; color, texture, and firmness of lean; color and porosity
of bone; and color and firmness of fat.

In many cases, marbling is

used synonymously with quality in beef.

The ultimate grade of the

carcass usually will be determined by the amount of marbling when
conformation and finish are adequate with other factors remaining
constant*

Many of the desirable characteristics in meat have been

attributed to this quality factor.

Therefore, with so much emphasis

being placed on this trait, it would be extremely useful to have
simple accurate measures of marbling.
Tenderness of meat has received considerable emphasis, and
this will probably be true until carcasses can be tenderized by
chemical or physical methods or until improvement in all carcasses
can be achieved through breeding.

The achievement of increased

tenderness through breeding would be greatly facilitated if live
animal measurements could be used for prediction.
The objectives of this study were, first, to correlate object­
ive and subjective live animal measurements with carcass attributes,

-

3

-

and second, working with certain cuts of meat, to evaluate and
develop certain objective measures of marbling and tenderness.

-

b

-

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
GROWTH AND BODY MEASUREMENTS
Many workers have studied growth in farm animals using extern­
al body measurements and live weight changes as a criterion on which
to base their judgement.

These workers include Meek (1901), Brody

and Ragsdale (192*f), and Lush(1928), who found that during the post­
natal stage of growth, live weight increased at a much faster rate
than any body measurement.

Measurements of the skull, followed

by height over the shoulders and rump, increased at a much slower
rate than the various measurements affected by an increase in
muscle and fat mass, which would include circumference and width
of heart girth.

Furthermore, the head, the limbs and fore quarters

are relatively better developed at birth than the hind quarters,
after birth a gradient of increasing growth rate passes from the
head backwards to the pelvic region, thus, the length and width
measurements of the hind quarters, such as, the length and width
of the pelvis increases proportionately faster than the measure­
ments about the head and fore quarters.

It was deducted from the

above facts that the skeleton was relatively better developed at
birth than muscle or fat, which in the full grown animal make
up the greatest proportion of weight.
Hammond (1932a), who dissected complete bodies of sheep from
birth to four years old, confirmed the work of the earlier workers
and also outlined in some detail the fundamental principles under­
lying developmental changes occurring in various anatomical regions

-

5

-

and within the major tissues and organs of the body from birth to
maturity.

He showed that the developmental changes in the animal

are caused by a primary growth wave from the cranium down to the
facial parts of the head and posteriorally to the lumbar region.
A secondary growth rate also was found to begin at the lower parts
of the limbs (metacarpals and metatarsals) and continues down to
the digits and upwards along the limbs and trunk to the lumbar re­
gion.

The lumbar region was the last part of the body to attain

its maximum growth and consequently, was the latest maturing part
of the animal.

These findings were later confirmed by McMeekan
i
«
(19^0, 19^1) working with pigs, Palsson and Verges (1952) and

Wallace (19^8) working with sheep, who employed the technique of
Hammond using relatively large numbers of animals.

Dissection of

cattle from birth to maturity is lacking, but the above workers
feel that cattle follow growth changes similar to sheep.
LIVE ANIMAL MEASUREMENTS
Scoring live beef cattle subjectively, when small differences
are present in the population being studied, has been reported by
Knapp et_ al. (1939) to be of doubtful value.

Repeatedly, slaughter

tests of progeny of two different sires proved to show differences,
whereas, the visual appraisal of the same animals by judges previous
to slaughter had shown no significant differences.
Live animal measurements have been used extensively with beef
cattle to evaluate individual performance and production.

Such

factors as birth weight, weaning weight and grade, rate and effi­

-

6

-

ciency of gain, weight at the close of the feeding period, and
slaughter weight and grade have been found important items in
performance studies (Black et_ al. 1936, Black 193$, Knapp et_ ai.
19^1, Knapp et al. 19^+2, Knapp and Clark 1950)«

Also, certain

linear body measurements have been taken as an index to the growth
and fattening process of the beef animals while few other studies
have been carried to the post slaughter stage and correlated with
certain carcass characteristics and cutting tests.

With the ex­

ception of the last phase, namely the relating of the live animal
to the carcass, the available literature is voluminous.
The literature reviewed here will include only that which is
related to live animal measurements and evaluation of the carcass.
Lush (1928, 1929) who has studied and applied live animal measure­
ments extensively, realized the limitations of such appraisal.

He

was only able to obtain maximum duplication of measurements on the
live animal when measuring the rigid skeletal structures.

However,

from a standpoint of meat production, the conformation of the rest
of the body and of the soft tissues are of greatest importance.
This, he found was impossible to "describe in a mathematical sense
with anything like completeness*1 and suggested that possibly photo­
graphs or some other media would add more than linear measurements.
Lush (1928) and Tallis et_ al. (1937) listed, in common, the follow­
ing live animal measurements which possessed a high degree of re­
peatability: heart girth, paunch girth, depth of chest, and height
at withers and rump.

Lush also listed cannon bone circumference,

-

7

-

width at hooks and pelvic width to be quite highly repeatable
while chest width, loin width, body length and width of pins
were quite poor.
Smith et al* (1950) reported high repeatability for the four
measurements studied, namely, length of body, height at withers,
depth of chest and from “patella to patella".

Estimates of re­

peatability in this study, which included three age groups, varied
from .f?46 to .8 9 8 .

The same measurements of the same animals were

taken from photographs, where the repeatability ranged from .7 2 6
to .844.
Heart girth has been found to be highly correlated with live
weight in both dairy and beef cattle (Johnson, 1940; Lush, 1928,
1929; Barton, 1 9 3 8 ; Wanderstock and Salsbury, 1946; and Kidwell,
1955)*
Severson and Gerlaugh (1917), Lush (1932), Hankins and Beard
(1944) and Yao, Dawson and Cook (1953) have reported that width,
depth and circumference measurements are mainly fleshing measure­
ments, which reflect quite highly the amount of finish which a
particular steer or sheep possesses.

These measures should then

indicate to some extent the ultimate grade of the animal.

Large

fleshy measurements but small bony measurements indicate a steer
which is fatter and more heavily muscled than other steers of
the same skeletal dimensions according to the findings of Lush
(1932).

He stated that between these measurements, width at hooks

was the best estimate of degree of finish.

It was stated by

Knapp et al. (1946) that weight of the live animal accounts for

- 8 -

a large amount of the variation in live animal scores and ulti­
mately the grade of the carcass.

Severson and Gerlaugh (1917)

stated that the hind quarters are more indicative than the fore
quarters when determining the gaining capacity of an animal.
The relationship of various live animal measurements in beef
cattle and lambs to their subsequent slaughter grade and dressing
percentage has been studied by a great many investigators (Lush,
1932; Hankins and Beard, 19**-*M Cook, Kohli and Dawson, 1931; Yao,
Dawson and Cook, 1933; Green, 195*0»

Lush (1932), Cook et al.

(193l)i Yao et al.(1933)> Green (193*0 and Kidwell (1953) stated
that a positive relationship exists between carcass grade and
dressing percentage with the so called '•fleshing11 measurements
which include primarily body width and depth measurements.

How­

ever, most of the correlations obtained were quite low as far as
predictive value was concerned, but high enough to be of selective
value in a long time breeding program*

Lush (1932) stated that

the steers possessing the smallest bone measurements and having
the greatest thickness had the highest yield.

Cook at al. (1951)

found steers with shortest legs and bodies and having less height
at withers and chest tended to have the highest dressing percent.
Cook, Kohli and Dawson (1951)1 White and Green (1952), Green
et al.(1955)i Dawson et al.(1955) and Tallis et al. (1957) have
studied the relationship between body measurements of the live beef
animal and carcass traits.

Branaman (19*+0), Henneman (19*1-2) and

Ljungdahl (19*f2) have made similar studies in lamb and mutton.

-

9

-

Live animal weight was the best single measurement of the subsequent
weight of the wholesale cut, (Ljungdahl, 19*+2; Green and White, 1951;
Green, 195^5 Green, Jessup and White, 1955) while various width and
depth measurements of the live animal were also quite highly asso­
ciated with the weight of the wholesale cut.

Body length measure­

ments were not as high in predictive value.
Correlation coefficients calculated between size of rib-eye
and the ratio of weight to height or weight to length were found
by Tallis _£t_ al. (1957) to be highly significant.

The relation­

ship between these two ratios and the edible portion were each
significantly but negatively correlated.

Ljungdahl (l9**-2) found

a direct relationship between size of eye muscle with growth rate
and average width over the rack and loin in the live lamb, while
circumference at the twist was the best indication of rib-eye
size in the carcass.

He also measured the spinous processes of

the shoulder, rack and loin and found that the lengths were not
closely related to the weights of the respective wholesale cuts.
Hankins et al. (19**3) and Yao et al. (195*0 studied the relation­
ship of various live animal measurements with the muscle-bone
ratios of the 9-10-11 rib section in beef cattle.

It was general­

ly concluded that the relationships found were relatively low
and of little value for predictive purposes.
GRADE
McMeekan and Walker (1950) outlined a score card, including
such items as marbling, color, texture of muscle, color and texture

-

10

-

of fat, and fat covering over rib for the visual appraisal of
carcass beef.

Woodward et al. (195*0 found that a higher correla­

tion existed between grade and fat covering than between grade and
rib-eye size.

Cook ^t al. (1951) working with beef cattle, and

Ljungdahl (19*^2) working with lambs, found the shorter legged and
shorter bodied animals tended to grade higher than the more rangy
ones.
9-10-11 RIB ANALYSIS
The 9-10-11 rib section of the wholesale rib in beef has been
used extensively in estimating the total amount of fat, lean and
bone in the carcass.

This was based on the early findings of Lush

^t al. (1929)» which was later verified by Hopper jelb al. (19^*0,
that the percentage of fat in the wholesale rib was an accurate
indication of the total fat percent in the carcass.

Hankins and

Howe (l9*+6) correlated the separable fat, lean and bone from the
9-10-11 rib section to the same components of the whole carcass*
The correlation coefficients were sufficiently high that they cal­
culated regression equations from their data, which have been used
extensively by other workers.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Working with 50 guinea pigs of both sexes, Rathbun and Pace
(19^5) found that the relationship between the actual and theoreti­
cal values of carcass specific gravity and body fat were high ( r =
•972 ).

They expressed the relationship in the following formula:

* Fat = 100 ( | ^ 6 | r< - 4.88 )

11

-

Using the previous equation, they derived a second equation to
correct the specific gravity of the eviscerated carcass to that
of the whole animal*

This equation follows:

* Fat = (fe^L. " 5-051 >
Specific gravity has been used quite extensively with pork and has
proven itself as a reliable measure of carcass fatness.

Brown et

al*(1951)* Whiteman et al* (1953)» Pearson et al. (1956) and Price
et al* (1 9 5 7 ) have reported the use and validity of specific grav­
ity as a measure of leanness of pork carcasses and various whole­
sale cuts.

Its use with beef has been more restricted.

Breiden-

stein et al. (1 9 5 5 )* working with beef ribs, that varied from high
Good to low Prime in grade, used specific gravity as an objective
measure of marbling in the rib-eye.

They stated that little re­

lationship existed between subjectively evaluated marbling and
ether extract of the rib-eye.
the

Cole et al. (1957) also worked with

rib section from 5 0 beef ribs ranging in grade from

Prime to Commercial cow.

They reported that percent chemically

determined fat and specific gravity are inversely related, while
percent protein was directly related to specific gravity.

They

stated that a correlation between specific gravity and beef qual­
ity was indicated from their results, although the relationship
was not reported.
BLOOD FAT
Allen (1 9 3 8 ) described a simple, accurate, volumetric method
for the determination of fat in blood plasma.

When he related

12

-

this determination to the plasma of dairy cattle, he reported that
the fat content of the plasma was not highly related to the produc­
tive ability of the cow nor to the fat content of milk.

Morrow

et al. (1956) have studied the relationship of blood fat content
as a possible method for determining body composition in the market
hog.

They reported that a significant negative correlation existed

between plasma fat content and area of the rib-eye as measured at
the 10th rib.

They also stated that factors, such as temperature

and time of day, may influence the results obtained.
CANNON BONES
Bone growth in length takes place earlier in the life of an
individual than does growth in thickness.

Hammond (1932a) and

»

Palsson (1939* 19**0) reported that increased thickness in bone is
directly associated with breed improvement for increased meat prot

duction and early maturity.

Palsson (1939* 19*^0) further observed

that short fore cannons having a thick shaft and fine extremities
are associated with early maturity, whereas cannons with long
slender shafts and coarse ends indicate later development and in­
ferior

carcass quality.

He also found thefore cannons to be the

best index of weight of bone and shape of bone in the carcass.
Hirzel

(1939) reported that shortening and

thickening of the

cannon

is associated with a thickening and

shortening of muscle

covering in sheep.

Ljungdahl (19**2) stated that, although the

short legged compact animal was most desired and graded higher
than the longer legged lamb, the lamb with the longest legs had

-

13

-

the highest percent of leg*
TENDERNESS
Tenderness is probably the characteristic most desired in
meat.

Various subjective measurements have been suggested and

used.

Today, additional emphasis is being placed on the heredity,

environment and nutrition of the animal in order to find possible
relationships existing between these items and tenderness.
There seems to beat present some question as to the possible
factors which may affect tenderness.

Lehmann (1907), Mitchell,

Hamilton and Haines (1928), Mackintosh:, Hall and Vail (1936) and
Cover (1937) have all reported a possible relationship existing
between tenderness and the amount of connective tissue which is
found in meat.

Lehmann (1907) further postulated the use and dis­

use theory of muscle tissue as directly related to the amount of
connective tissue present in a given muscle.

Mitchell et al.(l928)

however, observed that age of the animal did not appear to cause
a significant increase in the amount of connective tissue.

If

tenderness of meat was wholly determined by the amount of connec­
tive tissue present then it would seem reasonable that cooked
meat would be more tender, since Bell _et al. (19^1) reported that
cooked meat in nearly all cases studied, contained less connective
tissue than raw meat*

However, this relationship does not appear

to exist since Warner (1929) and Ramsbottom et al. (19*^5) and
other workers have found raw meat to be more tender than similar
samples which have been cooked.

Winegarden et al. (1952), working

- 14 -

with connective tissue samples which contained collagen, elastin,
and a mixture of the two types, found the critical softening temp­
erature for connective tissue was near the temperature of 65°C,
and that the tenderness of meat was influenced more by the collagen
present than by the elastin present.
The muscle fiber itself has also been investigated as a possible
index to tenderness of meat.

Moran and Smith (1 9 2 9 ) observed that

the diameter of the individual muscle fiber and the area of the pri­
mary and secondary bundles increased in the following order: tender­
loin, the eye muscle, outside round, and finally the inside round,
which had muscle fibers of the greatest diameter.

Hiner et al.(1955)

studied the relationship of tenderness to fiber diameter of nine
different muscles taken from ten-week old calves to nine year old
cows.

They reported a consistent average fiber diameter increase

with age for all samples studied and a general trend for the muscle
fiber diameter to

decrease with increased muscle activity.

The re­

sults as reported

by Brady(1937) are somewhat contradictory, inso­

much as he found that fineness of muscle texture indicated tenderness
and that the larger the muscle bundle was, the finer the texture.
Ramsbottom jat al. (1945) and Winegarden et_ al. (1952) attri­
buted the decrease in muscle tenderness upon cooking to denaturation and coagulation of the muscle fiber proteins.

Ramsbottom et al.

(1 9 4 5 ) further concluded that the shrinking and the hardening of
the muscle fibers

also contributed to cooked meat being less tender

than the uncooked

raw meat sample.

Wang et al. (1956) also studied the muscle fiber in relation

- 15 -

to its possible influence upon tenderness of meat.

They correl­

ated the degree of muscle fiber extensibility of the Longissimus
dorsi and Semitendinosis muscles with the degree of tenderness.
Correlation coefficients of - . 3 6

( P =

.05 ) and -.45 were ob­

tained between muscle fiber extensibility and shear strength for
the Longissimus dorsi and Semitendinosis muscles, respectively.
However, the muscles used came from beef graded Prime through
Commercial.
In order to integrate the dual effect which connective tissue
and the muscle fiber might have upon meat tenderness, Wang, Rasch,
and Bates (1954) postulated that an inverse tendering action exists
between connective tissue and the muscle fiber in meat upon cooking,
and that the net tenderness of cooked meat at any point would be
due to the combined effect of these two components.

Upon cooking,

the connective tissue content in meat decreases while the muscle
fiber becomes less tender due to the coagulation of the protein
in the fiber.

Therefore, the most tender cooked meat would be at

a point where the sum of the shear force of each component would
be at minimum.
The influence of the fat content in meat upon its ultimate
degree of tenderness has been investigated by several workers al­
though its total effect is not clearly understood due to the some­
what contradictory reports of various workers.

Helser, Nelson and

Lowe (1930) reported that the meat from feeder cattle was less
tender than the meat from the same kind of cattle after fattening.

-

16

-

Since the fat content in meat increases markedly when fattening
is accomplished, this would indicate that the difference in tender­
ness existing between the feeder steer and the fattened steer was
due to the difference in content of fat*
Hankins and Ellis (1939) correlated five different indexes of
fatness to tenderness of beef including percent caul fat, percent
kidney fat, percent ether extract of the rib-eye, percent fat of
9-10-11 rib-eye, and ether extract of rib-eye from 6 9 grain fat
steers*

None of the correlation coefficients was significant, there­

fore, they concluded that meat tenderness is due to factors other
than amount of finish.

Butler at al. (1956) reported that juici­

ness scores in broiled loin steaks were more highly related to
measurements of fatness than to tenderness, while with broiled
and braised bottom round steaks the correlations between measures
of degree of finish and tenderness were the highest.
Other factors have been reported by numerous workers, which
include age of animal and aging of meat.

Working with 52 beef

animals, varying in age, Hiner and Hankins (1950) reported that
with increased age there was a tendency for tenderness to decrease.
Paul et al. (1944) reported that the physical properties of the
muscle fiber change during aging or refrigerated storage.

The

fibers are changed from well defined, undulating structures after
one days storage, to structures which are fractured at many loca­
tions after nine days.
Significant correlation coefficients have been reported be-

-

17

-

tween tenderness of meat as measured by the Warner-Bratzler
shear with tenderness as measured by organoleptic methods.
Brady (1937) and Yao and Hiner (1953) have all reported that
such a relationship exists.

-

18

-

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
SOURCE OF MATERIAL
Thirty-one steers from the performance testing program of
the Animal Husbandry Department at Michigan State University
were slaughtered in two different years and provided the bulk of
the data for this dissertation.
bulls, two Angus and

silx

The steers were sired by eight

Herefords, with each sire being repre­

sented by four steers with exception of one Hereford, which had
only three offspring in the group, as the fourth died after being
placed on test.

The group was measured and slaughtered when the

average grade of each group was estimated to be low Choice.

At

the time of slaughter, the range in age was from 12 to 16 months.
In addition to the 31 steers, 20 wholesale beef ribs were
purchased to increase the scope of the specific gravity study.
SUBJECTIVE LIVE ANIMAL EVALUATION
The first year five judges assisted in evaluation, while the
second year seven judges participated with three of them participa­
ting both years.

Steers not included in this study were used to

acquaint the judges with the rating system involved.

After this

brief session, each judge worked independently.
Two subjective live animal evaluation procedures were used.
The first was called the adjusted, which was designed to disre­
gard the effects of leg length in the evaluation of the live
steer; and the second procedure was termed unadjusted, which
followed the common practice of steer evaluation.

These methods

- 19 -

of steer evaluation were carried out independent of one another
over a period of two days.

Care was taken to keep the identity

of the steers unknown from the judges insofar as possible, in
order to keep the influence of previous appraisals at a minimum.
Adjusted Live Animal Evaluation
The word adjusted was used to denote that the feet and legs
of the steers below the knees and hocks were not visible to the
judges.

This was accomplished by the use of a solid floor 16 ft.

long and 9 ft. wide between the steer and the judges.

The end

nearest the steers was raised or lowered by use of pulleys and
ropes.

This end of the floor was in a raised position when each

steer was led onto a level platform with an attached backstop just
beyond and perpendicular to the platform.

The steer was allowed

time to become acquainted with the new surroundings and an attempt
was made to get him to stand squarely on his legs.

Then the

raised end of the movable floor was lowered to the knees and hocks
and secured until the judgement of each steer was complete.

Thus,

the steer was visible only above the knees and hocks while being
scored.

The floor was constructed so that the gradient of the

floor from the immovable end (resting on ground) to the end nearest
the knees and hocks of the steers would eliminate any height per­
spective which might otherwise be present.

Canvas lined either

side of a nine foot wide view-way where the judges were located,
and the backstop behind the steer was painted a solid grey, elimina­
ting any height perspective or reference point which otherwise

-

might be present.

20

In this phase, the steer was presented only

from the side view while the judges stood 20 feet or more back
and from this point evaluated the steer for all points listed in
Figure 1*

The ratings were made on 1 - 21 scale of excellence,

with a score of 21 representing the ideal.
Each steer was graded for type and slaughter grade on a 1 12 scoring system, with 1 representing high Prime type or grade
and 12 representing low Standard type or grade.

The carcass

estimations were made for thickness of fat and area of rib-eye.
Unadjusted Live Animal Evaluation
The steers were evaluated by each judge from all views and
handled for degree of covering and firmness of fleshing, if de­
sired.

Each steer was rated for the same characteristics with

the same numerical values and designations as used in the adjusted
live animal evaluation, where the effect of length of leg was re­
moved.

In addition, several estimates of thickness were also mad?,

since in this case the steers were

viewed from all possible angles,

thus thickness of topline and fullness of round could be observed.
Such measures included thickness and fullness of round, loin, rib,
chuck, brisket and cod, and with the exception of the fullness of
the cod, the 1 - 2 1 rating system was used as previously described.
Although the 1 - 2 1 scale was used for rating fullness of cod, the
rating was reversed with the least development of cod fat being
rated the highest.
was evaluated.

Figure 2 shows the points upon which each steer

-

21

-

FIGURE 1
Name of Panel Member

Steer No.

Date

Live Animal Evaluation:
X. Adjusted - legs to hocks and knees not showing.
A. Body Rating from Side View - (Degree of excellence
based upon score of 1-21 points - with 21 being the
highest).
Point Score
1.
2.
3-

4.
5»
6.

Round
a. depth
b. plumpness
Length of Rump
Length of Back
a. loin (last rib to anterior edge of
hip)
b. rib (6th rib to last rib)
Body Depth
a. Rear Flank
b. Fore Flank at heart girth
Length of Neck
Fullness of Brisket

B. Type and grade ratings (degree of excellence based
upon 1-24 - with 1 being comparable to high prime
and 24 low canner)*
Grade
High
1
4
7+
10

Prime
Choice
Good
Standard
1.
2.
C.

Rating Score *
Average
Low
2
3
5
6
8
9
11
12

Type
Grade

Carcass Estimations
1. Dressing percent
_________
2. Thickness of fat over 12th rib
(nearest 0.1 inch)
_________
3 . Eye muscle size for
weight (sq. in.)
_________
(1955 steers averaged:
weight 888 pounds
eye muscle 9*4 sq. in.)

COMMENTS:
*Rating Scores were coded for statistical analysis as follows:
H|gh
Avepe
Low
f|

17

it

-

22

-

FIGURE 2
Name of Panel Member

Steer No.

Date

Live Animal Evaluation
II. Unadjusted - legs to hocks and knees showing.
A. Body rating from side view (degree of excellence based
upon score of 1-21 points).
Point Score
1. Round
a. depth
b. plumpness
2. Length of rump
3* Length of back
a. loin (last rib to anterior edge of
hip)
b. rib (6th rib to last rib)
4. Body depth
a. rear flank
b. fore flank at heart girth
5- Length of neck
6. Fullness of brisket_____________________
7. Length of front legs____________________
8. Length of hind legs_____________________
B.

Prime
Choice
Good
Standard
1. Type
2. Grade

D.

___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________

Type and grade ratings (degree of excellence based
upon 1-24 points)
Grade

C.

___________
______________
___________
___________

Score for places within grade *
High
Average
Low
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_________

Body rating - front, rear and over the top view
(degree of excellence bases upon 1-21 points 21 being excellent and 1 being the lowest)
1. Thickness and fullness of the following
a. Round
b. Loin
c . Rib
d. Chuck
e . Brisket
f . Cod
2. Color of eye
Carcass estimations
1. Dressing percent
2. Thickness of fat over 12th rib (nearest o.l
_______
in. )
Eye muscle size for weight (sq.in.)
( 1 9 5 5 steers averaged: weight 888 lbs.
eye muscle 9*4 sq. inc)

COMMENTS:
* See footnote Figure 1.

- 23 -

OBJECTIVE LIVE ANIMAL EVALUATION
The day prior to slaughter, each steer was weighed and measured.
Weighing
Each steer was weighed on livestock scales in order to obtain
an off feed weight.

After this weight was obtained, the fore and

hind weights were taken following the procedure of Dawson et al.
(1 9 5 5 ) except that the fore and hind weights were not taken simul­
taneously, but by the steers having their front feet or the hind
feet on the scale while the opposite end was. level to the scale
floor.

The level of the head was kept as nearly constant as

possible between and within steers, and the steers were forced to
stand squarely on their feet.

Front and hind weights were repeated

until a combined fore and hind weight was within - ten pounds of
the total live weight.

All weights were taken to the nearest pound.

Measurements
All 32 live animal measures were taken by the author as the
steers stood naturally on level cement flooring.

All linear measure­

ments were obtained by the use of metal calipers which had been made
by the Bio Metric Instrument Inc. of Berkley, California.

The

height and total body length measurements were taken using the 1 8 0
centimeter ban to the nearest 0 . 2 3 centimeter while the width
measurements and various portions of body length were taken to the
nearest 0.25 centimeter using the 100 centimeter bar.

Length of

legs, length of cannon bones and all body and leg circumference
measurements were taken using a 200 centimeter steel tape.

The

- 24 -

spring of fore ribs was measured by a special device with which
an angle measurement was obtained, traced on a piece of paper
and later measured with a protractor.
shown in Figure 3»
once.

The measuring devices are

The first year each measurement was taken

Independent duplicate measurements were made and repeat­

ability estimates were calculated for the second year’s data.
Width Measurements - Width measurements were obtained as
follows:
Width of Neck:

Width of neck was taken just anterior to

the point where the shoulder blends into the neck.

The same

amount of pressure was exerted upon the caliper arms in each width
measurement and locked in position, then the reading was made and
recorded.
Width of Shoulder:

Width of shoulder was taken as shown

in Figure 4 at the widest point of the shoulders.
Width of Rump:

This measurement was taken on the topline

at the widest point of the rump.
Width of Round:

This measurement was taken from directly

behind the steer, holding the caliper arms parallel

to the floor

at the widest point.
Width of Pins:
bonesholding the

Width of pins was measured

at the pin

calipers parallel to the floor.

The arms of the caliper used in the width measurements were
15.5 inches long.

Thus, it was necessary to cut down the arm

length so the width of topline might be obtained without being

calibrated

calibrated

arms.

bar

bar

E; Caliper

Centimeter

100

R and

Centimeter

180

in

in

.25

.25

centimeters.

centimeters*

tool

,fT” used
Ys f,V,f shaped

I: Wooden

used

for

and

loin
to measure

rib

spring

width*
of

25

FIGURE 5

-

-

^

a

26

-

y

FIGURE k
WIDTH OF SHOULDER

- 27 -

influenced by differences in spring of ribs or thickness of
paunch between steers.

In order to standarize the length of

arm to five inches, a wooden 11T,f 1 2 . 5 inches long was slipped
on the caliper.

Thus, all subsequent width of topline measure­

ments were taken at the same place for all steers, alleviating
most of the effects of spring of ribs and paunchiness between
steers•
Width of Rib:

Three measures of width were taken over

the rib area at the following points; over the crops, half way
between the crops and 13th rib and over the 13th rib.

In order

to be able to get half the distance between the crops and 1 3 th
rib, the site of measurement at crop and at the 1 3 th rib were
marked with a livestock marking crayon.
Width of Loin;

See Figure 5*

Measurements of loin width were made be­

tween 13th rib and hooks, and at the hooks.

The first site of

measurement was a point half way between the 1 3 th rib and the
point of the hooks.

The second was measured at the anterior edge

of the hooks.
Body Length Measurements - Total body length of each steer
was obtained by measuring the distance from the first thoracic
vertebra to the pins

(Figure 61 The point on the live animal

taken to be the location of the first thoracic vertebra was the
point of the shoulder.

Other linear body measurements included

the distance from the first thoracic vertebra to the 1 3 th rib
and length of the rump taken from the anterior edge of the hooks

-

28

-

FIGURE 5
WIDTH OF RIB OVER CROPS

-

29

-

FIGURE 6
BODY LENGTH

- 30 -

to the pins.

The distance from 13th rib to the hooks was obtained

by substracting the sum length from first thoracic vertebra to the
1 3 th

rib and length of rump from the total body length.
Depth and Height Measurements
Depth of Chest;

This measurement was the distance from

the floor of the chest to the top of the crops.
Height at Withers;

This was the distance from the floor

to the highest point of the withers.
Height at Rump:

This measurement was taken from the floor

to the highest point of the rump with the steer standing normally.
See Figure 7Twist to Floor:

This measurement was made using the

steel centimeter tape and measuring the distance from the floor
to the bottom of the twist.
Twist to Hocks:

This measurement was taken also by using

the steel tape and measuring the distance from the bottom of the
twist to the point of the hocks.
Rump to Hocks:

This measurement was taken as shown in

Figure 8 with the small calipers held vertically and measuring
the distance from the top of the rump to the inside of the hocks.
Length of Legs:

This measurement was taken on the fore

leg by measuring the distance from the floor to the smooth joint
or at a point one-half inch above where the metacarpal begins to
enlarge.

The length of the hind leg was the distance from the

floor to the break joint or one-half inch above the point where

-

31

-

FIGURE 7
HEIGHT AT RUMP

- 32 -

FIGURE 8
RUMP TO HOCKS

- 33 -

the metatarsus begins to enlarge.

These distances were measured

with the steel tape to the nearest 0.1 centimeter
Length of the Cannon Bones:

(Figure 9).

The length of the metacar­

pal or fore cannon was measured from thebreak joint to a
parallel to the proximal edge of the dew

point

claw or proximal edge

of

the first phalanx, while the length of metatarsus (hind cannon)
was measured in centimeters from the break joint to the point
parallel to the proximal edge of the dew

claw on the hind leg.

Circumference Measurements
Heart Girth:

This circumference was measured by encircl­

ing the steel tape about the steer at a point behind the fore legs*
Circumference of Middle:

This was the distance around

the barrel of the steer at a point two inches anterior to the
pizzle.
Flank Circumference:

The distance encircling the body

of the steer at the highest point of the flank.
Circumference of Fore Leg above Elbow:

This measure­

ment as shown in Figure 10 was made by encircling the steel centi­
meter tape about the fore arm as close to the body as possible and
parallel to the floor.
Circumference
aroundthe hind leg at

of Hind Leg above Hock: The tape was placed
a point approximately one-third the distance

from the hock to the twist and parallel to the floor.
Circumference

of Fore Leg below Knee: This measurement

was taken by encircling the fore leg at a point half the distance

-

3k

-

FIGURE 9
LENGTH OF HIND LEG

- 35 -

FIGURE 10
CIRCUMFERENCE OF FORE LEG ABOVE ELBOW

- 36 -

from the smooth joint to the dew claws.
Circumference of Hind Leg below Hocks:

The tape was

placed around the metatarsus at a point previously marked, which
was half the distance between the break joint and dew claw.
Spring of Rib - was measured as shown in Figure 11.

This

value was obtained by the use of a f,Vfl shaped tool having movable
ends and a protractor.

The angle was obtained by placing the

shorter of the two arms of this ffV11 shaped tool vertical (as deter­
mined by a leveling bulb) at the crops; whereas the other arm was
moved towards the shorter arm until contact with the rib or side
of the steer was made.

At this point the tool was locked into

position and laid on a sheet of paper and the angle traced.

Later

the angle thus obtained was measured by using a protractor.
Live Animal Photographs - Photographs were taken of all
steers as they stood behind and parallel to a wire grid divided
into six inch squares. (Figure 12)

From the photographs the

following height, depth and length measurements were taken;
height at withers and rump; depth of chest; depth of body (just
anterior to pizzle); depth of flank; and total body length.
SLAUGHTER AND CARCASS DATA
Slaughtering
The steers were given water but deprived of feed for 2k hours
prior to slaughter and killed at a rate of four per day.

The

slaughter procedure recommended by Deans (1951) was followed with

- 37 -

FIGURE 11
SPRING OF RIB

-

38

-

EAlt .VO 297

\VT 7 9 S
DATE 7-11-56

PHOTOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS
A:
B:
Ct
D:.
E:
F:

Length of body
Depth of chest
Height at withers
Depth of body (anterior to pizzle)Depth of flank
Height of rump

- 39 -

the exception of one deviation, namely, the skinned eviscerated
carcass was not split in order to keep the vertebrae intact for
X-ray studies.

Slaughter weights, weights of various body parts

which were removed, organs, viscera, and killing fat were recorded
for all steers.

The carcasses were not split at the end of the

slaughter process as usually practiced, but hoisted and hung by
using a beef trolley for each hind leg.

A 2 X 4 X 32 inch spread­

er which had previously been notched at the ends was inserted be­
tween the two trolleys to hold the two joined sides apart and thus
facilitate chilling.

All carcasses were shrouded, after which the

carcasses were chilled at - 1 to 0°C for 2^-36 hours.

The carcasses

were weighed k8 hours after slaughter to obtain a chilled carcass
weight.

They were then transferred to 0.6 to 2.2°C aging cooler

where they were held until subsequent cutting tests were made.
Carcass Photographs
Photographs were made of two carcass views, namely, the side
(Figure 13) and the back (Figure 14) as it hung on the rail.

To

facilitate measuring, the carcasses were photographed with the
same wire grid used in photographing the live animals.
was taken at the same distance from the carcass.

Each photo

From the pictures

depicting the side view, the following depth measurements were
taken: depth of chest at approximately the fifth rib and parallel
to the grid, depth of flank as measured from the line of back to
the line of the flank at a point just anterior to the tip of the
pin bone and parallel to the grid, and depth of round aa measured

-

40

-

EAR NO

HOT CAR. !>7
CHIU. CAR. <z.

FEGUHE 15
SIDE VIEW OF CARCASS
A* Depth of chest
B: Depth of flank
C: Depth of round

- 4l -

FIGURE Ik
BACK VIEW OF CARCASS
As
B:
C:
D:

Width of shoulders
Narrowest width just behind shoulders
Width of rump
Thickness of round

-

kz

-

at a point which was 70 percent of the distance between the hind
shank and the point where the tail had been removed and parallel
to the grid.
From the back view, the following width measurements were
taken; width of shoulders, rump, and round at the widest point,
width at the narrowest point just behind the shoulders, and the
width from the twist to the outside of the round.

All linear

measurements were taken parallel to the grid at the point indicated.
Carcass Measurements
Linear measurements were taken of all carcasses prior to the
time that they were graded.

Six and eight carcass measurements

were taken the first and second year, respectively, while duplicate
independent measurements were made and estimates of repeatability
calculated for the second year's data.
Depth and Width Measurements - The following depth and width
measurements were made on each carcass with the use of the calipers
described previously for determining the width of the live animal:
Depth at Brisket;

taken parallel to the line of the ribs

at the fifth rib from top of the back to the bottom of the brisket.
Depth of Flank:
at

taken from top of the loin to the flank

apoint anterior to the point of the hip bone.
Width of Shoulder, Rump and Round:

were taken at the

widest point over each respective area.
Width of Crops:

narrowest point just behind the shoulders.

The above measurements were made both years on all carcasses.

- kj

-

In addition to these measurements, two additional circum­
ference measurements were tg^ken the second year.
Circumference of Round;

was measured by encircling the

round with the tape in such a manner that it passed over the
anterior portion of the stifle joint and was held as close in the
twist as possible.
Circumference of Fore Shank;

was taken by holding the

tape as close to the brisket as possible while encircling the fore
arm.
Grading and Estimated Marbling
All carcasses were ribbed 72 to 96 hours after slaughter and
graded to one-third of a grade immediately after ribbing by a U.S.
D.A. grader.

In addition, three judges estimated the percentage

of marbling in the ribbed carcass of each steer, using a maximum
range of 1 - 21 percent.

Each judge worked independently.

All

three scores were averaged to get an estimated marbling score for
each steer.
Cutting Tests
Each carcass was aged for eight days.

The carcasses were

divided into front and hind halves between the 12th and 1 3 th rib,
since they were still unsplit.

The front half was split down the

backbone, after which the left side was cut into wholesale cuts,
following closely the standard cutting procedure recommended by
Hankins and Howe (19^6) and which was adopted by the Reciprocal

- kk -

Meat Conference as explained by Wellington (1953).

The small end

of the standing rib was squared off using an electric saw, after
a tracing was taken of this cut surface, which included
eye muscle, bone, outside fat covering and miscellaneous lean.
The area of the rib-eye was later determined by the use of a
planimeter; while the thickness of fat over the 12th rib was deter­
mined by the procedure described by Naumann (1951)*

The rib was

identified and used in subsequent specific gravity determinations.
A cross sectional area tracing of lean, fat and bone was taken of
the fore shank by cutting at right angles to the humerus just
above the projection of the lateral condyle of the humerus.
The flanks and kidney knobs were removed as outlined by
Wellington (1953) and those cuts coming from the left side were
weighed.

The full tenderloin was removed from the left side and

weighed.

Since the double shortloin was needed for subsequent

X-ray work, this was identified and removed by cutting across the
lumbar vertebra at the anterior tips of ilium

on each side.

The

rounds with sirloins attached were split and the round with sir­
loin attached from the left side weighed.
muscle was then excised from the round.

The Semitendinosis
This muscle was wrapped

and frozen for subsequent tenderness studies.
Bone Studies
Measurements - The fore and hind shanks from each steer were
taken at the time of slaughter from which the metacarpals and meta­
tarsals were removed and cleaned of all extraneous material.

When

- 45 -

this had been accomplished the following weights and measures
were taken of each individual cannon bone:

weight to the nearest

gram, length as measured from the articular surface of the medial
portion of the proximal end to a point medial of the sagittal ridge
of the third condyle.

Width, thickness, and circumference of the

cannon was measured at a point one-half the distance of the length.
The cannon bones were then identified and frozen until breaking
strength determinations were made.
Breaking Strength - A breaking strength value for each cannon
bone was achieved by using the middle load range of 1,000 - 12,000
pounds of a Super L Hydraulic Tinus Olsen Universal Testing Machine.
The weights were loaded at a rate of 15 - 20 units as shown on the
loading knob.

To obtain breaking strength, the cannon bones were

placed on a device which supported the bones at both extremities.
The two fulcrums were attached to a base allowing rotation, thus,
the bones were maintained in a level position throughout the entire
time the load was being applied.

The distance between the two

fulcrums was six inches the first year and five and one-half inches
the second year.

Attached to the machine was a wedge shaped device
*

which made contact across the cannon at a point equi-distant be­
tween the two fulcrums when the load was applied.

The edges of

the fulcrum and this wedge shaped device which came into contact
with the bone were rounded so to eliminate breaking of bone due
to a cutting or a splitting action.

The breaking strength for all

cannon bones was converted to the breaking moment by the following
formula:

- 46 -

Breaking moment = one—half the distance between the two
points of the fulcrum X one-half the highest load reached in
breaking the bone.
X-rays - Radiographs of the dorsal view of the unsplit or double
shortloin and the lateral view of the shortloin from the left side
were taken.

The dorsal view showing the length of the transverse

processes, length and thickness of the body of the vertebrae were
taken by using a setting of 74 KV for a time of 3/20 second and at
a distance of 40 inches.

When this was accomplished the double

shortloin was split in half, after which a lateral view of the
shortloin of the left side showing the length of the vertical pro­
cesses, canal, length and depth of the body of the vertebrae were
taken from the same distance and using a setting of 90 KV for onehalf second.
The following measurements were taken (Figure 15 ) from the
*

X-rays of the dorsal view of the double shortloin.
Total Length of Transverse Processes:

included the first

four lumbar vertebrae and was the distance from the lateral tip of
the left transverse process to the lateral tip of the right trans­
verse process recorded in millimeters.

Thus, this measurement in­

cluded the length of both lateral transverse processes and the
width of the vertebra body.
Width _of Transverse Processes: was taken at a point
which was 20 percent of the total length of the transverse processes
and on a line which was parallel to a line drawn along the lateral

- hy -

FIGURE 15
DORSAL VIEW LUMBAR VERTEBRAE

- 48 -

tips of the body of the vertebra*
Total Area of Transverse Processes:

was taken by the use

of the planimeter and measured the area within the margin of right
transverse processes*
Width of the Lumbar Vertebra!

was taken at the point

where the body of the vertebra is the narrowest.
Length of Lumbar Vertebra: was taken from the most anter­
ior portion of the convex surface to the most anterior concave sur­
face of the vertebra body.
The following linear measurements of the lumbar vertebrae were
taken from the lateral view (Figure 16)*
Length of Vertical Processes;

was obtained by drawing an

arbitrary line between two points located at the dorsal tip of the
body of the vertebrae.

The length of the vertical process was

taken from the tip of the spinous process to the arbitrary line.
Height of Anterior Articular Processes;

was the distance

from the arbitrary line to the most dorsal point of the anterior
articular process.
Width of Vertical Processes:

was taken at a point 60

percent of the distance from the arbitrary line to the tip of the
spinous process and on a line parallel to the arbitrary line.
All linear measurements of the X-rays of the lumbar vertebrae
were taken on the first four lumbar vertebrae recorded in milli­
meters.

Seven X-rays of the lateral view were so poorly differen­

tiated the second year that they could not be measured.

-

49

-

FIGURE 16
LATERAL VIEW LUMBAR VERTEBRAE

- 50 -

Specific Gravity
Experimental Ribs — Fifty—one wholesale beef ribs were used
with 31 ribs coming from the steers previously described and the
additional 20 ribs being purchased to add numbers to the study*
Following ribbing, the carcasses were graded as two Prime, twentyfive Choice and four Good*

The average weight of the ribs from

this group of steers was 23-0 pounds*

The 9-10-11 rib sections

were removed from the wholesale rib as described by Hankins and
Howe (1946).

The Longissimus dorsi muscle was excised from the

9-10-11 rib and all external fat removed.
The remaining 20 ribs were obtained from two large packers
and came .from carcasses that were U.S.D.A. graded without ribbing*
Half of

the ribs were Prime and half Good.

to represent the entire grade.

The ribs were selected

Average weights were 31.1 and 24*3

pounds for the Prime and Good grades, respectively.

A portion of

the aging period was spent enroute from the slaughterer, but other­
wise the ribs were handled in the same manner as described previous­
lySpecific Gravity Determination - The excised rib-eye (Longissi­
mus dorsi) portion of the 9-10-11 rib section was weighed to the
nearest

0*1 gram in air and to the nearest 0*01 gram in distilled

water.

The first year 16 rib-eyes were weighed in water at room

temperature, while all subsequent weighing was at 6°C - 1°.
Specific gravity was calculated according to the formula given by
Brown et al. (1951)*

- 51 *

Grinding and Chemical Analysis — After weighing in water,
the Longissimus dorsi muscle was blotted dry and immediately
ground five times through a 5/64 inch grinder plate.

The ground

sample was placed in a glass jar, sealed and frozen for subsequent
analysis.

Percent water and protein were determined according to

the procedure of Benne et al. (1956).

Ether extract was determined

on the moisture-free sample, which was dried in a disposable aluminum
weighing dish.

Each dried sample was folded in the weighing dish

and inserted into an alundum cup, which was placed in a metal sample
container and extracted with anhydrous ethyl ether for four hours
with a Goldfisch Fat Extractor.

The excess ether was evaporated,

after which the beaker and other soluble residue was dried to a
constant weight at 100°C.
Blood Fat Determination
Forty milliliters of whole blood were collected at the time
of slaughter from each steer.

The blood fat was determined by the

procedure of Morrow (1956) which was a modification of the method
of Allen (1958).
Tenderness
Preparation - The frozen anterior halves of the boneless
shortloins and the whole Semitendinosis muscles were removed from
the freezer after eight to ten months in storage and the anterior
end was squared by the use of an electric meat saw.

The first

steak removed from each of the two cuts was made 1.75 inches thick
to be used later for the muscle extensibility determination.

Two

- 52 -

adjacent steaks one and one—half inches thick were then removed
and used in the hot and cold shear value determinations.

Each

steak was carefully labeled as to position and steer and rewrapped
individually, using freezer paper.

These individually wrapped

steaks were thawed for 24 hours at 2.7° to 4.0°C.
The posterior end of the boneless shortloin was taken from
freezer storage, and the anterior and squared off and two adjacent
one and one-half inch steaks were cut, identified as to location
and steer, individually wrapped, and thawed as mentioned previously.
These steaks were used by the chew panel for determination of tend­
erness •
After thawing, each of the above steaks was unwrapped, blotted
dry and weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram.

The mercury bulb of a

thermometer was positioned in the center of each steak, and it was
cooked to an internal temperature of 63°C (l45*4°F).

The steaks

were cooked in deep fat at a temperature of 147° - 2°C (296.6°F).
When the internal temperature was reached the steak was removed
from the deep fat, the thermometer removed, and the steak immedi­
ately weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram.

After weighing, the steaks

used for cold shear values and muscle extensibility studies were
allowed to cool and were placed in air tight containers or wrappers
and refrigerated at 2.7° to 4.4°C for 24 hours, while the steaks
which were used for hot shear determination and panel testing for
tenderness were used directly following cooking*
Mechanical Shear Values - Eight one-half inch cores and

- 53 -

seven one—half inch cores were taken from each boneless shortloin
aad gemitendinosis steak, respectively*

Each core was cut parallel

to the direction of the muscle fibers using a circular motion while
exerting little pressure.

A shear value was obtained for each core

by using the Warner-Bratzler Shear Apparatus.

A mean was obtained

from each steak derived from these individual shear values.
Hot shear values were obtained by removing the cores quickly
after obtaining the cooked steak weight.

Cold shear values were

obtained on cores removed after the steak had been refrigerated for
24 hours.

With the cold steaks, it was necessary to use a lubricat­

ing compound to eliminate the tendency of the core to fracture.
Water was used on the borer the first year, while corn oil was
found to be much superior the second year.
Muscle Extensibility - The procedure outlined and described
by Wang _et_ al* (1956) for determining the extensibility of the
single muscle fiber of beef was followed*

The brown surface of

the refrigerated cooked meat sample was trimmed off and discarded.
Several slices approximately 2 X 3 X 0.5 centimeters in size were
placed in a Waring Blendor, the knife of which had been dulled
previously by filing, with sufficient distilled water to cover the
blades of the knife.

For blending the cooked meat, a rheostat,

type 1 1 6 , was used with a setting on the indicator dial of 30 - 35*
The meat samples were blended at this speed until small bundles
of muscle fibers were evident in the supernatant liquid*
time required was about 15 “ 20 seconds.

The

-

54

-

Individual fibers and small bundles of muscle fibers were
transferred to a petri dish containing distilled water.

This

petri dish was in turn placed upon a transparent plastic ruler
calibrated in centimeters which in turn rested upon a light source.
The light source was a wooden box with a frosted glass top contain­
ing a 150 watt light bulb.

Single muscle fibers longer than five

millimeters, which were without apparent injury and free from all
endomysLal tissues were used for the muscle extensibility determina­
tions.

Generally, these fibers had to be teased out of the small

bundles, in which case, precaution was taken not to stretch the
fiber nor handle the fibers, except at the ends.

The individual

fibers were placed directly over and parallel to the ruler and
gripped firmly exactly five millimeters between the forceps, which
were used to stretch the fibers.

The muscle fiber was then ex­

tended by holding one forcep stationary and moving the other one
slowly and steadily until the fiber broke.

Five millimeters were

subtracted from the number of millimeters observed at the time the
fiber broke and this value recorded.

Twenty such readings were

taken; the mean of which was taken as the extensibility index for
each sample.

If the fiber broke within one millimeter of either

forcep, the extensibility value was not used; or if a single fiber
broke as soon as it was stretched, this reading was likewise dis­
carded unless other fibers of the same sample gave the same results
or a very low extensibility value.
The stretching of all fibers was observed using a magnifying

- 55 -

glass having a total magnification of ten times.
Humber of Chews — The boneless shortloin steaks cooked as
previously mentioned were allowed to stand at room temperature for
several minutes after which five one—inch cores were removed from
each steak.

The browned ends of each bore was trimmed off and the

remaining part cut in half.

The two pieces were placed on a letter­

ed plate, coded and allowed to stand 30 minutes at room temperature
before panel testing.

Ten panel members were used and each panel

member was given a sample taken from the same location between
steers and the same position within steaks.

In the test for the

first year, steaks from four steers were tested per chew session
while for the second year, only three steers per session were tested.
Each judge was given two cores from the same steak, since each core
was cut in half.
The end point was determined by counting the number of chews
required to masticate each sample to the same consistency.

No

attempt was taken to standardize the end point between judges,
since each judge was instructed to chew each sample to the same
end point.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Single and multiple correlation coefficients, regression and
partial regression coefficients and analysis of variance were em­
ployed as given by Snedecor (1946) in order to analyze the data.
Data were analyzed on a within year basis to eliminate any effect
of years.

-

56

-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SUBJECTIVE LIVE ANIMAL EVALUATION
Comparison of Subjective Scores
When correlation coefficients were calculated between the
two subjective methods of live animal evaluation, highly signi­
ficant positive relationships were obtained for all measurements
except length of rib which was significant ( P = .05 ) (Table 1)«
The relationships between the two methods of evaluation were
lowest with the several body length scores and depth of round.
The low relationships could possibly be attributed to the fact
that these length measurements and depth of round may not be as
easily defined as the other measurements, or may vary with the
position of the animal.
On the other hand, scores for various items, such as, depth
of fore flank, type and estimated grade, dressing percentage, fat
covering at the 12th rib and rib-eye area were highly related be­
tween the adjusted and unadjusted live animal scores*

The high

correlations obtained for these several items between evaluation
methods may possibly be due to one or more of the following ex­
planations:

first, these items may be better defined than others,

giving higher repeatability between steers; second, these various
points may be stressed more in the evaluation of fat steers, thus
■fche judges may have been better trained in observing differences,
and third, possibly the judges remembered the steers from one
method of evaluation to the other.

An attempt was made to minimize

- 57 -

TABLE 1

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Adjusted and Unadjusted
Scores for the Same .Subjective Live Animal Measurement®
X

r

Depth of Round

.665

Plumpness of Round

.718

Length of Rump

.618

Length of Loin

.526

Length of Rib

.356

Depth at Rear Flank

.739

Depth at Fore Flank

.848

Length of Neck

.750

Fullness of Brisket

.766

Type

.840

Estimated Grade

.868

Estimated Dressing Percentage

•898

Estimated Fat over 12th Rib

.787

Estimated Rib-eye Area

.889

a.349 Required for significance at P.05.
.449 Required for significance at P.01.

- 58 -

the effect of association due to recollection of the animals,
since ear tag numbers were used to identify each steer and the
scoring cards were collected after each animal was evaluated*
The adjusted method of evaluating the live steer was employed
in this part of the experiment to find what effect length of legs
might have on the evaluation.

The correlation coefficients ob­

tained between the adjusted and unadjusted methods (Table 1) indi­
cated that the length of legs had little effect on the scoring.
This was indicated by the fact that the higher correlations between
the two methods of evaluation were obtained for such points as
type, grade, dressing percentage and depth of rear and fore flanks
which might be expected to be influenced greater by the length of
legs.

However, if greater differences in animal type had been

present between steers, the influence of leg length may have been
more evident.

It was evident from the group of steers studied

that close agreement existed between the two subjective methods
of live animal evaluation.

As was discussed previously, however,

some points were much better than others.
Comparison of Unadjusted Scores and Live Animal Measurements
Table 2 lists the correlation coefficients obtained between
the unadjusted live animal evaluation scores and various objective
live animal measurements.

In order to illustrate this, length of

rump as appraised by the judges was correlated with the length of
rump as measured with the use of calipers.

This same procedure

was followed in all cases when there was a direct counter part.

-

TABLE 2

59

-

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Various Live Animal Measures
and Actual Dressing Percentage, Rib-eye Area and Fat over 12th
Rib with Appraisal of the Live Animal by the Unadjusted Method

Live Animal Appraisal

Live Animal Measurement

Depth of Round

-

Distance from Twist to Floor

Plumpness of Round

-

Circumference of Round above Hock: .110

Length of Rump

-

Length of Rump

Length of Loin

-

Length from 13th Rib to Hooks

Length of Rib

-

Length from 1st Thoracic to
13th Rib

.430

Length from 1st Thoracic to
Pins

-.326

Length from Smooth Joint to
Floor

-.116

Length of Neck
Length of Fore Legs

-

-.295

.039
-.102

Length of Hind Legs

-

Length from Break Joint to Floor -.219

Depth of Rear Flank

-

Circumference of Rear Flank

Depth at Heart Girth

-

Depth at Heart Girth

.059

Thickness of Round

-

Width of Round

.685

Thickness of Loin

-

Width between 13th Rib and Hooks

.458

Thickness of Rib

-

Width between Crops and 13th Rib

.287

Thickness of Chuck

-

Width of Shoulder

Estimated Dressing Percentage -

,.646

-.726

Actual Dressing Percentage

.588

Actual Thickness of Fat at 12th
Rib

.489

Estimated Thickness of Fat
at 12th Rib

-

Estimated Area of Rib-eye
muscle

-

Actual Area of Rib-eye muscle

.573

Estimated grade

-

Actual Carcass grade

.682

Type grade

-

Actual Carcass grade

.492

.449 Required for significance at P.01.

- 60 -

In the cases where a parallel measurement was not available, then
a measurement was chosen which most nearly represented the point*
The correlation coefficients between the subjective and ob­
jective methods of live animal evaluation in most cases were quite
low (Table 2)*

Fairly high relationships were found between the

two evaluation methods for most of the various width and thickness
values.

The correlations obtained between the estimated dressing

percentage, thickness of fat at 12th rib, area of rib-eye and grade
were equally as high or higher than the correlations with the body
width and thickness measure.
Comparison of Unadjusted Scores and Carcass Measurements
Correlation coefficients were calculated between carcass
measurements and unadjusted live animal scores in order to test
the usefulness of visual appraisal of the live animals to estimate
various carcass measurements.

These are listed in Table 3»

Sub­

jective live animal scores were correlated with the carcass measure­
ment which best represented or illustrated a particular subjective
live score.

From the correlation coefficients obtained it was

quite evident that the carcass width measurements were more highly
estimated from the live steer than were other carcass measurements.
The four live animal scores for width were associated with 28 to
50

percent of the variation existing between a particular live

animal score and a certain carcass width measure.

Another relation­

ship which was also highly significant was length of rib with car­
cass length.

- 61 -

TABLE 3

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Linear Carcass
Measurements and Unadjusted Live Animal Scores

Carcass Measurement

Unadjusted Live Animal Score

r

Width of Shoulder

- Width of Chuck

.637**

Width at Crops

- Width of Rib

.705##

Width at Crops

- Width of Loin

.680##

Width of Round

- Width of Round

.533##

Depth of Chest at 5th Rib

-

Depth of Fore Flank

.275

Depth of Flank

- Depth of Rear Flank

.285

^-Circumference of Round

-

Depth of Round

.292

■^Circumference of Round

-

Plumpness of Round

.536#

Length of Carcass

- Length of Rump

.033

Length of Carcass

- Length of Loin

.441#

Length of Carcass

- Length of Rib

.520##

Length of Carcass

- Length of Neck

-.192

Length of Carca.ss

- Length of Fore Leg

-.322

Length of Carcass

- Length of Hind Leg

-.322

-k)nly 15 steers included.
^Denotes significance at P.05.
##Denotes significance at P.01*

- 62 -

The plumpness of round, score in the live animal with the cir­
cumference of the round measurement in the carcass were signifi­
cantly related ( P = .05 )•

The loin length scores with carcass

length were also significant at the five percent level.

Carcass

depth measurements, at the fifth rib or flank were not highly
correlated with the subjective scores for depth of rear or fore
flank in the live animal.

Carcass length seemed to be inversely

related to such subjective scores as length of fore and hind legs
and length of neck.

Although the relationships are low they were

unexpected since it is commonly thought that the longer legged
and longer necked animals are associated with the less compact
and longer carcasses.
Comparison of Adjusted and Unadjusted Scores to Carcass Grade
Table ^ lists the correlation coefficients obtained between
carcass grade and either the adjusted (legs not showing) or the
unadjusted (legs showing) live animal scores and estimates.

Com­

parison of these correlation coefficients, when both the adjusted
and unadjusted were given, reveals in all cases except one, namely,
plumpness of round, that the adjusted scores were more highly or
equally related to carcass grade.

It was recognized, however,

that in most comparisons the two correlations between either ad­
justed or unadjusted evaluation and carcass grade were nearly
equal in magnitude.

Since carcass grade was constant, this indi­

cates that a high relationship existed,between the scores given
with the adjusted method and those obtained with the unadjusted

-

-

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Carcass Grades and
Adjusted and Unadjusted Live Animal Evaluation3,
r adjusted scores
with

r unadjusted scores
with

Depth at Round

.610

.606

Plumpness of Round

.600

.696

Length of Rump

.584

.536

Length of Loin

-.112

-.030

Length of Rib

-.203

•t
o

TABLE 6-

63

X

Depth at Rear Flank

.634

.508

Depth at Fore Flank

.693

.568

Length of Nedk

.607

.588

Fullness of Brisket

.762

.668

Length of Fore Legs

—

Length of Hind Legs

—

.417

Type

.628

.492

Estimated Grade

.756

.682

Thickness of Round

—

.600

Thickness of Loin

—

.698

Thickness of Rib

—

.626

Thickness of Chuck

—

.552

Thickness of Brisket

—

.676

Fullness of Cod

—

.617

Estimated Dressing Percent

.724

.641

Estimated Fat Thickness over
12th Rib

.812

.627

.765

.744

Estimated Rib-eye Area

„M 11 HR

.449 Required for significance at P.01.

- 64 -

method*

Thus, in the group of steers studied, the duplication of

scores given under each method of evaluation appeared to be quite
high*
All correlation coefficients obtained between carcass grade
and the adjusted live animal scores were highly significant and
directly related, except length of loin and rib, which were not
significant, but inversely related to carcass grade (Table 4)*
The remaining correlation coefficients accounted for 3k to 66
percent of the variation existing between carcass grade and ad­
justed live animal scores*

The highest relationships were obtained

between carcass grade and the following items: depth at fore flank,
fullness of brisket, and the various estimates of grade, dressing
percentage, fat thickness at 12th rib, and rib-eye area.

These

were associated with ^8 to 66 percent of the variation existing
between carcass grade and the various adjusted scores.
The relationships existing between carcass grade and the un­
adjusted live animal scores were quite similar to those reported
on between carcass grade and the adjusted scores.

All correlations

were related in a positive manner to grade, except loin and rib
length, which again showed an inverse relationship which lacked
significance.

All other correlation coefficients between carcass

grade and unadjusted scores were found to be highly significant,
except for length of fore and hind legs, which were only signifi­
cant at the five percent level.

All other correlations accounted

for 2k to 53 percent of the variation existing between the various

- 65 -

unadjusted, measures and carcass grade.

The various adjusted

scores accounted for 40 percent or more of the variation in
carcass grade and included the following: plumpness of round,
fullness of brisket, estimated grade, thickness of loin, esti­
mated dressing percentage and estimated area of rib-eye.
Several points were evident from the correlations presented,
first, with the group of steers evaluated and with several judges
participating, good agreement in scores for the items studied was
found to exist between the two methods of subjective live aniaml
evaluation, and secondly, many of subjectively evaluated live
animal traits were found to be highly related to the ultimate
carcass grade.
OBJECTIVE LIVE ANIMAL EVALUATION
Repeatability Estimates for Live Animal Measurements
Independent duplicate live animal and carcass measurements
were obtained the second year, in order to acquire an estimate
of repeatability.
5.

The repeatability estimates are listed in Table

The range of repeatability estimates was from .428 for angle

or spring of ribs to *995 for circumference of middle.

All esti­

mates of repeatability were significant except for spring of ribs,
while all other repeatability estimates were highly significant
with the exception of those for width at pins and length from 1 3 th
rib to hooks, which were significant only at the five percent level.
The best repeatability estimates were obtained for the various
height measurements (wither, rump and legs), circumference measure-

- 66 -

TABLE 5

Repeatability Estimates for Live Steer Measurements®’
Measurements

Repeatability Estimate

Width
Neck
Shoulder
Rump
Round
at Pins
at Hooks
Between 13th Rib & Hooks
at 13th Rib
Between 13th Rib and Crops
at Crops

.904
.884
.837
.882
.502
.828
.841
.733
.823
.716

Length
1st Thoracic to Pins
1st Thoracic to 13th Rib
13th Rib to Hooks
Rump

.818
.862
.525
.858

Height
Brisket to Crops
at Withers
at Rump
Smooth joint to Dew Claws
Smooth joint to Floor
Break joint to Dew Claws
Break joint to Floor
Twist to Floor
Twist to Hocks
Rump to Hocks

.859
.965
.965
.955
.728
.879
.945
.901
.733
.740

Circuraference
Fore Flank
Hind Flank
Middle
Fore Legs above Knee
Fore Legs below Knee
Hind Leg above Hock
Hind Leg below Hock

.981
.941
.995
.703
.800
.834
*958

Spring of Ribs

.428

& *497 Required for significance at P .05*
*623 Required for significance at P .01.

- 67 -

merits (fore and hind flanks and middle), and various width measure­
ments (round, rump and shoulder).

Lush (1928) used some of the

above measurements and reported that they were easily duplicated.
In order for a given measurement to be useful, it must be one
in which duplication of results is at a maximum.

With the exception

of a few measurements, repeatability was sufficiently high to be
useful.

However, the position in which the steer is standing,

the temperament of the animal, the location of the measurement on
the animal and the technique of the operator are all probable
sources of error.
measurement.

All factors can and will affect the ultimate

Several steers each year tended to be excitable.

The

measurements taken on these steers, especially those involving the
hind legs, were more difficult to obtain.

It is also recognized

that it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure a rounded ob­
ject with straight measuring devices and relate the various linear
measures back to the original object with great precision.
Comparison of Live Animal and Photographic Measurements
The photographs of each live steer were measured at seven
locations.

The values thus obtained were correlated with comparable

measurements taken with the live animal*
cients are listed in Table 6.

The correlation coeffi­

All relationships were found to be

highly significant with the exception of body length, which was
significant at the five percent level.

Length of body was measured

from the point of the shoulder to the pins on the live animal.
However, while from the photographs it was taken using the same

- 68 -

TABLE %

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Various Live Animal
Measurements and Measurements Taken from Live Animal Photographs3-

Live Animal Measurement

Photograph Measurement

Circumference of Fore Flank -

Depth of Chest

.626

Circumference of Middle

Depth of Middle

.544

Circumference of Hind Flank -

Depth of Flank

.770

Height at Withers

Height at Withers

.723

Height at Rump

Height at Rump

.928

Depth of Chest

.632

Length of Body

.400

Depth of Chest
Length of Body

-

a.349 required for significance at P.05*
*449 required for significance at P.01.

r

-

69

-

points of reference, it was impossible to accurately define the
point of the shoulder.
Circumferences could not be obtained from the photograph
of the live animal*

However, body depth measurements were taken

from the photographs at the same points at which live animal cir­
cumference had been taken previously and the depth and circumference
measurements were correlated*

Since only one dimension, namely

depth could be measured, as compared to circumference, the correla­
tion coefficients obtained were not unusually high*

Photographic

measurements of height at withers and rump were correlated with
the same live animal measurements*

The correlation between the

two methods of measuring height at rump showed then to be in good
agreement with an association accounting for 86 percent of the
variation, while height at withers accounted for 5 0 percent of
the variation occuring between the two measurements.

Since the

live animal and photographic measurements of height at rump were
highly associated with each other, the lower relationship existing
between the two measures of height at withers can best be explain­
ed as a result of position of the fore legs.

The depth of chest

measurements taken on the live and photographed animal were signi­
ficantly correlated.

However, this correlation was not as high

as would be expected.
These correlations indicated that it is possible to obtain
certain estimates of body measurements by the use of photographs.
Body height measurements taken from the photographs were the

-

70

-

measurements most highly correlated with those of the live animal.
However, results show that care must be taken to get each animal
to stand in the same relative position*
Comparison of Objective Live Animal and Carcass Measurements
Xn order to test the validity of using various live animal
measurements to estimate a particular carcass measurement, correla­
tion coefficients were calculated.

These are listed in Table 7-

Comparable live animal and carcass measurements were correlated
when available, while in all other instances, the correlations
between the measurements of the live animal and carcass were
chosen for best fit.

A good correlation was shown to exist between

the carcass measurements and some of the objective live animal
measurements.

All carcass width measurements were highly correlated

with the same live animal measurements.

The correlation coeffi­

cients were *770 for width of shoulder, .635 for width at crops,
•7 5 5

for width at rump, and *6 6 l for width of round and all were

highly significant.

Since these estimates are all higher than

similar estimates made between subjective live animal scores and
carcass measurements (Table 3)* it is evident that width of carcass
could be more accurately predicted from live animal measurements
than from subjective scoring.

Carcass depth taken at the fifth

rib and flank were significantly related to the live animal
measurements, brisket to crops and circumference of rear flank,
which most closely approximated these measurements.

It was obvious

that the depth measurements on the live animal predicted carcass

- 71 -

TABLE 7
______

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Linear Carcass and
Live Animal Measurements

Carcass Measurement

Live Animal Measurement

r

Width of Shoulder

- Width of Shoulder

.770#*

Width at Crops

- Width at Crops

.635*#

Width of Rump

- Width of Rump

•75 5**

Width of Round

- Width of Round

.661**

Depth of Chest at 5th Rib

-

Depth from Brisket to Crops

•584**

Depth at Flank

-

Circumference of Middle

.419*

Depth at Flank

-

Circumference of Hind Flank

.428*

iCircumference of Round

-

Circumference of Leg above Hock

.512#

^-Circumference of Round

-

Depth from Twist to Hocks

.162

^-Circumference of Round

-

Circumference of Hind Flank

^-Circumference of Round

- Height from Rump to Hocks

.032

^Circumference of Round

-

Depth from Twist to Floor

.123

^-Circumference of Foreshank

-

Circumference of Leg above Knee

.389

Length of Carcass

-

Height at Withers

.331

Length of Carcass

- Height at Rump

.804*#

Length of Carcass

- Length from 1st Thoracic to Pins

.008

Weight of Fore Quarter

- Weight of Fore

.904**

Weight of Hind Quarter

- Weight of Hind

.865**

-*-Only 15 steers included.
^Denotes significance at P.05.
**Denotes significance at P.01.

-.148

- 72 -

depth more accuately than the subjective scores for depth
(Table 3)*

Either of these correlations did not account for as

much of the variation as the width measurements.
Circumference of the round of the carcass was only obtained
for second year.

Circumference of the hind leg above the hock

was found to be the live animal measurement most highly related to
the circumference of the round ( r =s .512 )•

Circumference of

fore shank on the carcass, also was only obtained for the steers
the second year, but when correlated with the circumference of
fore leg above the knee on the live animal, the relationship, al­
though not significant due to the small numbers studied, did show
a definite relationship.

The length of the carcass was most high­

ly related with the height of the rump on the live animal.

A

correlation coefficient of .804 was obtained.
The fore and hind quarter weights of the carcass were correl­
ated with the fore and hind weight taken on the live animal.
Correlation coefficients of .904 was obtained between the fore
weight of the carcass and the fore weight of the live animal.
Dawson et al. (1955) weighing both ends of the live animal
simultaneously reported that on the average 43.55 percent of the
weight of the live animal was carried on the hind legs.

They also

found a correlation coefficient of . 6 6 existing between the percent
of hind weight of the live animal and the percent of hind quarters
in the carcass.

It was necessary, in this study however, to

have each animal stand in the same relative position when the

- 73 -

weights of the hind and fore halves of the live animal were ob­
tained.

Raising or lowering of the head or a shifting of body

weight would radically increase or decrease the weights.
Comparison of Objective Live Animal Measurements to Cp^cass
Grade
Correlation coefficients were calculated between carcass
grade and objective live animal measurements.
Table 8.

These are given in

The live animal measurements which were found to give

the best estimate of carcass grade include in order of importance
the following: circumference of middle, width at rump, circumference
of hind and fore flank, width of round, total live weight, hind
and fore weight of the live animal, and width between 1 3 th rib and
hooks*

The above correlation coefficients accounted for 6l to 22

percent of the variation in carcass grade.

Each was positively

correlated with grade, indicating that the larger body measurements
and heavier weights were associated with the higher grading steers.
All were high enough for significance at the one percent level.
In addition, height at withers, width of shoulder and at hooks
were positively and significantly related to grade ( P = .0 5 ) and
were associated with 1 5 to 17 percent of the variation in grade.
Circumference of the hind cannon was also found to be significantly
( P = .05 ) associated with carcass grade, but showed an inverse
relationship.

Thus, results indicate that the cannon bones with

the smaller circumferences were associated with the higher grading
steers.

-

TABLE 8 /

Correlation Coefficients Between Carcass Grade and Various
Live Animal Measurement^1
X

r Carcass Gra.de
with

Live Animal Height
Hind
Fore
Total

.492
.490
.534

Live Animal Width Measurements
over Crops
between Crops and 13th Rib
at 13th Rib
between 13th Rib and Hooks
Pins
Round
Rump
Hooks
Shoulder
Neck

.304
.006
.343
.472
.266
.650
.738
.387
.408
.302

Live Animal Length Measurements
1st Thoracic to Pins
1st Thoracic to 13th Rib
13th Rib to Hooks
Rump

.016
.230
-.287
-.157

Live Animal Height Measurements
Withers
Rump
Rump to Hocks
Twist to Floor
Twist to Hocks
Brisket to Crops
Smooth Joint to Dew Claws
Smooth Joint to Floor
Break Joint to Dew Claws
Break Joint to Floor
Live Animal Circumference Measurements
Fore Flank
Middle
Hind Flank
Fore Leg above Elbow
Fore Leg below Elbow
Hind Leg above Hock
Hind Leg below Hock
__________ ____
A n # le
Ribs
a*349 required for significance at P.05.

.416
*180
.238
-.1 1 0

-.038
.318
-.050
.055
.162
.066
.652
.782
•692
*294
-.166
.068
-.350
.228

- 75 -

The data support the findings of Lush (1932) that such
measures as the circumferences of barrel, and various width
measurements have a direct relationship to grade.

However,

width at hooks which Lush considered as the best index to grade
was not as highly associated with grade as some other live animal
measurements in this study.

The best single estimate of carcass

grade was circumference of barrel just anterior to the pizzle.
Relationship of Live Animal Measurements to Rib-eye Area and
Live Animal Weight
Rib-eye area and live weights were correlated with objective
live animal measurements to determine the relationship existing
between these items (Table 9)•
.3 2 0

Correlation coefficients of .510*

and .3 3 0 were obtained between rib-eye area and circumference

of fore flank, circumference of hind flank and circumference of
middle, respectively.

All were highly significant and showed a

direct relationship to rib-eye area.

Thus, the steers with the

larger body circumference tended to have the larger rib-eyes.
Other relationships between various live animal measurements and
rib-eye area were significant at the five percent level.

The

significant correlation coefficients for rib-eye area were -3 5 0
for width of rump, - . 3 6 0 for circumference of hind leg above hock,
and .3 8 0 for live weight.

Width of rump and live weight were

shown to be directly related to rib-eye size while circumference
of the hind leg above the hock showed an inverse relationship.
Thus, there was a tendency for the heavier steers and those with

-

76

-

TABLE) 9

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of Rib-eye Area Kith
Live Weight and Various Live Animal Measurements, and Standard
_________ Partial Regression Coefficients with Weight Constant________________
R
r
r
Rib-eye Area
Rib-eye Area Live Weight
With Live Weight
X__________________ with
with
b^-'a/
and
Width Measurements
Over Crops
Between Crops and 13th Rib
At 13th Rib
Between 13th Rib and Hooks
Pins
Round .
Rump
Hooks
Shoulder
Neck
Length Measurements
1st Thoracic to Pins
1st Thoracic to 13th Rib
13th Rib to Hooks
Rump

•200
-•050
.1 2 0

.150
•180
.300
•350**
.230
.2 2 0

-.050
.070
.140
.1 2 0

.040

Height Measurements
Withers
Rump
Rump to Hocks
Twist to Floor
Twist to Hocks
Brisket to Crops

-.050
.258

Circumference Measurements
Fore Flank
Rear Flank
Middle
Fore Leg above Knee
Hind Leg above Hock
Fore Cannon
Hind Cannon

.510**
.520**
.530**
.040
-.360*
-.230
-.300

live Weight
*

_____________

^Denotes significance at P.05*
**Denotes significance at P*01*

.1 1 2

.036
.340
♦120

.380*

.444*
•222
.608**
•592**
•294
•677**
.680**
.538**
.792**
.476**
.564**
.578**
-.328
.333
.780**
.698**
.500**
.276
-.1 0 2

.039
-•142
-.176
-.115
.074
.078
.170
.036
-.218
-.298

.382
.404
.405
.391
.386
.384
.400
.381
.402
.462*

-.2 1 2
- .1 2 0

.418
.392
.382
.390

-.274
-.097
-.472
-.447
.2 0 0

-.244
-.0 1 1

.630**

.030

.901**
.784**
.759**
.352*
.361*
.492**
.304

.891
.576
.570
-.106
-.572
-.550
“ .458
—

.481*
.496*
.418
.446*
.380
.380
.542**
.522**
.531**
.393
.654**
.612**
.578**
—

- 77 -

the wider rumps to have larger rib-eyes, while the steers having
the larger leg circumferences above hock, tended to have the
smaller rib-eyes.

The negative relationship between circumfer­

ence of the leg above the hock and rib-eye area was not expected
since many livestock judges use size of round on the live animal
as an indicator of rib-eye size.

In any case, only 1 2 to 14 per­

cent of the variation existing in rib-eye area, was associated
with either width of rump, circumference of leg above hock or
live weight.

All other relationships studied between rib-eye

size and the various live animal measurements were not significant
and in some instances approached zero.
Correlation coefficients between objective live animal
measurements and live weight were calculated (Table 9)*

In

each case, the relationship was found to be higher between the
live animal measurements and live weight than with rib-eye area.
This would indicate that the several body measurements were more
dependent upon the effects of weight than upon the effect of ribeye muscle area.

As reported by Johnson (19^0), Lush (1928),

Barton (1938), Kidwell (1955) and other workers, circumference
of fore flank was the best single estimate of body weight.

The

correlation coefficient obtained was *901 which accounted for
better than 8 l percent of the variation in weight.

Other measure­

ments which gave high relationships to body weight included
shoulder width, circumference of rear flank, height at withers,
circumference of middle, height at rump, width of rump, width

-

78

-

at round and width at 1 3 th rib with correlation coefficients
of .7 9 2 , *7 8 ^, .7 8 0 , *759, *6 8 0 , *677 and .6 0 8 , respectively.
Thus, each of the above listed correlation coefficients accounted
for at least 3 6 percent of the variation existing between a
particular live measurement and live weight.
Xt is evident from the correlation coefficients discussed
above and from others listed in Table 9, that rib-eye area had a
low relationship to objective live animal measurements, while on
the other hand, several of the measurements studied seemed to be a
direct function of weight.

This would be expected since the magni­

tude of such measurements would be dependent upon body mass*
Standard partial regression equations were calculated in order
to study the relationship of various subjective live animal measure­
ments and live animal weight with rib-eye area.

Table 9 lists the

relationships between rib-eye area and various live animal measures
with the effects of live weight eliminated.

With weight held con­

stant, circumference of fore flank accounted for 80 percent of the
variation in rib-eye area.

This was by far the best relationship

found between the various live animal measures.

Other live animal

measurements, which were associated with 20 to 33 perdent of the
variation in rib—eye area, included circumference of middle and
circumference of rear flank*

Similar to the fore flank, they

were directly related, while other measurements such as height at
withers, height at rump, circumference of hind leg above hock
and below the hock or circumference of hind and fore cannons, all
showed an inverse relationship to area of rib-eye.

The standard

-

79

-

partial regression equations for all the live animal measurements
with rib-eye area were increased over the simple correlation co­
efficients obtained previously between the same dependent and in­
dependent variable.
Table 9 lists the multiple correlation coefficients obtained
when rib-eye area was correlated with live animal weight and the
various live animal measurements.

These values account for the

variation in rib-eye area which was due to the combined effects
and possible interactions of live animal weight and a particular
live animal measurement*

The relationships of rib-eye area to

the various circumference measurements were studied.

The circum­

ferences included the following: fore flank, rear flank, middle,
hind leg above hock, fore cannon and hind cannon.

The variation

associated with rib-eye area between each of these various circum­
ference measures and live animal weight was from 27 to 43 percent.
The total range of variation in rib-eye area associated with live
weight and the measurements studied was from 14 to 43 percent.
Relationship of Live Animal Measurements with Primal Cuts
Table 10 lists the correlation coefficients obtained be­
tween the various objective live animal measurements and percent
primal cuts.

Only two correlations between live animal measure­

ments and percent primal cuts were significant at the one percent
level.

These included the circumference of fore flank and circum­

ference of middle, with correlation coefficients of -.462 and -.53^,
respectively.

Other measurements which accounted for 12 to 19

-

TABLE ICR

80

-

Correlation Coefficients Between Various Live Animal
Measurements and Percent Primal Cotsa
r
Primal Cuts
X
with

Weight
Hind
Fore
Total

-.092
-.324
-.240

Circumference
Fore Flank
Middle
Hind Flank
Leg below Knee
Leg above Knee
Leg below Hock
Leg above Hock

-.462
-*534
-.424
.352
.072
.412
.042

Width
Neck
Shoulder
Crops
Between Crops and 13th Rib
13th Rib
Between 13th Rib and Hooks
Hooks
Rump
Round
Pins

-.257
-.276
-.113
-.131
-.1 2 2

-.129
-.137
-.398
-.322
-.436

Length
1st Thoracic to Pins
1st Thoracic to 13th Rib
13th Rib to Hooks
Length of Rump

.1 0 2

Height
Rump to Hocks
Twist to Hocks
Twist to Floor
at Rump
at Wi thers
Brisket to Crops
Smooth joint to Dew Claws
Smooth joint to Floor
Break joint to Dew Claws
Break joint to Floor

-.062
.151
.299
.311
-.039
-.016
.263
.147
.427

Spring of Ribs
.
a.349 Required for significance at P.05.
.449 Required for significance at P.01.

.314
.151
.321

-.0 2 1

-.315

81

-

-

percent of the variation between live animal measurements and
percent primal cuts were circumference of hind flank ( r = -.424 );
circumference of hind leg below hock ( r = *412 ); width of rump
C r = %398 ); width at pins ( r =£f36 )» and the distance between
break joint and dew claws ( r =.427 )•

It is evident from the

correlation coefficients presented in Table 10 that most of the
relationships were negative.

Thus there was a slight tendency

for the steers having the larger live animal measurements to have
a lower percent of primal cuts.

This was contrary to the relation­

ships between the various live animal measurements and wholesale
cuts on a weight basis, which tended to show high positive relation­
ships.

Since converting actual weights of wholesale cuts into a

percent basis markedly reduces most relationships existing be­
tween live animal measurements and percent primal cuts, it is
obvious that smaller differences existed in the yield of primal
cuts between steers when placed on a percentage basis.

This sup­

ports the view of Butler (1957) who stated that conformation of
the live beef animal could vary quite widely and still not change
the proportion of wholesale cuts.
Relationship Between Various Live Animal Measurements and
Weights of Various Wholesale Cuts
The relationship of various objective live animal measure­
ments to individual wholesale cuts were investigated.

In each

case, the weight of a particular wholesale cut was correlated
with the actual objective live animal measurement, which would

-

82

-

seem most likely to affect its weight.
The weight of the wholesale beef rib was correlated with
the various live animal measurements and correlation coefficients
are listed in Table 1 1 .

All correlation coefficients except two,

namely, length from first thoracic vertebra to the 1 3 th rib and
length from first thoracic vertebra to the pins, were found to
show a highly significant positive relationship to the weight of
the wholesale beef rib.

The three highest relationships were with

circumference of fore flank, circumference of middle and live
weight with correlations of .8 8 0 , .7 0 9 and .824, respectively.
The i;wo circumference measurements were previously shown to have
correlation coefficients of .9 0 1 and .7 5 9 * respectively, with live
animal weight.

This indicates that the ultimate weight of the

wholesale beef rib will depend largely upon the weight of the
animal.
Although length from the first thoracic vertebra to the 13th
rib and the length from the first thoracic vertebra to the pins
were shown to have correlation coefficients with live animal
weight of . 5 7 8 and -564, respectively, they failed to show an
appreciable effect on the weight of the wholesale rib.

The first

mentioned length correlation coefficient, however, was high enough
for significance at the five percent level.

These results agree

with the report of White and Green (1952) who stated that the
various body depth and width measurements furnished a higher pre­
dictive value for weights of the several wholesale cuts than did

- 83 -

TABLE 11

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the Weight
of the Wholesale Rib with Live Weight and Various Live
Animal Measurements, and Standard Partial Regression Co­
efficients with Weight Constant
R
Rib-eye Area
with Live Weight
and

r
Rib Weight
with

r
Live Weight
with

Width at 13th Rib

.648**

.608**

.232

,844#*

Width between 13th
Rib and Crops

.453**

.2 2 2

.284

.869**

Width at Crops

.520#**

.444*

Circumf erence of
Fore Flank

.880#*

.901*#

.729

.882**

Cireumference of
Belly

.709*#

.759*#

.179

.834**

Spring of Ribs

.605##

.407*

.323

,875**

Length 1st Thoracic
to 13th Rib

.359*

.578**

-.177

.836**

Length 1st Thoracic
to Pins

•229

.564**

-.347

.872**

Live Weight

.824*28#

X

---

b1^)

.192

---

.842**

--

(a)bl = Standard partial regression of rib-eye area on X with weight held
constant.
#Denotes significance at P.05.
#*Denotes significance at P#01.

-

8if -

various body length measurements*
When comparing the correlation coefficients obtained between
body measurements and rib weight

with those obtained between the

same body measurements and live animal weight, it is evident that
the differences are small*

This would further indicate the high

relationship existing between live animal weight and the ultimate
weight of the wholesale rib*
When the effect of live weight was eliminated by use of stan­
dard partial regression equations, only circumference of the fore
flank accounted for a large amount of the variation in the weight
of the wholesale rib (Table 11)*

In this case, 53 percent of the

variation in rib weight was associated with circumference of fore
flank when live weight was held constant.

All other body measure­

ments except length from first thoracic vertebra to pins were re­
duced markedly from the simple correlations between rib weight and
various live animal measures.

Both body length measurements were

changed from positive values in the simple correlations with rib
w e ig h t to negative values when live weight was held constant*
This would indicate a tendency for the longer bodied steers to be
associated with the lighter wholesale ribs when the weight was
the same.

However, either of the regressions obtained for these

length measurements did not account for more than 12 percent of
the variation in rib weight.
The combined effect of the various live animal measurements
studied and live weight were associated with 70 to 78 percent of
the variation existing in weight of the wholesale rib cut.

Thus,

- 85 -

&11

live animal measurements were about equally good in account­

ing variation in the weight of the rib.
The weights of the sirloin plus round were also correlated
with the particular live animal measurements which would logically
be expected to affect the weights of these cuts.

These correla­

tion coefficients are listed

in Table 12.

With the exception of

the height from the twist to

the hocks and width of pins, all other

correlations between the various live animal measurements and the
combined weight of the round plus sirloin were significant.

The

correlations between the combined weight of round plus sirloin
with either live animal weight or height at the rump had correla­
tion coefficients of .8 7 7 and .8 6 0 , respectively, and afforded the
best predictive value for the weights of this cut.
animal measures which

Other live

indicated a high relationship to the

weight

of round plus sirloin included height from the rump to the hocks
( r = . 5 2 8 ), height from the

twist to the floor ( r = .5 0 2

), cir­

cumference of hind flank and middle (r = .6 7 6 and . 5 1 0 ), length
of rump ( r = .5 8 8 and . 5 9 1 ).
Observation of the correlation coefficients between live
animal weight and the various live measurements (Table 12) indi­
cates, as was the case with the wholesale rib, that the correla­
tions which were the highest between a particular measurement and
weight of the corresponding wholesale cut, were also in most cases
highest with the same

measurement and live animal weight.

live animal weight affords the best single estimate of the

Since
ultimate

- 86 -

TABLE 12

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the Weight
of the Wholesale Sirloin plus Round with Live Weight and
Various Live Animal Measurements, and Standard Partial
Regression Coefficients with Live Weight Constant
r
Sirloin plus
Round Weight
with

r
live
Weight
with

b1(a)

R
Sirloin '♦ Round
Weight and Live
Weight
and

.500**

.119

.883**

.140

.888 *#

Height from Rump to Hocks

.528**

Height from Twist to Hock

.048

Height from Twist to
Floor

.502* *

.276

.281

.918**

Circumference of Hind
Cannon

.436*

.304

.187

.895**

Circumference of Leg
above Hock

.362#

.361

.052

.878**

Circumference of Hind
Flank

.676**

.784**

-.004

.890**

Circumf erenc e of Belly

.510*#

.759**

-.368

.909**

Height at Rump

.860**

.698**

.484

.943##

Length of Rump

.518**

.333

.254

.909*#

Width at Hooks

.452**

•538**

-.027

.877**

Width at Pins

.040

.294

-.238

.906*#

Width of Round

.588*#

.677**

- .0 1 0

.877#*

Width of Rump

.591**

.689*:*

- .0 1 0

.877#*

Live Weight

.877**

- .1 0 2

e

-

-

--

(a)fol = Standard partial regression of rib-eye area on X with weight held
constant.
^Denotes significance at P.05.
#*Denotes significance at P.01.

-

weight of a

87

-

wholesale cut, it is again evident that the final

weight of a cut is a functionof the live animal weight*
When the effect of live weight was held constant, most of the
values obtained for the standard partial regression equations were
greatly reduced from the simple correlations obtained between the
various live animal measurements and the sirloin plus round weight.
As is in the case with the wholesale rib, the influence of live
weight is indicated upon the weight of the wholesale cut.

Height

at rump in animals of the same weight accounted for the largest
amount of variation ( 2 3 percent) in weight of the sirloin plus
round.

The

multilinear correlation coefficients of the various

live animal measurements plus live weight accounted for 77 to

89

percent of the variation existing in the weight of the sirloin
plus round.
In the case of the shortloin, the best estimates of the ulti­
mate weight of this cut were either the width of the live animal
taken between the 1 3 th rib and hooks or the width at hooks or the
live weight of the animal* which gave correlation coefficients of
*6 9 8 , .610 and *648, respectively (Table 13)-

Similar to the

two previous wholesale cuts, the live animal measurements which
were found to be most highly related to the weight of the short­
loin were likewise highly related to the weight of the live animal.
Width at pins, length from first thoracic vertebra to pins and the
length from the 1 3 th ribs to hooks showed positive relationships
to the weight of the shortloin, but the correlations were not high

- 88 -

TABLE

Simple
of the
Animal
cients

and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the Height
Wholesale Shortloin with Live Weight and Various Live
Measurements, and Standard Partial Regression Coeffi­
with Live Weight held Constant

X

r
Shortloin
Weight
with

r
Live
Weight
with

bl(a)

R
Shortloin
Weight with
Live Weight
and

Width at 13th Rib

•374*

.608** -.003

.656 **

Width between 12th Rib and
Hooks

.698**

.592**

.484

.838 * *

Width at Hooks

•610**

.538**

.368

.718 **

Width at Pins

•172

.294

-.0 0 2

.650 * *

Length at 1st Thoracic to
Pins

.300

.564** -.096

.652 **

Length at 13th Rib to Hooks

.291

.564

.756 **

Live Weight

.648 **

-.328
—

—

—

a)bl = standard partial regression of rib-eye area on X with live weight
held constant.
■^Denotes significance at P.05.
■^Denotes significance at P.01.

-

89

-

enough for significance.
When the effect of live weight was eliminated, length from
^ke 1 3 th rib to the hooks was associated with 3 2 percent of varia­
tion in the weight of the shortloin.

All the other direct effects

(weight constant) of the various live animal measurements upon the
weight of the shortloin were lower than the values obtained with
the simple correlations between these measurements and the weight
of shortloin.
Multiple correlation coefficients of the various live animal
measurements and live animal weight accounted for kZ to 70 percent
of the variation in shortloin weight.

The combination of live

weight and width between 1 3 th rib and hooks, was the best relation­
ship, accounting for 70 percent of the variation in weight of the
shortloin.
Table 1^ lists the correlation coefficients obtained between
the weight of the wholesale chuck with various live animal measure­
ments.

All live animal measurements correlated with the weight of

the chuck were highly significant except for width of neck.

Again,

as with the other wholesale cuts studied, all correlations were
positive, indicating that an increase in a certain measurement
would result in more pounds of chuck from the same animal.

Each

of three live animal measurements accounted for 6*+ to 80 percent
Q-f the variation which existed between chuck weight and the corre­

sponding live animal measure.

These included circumference of

middle and fore flank, and live animal weight with correlations

-

TABLE Zk

90

-

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of the Weight
of the Wholesale Chuck with Live Weight and Various Live
Animal Measurements, and Standard Partial Regression
Coefficients with Live Weight held Constant
r
Chuck
Weight
with

r
Live
Weight
with

bKa)

R
Chuck Weight
with Live Weight
and

Width of Neck

#277

.476**

-.174

.879**

Width of Shoulder

♦

638^

.792**

.005

.866 **

Width over Crops

.483**

♦444*

.123

•872**

Circumference of Fore
Flank

.800**

♦901**

.1 0 2

.867**

Circumference of Middle

.895**

.759**

.561

.940**

Length from 1st Thoracic
to 13th Rib

.586**

.578**

.128

.872**

Height from Brisket to
Crops

.578**

.630**

.054

.866 **

Height at Shoulders

.712**

.780**

.092

.868 **

Live Weight

.866 **

X

-----

-----

--

(a)fcl s standard partial regression of rib-eye area on X with live weight
held constant,
■^Denotes significance at P.05
**Denotes significance at P.01

-

91

-

of .8 9 5 , .800 and .866, respectively.

As was the case for the

previous wholesale cuts studied, the weight of chuck was a direct
function of animal weight.

However, width of neck was more highly

related to the live weight of the animal than to the weight of the
wholesale chuck.
Standard partial regression equations between the various live
animal measurements and weight of chuck are listed in Table 14.
With the effects of weight eliminated, all values were lower than
those obtained in the simple correlation coefficients between weight
of chuck and the various live animal measurements tested.

When

the effect of weight was eliminated, circumference of middle (account-*
ing for 5 1 percent of the variation in the weight of chuck) was the
only live measurement showing a high relationship to weight of the
wholesale chuck.
CARCASS EVALUATION
Repeatability Estimates for Carcass Measurements
All carcass measurements taken were highly repeatable (Table
15).

Length of body was the measurement with the highest repeat­

ability.

This measurement was taken by using definite reference

points which accounts for the high estimate obtained.

The body

depth measurements were the poorest as far as the ability for
duplication was concerned, probably because the points of reference
were least defined.
Examination of carcass repeatability estimates shows that
these measurements can be taken with a high degree of accuracy.

-

TABLE 15

92

Repeat ability Estimates for Carcass Measurements3
Repeatability Estimate

Depth of Body at 5th Rib

.869

Depth of Body at Flank

.776

Width at Shoulder

.985

Width at Crops

.973

Width at Rump

.921

Width at Sound

.979

Circumference of Round

.978

Circumference of Fore Shank

.953

Length of Bods'-

.991

a.497 Required for Significance at P.05,
.623 Required for Significance at P.01.

-

95

-

The variation existing between duplicate carcass measurements
appears to be largely due to the lack of definite reference points.
The variation accounted for between all duplicate measurements
ranged from 6 0 . 2 to 9 8 . 2 percent, while with removal of the two
body depth measurements, the range was from only 8*f.8 to 98.2
percent.
Comparison of Carcass and Carcass Photographic Measurements
Various carcass measurements were taken so that the associa­
tion between carcass photographic measures and actual carcass
measurements could be made.(Table 16) •

With the exception of

the correlation obtained between circumference of round in the
carcass with width plus depth of round from the photograph, all
correlation coefficients obtained between the two methods were
significant.

Body depth at fifth rib, and width of shoulder,

crops and rump were shown to be the measurements most highly
duplicative.
Depth at flank and width of round measurements taken from
the carcass photographs were significantly correlated ( P =.05 )
with the same measurements of the carcass.

The circumference of

round on the carcass was not duplicated with the measurements
taken from the photographs, because of inability to obtain a
measure of all dimensions of the round.

If the carcasses had

been split, as is the common procedure in slaughtering beef, the
repeatability of the photographic measurements and the carcass
measurements would have been lower.

-

TABLE L6

9^

-

Simple Correlations Coefficients Between Actual Carcass
Measurements and. Measurements Taken from Carcass Photographs3
X

r

Depth at 5th Rib

-

.704

Depth at Flank

-

.398

Width of Round

-

.427

Width of Rump

-

.658

Width of Shoulder

-

.868

Width of Crops

-

.724

w/widfth + depth of Round
from photographs

.047

Circumference

V

a.349 required for significance at P.05.
.449 required for significance at P.01.

-

95

-

Relationship between Carcass Measurements and Rib—eye Area,
Live Weight and Percent Primal Cuts
Table T7 lists the correlation coefficients between various
carcass measurements and rib-eye area, live weight and percent
primal cuts*

Width of shoulder ( r —*539 )» width of rump ( r = .464 )

and width of round ( r = .480 ) showed highly significantly relation­
ships to rib-eye area.

In addition, depth of flank, depth at fifth

rib and width of crops were significantly related to area of ribeye ( P =*05 )•

These above correlations were directly associated

with area of rib-eye.

Thus, it would be expected that those steers

having the larger carcass measurements tended to have the larger
area of rib-eye.

Such carcass measures as carcass length, circum­

ference of round and circumference of fore shank showed very little
relationship to rib-eye area.

Circumference of fore shank showed

a low negative relationship to the area of rib-eye.
The correlation coefficients obtained between live weight and
the various carcass measurements were all significant (Table 17)*
With the exception of depth and circumference at the flank, all
relationships between the various carcass measurements and live
weight were highly significant, accounting for 39 to 64 percent
of the variation.
Correlation coefficients calculated between percent primal
cuts and various carcass measurements are also found in Table 17All, except the correlation between body length, showed an inverse
relationship to percent primal cuts.

Thus, with the one exception,

-

TABLE 17

96

-

Correlation Coefficients Between Various Carca.ss Measurements
and Rib-eye Area, Live Weight and Percent Primal Cuts

X

r
r
Rib-eye Area Live Weight
with
with

r
Percent
Primal Cuts
with

Carcass Length

.017

.664**

.221

Depth at 5th Rib

.369

.672**

-.320

Depth at Flank

.405*

.356*

-.153

Width of Shoulder

.539**

.788**

-.499**

Width of Crops

.414*

.622**

-.403*

Width of Rump

.464**

.656**

-.457**

Width of Round

.480**

.802**

-.436*

■^Circumference of Round

.094

•436*

-.158

.794**

-.052

^Circumference of Foreshank
1 15 steers only.
^Denotes significance at P.05.
**Denotes significance at P.01.

-.197

97

-

the larger carcase measurements tended to be associated with a
lower yield of primal cuts.

However, except for width of should­

er and width of rump ( P =.01 ) and width of crops and width of
round ( P =.05 ) all relationships were low.
Relationship of Rib-eye Area to Percent of Various Carcass Parts
Table 18 lists the simple correlation coefficients of the
percent of the fore and hind quarters, percent of various whole­
sale cuts and Psoas major and Semitendinosis muscles with the area
of rib-eye.

Certain of these items, namely: hind quarter, primal

cuts, sirloin plus round, shortloin, fore shank, chuck and Psoas
major showed an inverse relationship to the area of the rib-eye
muscle.

This would indicate that as the eye muscle increased in

size, the percentage of these various items tended to decrease.
The highest relationship between the various percentages of the
carcass and rib-eye area were found to exist between percent
primal cuts, percent sirloin plus round and percent fore shank,
which all showed a highly significant negative relationship to
the size of rib-eye.

On the other hand, percent kidney knob and

shortplate showed positive relationships to area of rib-eye
( P =.01 ).
These correlation coefficients seem somewhat spurious upon
first observation.

However, when the rib-eye area for each steer

was plotted against either percent primal cuts, percent fore shank
or percent kidney knob, the cause for these particular correlations
was evident.

Negative correlations were obtained between rib-eye

-

98

-

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Rib-eye Area with Percent
of Hind and Fore Quarters, Percent Primal Cuts, Percent
Wholesale Cuts and Percent Semitendinosis and Psoas Major
Muscles

X

r Rib-eye Area
with

Hind Quarter

-.231

Fore Quarter

.230

Primal Cuts

-.507**

Sirloin + Round

-.512**

Rib
Shortloin

.181
-.167

Shortplate

.479**

Fore Shank

-.519**

Brisket
Chuck

.140
-.078

Kidney Knob

.587**

Flank

.345

Psoas Major
-^•Semitendino sis
*k)nly 15 steers included.
**Denotes significance at P.01.

-.314
.405

-

99

-

area with percent primal cuts and percent fore shank.

This was

largely the result of the Angus steers which had large rib—eyes
but quite low percentages of primal cuts and percentages of fore
shank.

While the positive relationship existing between percent

kidney knob and rib-eye area was largely attributed to the Angus
steers as a group which had in addition to large rib—eyes, a higher
percent of kidney knob.
Relationship of Animal Weight with Weights of Carcass Parts
Table 19 lists the simple correlation coefficients of the
weights of the wholesale cuts, weight of Psoas ma.jor and Semitendinosis muscles with live animal weight.

All existing relation­

ships between the wholesale cuts and muscle weights and live
animal weights were highly significant except for the kidney knob
and the Psoas major.

The highest relationships were found with

weight of round plus sirloin and chuck, which were associated
with 77 and 75 percent of the variation existing between the weight
of these particular wholesale cuts and live weight, respectively.
The high relationships to live weight would be expected since the
round plus the sirloin accounts for approximately 33 percent of
the total carcass weight, while approximately 26 percent of the
carcass is composed of the chuck.

The total range of variation

associated with the various weights of the wholesale cuts, which
were significantly related, and live weight was 37 to 77 percent.

100 -

TABLE 19

Correlation Coefficients of Live Animal Weight with Weights
of Wholesale Cuts and Psoas Major and Semitendinosis Muscle
X

r - Live animal weight
with

Chuck

.866**

Rib

.824**

Shortplate

.798**

Brisket

.673***

Foreshank

.664**

Shortloin

.648**

Round + Sirloin

.877**

Kidney Knob

.324

Flank

.612*55*

Psoas Major

.262

3-Semitendino sis

.690**

3-Only 15 steers included.
**Denotes significance at P.01*

-101-

CANNON BONES
Degree of Muscling
Hammond (1932a) Palsson (1939, 1940) and Hirzel (1939)
reported a tendency towards earlier maturity and a shortening
and thickening of the muscling in sheep as the cannon bones de­
creased in length and increased in thickness.

If such a relation­

ship were relatively high in predictive value, it would be an
easy and inexpensive measurement to obtain, since cannon bones
are removed at slaughter and could be easily cleaned and measured*
Thus, correlation coefficients were calculated (Table 20) between
the various cannon bone measurements with the weight and percent
of primal cuts.

The rib, shortloin, sirloin and round were in­

cluded as primal cuts.
As shown in Table 20, all correlation coefficients between
the weight of primal cuts and various weight and linear measures
of the fore and hind cannons were significant at the one percent
level except for thickness of the fore cannon.

The weight and

lengths of both the fore and hind cannon bones appeared to give
the best estimate of the weights of the primal cuts.
tions were positive*.

All correla­

In other words, the larger the various ineasr

urements of the cannons, the higher the yield of primal cuts.
The weight and length of fore and hind cannons accounted for
37 to 47 percent of the weight in primal cuts.
The same measurements of fore and hind cannons were correlated
with the percent of primal cuts ^Table 20)*

It will be noticed

- 102 -

TABI3S

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Various Cannon Bone
Measurements with Primal Cut Weights, Percent Primal Cuts
and Estimated Percent of Carcass Leana

X

nrn
Primal Cuts
Weight with

t»r»t
% Primal
Cuts with

t*ri*
Estimated %
Carcass Lean
with

Fore Cannon
Weight

.624

.188

-.004

Length

.683

.368

.009

Width

.525

.292

.004

Thickness

.170

-.046

.025

Circumference

.501

^33

.019

Weight

.651

.156

-.005

Length

.607

.349

.007

Width

.488

.237

.012

Thickness

.515

.044

.001

Circuraference

.475

.147

-.002

Hind Cannon

a .349 Required for significance at P .05.
.449 Required for significance at P *01*

- 103 -

that only the length of the fore and hind cannons were found to
significantly related to percent primal cuts*

The relation—

was positive, or in other words, the longest cannons tended
to be associated with the carcasses having the highest percentage
of primal cuts*

Ljungdahlrs (1942) data also supported this con­

clusion, as he found that the longer legged lambs tended to have
a higher percent of leg, even though the carcasses from such lambs
were usually graded lower.
Since higher correlation coefficients were obtained when
cannon bone measurements were correlated directly with weight of
the primal cuts, it would seem that the weight and shape of the
cannons were directly related to body mass or weight.

Differences

in primal cuts between steers were markedly reduced when converted
to a percentage basis.
Estimated percent lean on a carcass basis was calculated using
the data obtained from the 9-10-11 rib section and applying the
regression equation Y = 15*56 + .81 X derived by Hankins and Howe
(1946).

The estimate of percent lean was correlated with the

various cannon bone measures and the correlation coefficients
appear in Table 20.

All correlation coefficients obtained were

zero for all practical purposes.

Thus, there was no relationship

manifested between the several measures of the cannon bones and
the estimated percent lean in the carcass.
Correlation coefficients between rib-eye area and the various
cannon bone measurements are listed in Table 21.

All correlations

obtained between these two items were quite low and not statistic-

-

TABLE 21

104

-

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of Ribeye
Area with Live Weight and Various Measurements of the Fore
and Hind Cannon Bones, and Standard Partial Regression

X

r Ribeye
r Live
area with weight with

bla

R
Ribeye with
Live weight
and

Fore Cannon
.670**

-.336

.454*

-.113

.245

-.219

.435*

-.106

.583**

-.497

.554**

Weight

.069

Length
Width
Thickness
Circurnference

.385

.140

.208

.064

-.199

.361*

-.387

.524**

Hind Cannon
Weight

.161

.682**

-.183

.403

Length

-.054

.546**

-.372

.492*

Width

-.177

.512**

-.504

.576**

.234

.660**

-.030

.381

Circumferenc e

-.041

.588-*'*

-.404

.501*

Combined weight of Fore
and Hind Cannon

.120

.682**

-.260

.425

Live weight

.380**

--

—

Thickness

---

X with weight held
constant*
^Denotes significance at P #05.
**Denotes significance at P •01#

- 105 -

ally significant*

Although the values were low, there seemed to

be a trend, inasmuch as there was an inverse relationship between
rib—eye area with length, width, and circumference of fore and
hind cannons.

Thus, for any increase in any of the cannon measure­

ments there was a tendency for a decrease in rib-eye area.

However,

weight and thickness of the fore cannon were positively correlated
with rib-eye area.
Insomuch as there was no significant relationship between
measures of the cannons with rib-eye area, the cannon bone measure­
ments were correlated with live animal weight (Table 21).
cases, a positive correlation coefficient was obtained.

In all
Thus, it

was shown that increased measurements of the cannon bones were
related to increased body size.

The weights of either the hind or

fore

cannons were the best single

live

animal, withcorrelation coefficients of . 6 8 2

spectively.

and *670, re­

Also equally as good, was thickness of the hind

cannon with a correlation of .660.
hind

estimates to the weight of the

cannon along with length and

Width of either the fore or
circumference of the hind cannons

accounted for at least 3 0 percent of the variation existing between
the various measurements of the cannon bones and live animal weight.
Thus, it would be possible to use various measurements of the
cannons to estimate live animal weight.
estimates of live animal weight exist.

In most cases, better
Unfortunately, the cannon

weights which afford the best estimate of all cannon bone measures
are not obtainable on the live animal.

These data show, however,

that there is a direct relationship between weight of the animal

- 106 -

and. a number of the cannon hone measurements.
Standard partial regression coefficients were calculated to
eliminate the effect of live animal weight on the relationship
between rib—eye size and cannon bone measurements.

With live

weight held constant, the width and circumference measurements
of the fore and hind cannons gave the best estimates of rib-eye
size of all cannon measurements studied accounting for 15 to 25
percent of the variation in rib-eye area (Table 21).

The relation­

ships except for thickness of fore cannon were negative, thus,
indicating a tendency for the larger rib-eye areas to be associated
with shorter, finer and lighter cannons.

This tendency may have

been due to the inclusion of eight Angus steers which for the most
part had cannon bones with smaller measurements than the Herefords
but had larger rib-eye areas than the average.
Multilinear correlation coefficients were obtained for rib­
eye area combined with live weight and the various measures of the
cannons.

These are listed in Table 21.

The highest multiple cor­

relations were found to exist with live animal weight and the width
or circumference measurement of the hind or fore cannons.

These

were associated with 25 to 35 percent of the variation in rib-eye
area.

All remaining multiple correlations obtained accounted for

11 to 24 percent of the variation in rib-eye area with the various
cannon bone measurements and animal live weight.
Breaking Moments
Correlation coefficients were calculated between the breaking

-

107

-

moments obtained for fore and hind cannon bones and the various
measures of the cannon bones and hot and cold shear values*
are shown in Table 22*

These

The correlation coefficients between the

breaking moments and the various measures of the fore and hind
cannons were all highly significant with the exception of circum­
ference of fore cannon, which was slightly lower than the value
needed for significance at the five percent level.
Considerable emphasis is placed upon the character and hard­
ness of bone in deriving packer and federal grades for beef carcasses.
This particular index gives an estimate as to the relative age of
the animal, and to a lesser degree, some indication of tenderness
of meat since some workers (Hiner and Hankins, 1950) have found
tenderness to decrease with age.

Breaking strengths were obtained

for each cannon as a possible index of meat tenderness.

Correla­

tion coefficients between the hot and cold shear values obtained
use of the Warner-Bratzler shear and breaking moments are listed
in Table 22.

Hot or cold shear values of either the Longissimus

dorsi or Semitendinosis muscles correlated with the breaking moments
of fore or hind cannons were not significant.

The highest varia­

tion accounted for between these two items was three percent.

There­

fore, the breaking moments did not seem to show any association
with tenderness.

Results showed that the breaking moments were

directly and highly related to the size, shape and weight of the
cannon bones, but there was little if any relationship between
breaking moments and tenderness*

-

TABLE 22

108

-

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Breaking Moments
of Fore and Hind Cannons and Shear Valuesa
Breaking Moments
of Fore Cannon

Breaking Moments
of Hind Cannon

Weight

.563

.600

Length

.473

.481

Width

.511

.460

Thickness

.634

.537

Circumference

.332

.539

-.030

-.145

Hot - Semitendinosis

.183

.041

Cold - Longissimus dorsi

.117

-.124

Cold - Semitendinosis

.029

.092

X
Cannon Measurements

Warner-Bratzler Shear Values
Hot - Longissimus dorsi

a .349 Required for significance at P .05*
.449 Required for significance at P .01.

- 109 -

X-RAYS
Considerable emphasis is being placed on the amount of
muscling in the beef carcass today.

Therefore, a reliable ob­

jective measure of the amount of muscling in the live animal
would be an extremely valuable tool in the selection of breeding
stock.

This part of the investigation was devoted to determining

the relationship existing between linear and area measurements of
the lumbar vertebrae and eye muscle size.

If such a relationship

exists, it could be measured directly on the live animals by the
use of radiography, and in turn, this information could be used in
selection of cattle for breeding purposes*
For some unknown reason, difficulty was encountered in obtain­
ing clear distinct X-rays of the lateral view the second year.
Therefore, in most cases only 2*f animals are represented in the
data included under measurements of the vertical processes, while
the measurement of the height of anterior articular processes in­
cludes all animals.
The correlations between the various measurements taken from
the X-rays with rib-eye size are given in Table 23*

These correla­

tions show that little, if any, relationship existed between the
measurements of lumbar vertebrae and rib-eye muscle area.

The

width of vertebrae and width of vertical processes showed the
greatest relationship having correlations of .^73 and .^-^f9» re­
spectively.

However, the association accounted for only 22 and 20

percent of the variation existing between rib-eye size and width

- 110 -

TABUS £ 3

Simple and Multiple Correlation Coefficients of Ribeye Area
With Live Weight and Various Average Lumbar Vertebrae
Measurements*

Also Standard Partial Regression Coefficients

____________ _ _ ________ With Live Weight Constant______________
R
Ribeye Area
r ribeye
r Live
with Live
b^a
Weight and
___________X____________ Area with Weight with
Dorsal View
Length of Transverse
processes

-.065

*438*

-.286

.459*

Width of Transverse
processes

-.323

.255

-.449

.577**

Area of Transverse
processes

-.028

.164

-.094

.391

-.228

.430

Vertebrae Length

.000

.469**

Vertebrae Width

.473**

.102

.439

.579**

Length of Vertical
processes

.224

.234

.143

.405

Width of Vertical
processes

.449*

.043

-.466

.601*

.398*

-.463

.570**

.345

-.032

.381

iteral View

Length of Anterior
Articular processes

-.239

*ngth of Transverse Processes
Length of Vertical
processes
Live Weight

.103
.dou

a 'j^l = standard partial regression of ribeye area on X with weight held
constant.
^Denotes significance at P *05.
**Denotes significance at P *01.

- Ill -

of vertebrae and width of vertical process, respectively.

Width

of vertebrae and the width of the vertical processes were directly
related to size of eye.
Inasmuch as size of eye muscle showed little relationship to
the dimensions of the lumbar vertebrae, the question arose as to
the effect of live animal weight.

Correlation coefficients between

lumbar vertebral measurements and live weight are listed in Table
23*

The relationships were found to be of about the same magnitude

or slightly higher than they were with area of rib-eye.

The correla

tions between length of the transverse process, vertebrae length
and height of the anterior articular processes with live animal
weight were the highest, all of which were significant and positive­
ly associated with live animal weight.

Each of these accounted

for approximately 20 percent of the variation between live weight
and these three measurements of the vertebrae.

They indicated

that as a steer increases in weight, there is also a tendency for
the length of the vertebrae and length of transverse

processes

to increase.
Standard partial regression equations were calculated in
order to remove the effect of weight.

This would tend to eliminate

any effect which live weight might have on the relationship of ribeye size to the various measures of the lumbar vertebrae.

With

live weight constant, the width of the body of the lumbar vertebrae,
the width of the verticle processes, the width of transverse pro­
cesses and the height of anterior articular processes were all

- 112 -

equally good in estimating rib-eye area, accounting for l8 to 21
percent of the variation in rib-eye area*

These standard partial

regression equations showed an inverse relationship to rib—eye
area with the exception of width of lumbar vertebrae-

In other

words, the larger vertebrae measurements tended to be associated
with the smaller rib-eye areas.
Multiple correlations of rib-eye size with live weight and the
various lumbar measurements are also listed in Table 23-

The best

combinations for predicting rib-eye size were obtained by combining
live weight with width of transverse processes, vertebrae width,
width of vertical processes and height of anterior articular pro­
cesses.

These various relationships accounted for 32 to 36 percent

of the variation in size of rib-eye.
Since the various measurements taken from the X-rays were
not highly related to rib-eye size, the relationship of these
various measurements to several indexes of bone were determined.
Therefore, correlation coefficients between the various measure­
ments taken of the dorsal view of the double shortloin were ob­
tained between the combined weight of the fore and hind cannons
and weight and percent bone in the 9“10-11 rib section.

The

correlation coefficients are presented in Table 2b,
Palsson (1939, 19^0) found the fore cannons to be the best
index of the weight of bone in the carcass.

In view of this,

correlations were calculated between weight of cannons and the
various linear measurements taken from X-rays of the lumbar verte­
brae.

The correlation coefficients were all highly significant

- 113 -

TABLE

Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Various Measurements
of the Transverse Processes of the Lumbar Vertebrae with
Cannon Bone Weight and Weight of Bone and Percent Bone in
9-10-11 Rib Section3Weight of
Cannon Bones
with

Weight of Bone
in 9-10-11 Rib
Section with

Percent Bone
in 9-10-11 Rib
Section with

Length of transverse
processes

.808

.337

.249

Width of transverse
processes

.658

.372

.434

Area of transverse
processes

.665

.268

.126

Vertebrae length

.535

.345

.321

Vertebrae width

.044

.096

.068

X

a .349 Required for significance at P .05.
.449 Required for significance at P *01.

- 11b -

between the various measurements of the transverse processes
and weight of cannon bones, except width of vertebrae which was
associated with less than two percent of the variation.

The

length of the transverse processes, on the other hand, accounted
for 6 5 percent of the variation in cannon bone weights.

Therefore,

it appears that the relationship between the various measurements
of the lumbar vertebrae was more highly associated with total
weight of the cannons than with area of rib-eye.
Table 2b also gives the correlation coefficients existing be­
tween weight of bone and also percent of bone in 9-10-11 rib section
with the various measurements of the dorsal view of the lumbar
vertebrae.

These correlations were of .about the same magnitude as

area of rib-eye with the same measurements.
Thus, it appears that the measurements taken of the lumbar
vertebrae were much more closely related to the weight of the
cannon bones than to the weight of bone or to the percent of bone
found in the 9-10-11 rib section.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Specific gravity and percent water of the Longissimus dorsi
muscle were inversely related to grade (Table 25)*
percent fat increased as grade increased.

Conversely,

Percent protein showed

no definite pattern, as the mean values for all groups were almost
equal.

The range for specific gravity, irrespective of grade, was

from 1 . 0 3 1 to 1 . 0 7 1 or a range of only two hundredths of a unit.
This indicates the necessity of minimizing the variance due to ex-

115

TABLE 25

-

Mean and Range for Various Measures By Grades
Prime

Good

Choice

Mean

Range

Mean

Range

Mean

Range

Specific gravity

1,059

1.051— 1.065

1.064

1.057— 1.069

1.065

1.060--1.071

Percent fat

8,59

6.67— 11.21

5.62

3.49—

4.25

1.90 --7.18

Percent water

69.65

67.57— 71.13

72.40

70.21— 74.14

73.57

71,14--75.05

Percent protein

21.49

19.85— 22.37

21.18

20.31— 21.92

21.59

20.87--22.38

51 steers

7.84

- 116 -

perimental methods and procedures and the need of using a balance
which will weigh to the required sensitivity.

When grouped accord­

ing to grade, there was a tendency for specific gravity ranges to
overlap somewhat from one grade to another.

This would be expected

since factors other than marbling are considered in determining a
grade for a particular carcass.

However, the 31 ribs from the

University cattle were graded in a ribbed condition, where marbling
could be visually appraised.

Since these cattle were uniform in

conformation and age, it is probable that marbling was the major
factor in determination of grade.
Percent fat from the 31 ribs ranged from 1.90 to 11.21 percent,
or a difference of 9*31 percent.

The range was from 67*57 to 75*03

for percent water, and from 1 9 * 8 5 to 22.38 for percent protein.
Thus, the maximum variation was 7*^8 percent for water and 2*53
for percent protein.

Observation of Table 25 shows overlapping

of these measures between grades as was shown with specific gravity,
but in each of these three items the degree of overlapping was
more pronounced between the Choice and Good grades than between
the Prime and Choice grades.
The correlation coefficients for specific gravity with per­
cent fat, water, protein and grade to the nearest one-third are
listed in Table 26.

All correlations were highly significant.

The highest relationship existed between specific gravity and
percent fat with a correlation coefficient of -.8 1 .

The correla­

tion between percent water and specific gravity was .7^*

These

- 117 -

TABLE 26

Correlation Coefficients of Specific Gravity with Chemical
Analysis and Grade

Specific Gravity
r0
!
0
•
1

Percent Fat
Percent Water

*74

Percent Protein

.6 8

Grade to l/3
31 steers

-.68

-

118

-

correlations indicate the validity of specific gravity as an
objective measure of total marbling*

Percent protein and grade

were related to specific gravity with correlations of * 6 8 and
-•6 8 , respectively*

Thus, the variation in specific gravity was

associated with 46 percent of the variation in either percent
protein or grade, 5 0 percent with percentage water and 66 percent
with percentage fat*

As expected, both percent fat and grade

(to the nearest one—third) showed an inverse relationship to
specific gravity.
Data from all 51 ribs were used to plot regression lines.
Figure 1? shows the relationship between specific gravity and
percent fat*

The regression equation was Y = **45*24 - 413*30 X,

with a standard error of the estimate of 1-20 percent.

Each .001

increase in specific gravity resulted in a .41 decrease in fat.
Figure 18 presents the relationship between specific gravity
and percent water.

The estimate of the regression equation was

Y = (-273.66) + 325.28 X, while the standard error of the estimate
was 1.21 percent.

For every .001 change in specific gravity, there

was a . 3 3 percent change in water content.
The relationship between specific gravity and percent protein
is depicted in Figure 19-

The regression equation was Y = (-6 5 .3 8 )

+ 8 l*6 l X, and the standard error of the estimate was .46 percent
protein.

For every .001 change in specific gravity, there was a

change of . 0 8 2 percent in protein.

C\J

“

o

00
1.054

1.058

<0

_LVJ _LN3 D d 3 d

C\J
SPECIFIC

1.062

GRAVITY

1.066

1.070

1.074

119

1.050

-

1?0

-

75.01-

-

d 3 _ L V M J.N3Dy 3 d

o

V2/
**

1

<0

<o
<D

//

.<o

o

*
A.
/V
.<
*>

o

*

or

o o\

o
c ^
o £
(</ «v
0.
«0

8
0/

o
o

o
O
Oi

§

- 122 -

BLOOD FAT
Blood fat levels have recently been investigated as a possible
means of determining the body composition of the live animal.
Allen (1938) observed that a close relationship existed between
dietary fat and plasma fat, while Morrow et al. (1956) found a
significant relationship between eye muscle size and blood fat
level in hogs.
The values obtained for blood fat were correlated with several,
measures of the degree of finish and with the amount of muscling
or lean.

The correlation coefficients are listed in Table 27*

None of the values was high enough to show significance.

However,

of all the different items correlated with blood fat, the area of
rib-eye, with a correlation coefficient of .2 5 2 , was the highest
and showed some indication of a relationship between blood fat and
area of rib-eye.

Morrow et_ al* (1956) have reported that numerous

factors may affect the level of blood fat.

The low correlation

obtained in this study may have been due in part to failure to
standardize the causes of variation in fat levels.

-

TABLE 27

123

-

Simple Correlation Coefficients of Blood Fat with Various
Measures of Finish and Muscling
Measure

Correlation

Grade to the nearest one third

.099

Estimated marbling

.081

Thickness of fat over 12th rib

.1 0 0

Specific gravity

.078

Percent fat of ribeye

-.078

Eye muscle size

.252

Percent primal cuts

.128

Percent lean of 9-10-11 rib cut

.0 0 1

a .349 Required for significance at P .05.
.449 Required for significance at P .01.

-

124

-

TENDERNESS
Longissimus dorsi Muscle
Analysis of variance was calculated for the various measures
of tenderness using the Longissimus dorsi muscle.
are listed in Table 2 8 .

The l,F,t values

The correlations obtained for the same

muscle, which were found to exist between the several measures of
tenderness and specific gravity, estimated marbling, grade to the
nearest one-third, percent cooking loss, breaking moments of
cannons, percent fat, percent water and percent protein are listed
in Table 29*
Shear Values-- A highly significant difference was found to
exist in tenderness between steers as measured by hot and cold
shear values.

In addition, the difference in the hot shear values

within the same steak were highly significant.
A correlation coefficient (.74) between hot and cold shears
was highly significant.

This correlation may have been different

had the cores for the first year’s steaks been more uniform.
Mechanical difficulty occurred when extracting cores from the cold
steaks the first year, resulting in tearing and fracturing of the
cores.

This was overcome the second year by the use of corn oil

which was placed on the borer before each core was taken.

Correia1

tion coefficients of hot shear and cold shear values with the
measures of intramuscular fat or marbling, which included specific
gravity, estimated marbling, grade to the nearest one-third, per­
cent cooking loss and percent fat were not significant.

Signifi-

- 125 -

Analysis

Variance for Various Measures of Tenderness
Using Longissimus dorsi Muscle

Method

DF

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

lipi!

Steers

29

396.85

13.68

7.16##

Replications

14

53.87

3.85

2 .02 ##

Error

203

386.95

1.91

Total

246

837.67

Steers

29

282.97

9.76

7.39##

Replications

14

16.55

1.18

0.89

Error

203

267.00

1.32

Total

246

566.52

Steers

29

4547.73

156.82

2.84##

Judges

16

39653.31

247.83

4.49##

Steers x
Judges

231

12758.14

55.23

2.96##

Error

2^8

5194.50

18.69

Total

554

62153.68

Source

Hot Shear

Cold Shear

Number of Chews

Steers

29

974.92

33.62

1.13

Replications

38

171.48

45.13

1.52#

Error

551

1633.27

29.64

Total

618

2779.67

Extensibility

^Denotes Significance at R *05.
##Denotes Significance at F *01*

-

TABLE 29

126

-

Correlation Coefficients Between Measures of Tenderness of
Longissimus dorsi Muscle, Chemical Analysis,

Subjective

Quality Evaluation, Cooking Losses & Breaking Moments of
Cannon Bones
Measure

Hot Shear

Cold Shear

Number
of Chews

Muscle Fiber
Extensibility

---

.74

.58

.41

Cold Shear

--

---

.65

.30

Specific Gravity

.13

.2 1

.17

.44

Estimated Marbling

-.24

-.27

-.0 2

-.39

Grade l/3

-.16

-.28

-.07

-.42
.30

.2 0

.i
o

Hot Shear

.0 1

Breaking Moment
(Metacarpals )

-.03

.1 2

-.23

.27

Breaking Moment
(Metatarsals)

-.15

- .1 2

-.30

.23

% Cooking Loss

% Fat

.26

.32

-.17

CO
■**
.
I

% Mater

.16

.24

.09

.45

% Protein

.46

.45

.28

.43

.349 Required for Significance at B .05.
.449 Required for Significance at p *01.

«

-

127

-

cance was approached in several cases but the predictive value
was quite low.

Thus, intramuscular fat or marbling was not found

to be highly associated with tenderness as determined by mechani­
cal shear•
shear.

Percent water was also not accociated with mechanical

This would bexpected, since percent fat shows little rela­

tionship to tenderness, but percent fat and water are inversely re­
lated.

Correlation coefficients of .^+6 and .^\5 were obtained be­

tween percent protein and hot shear and cold shear values, respect­
ively.

These were sufficiently high to be significant at the one

percent level.
A great deal of emphasis placed on bone hardness in the grad­
ing and evaluation of carcasses under commercial conditions, since
less tender meat is believed to be associated with hard, flinty
bone.

The breaking moments were in turn correlated with several

measures of tenderness in the carcass.

Correlation coefficients

between hot and cold shear values and breaking moments of fore
and hind cannons were not significant.

It is not only possible

but probable that breaking strength of bone is not a measure of
teona hardness.

Although differences in tenderness existed be­

tween steers, it is obvious that breaking moment was not related
to tenderness.

This does not preclude, however, the possibility

that tenderness and breaking moment may be related when consid­
ering a more variable population.
Chew Count - Table 28 shows that significant differences
( P =.01 ) existed between steers, judges and steers X judges
when analysis of variance was calculated for the number of chews

- 128 -

required to masticate a standard sized cooked meat sample by
panel members.

A larger ,IF11 value existed between judges than

between steers on the chew panel test for tenderness.

This would

be expected, since each judge was instructed to take each sample
to the same point, but no attempt was made to standardize be­
tween judges.

It was also shown that significant difference

existed between the scores given the two samples from the same
steak by the same judge.

In some cases this may have been due

to extensive connective tissue existing in one of the samples
while the other sample from the same steak was relatively free
from this constituent.
Correlations of . 5 8 and .6 5 were obtained between the chew
count method measuring tenderness and hot and cold shear values,
respectively*

These were significant at the one percent level,

and in the case of the cold shear, it approached the magnitude of
the correlation which was obtained between hot and cold shear
values.

The relationship of number of chews to the other items

listed in Table 29 were not significant.

Thus, the same relation­

ships were evident as for hot and cold shear values, except that
percent protein was not significantly related.
Muscle Fiber Extensibility - No significant difference was
found to exist between tenderness of steers and muscle fiber ex­
tensibility.

However, extensibility values within steers were

significantly different at the five percent level (Table 28).
This would indicate a greater difference occured within a given

- 129 -

steak from the same steer than between steaks coming from different
steers•
Correlation coefficients for muscle fiber extensibility
with other measures of tenderness, specific gravity, estimated
marbling, grade to the nearest one-third, percent cooking loss,
breaking moments of cannon bones, and percent water, fat and
protein are listed in Table 29*

Significant positive correlations

existed between extensibility and hot shear, specific gravity,
percent water and percent protein; while significant negative
correlations existed with estimated marbling, grade to the nearest
one-third and percent fat.

Thus, it appears from the data that

muscle fiber extensibility is influenced more by the amount of
intramuscular fat than was hot or cold shear values or chew count.
Conversely, muscle fiber extensibility was found to have signifi­
cant positive relationships to percent protein and moisture.
Similarly, hot and cold shear values showed about the same rela­
tionships with these two items.
The relationship between muscle fiber extensibility and per­
cent cooking loss approached significance, while the correlations
between fiber extensibility and breaking strength of bone were
not significant.
Semitendinosis Muscle
An.aJ.ysis of variance was obtained for several methods of
determining meat tenderness using the Semitendinosis muscle.
The nF n values are listed in Table 30.

-

TABLE 3 0

130

-

Analysis of* Variance for Various Measures of Tenderness
Using the Semitendinosis Muscle

Method

DF

Stun of Squares

Mean Square

itpi*

Steers

29

104.81

3.61

3.09#*

Replications

12

9.38

0.78

0.67

Error

174

204.05

1.17

Total

215

318.24

Steers

29

140.53

4.85

3.59**

Replications

12

34.36

2 .8 6

2 .12 **

Error

174

235.74

1.35

Total

215

410.63

Steers

28

1077.61

38.49

Muscle Fiber

Replications

38

94.69

2.49

Extensivility

Error

532

1738.16

3.27

Total

598

2910.46

Source

Hot Shear

Cold Shear

**Denotes significance at P .0 1 *

*

11.77**
0.76

-

131

-

Shear Values — The “F1* value between steers, using the hot
and cold shear method for determining tenderness of the Semitendinosis was highly significant as was true for the Longissimus
— orsi muscle*

Significance was also obtained between shear values

within steaks for the cold shear values*
The correlation between hot and cold shear values was only
•35 (Table 31)*

All other correlations obtained, except the re­

lationship between cold shear and percent cooking loss, were not
significant*

The low correlation between hot and cold shear can

probably be explained in part by the fact that the hot shear re­
quired the greatest number of pounds to shear a standard one-half
inch core the first year, while the second year the cold shear re­
quired the greater pressure to shear the core.

This particular

trend might have been different had a lubricant been used on the
core borer the first year.
Muscle Fiber Extensibility - A highly significant difference
in muscle fiber extensibility existed between the tenderness of
steaks from different steers (Table 30).

However, no significant

difference was found in extensibility values within a steak when
using the Semitendinosis muscle.

This may be explained in part

by the difference in the amouht of marbling existing between the
Longissimus dorsi muscle and the Semitendinosis muscle, since
fiber extensibility seemed to be quite markedly related to percent
fat in the case of the Longissimus dorsi muscle.

Thus, in the

Semit endinosis muscle, which appeared to contain less total marbl —

-

TABLE 3 1

132

-

Correlation Coefficients With Various Measures of Tenderness
for Semitendinosis Muscle, Grade, Percent Cooking Loss and
Breaking Moments of the Cannon Bones

Measure

Hot Shear

Cold Shear

Muscle Fiber
Extensivility

Hot Shear

---

Cold Shear

---

Grade to l/3

-.11

-.13

.11

% Cooking Loss

•17

.35

.12

Breaking Moment
Metacarpals

•18

.03

-.07

Breaking Moment
Metatarsals

•04

.09

-.08

.35

•14
.14

355 Required for significance at P *05.

-

133

-

ing, more consistent readings within steaks were obtained.
No significant relationship existed between muscle fiber
extensibility and either hot or cold shear or of the other items
such as grade to the nearest one-third, percent cooking loss and
breaking moments of the fore and hind cannons for the Semitendinosis muscle.

-

1 3 *f

-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Analytical data on 31 steers were treated statistically
in order to correlate objective and subjective live animal measure­
ments with carcass attributes, and to evaluate and develop certain
objective measures of marbling and tenderness.

In addition to the

steers, 2 0 wholesale beef ribs were used to increase the scope of
the specific gravity study.
High relationships existed between the two methods of sub­
jective live animal evaluation for most of the traits and charact­
ers studied, and it appeared that length of leg did not affect the
scores.

The correlations between the subjective live animal scores

and comparable live animal measurements were in most cases found
to be quite low.

However, the relationships between subjective

live animal estimates and actual values for such items as dress­
ing percentage, fat thickness over 1 2 th rib, area of rib-eye and
grade were quite high.

Some of the subjective live animal evalua­

tion scores, namely, width and thickness, were quite highly re­
lated to various carcass measurements.

Most of the traits studied

subjectively were found to be highly related to the ultimate
carcass grade.
Repeatability estimates for the various live animal measure­
ments were .7 0 3 to .993 with the exception of the spring of ribs,
the width at pins and the length from 13th rib to hooks measure­
ments.

Various objective measurements showed a high relationship

to the carcass measurements and with the exception of width at

- 135 -

crops, the relationships were higher between the carcass measure­
ments and objective measurements than they were between carcass
measurements and the subjective live animal scores*

Live weights

taken of the fore and hind halves of the animal were found to
have correlation coefficients of .904 and .8 6 5 with the weights
of the fore and hind quarter of the carcass, respectively*
Circumference of hind and fore flanks and circumference of
middle were most highly related to rib-eye area.

Width of rump,

circumference of hind leg above the hock and live weight were
also significantly related to rib-eye area.

The correlation co­

efficients were all positive with the exception of circumference
of hind leg above the hock, which showed an inverse relationship
to rib-eye area.

Circumference of fore and hind flank and middle,

width of round, total live weight, hind and fore weight of the
live animal and width between the 1 3 th rib and hooks were associated
with ZZ to 6 l percent of the variation existing in carcass grade.
Live ani mal measurements showed high relationships to such whole­
sale cuts as chuck, rib, shortloin and sirloin plus round.
The carcass measurements used, were all highly repeatable.
Rib-eye area was found to be highly related to such carcass measure­
ments as width of shoulder, width of rump and width of round.
However, placing the wholesale cuts on a percentage basis resulted
in an inverse relationship to rib—eye area.

High positive rela­

tionships were found to exist between live weight and the weight
of the wholesale cut.

-

136

-

Weight and various linear measurements of the fore and hind
cannons were found to have a high relationship to body weight, to
weights of primal cuts and several linear measurements which were
taken of the lumbar vertebrae.

Rib-eye area was found to be posi­

tively related to the weight and thickness of fore cannon.

When

the effects of weight were eliminated, width and circumference
measurements of fore and hind cannons accounted for 15 to 2 5 per­
cent of the area of rib-eye.

Little if any relationship existed

between these various measurements and percent calculated lean
in the carcass.

Likewise, the association between primal cuts

and the various cannon bone measurements were greatly reduced
when primal cuts were expressed on a percentile basis.

Thus,

these measurements taken of the fore and hind cannons seemed to
be a function of weight.
The breaking moments of the fore and hind cannons were found
to be more directly related to size, shape and weight of the
cannon bones than to tenderness of meat*
Radiographic measurements of the dorsal and lateral view of
the lumbar vertebrae disclosed that the width of the body of the
lumbar vertebrae and width of the vertical processes were the best
single estimate of rib —eye area accounting for 22 and 20 percent
of the variation in rib-eye area, respectively.

With the effects

of live weight eliminated, width of the transverse processes and
the height of the anterior articular processes were equally as
good as the two previous measurements.

Multilinear correlations

-

137

-

of live weight and each of these four measurements of the lumbar
vertebrae with rib-eye area accounted for 3 2 to 36 percent of the
variation existing in rib-eye area.
Specific gravity of the Longissimus dorsi muscle of the 9 -1 0 —
11

rlb section was determined in order to test the usefulness of

specific gravity as an objective measure of marbling.

Correla­

tion coefficients between specific gravity and percent fat, water,
protein and grade to the nearest one-third were -.8 1 , .7 4 , . 6 8 and
-.6 8 , respectively.

All were highly significant.

The regression

of percent fat in the rib-eye on specific gravity was found to be
- 413.30, with a standard error of the estimate of 1 . 2 0 percent
fat.

The high relationship that existed between specific gravity

and fat indicates the usefulness of specific gravity as an object­
ive measure of marbling.
No definite relationship was evident between blood fat levels
and the various measures of degree of finish nor the amount of
muscling.
Various methods of measuring tenderness in meat were investi­
gated and compared.

Using the Longissimus dorsi muscle, the

following correlations were obtained between the various measures
of tenderness: between hot'and cold shear values ( r = .74), hot
or cold shear values with number of chews ( r = . 5 8 and .65, re­
spectively) and hot or cold shear values with muscle fiber ex­
tensibility

( r = .41 and .30, respectively).

Muscle fiber

extensibility seemed to be more highly influenced by the amount

- 138 -

of intramuscular fat present than the other three measures of
tenderness studied.

139

-

LITERATURE CITED
Allen, Nat, N. 1938.
Tech. Bull. 130.

Blood fat in Dairy Cattle.

Minn. Agr. Exp, Sta.

Barton, W. M. 1938. The relationship of certain body measurements to
weight in beef cattle. Mich. State College M.S. Thesis.
Bell, E. F., A. F. Morgan and A* Dorman. 1941.
in cooked meat. Food Research 6:245.

Collagen determination

Benne, E. J., N. H* Van Hall and A. M. Pearson. 1956.
meat. J. Assoc. Official Agr. Chem. 39:937.

Analysis of fresh

Black, K. H., and Bradford Kanpp, Jr. 1936. A Method of Measuring Per­
formance in Beef Cattle. Amer. Soc. An. Prod. Proc. 72.
Black, Tf. H. 1938. A Comparison of Several Methods of Measuring Perfor­
mance in Beef Cattle* Amer. Soc. An. Prod. Proc. 103*
Brady, D. E. 1937. A study of the factors influencing tenderness and
texture of beef. Proc. An, Prod. Proc. 30:246.
Branaman, G. A. 1940. Some factors in lamb production associated with
size and type in mutton sheep. Jour. Agr. Res. 60:473.
Breidenstein, B. C., Sleeter Bull, R. M. Forbes, and J. R. Stouffer. 1955.
Comparative evaluation of techniques used in estimating beef carcass
quality. J. An. Sci, 14:1227.
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.
Brown, C. J., J. C. Hillier and J. A. Whatley. 1949. The relationship
between specific gravity and certain physical characteristics of
pork carcasses. J. An. Sci. 8:612.
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. An. Sci.
10:97.
Butler 0. D. 1957. The relation of conformation to carcass traits.
An. Sci. 16:227.
Clark

F. T. 1954. Heritability of Beef Carcass Characteristics.
Seventh Ann. Reciprocal Meat Conf. 7:206.

J.

Proc.

- 140 -

Cole, J. W., W. Backus, J), D. Brannan and R. L, Saf'fle. 1957. Specific
gravity as a possible objective measurement of beef quality. Southern
Agri. Workers page 9.
Cook, A. C., M. L. Kohli and W. M. Dawson. 1951. Relationship offive
body measurements to slaughter grade, carcass grade and dressingpercentage in Milking Shorthorn steers. J. An. Sci. 10:386.
Cover, Sylvia. 1937. The effect of temperature and time of cooking on
the tenderness of roast. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 293.
Cover, Sylvia. 1943. Effect of extremely low rates of heat penetration
on tendering of beef. Food Research. 8:388.
Cover, Sylvia, 0. D. Butler and T. C. Cartwright. 1956. The relationship
of fatness in yearling steers to juiciness and tenderness of broiled
and braised steaks. J. An. Sci. 15:464.
Dawson, W. 14. R. L. Hiner and L. L. Madsen. 1955.
EvaluatingBeef and
Dual-purpose Cattle by the Proportion of Weight Carried on the Front
and Hind Legs. J. An. Sci. 14:1179.
Deans, R. J.
Cattle.

1951. A Recommended Procedure for SlaughteringExperimental
Proc. Fourth Ann. Reciprocal Meat Conf. 4:81.

Green, W. W. 1954. Relationships of Measurements of Live Animals to
Weights of Grouped Significant Wholesale Cuts and Dressing Percent
of Beef Steers. J. An. Sci. 13:61.
Green, W. W., G. L. Jessup, Jr. and F. E. White. 1955. Intercorrelations
of weight of wholesale cuts of beef carcasses. J. An. Sci. 14:1059.
Hammond, John.
11:36?.

1921.

Growth and jJevelopment of Sheep.

J. Agri. Sci.

Hammond, J. 3.932a. Growth and Development of Hutton Qualities in the
Sheep• Edinburgh•
Hankins, 0. G. and L. B. Burk. 1938. Relationships among production and
grade factors of beef* TJ.S.D.A. Tech. Bull* 665.
Hankins, 0. G. and N. R. Ellis. 1939. Fat in relation to quantity and
quality factors in meat animal carcasses. Am. Soc. An. Prod. Proc.
32:314.
Hankins, 0. G., Bradford Knapp, Jr. and Ralph W. Phillips. 1943. The
muscle-bone ratio as an index of merit in beef and dual purpose cattle.
J. An. Sci. 2:42.

- 141 -

Hankins, 0. G. and «. J. Beard. 1944. Some objective indices of carcass
grade in meat animals. J. An. Sci. 2:444.
Hankins, 0. G. and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of
beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 926.
Helser, M. D. , P. M. Nelson and Belle Xk>we. 1930. Influence of the
animals age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agr*
Exp. Sta. Bull. 272.
Henneman, H, A. 1942. The relationship of rate of growth in lambs to
body measurements and carcass value. Mich. State College M.S. Thesis.
Hetzer, H. 0., 0. G. Hankins, J. X. IGLfcg and J. H. Zeller. 1950. Rela­
tionship between certain body measurements and carcass characteristics
in swine. J. An. Sci. 9:37.
Hiner, R. L. and 0. G. Hankins. 1950. The tenderness of beef in relation
to different muscles and age in the animal. J. An. Sci. 9 : 3 4 7 .
Hiner, R. L., 0. G. Hankins, H. S. Sloane, C. R. Fellers and E. E. Ander­
son.
1952. Fiber diameter in relation to tenderness of beef muscle.
J. An. Sci. 11:749.
Hiner, R. L., 0. G. Hankins, H. S. Sloane, C. R. Fellers and E. E. Ander­
son.
1953. Fiber diameter in relation to tenderness of beef muscle.
Food Research 18:364.
Hiner, R. L., S. E. Anderson and C. R. Fellers. 1955. Amount and char­
acter of connective tissue as it relates to tenderness in beef
muscle. Food Tech. 9:80.
Hirzel, R. 1939. Factors affecting quality in mutton and beef with
special reference to the proportions of muscle, fat and bone.
Onderstepoort Jour* Vet. Sci. 12:379.
Hopper, T. H. 194-4. Methods of estimating the physical and chemical
composition of cattle. J. Agr. Res* 68:239.
Iiultz, F.S.

1927.

Type in beef calves.

Hultz, F. S. and S. S. Wheeler. 1927.
Wyo. Agr* Exp. Sta. Bull. 155.

¥yo*

Agr. Exp* Sta. Bull.. 153:72.

Type in two year old steers.

Johnson, P. W. 1940. Livestock weights from measurements.
Exp. Sta. Ext. Folder 70.

Minn. Agr.

Joubert, 0. M. 1956. Relation between body size and mi*scle fiber diameter
in the newborn lamb. J. Agr* Res. 47:449.

- 142 -

Kidwell, Janies F. 1955. A study of the relation between body conformation
and carcass quality in fat calves. J. An. Sci. 14:233.
Knapp, Bradford, Jr., H. H. Black and R. V. Phillips. 1939. A study of
the accuracy of scoring certain characters in beef cattle. Am. Soc.
An. Prod. Proc. 122.
Knapp, Bradford, Jr., A. L. Baker, J. R. Quesenberry and R. T. Clark.
1941. Record of preformance in Hereford cattle. Mont. Agr. Expt.
Sta. Bull. 397,
Knapp, Bradford, Jr., Ralph TC. Phillips, H. H. Black and R. T. Clark. 1942.
Length of the feeding period and number of animals required to measure
economy of gain in progeny tests of beef cattle. J. An. Sci. 1:285.
Knapp, Bradford, Jr., andArne W. Nordskag. 1946. Heritability of live
animal scores, grades and certain carcass characteristics in beef
cattle. J. An. Sci.5:194.
Knapp, Bradford, Jr. and R. T. Clark. 1950. Revised estimates of herita­
bility of economic characteristics of beef cattle. J. An. Sci.
9:582-587.
Kohli, M. L., A. C. Cook, and W. M, Dawson. 1951. Relations between some
body measurements and certain performance characters in Milking Short­
horn steers. J. An. Sci. 10:352.
Lehmann, H. B. 1907. Studies of the causes of the toughness of meat.
Arch. Hyg, 63:134.
Ljungdahl, W. A. 1942. Significant factors in the determination of carcass
quality in lamb, Michigan State College M.S. Thesis.
Lush, J. L. 1926. Practical methods of 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.
Lush, J. L., ¥. H. Black and A. T. Semple. 1929. The use of dressed beef
appraisals in measuring the market desirability oi beef cattle. J.
Agr. Res. 39:147.
Lush

J. L. 1932. The relation of body shape of feeder steers to rate
og gain, to dressing percentage and to value of dressed caicass.
Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 471.

143

-

Mackintosh, D. L., J. L. Hall and G. E. Vail. 1936. Some observations
pertaining to tenderness of meat. Am. Soc. An. Prod. Proc. 29:285.
McMeekan, C. P. 1940. Growth and development in the pig with special
reference to carcass quality character. J. Agr. Sci. 30:276.
McMeekan, C. P. 1941. Growth and development in the pig, with special
references to carcass quality characters. J. of Agr. Sci. 31:1.
McMeekan, C. P. and D, E. Walker. 1950.
surement. Past. Rev. 60:795.

Judging beef carcasses by mea­

Meek, A. 1901. Growth of farm. Ungulates I. Approach from a study of
the external characters. The Veterinarian 74:335.
Mitchell, H. H., T* S. Hamilton and W. T. Haines. 1928. Some factors
affecting the connective tissue content of beef muscle. J. Nutr.
1:165.
Moran, T* and E. C. Smith. 1929. Postmortem changes in animal tissues The conditioning or ripening of beef. Dept. Sci. Ind. Research Food
Investigation Board Special Report 36.
Morrow, R. E., A. M. Pearson, E. P. Reineke and J. A. Hoefer. 1956.
Factors influencing blood lipid levels and their relationship to
carcass characteristics of swine. J. An. Sci. 15:1288.
Morrow, R. E.

1956.

Unpublished Procedure.

Naumann, H, D. 1951. A recommended procedure for measuring and grading
beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Fourth Ann. Reciprocal Meat
Corf • 4:89 .
Palsson, H. 1940. Meat qualities in sheep with special reference to
Scottish breeds and Crosses II. Part III. Comparative development
of selective individuals of different breeds and crosses as lambs
and hoggets. J. Agr. Sci. 30:1.
Palsson, H. and J. B. Verges. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition
on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part I.
The effects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages.
J. Agr. Sci. 42:1.
Palsson, H. and J. B. V«rges. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition
on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part II.
Effects on lambs of thirty pounds carcass weight. J. Apr. Sci.
42:93.
Paul, Pauline, Belle Lowe and B. R. McClurg. 1944. Changes in histological
Structure and palatability of beef during storage. Food Research. 9:221.

- 144 -

Bearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler, R. J. Deans, J. F. Price, J. A. Hoefer,
• P. Reineke and R. W. Luecke. 1956. The use of specific gravity
o certain untrimmed pork cuts as a measure of carcass value. J.
An. Sci. 15:86.
Price, J. F., A. M. Pearson and E. J. Benne. 1957. Specific gravity and
chemical composition of the untrimmed ham as related to leanness of
pork carcasses. J. An. Sci. 16:85.
Propp, George T. 1937. The relationship of certain body measurements
of feeder calves to their performance in the feed lot. Mich. State
College M.S. Thesis.
Ramsbottom, J. M,, E. J. Strandine, and C. H. Koonz. 1945. Comparative
tenderness of representative beef muscles. Food Research 10:497.
Rathbun, E. N. and N. Pace. 1945. Determination of total body fat by
means of body specific gravity. Jour. Biol. Chem. 158:667.
Satorius, M. J. and A. M. Child. 1938. Effect of coagulation on press
fluid, shear force, muscle cell diameter and composition of beef
muscle. Food Research. 3:619.
Severson, B. 0, and P. Gerlaugh. 1917. A statistical study of body
weights, gains and measurements of steers during the fattening
period. Penn* Agr. Exp* Sta. Ann. Report 275-295.
Smith, H. G., C. S. Hobbs, E. J* Warwick and W. M. Whitaker. 1950. The
accuracy and repeatability of live-animal and photographic measure­
ments of beef cattle. J. An. Sci. 9:639.
Snedecor, G. Tf. 1946. Statistical Methods. 4th edition.
College Press, Ames, Iowa.

The Iowa State

Strandine, E. J., C. H. Koonz and J. M. Ramsbottom. 1949. A study of
variations in muscles of beef and chickens* J. An. Sci. 8:483.
Tallis, G. M., Earle W. Klosterman and V. U. Cahill. 1957. Body measure­
ments in relation to beef carcass characteristics. J* An. Sci.
16:1027.
Wallace, L. R. 1948, The growth of lambs before and after birth in
relation to the level of nutrition. Part I. J. Agr. Sci. 38:93.
J. J. and G. Tf. Salisbury. 1946. The relation of certain
objective measurements to weights of beef cattle.
An. Sci. 5.264.

Wanderstock,

-

145

-

Wang, H. , Ellen Rasch ana Virginia Bates. 1954. Histological observations
on fat loci and distribution in cooked beef. Food Research 19:314.
Wang, H., D. M. Doty, F. J. Beard, J. „R. Pierce and 0. G. Hankins. 1956.
Extensibility of single beef muscle fibers. J. An. Sci. 15:97.
Warner, K. F.
of Meat.

1929. Progress Report of the Mechanical Test for Tenderness
Am. Soc. An. Prod. Proc, 114-116.

Wellington, G. H. 1953. Recommended Procedures for Cutting Beef.
Sixth Ann. Reciprocal Meat Conf, 6:75.

Proc.

White, F. E. and W. W. Green. 1951. Predicting weights of wholesale cuts
of beef from live animal measurements. J. An. Sci. 10:1030.
White, F. E. and W. W. Green. 1952. Relationships of measurements of
live animals to weights of wholesale cuts of beef. J. An. Sci.
11:370.
Whiteman, J. V., J. A. Whatley and J. C. Hillier. 1953. A further inves­
tigation of specific gravity as a measure of pork carcass value. J.
An. Sci. 12:859.
Winegarden, M. W., Belle Lowe, J. Kastelic, E, A. Eline, A. R. Plagge and
P. S. Shearer* 1952. Physical changes of connective tissue of beef
during heating. Food Research. 17:172.
Yiao* T. S., W* M. Dawson and A. C. Cook. 1953. Relationships between
meat production characters and body measurements in beef and Milking
Shorthorn steers. J* An. Sci. 1.2:775.
Yao, T. S. and R. L. Hiner. 1953. Variability and heritability of tender­
ness and its relationship to other beef characters. J. An. Sci.
12:904.
Yao

T. S. R. L. Hiner and W. M. Dawson. 1954. Body measurement indexes
as a means of selection in Shorthorn cattle. J. An. Sci. 13:965.

V
tH
O
CO

- 146 tH

>5
St

O 0 0 q

0)

•
05

0 5 0 0 0 )C 5 l> 0 5 O P 0 )0 0 C T )O 0 )
*H

tH

^CDODCDtOHH^Dtl'H

CO CO tH
CD rH tH O O T O T O T O N O ) 5 f O C £ ( < 0 0 ) 0 3
•
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
*
05 O 00
OS
tH

rooooooioooooooo

J&

«0

to

“ ^ O ^ O CO
O iX fnIDo CM
c DIDOIDJ CD
N ^LDoCDO IDN N
OOlfLO ■M’ I x f

0)
a CM LO CO LD ^
& rH
o

O H 4 © tH © O C D C D C O lO © r H © C D
O t> C O l> lD C O lD lD t~ L D C D C D C O ID

tH lO
CD ICO

•H +■»
*P fll
6h (it
W

a +»

*h
0)
(0
a)

a o <o p 00 x f O Xf o CO O
O
4> © in c
mCM
CO tH o tH CO s
§ § CO
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
a
05 O tH O o tH O tH o
CD LO CD
ID CO LD CO CO CO CO CO co

• • * • o
O 00 o O 00

MS

<D
TJ

O

CCS

a
o

►

O
•

O
•

N t D r r ^ O
•

0

0

0

0

O

^ t O

0

0

CO O
CM tH
•
•
tH 05
CO LD

^ ^ t & O

0

0

0

0

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

m

w

n

h

h

h

OOCOCM©CMxfOOCMCMCOOOCMCMCMxf
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

0

0

0

0

0

|h

h

00 lxt<

0

*

01

O (B O O O CO O t - H H W H O H N O ) I ©

M H H O I H H N H W O I C v J N N N N h|cj
@
S3

0 ( 0 ^

• * a O« CM« CM• IDa

t=>
>H>
©
*9}

CO O

CO

H H H

3 3

o

x f CO

•
CO

•

00 CM
• •

•
CO CM 05
ID
tH tH
tH tH

3

O

CM
•

•
Tf CO
tH tH

3

CO CD tH CO ^
0

0

0

*

O) CD 5 f tH CD 05
0

0

0

0

0

0

C M C M O O C M tH C M O O C M O C M O O S O S C M
C D C D L D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D lD L D C D

05 Icn

w

tH tH ©

0

O ItH
•( •

0

O W 0 ) 0 ) t’ 0 0 0 )(D O O O (3 )(D 0 )H
n

©

W N •O •O H
t * ^ ,5frt<Dt-ffiOO,t
*

Xf
© ItH
*
•I
*
ID CM| CO
tH

©
©

tLD
•
© ©
CM CM
•

©
©
•
O
CM

tH Xt4 ©
tH 00
•
0
0
9
CO © 05 ©
tH CM tH CM

o
O

CO 05
xt4 CM
0 0
© bCM tH

CO
xt4
0
©
tH

rH
r>
0
©
tH

tH
P
0
©
CM

CO
xt4
0
©
tH

CO © ©
xl4 00 CM
0
0
0
© o ©
rH CM tH

©
©
0
tH
CM

x f CO ©
tH XJ4 CO
0
0 9
O CO 00
CM tH rH

tr­
io
0
©
tH

CO ©
xt4 00
9
0
© o
tH CM

xt4
tH
0
©
rH

©
CM
0
tH
CM

© x f c - tH
CM tH © ©
•
0
0 0
© © 00 O
CM tH tH CM

CO tH
x f 00
0
0
© ©
CM tH
©
tH
0
©
tH

0 )O T O ^ t~ 5 ft> 5 j< T O t^ O )!> T O T O O
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

*

0

0

0

0

C D t ~ 0 0 t > L D t ' - L O C D [ — C D C D l O H < H < t'tH tH tH tH tH H H H tH tH t—1 tH tH tH tH

ID

I
<

5
©
)H H

p p p o p o o p o o o o p o o o

O

H

O

4 ( 0 O

O

C

^ O

O

N

( f i ^ O

C O H ^ O J H H C O H ^ to tO

o

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

N

h

t-H T O tO C O O O H C -C O
H H H H r l H H H

h

3

At w
At

O O
CO o
•
•
ID X}4 xi4 ID
tH tH tH

iz;

B

O
O
CO 8 00
•
«
•
CM CO H 4
tH tH tH

O
00
•
O
tH

O
CM
•
CO
tH

O
CM
•
tH
tH

O
CO
•
•
IH CD
rH tH

O
00
•
xf
rH

O
CO
•
ID
tH

O O
CD o
•
*
IH ID LD
tH tH

00
OO^OOttiO'tl'OOOO^N^tONffiW
*1 #

Si

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

X f C M C M C M O r - t x f c n L O l D C O L O C O x f L D CO I CO
—1 tH rH tH tH tH rH
tH rH tH tH tH rH rH tH |rH

M JO
O *H
03
m

xf
CM CM CO XI* CO
O 00 CO CM 00 xt- CM O l l D
9 • • • • • • • 9 0 • *1 •
•
•
•
CM H 4 CO CM CM CO CO CM Xf 515 TO
ID x f CO CM
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH H tH ItH
CD
■M* CM
CO CO CM N CD I CM
CO O 05 00
0
•
•
•
o o ♦
•
•
•
•
a
0
ID CO CM CO CO CO CO H 4 xt4
CO CM CO
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

CD O

Cw
o

JO

4->
uo

a

P=!

• • •
*5*

,d ; H 4
GO CO 00 05 H 4 O H 4 00
00
9 • • o • • • 0 0 0
o •
•
CM CM CO tH M4 CO ID CO xt4 to
xf4 CO
tH tH tH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

Q>

gj

CO
Xf

tH 05 CO LD CD 00
tH tH tH tH tH tH

t-H^fpilOfOtHHO)
O TO TO 5P 05 CO
i D t H r H t — © H 4 C— t — CM O x f CM rH CM 00
• 0 0 0 0 0 a • • • • 0 • •

IHtH^b-tHOOtOCDOOt-OOOOlDlDOO
r l r l H H r l H H H H H r l H H H H

t “ b * T O 0 c o M H o t “ O > t w O CD o tH
lOTO^OcOtft-OlOMO
O CO O tD
LDtHxftHLDCOLDcDCDCO^-CHxriOCD
tH rH »H tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

5fOH5C05(DCOH5f^cOOt-tH^
• ••*••• »••«•••

H O t-H N C O O O t» H H C O O lO t-H

JHCOlDtHt^-CDlDCDtHC-CDOOcDCOt-

t—1 tH tH tH tH tH t—I tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

CO

O H W O O O O ®
fc— C— C O tH 05 tH CO
N t - 5 f O O O C M ( M l O i f l o O t ' CM tH 00

• • • •

tH tH CO tH CO t > LD t '-C O C D L O C O C O C D C O
tH tH
tH tH tH
r l t H H H r l t H H H

C'-©xf<x>cDH4xfc0©CDO©'M400O

if i N H C O C O H H o o O O O O f lO r l^ O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
lD O O L D © X fa O © L O lH © © © L D lD ©

t H H H H r l r l t H H H i H H H r l r l r l

to
to

a

O
ID LD CM O

• •••••••

CO CO CM CD CM

h

t— C— ©

C O tH tH x fO C O © © ©
00 ID ID H O xf4 CM CM ©

'! ) '

IH tH C 0 C 0 c D C D C 0 O 0 5 T fC 7 5 C 0 tH O C 0
O O CM 00 00 © 00 xt1 CM 00 00 CO © x f 00 I p
0
•
0
0
0
0 o
o 0
•
0
0 0
CM( CM
tH CO CM o o CO 00 ID ID CO xf4 © xl4
tH
tH It—I
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH rH rH tH tH tH

IfilO^tfcOCO^ONHN^lftO^
»
• • • • • • • *
• »
• • • •
{HLDCMLOCOtH<OCOtHCDOOCC'^lDCO

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

r l r t H

H

H

H

H

CO

H

tH
At

•tfO O C D C M C M C M C D O O C M x fC M c O C D O C O
0,
0)
O

CM
tH

T O D C M T O ^ tJ H O ^
rH
tH tH tH rH tH rH tH

ID

^1”

sb

C O X f x f 0 5 't f c O X f © © © C O C O
tfH iH N H ^ H C M O O T O ^ ^

tH tH O

• ID• tH• O«

L D C O ^ C D C D C O r O l D CD ID CD CD xf xf CO
tH tH rH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

u

o> •
<|) o r H C M C O x f l D © l H O O © O i H C M C O x f i q ©
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH
+» 55
00

r H C M C D x f 4 L D © C ' - 0 0 © O C M CO x f lo CO
tH tH tH tH tH tH

D
CJ
S

- 1^+7 -

<H

05

o usj

si p<JDi o

O x f 00 00 CM x f 00 CM 00 CM 00 CM
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
fcbO"O xt* CO CM CO rH © o 05 CD xt*
o
O
G G rH tH tH tH tH tH tH
tH tH tH tH S H
o »H
W

xf

lOi
• • ^f
*1 *
CO H I M

* •

+*

S

t—
©
•
•
05
rH tH

©

CO

xl* rH X f O ©
tH O CO
tH
•
*
•
•
*
© © C- t - t rH tH tH rH rH

CO © Oi t - CO
Xf* CO CM © x f
•
•
•
•
•
© © © CO t tH rH rH rH tH

t©
•
©
rH

©
©

©
©
•
•
Xt* CO
rH tH

CM
O
•
ttH

%
5

CO CO CM © x f tH CO
CO 05 05 r l O C
— xl*
x f x f C- © rH
xf
xl* CM CM O O ©
© •
•
•
•
•
•
O CO © CO CO
CO t > t > t > C 3 0 0 t - © C T 5
CM tH rH rH tH rH tH H H H r l r l H H t H

*■* o•

00 CM CM xl* CO 00 xl* 00
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ID CO Xl* xt* CM CM rH
CD
tH tH tH rH tH tH rH
tH

ti/i<j)
u

a

<D O

1-3 pin
0
5 <D
« ^sj
CD 00 00 00 xl* O CM 00 CD CD xl* CD CO O CM I ©
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
<» •
•
tH xt* CO tH CM CM 05 CO Xf* t - CM x f CM CO x f Ico
tH tH tH rH tH tH
tH H4 tH tH tH rH rH tHItH

• • • •! •

« ■u*
rC
M-» <u CD CD O Xt* 00 Xt* CM xl* 00 CM CD O CM
C
M00 00 C
M100
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
Xl* CM CM ID CM CM CO Oi CD CO CD xt* ID r~J CO CMlcO
a
CD ^ tH tH rH tH rH tH rH
tH tH rH tH tH tH H tH |rH
►3 O

• • • •

"Ch'^'itNo^NNOOCM O ^ H1O <D (Dlt>*
“ c
~ -*1
©Xt*©©xfCOCDrH©©t'-Xfxfxf<
t
-.,•
colxt*

S
-(i
->
oj
CD
«

tH rH tH tH rH

£

H H H H H H r lr tH H

rH |rH

CO CM C O T ^ c O r H C M O C O ^ L O c o C O C M ^ c O

H H H H H H H H r lH H H H H H

M Si
o
<sS 3

00 00 xt* o © CM © Xl* © © xt* © xl*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
ID ID CD xl* ID CD xl* xl* CO xl* CM © CO
tH tH tH tH tH rH tH tH rH tH rH tH tH

05

00• «f
00It*
• *1 •
s a s h

pq

CM

Cm a xl* © 00 CD CO CO © © CD O CD © © M* CM xM t^.
•
•
« •
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
• • *1 «
O •H
CM CO ID lD xl* ID CO CO ID CO
O LO LD
si tH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH rH rH tH tH tH tH
-p
CO
a f t xl* 00 00 © © CM 00 xt* x f © © CO Xf> Xt* 00 00 loo
• •
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
<1> B
►H 3 CD LD CO LD CO ID x|* t—j ID CD CO CO CO
tH tH
tH rH tH tH ItH
tH rH
tH rH tH tH tH tH rH rH t—I rH tH

S3 ah

• # • •

O CM © © © O CM CM CO <X> ©
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
© xt* co xl* CO tH CM Oi © © © CO CO
rH
tH
rH
rH
tH
rH
tH
tH rH rH rH rH
©

©

fe .
0)

o tH CM

CO

x f Oi 05
rH CM CM
•
•
•
05 CO ©
tH tH tH

O rH
o
•
•
t - t - t - CO t~- t> t> CO t - LD CD CO
tH tH rH tH rH tH tH rH tH rH tH rH

CD\fl>OH«COHO^^^HHtf
OOHiOOt-NH'b-OHrlHt-t'H
oooinflOt-ooooNcot-Oioioioco
tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH rH rH rH rH rH tH

O
©
♦
ttH

Oi

05 © fcCM CM CO ©
•
•
•
•
© CO © tr- D—
tH rH rH rH rH

©

CO
•

rH x f © Oi © xt* CO x f
t - tH CO CM O tH Xt* tH
•
«
m • • • • •
CO CO ©
t - CO ©
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH rH
t©
•
CrH

xf ©
CO rH Xf ©
O
CM © © © rH CO © x f
tH ©
•
•
• • • * • •
•
•
•
t - CO © t ©
t - t - 00 ©
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH tH tH rH tH
Q rH 05 ©
o
t'O CO
•
•
•
•
c - CO © t tH rH rH rH

X f rH ©
rH
©
© •
•
© © CO
rH tH rH

CD
t - CO ©
© x f CO © © x f
•
•
•
•
•
•
CO CO x f © t - CO t rH tH rH tH rH tH tH

CO

ft

~ CM CO
a

C O x l* © © t-C 0 O 5 © r H C M C O X t* © ©

CO

<§

rH tH tH tH tH rH rH Q
>

x f Oi CM
tH CM O
*
«
•
© ©
trH rH tH

CO © © © © rH rH x f Oi ©
X f CO © © CM c— t — rH CM X f
•
•
•
m • • • »
•
•
O C- CO (3Q
t- ©
t>
tH rH rH
tH tH tH tH rH tH

Oi

©
X f 00

o xl* O x f x f CO © © © CO O © CO
m • • • • • • •
•
•
•
•
CL •
CD ID CO CO xl* CM rH x f Oi © CO © xl* CO
tH rH rH rH rH
C5 tH tH tH tH rH rH rH

+» 52?

cd

rH rH rH

05 Oi
©
o © CM CM
•
•
•
•
CO © frH rH tH rH

O•O C•O•N•C D •
O M•C«D C•O•O '•t«^ t
O O•O«^
• O*O•

c8

O
OrlOlt-COOXCHNH^COHcn
O C M t-C M © xfC M 0 0 b -© t-tH x fl> C M
t » tr- x f xi*
0
0 00 CO CD CO C— © © © © rH
tH rH tH tH
tH rH H tH rH rH t—<

tr- © C© CO ©
•
•
•
© t- ttH rH tH

©
CM
•
©
tH

©
©

©
©
•
•
t- ©
tH rH

c©
•
©
rH

rH O © ©
fc— © CO CO
•
•
•
•
© CO © ©
rH tH tH tH

t - © rH
© CO
•
•
•
t- © ©
tH rH tH

©
©

•

©
tH

C~ rH
© tH
•
*
fctH rH

tH Xt* CD

ID CD tH
xl*rH
CD C
D
tH

O CO CO O x
l*xi* o xj* o>
• Oo^• ^ •C• tH•tH• O• tH• CM•
00CD t - t - 00 t- ID ID CD
tH tH rH tH

rH CO 05 xl* 05 xl*
t - Xl* CM rH CM H
« e
•
•
•
t - £E> CO D
t—1 rH rH rH rH rH

rH CM

CO

xf ©

Ctd
•
trH

*• M V J X- UV W

H H H rl rl rl

- 1^8 -

r0H) •
O -H

co 5r:

O Ml*
Cp
MN
CM
O O
S
S ^ WrH
J00
C OCO •M4
CO S
CO S
00 2
rH S § g 5 ®
tH tH CM LO CO
•
9
•
•
•
9 9
9 9
•
•
•
•
•
00 05 05
5 O) O) t- O) rH
O
05 00 05 O 05 05
rH
00

9

0

0

a>

tH

&

'
M4Q M4 00 "d4O C O O M ' O ^ N O O O COW
Locoie-^oooorpoi
LO ^ CO ^ ^ ^ LO M'
«

•

•

*

•

»

•

•

!

•

H4"0400
Oi rH CD
• • •
o
rH

05

tH M4 CO !H 00 CD 05
tH CO CO ■M* c LD tH 00
LO 05 LO
00 O 00 LO 10
•
•
9
9
•
•
9
« 9 9
9
9 9
00 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 00 05 05

*

C O C O M , t “ lO C O C O C O t ~ C O
1

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

M4
CO 0
3C
O tHiIc
o
t
• t• CO
• ^• LO
«lCO
•

w

.515 n 4 O

0 CO M4
O O 0
CO tH 00 CM 9 CO to LO
•
•
•
*
9 •
*
•
00 0 Oi 05 05 05 tH O O
to CO 1
0 LO t o to 1 0 CO

CO CD
CO O
CD G

G

<0

O P*
*<o0
3
*GH
G
O
O

cq

0 0 0 0
r H CJ5 O

0
O O
CO 05
•
9 •
05 O O
LO CO CO

00
00
•
05
LO

M4
00 CO
*
•
• lo o
•
CM 00 00
tH

tH C O ^ C O C O C O C M tH

.O
CO 00 CO CC 00 O O CM CM •M4
00 CM
CO 00
•
0
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
9
•
9 a
•
•
CM rH rH CM 05
to rH
■M* tH CM 00 CM co 0 0 00
rH rH tH rH tH rH rH
tH tH tH rH tH H tH rH rH
0

CO
LO

Oi

•

05 CO 05 00 tH 05 OO CO 05 O CO CO
CO H* tH 05 tH tH ID OO CM CO •M4 00
9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9 9 •
CO CO 00 CM rH CM CM O CM O CO CM 00 05
CO CD to CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD LD ID

tH O
CM O
9

9

CO 05
05 O
M4 CM rH CM O
9

9

9

9

tH

9

9

tH CD CO CC CD tH
rH rH rH tH tH rH

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

tH tH
CD CD

tH CO 05 CO tH

CO CD IH O

00

tH ID

tH

oc9 009 LQ9 O9 tH9 M4• CM9 OO9 tH9 LD
•
CO •
M4ID ID IH CC
CO ID ID
tH tH tH tH rH tH tH rH rH tH

CD CD rH tH Ml4 O O
05
CM rH 0 0 OO tH LO tH LD O
9

05

9

9

CO tH tH M4 O
CD tH tH O

9

9

9

9

9

O
O

9

O
M4

9

9

OO 00 CO CD CD tH CD ID tH CD tH CD ■M4 LD CD CD
rH tH tH tH tH tH i
—t rH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

H

H
c=t
rC
a,

CO
00 O 00 CO M4 CM CM CO CM O CM O O CC 0 0 O M 4
9
•
•
•
•
•
9 •
•
*
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
00 M 4 OO 0 0 0 0 00 to rH LO LO (H LD M4 T f tH M*
tH rH rH tH rH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH rH tH rH rH

5 * tr­ t - CO O
tH io lO M4 O

00
CM
O O "M4 CD CD M4 00 00 CD CD CM CD CM O t •
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9 •
•
•
•
LO CO CO
LO CM Ml4 Ml4 00 tH CO O LO CO CD 00 M4
rH rH tH
rH tH tH rH rH tH rH rH tH rH tH tH tH 3

O
O

00 CO ID tH tH tH tH CO tH tH 0 0 OO ^J4 ID CD tH
rH tH tH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH r—L tH tH rH

05
O CM
CM CM CM CM CM 'M* CM O CM CC _rf- CM CM 0
•
•> •
9 •
•
•
^9
0
• •
•
•
•
•
•
CO CM LO ■M4 OO 1—1 00 O LO ■M4 CD 00 rp 00 LO co CO
tH rH rH tH rH tH tH tH rH r - 1 rH rH rH rH tH rH tH

rH CD CO tH CO "ct4 CD
tH 00 H 1 LD M 4 tH 00
9
9
9 •
9 •
9
tH 00 LO tH tH 00 tH
tH t—t tH tH tH tH tH

rH
Mf4 OO O
O 00 O 00 CM Ml4 CM 00 CO CM O CO
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
9 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
CO
CM "M4 ■M* 00 rH tH O
LO CD CM CM 00 M4
rH
tH tH rH rH rH rH rH tH rH rH rH tH tH tH tH

H i rH CD tH CD CD CO r-» CD M4 tH tH tH V P 05 OO
tH tH 00 ID oc OO M4 O - oo tH tH ID ID W CM 00

a

©
aJ

CO

O

I

'O
<5

LO
00 CM CM O O 00 CD C OO 00 tH 00 CM O CD
•
9 •
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9 •
CO 05 00 rH tH CM 05 tH O CM
O O O rH
C
M
C
M
C
M
tH
C
M
C
M
C
M
CM CM CM CM 8
tH tH tH

rH

9

9

9

9

9

tH CD tH CD 05 05 O
IH 00 tH 00 CM CM O
9

9

9

9

9

9

05 O
to O

9

9

CD CO
00 CM

9

9

9

00 0 0 ID tH OO tH IH CD tH tH 00 00 LD ID CD tH
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH
co tH CO M4 05 CO CD
M4 LO Mt4 tH CM •M4 OO

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

LO
cQ9 tH
9

_dtH
•
tH
tH

9

9

r j 4 H 4 CD M4 CO 05
tH tH 00 tH -M4 O
9

05 05 tH
CM CM tH
9 9
#
OO tH tH
rH rH tH

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

"M4 tH CD CD CO
tH tH 00 00 rH
9

9

9

9

cc
tH ■M4
tH rH rH tH

9

0

9

9

9

tH
tH

9

CO OO "d4 CD tH tH tH CD tH tH tH CD Tt4 M' CD CD
rH rH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH rH tH tH tH

05 O
CM O
9

9

CO tH O
tH tH 00 tH O

05 tH tH 05 tH O

CO O
CM tH ID CM tH LD Tf4 O

tH

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

OO
00

9

tH tH tH O 05 O O 05 O 05 rH O tH 00 O 05
CM CM tH CM tH CM CM tH CM tH CM CM rH tH CM tH
•M4 05 tH CD CO rH
tH tH CO CO tH
05 'H4 05
ID tH CM tH M 4
rH CM ID 00
tH tH ID tH 'd4
9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

CM tH CO 05 O O tH 05 rH 05 tH tH 05 05 tH O
CM CM tH rH CM CM CM tH CM rH CM CM tH tH CM CM

(4

©
©
+■»

rH CM

CO^lOO^CCOiqHNCO^
tH

LD CD
rH rH tH rH rH rH

TO
0)

X

rH CM CO

CO Tl4 LD CD
ID CD tH 00 05 O
rH rH tH rH rH tH

U
O

1 *4-9 -

-

id
01
{3t 0,43
+O> o
+>
^ CO
P5 O

rl

01

±=t
1j o
*
S
h

o

01
-a*Mo
O
«
-p

LIVE ANIMAL

APPENDIX I C
EVALUATION - BODY MEASUREMENTS
Width

O
0>'{3
£<15£CO
© rH

to
LO LO
LO CM o CM CM
• • • • •
LO LO CO xf CO
CO CO CO 00 CO

©

LO

LO

LO

LO

• • •
xf tr- xf O
CO CM co

CO H

LO LO
o o CM CM
• 0 0 0 0
CM LO CO xf CO
CO co CO CO CO

LO 00
o o CM CO
0 0 0
0
o CO Xf xf
CO CO CO CO

00 CO LO LO LO
00 CO tr- t> CM
0 0 0 0 0
xf rH rH 05 xf
CO xf CO CO CO

CO
CO
0
CO
CO

00 © CO
CO LO rH
0 0 0
Xf Xf t>
CO CO 00

LO
LO
t- o CM O
• 0 # 0
rH rrHl © o
H
CO CO CO CO

CO
LO LO to 00
0 0 0 0
00 CM CO rH
CM CO CO CO

to CO LO
t> rH CM
0 0 0
05 l> CM
CM 00 CO

00
CO
0
CO
CO

00
CO
0
CM
CO

LO
CM
0
CM
CO

CO
CD
0
o
CO

LO
CM
tr­ LO C— LO LO
0 0 0 0
CO rH xf 05
CO Xf x f CO

CO LO O
rH tr- o
0 0
0
05 LO CO
CO Xf Xf

o
o
0
CO
xf

OO oo CO
CO CO rH
0 0 0
05 CO rH
CO xf x f

LO LO LO

LO
LO
t- CM t- LO CM t - t- O
• • •
• 0 0
tH xf co CO o
xf CO 00
xt* CO xf

LO

LO
LO
o o O CM O
O
• * • •
• 0
CO 00 CM H
rH t>(M rH o
CO CM CO CO
CO CO

• •

■4-*

LO
CM
0

CO
co

LO LO
CM t0

0

CM
xf

OO

o

00

to
CM O

LO
LO
LO
t- i o CM C— O CM
0
0 0 0
CM CO rH H LO H
rH LO trCO CO CO
CO CO eo
0

0

LO LO
LO © LO
LO o tr- CM t > t - © LO
to MCM© LO
CM t >
© C
C M
• 0 • • 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
— 1CM xl* t >
tr- T
CM 05 CD xf CO
CO CO CO CO
CO CM CO CO CO

CO

'H
-aj
01

LO
C— ©

©

LO
CM O

O

pi
T3

03 t"

LO

LO LO lO

•CM• CM•t —• o

O

t-C M

O

CM
o
0
LO
CM

O

to

t> t> LO LO O
0

0

LO
tr0

0

co 05 tr- CO CO
xf CO xf xf xf

^

CM
CO

LO LO
LO
t- C- LO LO t - LO o
0
0 0 0
0
00 LO
CO t - CO
CM CM CM
CM CM

•

•

0

tr<o

LO
LO to LO LO
CM CM CM CM LO
• 0 0 0 0
00 05 t- rH CO
CO xf LO Xf

t”

CM

t>

LO
to
CM o CM
0 0 •
xf CO o
CO CO x f

LO
ID
LO o
LO CM LO t0 0
0
• 0 0
CO CO t> 00
CO CO CD rH
xf xf
xf xf Xf LO xf

xf "M* xf xf

d)
Td

LO ID
LO t- CM
• 0 0
LO o 00
CM CM CM

lO LO LO
LO
LO CM CM CM LO CM O

LO LO LO

LO

0

xf

CO

LO O
CM CO
0
0
05 tr-

x f xf

xf

00
CO
0
00
CM

O 00 © © © © x f
o oo tr- C— O t > rH
0 0 0 0 0 0 *
tr­ tr­ rH CO Xf © ©
ee ee Xf CO CO CO CO

CO CO CO
CD T—1 CO
0
0 0
xf CO ©
CO CO CO

© O
CM ©
0

T— 1 ©
CO ©

0

©00 CO
o GO ©
0 0 0

© © rH

CM CM ©

LO 00 CO to CO © © O ©
tr- 00 CO CM © CM O © x f
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CM CM CM CM Xf’ CM CM O CM

x f x f x f x f xf x f x f x f xf

co OO oo oo O CO 00 CO OO o 00 © © © © Xf
rH CO CO oo o CO CO rH CO o OO © C- CM © CM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to o rH 05 x f CO CM CM tr­ x f rH Xf © rH rH x f
CO xf CO CO CO CO CO CO ee CO CO CO CO cococo

LO
CM
•
CO
co

00 LO o to
CO CM to tf0 0 0 0
CM LO o CO
x f CO xf CO

CO LO OO OO LO 00 ©

©

o © co

rH CM CO CO tr- 00 CM tr- o © ©
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Xf xf CO 05 LO x f Xf 05 © X f ©
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM © © ©

CO LO o o o o LO CO 00 CO 00 © © © © C M
rH CM o LO o0 LO tr- rH CO rH 00 tr- O CM rH ©
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
Xf CO LO tr- Xf Xf x f 00 c- LO to © © © x f ©
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

LO O to
tr- o CM
0
0 0
t- rH CM
Tf LO x f

CO CO OO LO LO o 00 CO © © O © ©
rH CO 00 tr- CM o CO © O © o © ©
• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05 tr- 05 LO Cr- CO Xf LO tr- rH © x f ©

Xf Xf x f Xf xf x f Xf Xf x f x f x f x f x f

00 00
CO CO
0 0
CD rH
Xf LO

O CO LO OO
LO CO CM oo
0 0 0 0
LO © c- o
x f © Tf LO

to LO 05
to t - tr— CO
0 0 0 0
00 LO tr- LO

x f xf x f

o O
o O
0 0
CO CO
xf LO

OO 00 00 LO O LO CO © CO CO © o © ©
CO 00 CO CM LO t - rH LO © © tr- © r H CM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO CO cc t>- CD Xf 05 LO © t- © x f © CD

00
LO LO
t - CM O co
0 0 0
0
tr- 05 05 05
rH rH rH T— 1

CO LO o
CO CM o
0 0 0
05 LO to
rH CM rH

LO
t> O

CO
0 0
LO CO 00 CC
0

O

0

Xf xf x f Xf

LO oo o 00
CM oo o CO
0 0 0
0
CD LO o CO
xf Xf LO Xf

CO 00 O © O t rH co O © O ©
0 0 0 0 0 0
© tr— Xf CO © txl* xt* xf Xf Xf Xf

x f x f Xf xf Xf xf Xf x f x f Tf x f xi* xf x f

00
o
<1)
55

LO

LO

LO

o
•

LO LO
tr- t— O
•

0

LO
0

0

co t- rH CD 05
rH rH CM CM rH

LO

LO LO to CO 00 LO
CM CM CM CO CO tr0 0 0 0 0 0
05 CO 05 tr- o rH
rH rH rH rH CM CM

CO CO © © © © C M
rH © CM © rH © X f
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
oo © © CD rH rH ©
rH rH rH rH CM CM rH
©

05

Weight

rH
CCS
-H
O
6-i
a>

u

o

CO LO 05 CO
CM rH CM xt*
05 00 05 00

O 00 t- O o
CO 05 CM 05 CM
00 CO 05 OO 00

rH

LO CO 00 0
CM LO o CM
05 00 05 CD
00

S3
•rt
sc

xf

CD
LO
0
x
f
CM
o
00 o CO ©
05 05 05 CM
00 CO CO © CO © OI t> H O l> r l
CO
i
n
in
xi*
LO
xt
*
xt
x
r
x
r
Xf
Xf
Xf
LO x f
Xt* x f LO LO

•
CM 00 o O oo O o CD 00 © CM © O © x f ©
x
f
CO o rH 00 CM © rH © X f COC75
CO x f 00 tr­
x f CC xf io xf LO LO LO Xf LD x f © x f x f Xf x f

t- O 00 O CO Xf
rH LO o x f 00 05
x f CO x f co CO CO

Xf O i © xf © CO © © © CM CD x f
CD CD CD CM CD CM © CM CM © Xf O
CO Xf CO Xf CO xf xf x f xf x f © xf

xf

TO

05

CO rH CO LO CM CO LO LO CO rH O © © o
xf o rH lO O CO CO CM CM rH © O CD xf
00 rH 00 o 00 05 05 05 05 05 co 05 tr- © © 0 5
T— 1
rH
©

©
xf

O O O C O O C M C O COCM
•
o S t-C O t-C O C M C O O t-

X f © © C O © x f © x f t f c

CO

CO

—
3
<D 0 CO
^10 50 Sfl
S
r t W C O ^ W C D raClOHNCO^lOCDt-COOOCMcO
<D o LO rH CM © x f © CD tr— O O O O
05
rH H H rH rH tH C
D
H
r
l
r
l
r
l
r
l
H
H
^
-H
05
rH
S
cn
t-4

- 150 -

a,

co

+»

Si

b0| 0)
rCHD -G
•H
w
•H
!»

co

-t-> Cu
CD O
^CO oH

•H

hq -f
o->
c

LO to to
CM CM CM
* • •
co Oi M4
rH t—t rH tH
tH t—( rH tH
o

•

to
O
•
rH
rH
tH

LO
«
CO
O
tH

to
LO
LO
to O 05
• • • • •
CO 00 t - M4 to
rH tH tH tH tH
tH tH tH rH tH

to
LO
03 O 05
• • •
05 O Oi
tH o
d rH tH

O LO
■ •
to O
tH tH
tH tH

LO
05
•
CO
tH
rH

LO
•
CO
o
tH

LO
to
O 05 O t • • • •
H 4 00 CO CO
O o tH o
tH tH tH tH

LO
LO
cm
LO 05 to
t—I
• ■ ■
o H4 CO
CM rH r-J r-j CO
rH tH d l-i tH

O
LO LO
•
9
Oi CO
o 05
tH tH

LO LO LO
05 03
• • •
o Oi rH
rH o tH
t
—1t—I rH

00 CO IO CO CO 00 00 O

LO
05
•
CO
tH

xi

+>

ir*H

tU3
G
CD

s i

-H

OO
rH

o
r
H
O
PJ KJ

x
: Pn
E
h

4C-O> +O*
t—i

o
O t03
o
• ■
M4 M4
tH rH

O
O
•
0tH

O o
o LO
• •
CO t t—1 tH

O
LO
•
CO
05

to
to
o 05 LO lO o
• • • • • • • 9
oo
LO CO M 4 CO 05 05 a
LO LO CO LO LO CO to CO
IO LO 05

LO
LO
• •
rH CO
03 03
tH rH

to
05
•
CO
tH

O LO LO O
LO
t - LO
• • • 9
Oi 05 CO t tH rH tH t—i

LO LO

IO LO

o
o
•
CO
rH

LO
LO
03 O O O
• • • • • •
t - 03 to o LO D— H 4 Oi H4 CO
rH tH 03 03 03 05 03 t—1 03 tH
rH tH tH t—! tH rH rH tH tH rH

to
•

•

LO LO
• •

O LO
* •
O CO
CO rH
1—t tH

rH 03 CO CO CO
■ • • 9 •
t - t—1 to H 4 03
—1 O rH
rH tH I
tH rH tH tH rH

LO 00 O 00 CO CO CO CO
05 CO LO CO rH rH tH tH
• • • • • • • •
CO 00 o t— rH LO tH t I—
( tH 05 tH tH «H t—1 rH
tH tH tH tH tH rH rH tH
LO O to CO
CD
oo o t> LO
• • 9 • • •
Oi CO tH tH LO OO
—1 tH tH O o
o T

OO
CO
•
0o
tH tH tH tH tH tH rH

00 O
00 CD

• •
CO
iH tH
tH tH

00 00 OO
CO CO M4
• • •
o CM O
tH tH tH
tH tH T”1

Oi

CO

lOCOCOOCOlOifllDCOCOlOCOOmW t>
t-C O C D O C O N N C V JoO H W C O O rtH C C

•

o
t
H

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

COCO^CDNSCOCOCD^CO^OCO^ H4

C O t H C D C O C O C D C O C O C D C D C O C O C O C D C D CO

CIO Oi

l O O O O C O O O O O O l O O O C O c O C D l O C X ) 00
t-O O O r -iO O O C O C -lO O H H C O t-O O C O
9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

lfltfiO C O n u 3 N C O m Q ® N O N N

9

05

COH4lOH4H4H4H4'
,
'f,H4^34COH4M4M4M4 H4
O I D C O C O I O O C O C O C O I O I O C O O O I O I O H4
t O d H C O M O H O O H N l > H C O N N tH

• • • • ■ • • « « * • • • • •

•

C O C O O l L O C M O i L O ' ^ i O i H t - C O t - I O O i CO
tH tH rH tH rH
H H H M H rlH H H
H

LO

co

05 IO 05 CO
r - 05 LO O
• • • • • • • 9 9
to LO 00 CD LO CO M4tH o
CO CO LO CO LO CO LO t- CO

03 LO 03 r> O

o CO
LO iH
• •
00 Oi
tH tH
tH tH

CO
•
LO
O
tH

c-

LO
LO
to
LO
LO
LO
05 o t - LO o o t - O LO
• • • ■ • • * • • • O* t -• o•
CO CO 03 03 r - LO tH 05 H4 05 M4 CO LO
co LO CO CO co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CD

LO LO
LO LO LO
LO LO LO
LO O 05 t - t - LO to LO O 05 05 05
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CO Oi LO t - CO CD M4 tH LO LO t—1 LO H 4 CO
H 4 H 4 M 4 H4
M4 H4 M4 M4 H4
H4 M4 H4

o
w

to

o O
LO O
• •
Oi 03
tH 05
rH rH

O
•
o
CO
tH

Oi
CD
•
tH
05
tH

o CO CO o CO o 00 co LO LO to CO
LO tH 00 o CD o CO tH t- 03 £> CO
• • 9 • • • • • • • • 9
05 CO t- 05 t—1 CO CD Oi CO tH co LO
co CO LO r> CO t— CO CO CO CO LO CO

LO LO
t - C• •
M 4 Oi
tH 05
tH rH

8

•

CO CO LO 03
CO CO c— LO

• • • •
rH o to CO
CO CO LO CO

O LO O OO to 00 O CO CO CO CO 00 tH
o 05 LO 00 t — CO LO CO CO CD CD 00 O

• 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 * 9
oo Oi 00 t - C5
05 CO tH 05 05 05 05 05 t—1 tH tH tH tH CM
tH
r—
1
rH
tH tH tH tH rH
tH
tH
tH
tH
rH tH

o tH 00 C- CO c - C5 05 o

Sh

CD •
CD O
+* ^

CO

H Cl CO ^ IP CD CCJ lOrlNCO^lOCDb-COOONCO'U'iocO
tH rH tH tH rH tH
H H H H H r l H © Oi

H (M C O ^ in C D t> 0 0 0 5 O

?
3
CD

- 151 <D

IO O

rH Ch

o

HO

a

O to to O o
•

LO IO LO O O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CM tH CO OO
CO CM LO 00
CO CM CM CM CM CM CO CM CM

O

IO o

o

CM
tn

oo

Is

to

LO
IO
CO CO CO CO • rH
• rH o
• 05 CM
CM CM CM CM rH CM CM CM CM CO rH
CM
rH CM
CM
CM
CM

O
O

ffl-G
CD CO

>
o o
»Q O
<3 XJ
& 5s
CO o o
rH ,Q
Q) rH

PQ CD

CM
CO

•M* O 00 tH tH
CO tH tH t tH tH tH CO CO

CO

•

co

CO CO GO t'* t—

e

LO

•

S <3

rH CM CM

> O

S

o

co
•
•
ocqciOHt-ocn
LO

Hoco

rH CM rH rH a

H H H H O J H C M H
5^

cm

-D
T— I
CD

CO

o

05 CM rH LO 05 00 CO 05 LO t— CD O GO 05 t— 05
O 05 O 05 05 05 O tH O r i O O O l c n H q
rH
CM rH CM rH rH rH CM rH C M C M C M C M H r H C M r H O

3

CD

CQ

rH CO
00 CO tH tH tH CD
rH rH rH tH rH rH rH

CD C
C
S

P4 tH

Ph

O rH H 1 CM O CO ^ CD
tH CO t ~ tH tH CO IH tH

CO

+>

H
+-»
U
CO
O
•H O O
Js +-> tH

o
"M
*
•
CM
CO

LO O O L O L O O L O O O O L O O O O L O
O C 5 0 t-lO T H 0 3 C O O O tH lO O L O C M

OI
CO

rH CM rH rH CM rH rH rH CM CM rH rH rH rH rH

rH

•
c o o r o o io o o io o o t- c io o a D

•

05

0 0 0 lOO OO LOO OO LOO OL OOL LO IOH lOO Cl OM lt HO LOO H 1
LO LO O
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
H
0
1 05 r t - ^ L O C O C M C M C O C O C O t - t H C O rIO
^ tO ^ L O I O L O L O I O I O L O ^ ^ ' ^ ' ^ L O
00

O LO O O O O O O O L
• • • -tf LO LO O O O O LO
05 O ^ L D t H 0 0 5 L D ' * t f H , C D t H ' ^
05 CM 05
LO LO O
CM CM O

10

O O

t— LO

o
CM o

O
O O O O l O OOO LO
O LO
OOO
1005 O l f l O t - O

o
o

10

10

CO
tH

r—f rH rH rH r—f rH rH r—I rH rH r—f rH

rH

O L O O O L O O O O O O O O O O lO
LOCMLO O M 1 O O L O O L O O O L O O t H
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • A
COCO O C D M CO t ~ H 1 rH 00 tH rH CO 05 CO
tH 0 5 tH ° O lH C O tH tH O O tH tH C O C O C O tH
H r H r lH r lH H H H H H H r H H r H

CO
CO
•
t>
LrH

O C O lO O C O O O lO O O C O C O O O L Q L O
O C O tH O C O O O C M lO lO r H C O C O C M C M

00
tH

C O tH lH IH lH tH C O tH lH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH lH

C 0 0 5 0 5 0 C M C O C M O O C O C M C M L O lO t H L O
D— t H t H C O t H t H t H t H t H O Q t H t H t H t H t H

CO
tH

CO
O 00 CO o o CO CO
CD o o to o o O CM tH
•
•
•
•
• • o • a • • • • • • ■
•
IO CO c
o 00 CO CO OO CO CO to LO CM
O tH LO
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CM CM

LO o o to o
CM LO o tH o
•
•
•
•
•
00 LO tH CD
CM CM CM CM f c

00
O CO o CM CD
CO CM 00 to o CM LO CM tH
•
•
•
•
«
•
9
•
•
•
9
a •
•
•
tH 05 05 05 o
o 00 O 05 CD 05 O 05 o rH oo CM 00
CD CD CD CD CD CD tH CD CO CD CD CO tH tH CD tH CD

o o O LO LO O LO O LO O o O LO IO O
tH tH LO tH 05 O rH LO LO LO CM LO CM tH O

00
LO LO LO to o O CM
LO O O O o O IO O IO O
•
o
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
-rtf LO LO tH LO o LO rH CM rH LO CO CD
00
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO c
o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

LO O
CD IO o
•
•
•
CM CD CD
CO CO CM

tH

CO 05 LO to H* 00 CO O
CO CD OO tH tH tH tH CD tH CO IH t ~ t — fc—
tH rH r—! rH rH rH H rH H H H H H r l H

LO
tH O
• ■

LO
LO
CM LO O lO CM LO O
«
• • • • • •

C
M
00 CO
H t -

00
O 05
• •

LO O
•

«H

L O O O O O O O O O O O L O O L O O
C M O O O O L O O O tH L O O t-lO tH O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
■'st, C M i D H H O 5 C 0 C O C M C M C M O 5 C D a 5 0 0 H *
L D t H L D C O C D C O C O C O t H C D L D L D lD lD C O

•

10

CMC0lD05OM<CMOH i00CM<0!DC0''^00l0

CO
•H O

rH
CM

Ot-CMCMOCDrHrHtHOCOCO
COCOCOtHtHtHtHtHtH^COCO

LO LO LO LO
tH tH t ” CM LO O
*
«
• • • •

0
g4o oM
0 +
■
»o
01 ®

O iC M O r H C M O C M r H C M C M O r H O r H O i
rH C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M rH C M C M C M rH

rH

LO

pti rH

oo
O

CO H 1 CM
r H 0 5 r H 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 5 0
O
rH CM rH C M rH C M rH C M C M C M C M C M H r H C M CM

rH

2
-a
O cd

lO L O O O O L O O O O O O O lO O O
CM O JLO tHO tHO CO O O tOO tHO LO

CM
CO

o to 05

-a

&-*

• • • • •

• •«•!••••••••••

CD £

-aj

•

O O O C O O t ' - O i O t H O O r H C O r H l H C O C O CO
CMCOCMCDCMCMCOCMCMCO
CO CM 04 CM CM

CO

O ^5
rH
O

CD
O
G '60
CD CD
U rH
CD
Cu 0)
M U
O
o Ph
H
•rH
O

O O O L O L O O L O L O L O O L O O O lO LO IO
L O lO lO C M tH lO b -C M C M O
• LO O t— tH 00

•

O CO
IH 00
rH rH

• ••••••••••••«•

•

o

•

•

•

•

LD LO O
OO 05 O
• • •
tH tH 05
CM CM CM

•

•

•

O O
O LO
■ *
tH
CM CM

•

•

•

o

LO O LO 05
LD tH LO CM 05
m
•
•
•
•
CO r—1 IH CM
LO
CM CM CM CM CM CM

O
O

•

•

•

•

•

•

o
•

tH o 05 CO 05 00 tH LO CO CO 05 tH tH CO LO
CD CD tH CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CO LO CD CD CD CD

o

H->

■a+* o
<D O O
O -H rH
W O Ch

*ro
O
+->

OCi
CS H-*

rH
C
C
S
CO

h

n

o h

CO

O LO LO
O ID
CO LO CM CM CO CM
•
• • •
• •
H 1LD LD CM H* CM
CO CO CO CO CO CO

O
O
•
LO
CO

LO
CM
•
H1
CO

LO
IH
•
CO
CO

LO O
CM 00
•
•
CO c
o
CO CO

l o l o o l o l o o o l o

LO LO o LO O LO
O O O O O O t H
C D t H C M O N O O 0 5 r H r H l 0 O L 0 C 0 1 0 CO

CMCMCOCMCMCMCOCOCMrHOCOCMCOCMH;CM
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

rH CO LO H* CM CO H 1CM rH CO rH CO CM CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM

CM
O O O L O O O L O O O lO O lO L O lO O O C O

O
LO O LO O LO
o LO o LO LO LO
LO LO tH O O C O C O l O ^ r H L O I H t H C M O

H

t~ rH 05 C M 0 0 O C M O tH O 5C 35O 5 CO 05 CO 05
CMCOCM COCM COCOCO COCM CM CM CM CM CM CM

i o l o o o l o l o l o

C
C
S
CD f l +>
O *H C
C
S

LO O
tH LO
•
•
CD -rtf
CO CO

O

O

• •••••••••••••a

•

*r-j CD

H->

a
•H
O

•H •H •h •O •O •O •H •C •M •O •q •
• • • • •
N O O N H O

COCOCOCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCMCOCOCOCOCOCO

*T~3
o

x : -h

-|-%

LO LO
CO tH IO

o

O LO LO O O IO O O O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CO 05 tH tH OO 05 05 05 rH 05
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH r—1 CM rH

§ -s
W

o

+>

r-j CD

LO LO o
tH O O

O LO
LO
CM
O CO CH LO CM LO LO CM

tH 00 05 O LO 05 O CO CD t “ tH CO CO CD CO CO
I r H r —I tH
rH r H r H C M r H r H C M r H r H r H r —I i—l r —

SI

u

CD
CD
-H
CO

• CD

o LO
S3 05
rH

,

rH CM CO H* LD CD

CO C31 O

H CM CO M 1 ID ©
rH rH rH rH rH rH

C
C
S b r HCMC 0 * t f m c D t H 0 0 C5 OCMC 0 H< LO CD
rH r—I r l r—I rH t—I
05

to

Oj
o
4^
(h *H
o p-4
c
x
0 +->
<D CO

^ rH
<D <#
PQ
4->

to

C
M
o

S-.
o
H->
*=3

to
44

o
o

03

-p
<3

43

H-» to
CO 44
rH O
-

°

S3 03

(OOOWOlDWlO
I• D•N ■i n
O N O N N S ©• ©
• • • • • I
COHCOOOiO tC ^ ^ co tb tb•

CO CO

LO _
N O

O
O

O LO LO
IO M N

LO

©

C D N O H C O n ’tf'^K
CO

tP

C O

t P o O cO

LO
b*
♦
bCM

IO
tb
*
bCO

LO O LO
CM © CM
* • •
rH t P t P
CO CO CO

IO
LO LO
b LO CM tb
• • • •
rH CO co CM
CO CO CO CO
LO
tb
*
tCO

LO
CM
•
LO
TP

LO
CM
o
CO
Tp

LO LO
IO CM Cb
• • •
Q co CM
tP
Tp

o
o

O
LO
•
o
CO
o
©

OOCOCO

©
CM
•
CM
CO

•

CO

TP to

TP

00
o
•

©

CM CM
•

•

© oo o Tp CD ©
CO CO TP

CO

CO

8812

LO LO

CM ©

©

* •

CM o
CO CO
L •o

©
•
rH
tP

•

05 n

N
CM

•
•
O rH

CO CO CO
©

O
O
o o

O
©

©

© 00 tb

©
©

©

©

CM
•

CM CM

•

rH

CO
CO
CM

CO
LO
•

CM
Tp

TP Tp TP
©
•

CM
00

tb

CM o
• •
•
CO CM ©

©
©
tb tb C
b©
•
■

CO
CO

© o
© © o
tb LO LO tb CM ©
•
• • •
o
CO rH rH rH CO O
CO
CO CO CO

© ©

©
a * •
CO © CO
Tp CO TP
o LD ©
o tb CM
• • •
CO © CO
TP
TP

©
•

00

©
CM

888
• * •

to

Tp

•

CM

CM rH O
t P t P Tp

TP

LO LO LO
LO LO LO
© O LO © ©
tb CM IO © © LO tb © tb ©
• • • • • •
• • • • a »
05 rH rH LO © CM
TP © © O rH rH
CO CO CO t P CO CO CO
CO CO CO

CM
CO

o

•

tP

TP

o
o

b b b

•

Tp
CO

<D

<D 03

s=

-<Dp -4r3H
pq
41
-P

3

<aj 43
P

CO

43
-H

X3
•rl
CO

S3

*p

CM

*o

LO
O
tb o LO ID
• • • •
rH rH co CM
TP CO CO CO

©
tb
•
tb
CO

©
CM
•
CM
CO

LO LO o to
tb CM LO Cb LO
• • • • •
LO CM Tp CM LO
CO t P CO t P CO

©
tb
a
CM
CO

©
CM
•
CD
CO

LO
CM
•
CO
CO

LO
LO o
©
b- LO O CM o © CM
• • • • • • •
co CM co 00 CM © CM
CO t P CO CO CO CO CO
LO
b•
CO
CM

LO
O
CM LO O LO
• • • •
CD TP oo LO
CM CM CM CM

©
CM
•
TP
CM

td
rH
O

43

C/5

4o4
CD

If

CD O
-P ^
CO

•

•
TP
CM

tb
tb

© © ©
© tb ©
• • • •
Tp O rH ©

CO
Tp
•

o

•

©

CD CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO

©

O
©

©
©

© ©
CM ©
•
•
t P TP
CO c o

CM

•

o

o

© ©
* • a
tb © ©
©

© ©
CM tb

• a
t P TP

•

©

CO

©
CO
©

©

a

©

LO
o
©
LO LO O ©
© © O
LO CM LO o to tb ©
© lb
© CM ©
a • • • • • •
• • a • • •
TP CO LO lb CM TP ©
t o Tp CO © CO CO
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM CM

CO

8

LO
tb
•
CO
Tp

LO
tb LO
• a
o CO
LO TP

LO to © O
CM CM CM ©
• • • •
05 b- © ©
TP t P TP t P

©
©
■
Tp
TP

O
©

LO
tb
*
oo
Tp

LO
CM
•
rH
LO

©
o O o
o o o © ©
• • • • •
t-H 05 00 o to

©
tb
•
tP
tP

© © © © O
tb © © © ©
• • • • •
TP © CM tb TP
TP TP TP Tp TP

O o o o O
o o o o ©
a * ■ • *

©

©

TP TP TP ©

TP

CO CM co rH tb o
TP LO Tp IO TP ©

CD

©
CM

a

tP
CO

CM

• a

u

© ©
CM tb © ©
•
a • a
© CO TP ©
c o CO CO CM

©

rH

CM CM CM CM CM CM

LO O
b- O

P4

© © ©
O
© © tb tb O
a • • •
•
•
CO CO CO © © CM
CO c o CO CO CO CO
©

©

LO o
LO tb o
• • •
CO rH LO
Ttf LO t P
LO o
o tb• o
•
•
co CM CO
t P LO TP

LO
tb
•
05
tP

©
LO
a
b*
Tp

©
TP

© ©
b- ©
• •
rH tb
© tP

LO
O o
tb LO O ©
a • • *
b- LO tb ©
t P t P TP TP

LO to O LO o o
o CM tb o CM © ©

• • • • • • •
CD CO CO CO tb tb 00
Tp LO TP t P t P TP t P
O
LO
©
LO tb LO O LO © ©
• • • • • • •
CO Tp LO o CO CO CO
rH CM rH CM rH rH rH
LO
tb
•
O
CM

LO
O
tb LO ID o
• a * *
LO TP OO 00
CM rH rH rH

rH CM CO TP ©

O
O

•

©
CM

•

O tb
CM rH

•

©
©

©

•

•

©

•

CO CO
t P TP

©
o

•

•

•

o
©

©
©

•

•

©
©

©
a

CM

•

© CO © ©
TP TP Tp TP
O
©

•

©
©

•

O
©

•
CD CD © © tb
TP Tp TP Tp t P
a

©
©

•
CO CO rH © TP
TP t P TP TP TP

CM CM CM

©

CM

©
tb
•

3

©
O
© ©
tb 8 ©
• a • • a *
© co 1b CM TP CM
Tp TP t P TP TP TP
o

LO
tb ©

©
tb
*
© TP
TP TP
•

©
©

© © © ©
tb tb tb tb
• • « •
tb TP TP CO
TP t P TP TP

© ©
© ©
CM tb © © © ©
a • • • • •
CO CO © CO © rH

rH rH rH rH

CM CM

LO IO IO
© © CM CM tb
• a • • • •
CO 00 © CO CM rH
rH rH rH rH CM CM
O

CO tb 0 0 © © C M C O T P © t O

rl H H H rl H

©

•

©

CM

lb
CM
•
CO

Tp
©

05

•

CO

Tp

©

rH

•
tb
TP

CO

CO

a
tb
tP
CO

©
•
©
Tp
CM

©

a

co

Tp
CO

rH

•

©

rH
LO
CO

a

©

rl

>3

O

D
TC
r<

- 152 -

- 153 -

O LO ID
LD b“ CM
a

•

O

to £

•

o o o
to o o

05 H4o O CO CO IO 00 rH
O N CM
rH rH tH rH CM
H rl H rH rH rH rH rH rH
O ID IO t o O O O IO O
IO W t-

a

P4
P
<3

• • • 04• LO
• LO
• O• •b -•O
05 CM OO

O O
O O

IOIO

O

00 rH
tH rH
rH rH

torH CO IO
rHrH rH rH
rHrH rH tH

CO

O O to to

O

tb LO O
• • •CM•
•*

IO LO

b- CM

O O tb l b

to H IO O b
rH rH rH r-i rH rH rH H rH H
04 CO 05 f- 00 O

tf

O M rl 03 rH rH r-j rH 04 rH rH rH rH
rH rH rH

p
Et
h.Ol
*H
CD

CCJ

•

$5
S

•H
P

P
to

^

o

CD Oj

•

•

•

♦

•

•

•

LO

a

O

LO IO O O O IO O to
O © O O lO
t - CM O o LO lb* LO CM to LO O to O o tb
• • • ft • • ft • • • • • • ft •
CO CO LO to rH to rH H4 tb H 4 M4 to o CO H 4
to tb t o CO CO t o co CO CD to CO CO CO CO CO

oo
CO
ft
H4
CO

•

•

LO IO

O

LO to

LO o

IO o

to

o

ft

o

ft

to o
CM o

LO o
b- o

LO

o o o to
tb LO o o to CM
• a ft ft ft •
Nbv LO rH 05 CM o
H 4 H 4 H 4 CO H 4 H 4

o

CO o

rH P

X
l
P
tUJ

a
CD

h3

H
«-3
O
*H
O

cS (0
s- 5

O "H
X! d«

-p p
to

rH

bLO
05
tH

H4
CO
LO
CO
ft
CM

H4 H4

H4

O

LO
CM
a

CO
H4

CM
to
ft
CM
H4

to
tb
•
Oi
rH

o IO O
o b- O
a ft • •
tb 05 CM CM rH to
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

LO ©
CM o

O O O LO LO
LO LO O tb tb
ft
•
•
■ •
•
•
H 4 CM 05 CO 05 M4 00

CM
M4

rH CM rH tH rH rH rH

CO
rH

IO
CM
•
CO
rH

O
O

LO LO O o o LO
CM CM to O to tb
• • ft • • ft •
LO 05 05 CO 0
0 H4to
rH rH
rH rH rH rH

o O to
to o b~• ft ft •
CO o CO to
rH CM tH rH

LO
b~
•
05
rH

lb
co
ft
to
rH

to
CM
•
CM
to

LO
CM
•
CO
to

LO
© O O LO o to
CM LO o © o tb o b• • ft • ft • ft •
05 CM CO LO CM O CM M 4
CO CO LO lO CO CO CD lO

tb
CM
•
CO
CO

LO
LO
o o IO O © o © LO o LO LO
o O b~ LO o o CM o o to LO tb to CM b• • # ft ft ft ft ft ft • • • * • •
0 CM 05 CO
CM o to o CM CM LO 05 IO H4CM 0
to b- LO tb to b- to CO CO CO to CO CO LO to

tb
b•
CO
CO

O

o
to o
•

ft

o O
LO O
•

IO o
LO CM o LO
• • ft •
O CO rH ■tb tb
CO b- CO tb co
O
O

•

O
O

o LO O o o
o CM o IO o
• • « • ft • ft ft ft
o LO o IO tb* CM rH CO a
CO rH CO CM CM CM CM rH

IO LO o O
CM CM O LO

o lO
to CM ©
ft
ft •
b- o> 05
t
—!
CM
rH a rH

rH rH

LO
O CM O
ft • •
CM o LO
rH CO CM
rH rH rH

IO
b•
rH
CO
rH

O

o

O
O

to
CO
ft

IO
b- to
• •
CO CM

LO
O to to O IO
to b- IO O CM tb* © ba •
o •
ft ft •
•
•
•
• •
• •
to LO o CM LO IO CM CO rH 05 05 rH rH rH
CO H 4 LO H 4 H 4 ■st* H 4 H 4 H* CO CO H 1 M 4 M 4
o
o

x
l Wo
p

m

3

LO o
LO
CM o o CM
• ft ft ■
LO LO o H 4 CM LO CM
CO M 4 LO H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4

XI to

CM

H H r H H H H H H r l H r H r l H H H

b- b- o CM CM tb to CM o CM to
• • ft • * • ft • ft • •
CO CO M4 tb 00 b- to CM to CO CM CO o CO CO
to b- to <o CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co

P4

H4
•
O

IDb-qLDMl'nf^coHHCDO>bOJW

•

&

APPENDIX

•

IO

o

u
CD •
CD O
P Js
C/5

•

d

•

e-t

•

tO O lO O O tO O L O O O O L O lO iO
IO C M L O 0 4 0 0 b - O b ~ L O L 0 0 0 4 b - b -

LO to o

a

•

WbNCD^HOCOHHlfiCObHCM
Q
H HOHrjHrlrlOOOHrl
H HH HHH HHH HHH HH ri

IO
to o
tb IO CM o

CO U

•H O
PU3

I D (Continued)

•

• • • • • • • • • • * • • • %

-=sj

p

•

•

a

M
S 2 S ^ ! P oc>lflo o i D o o o
C M O O O tb b -© O b '-lO © C M lD O O

CO

to

CD

LO
CM
•
rH
CM
rH

to
b•
to
rH

o
o
ft
o

LO
tb
•
to
rH

o
o
• ft
o CO
O
LO

CM CM rH
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH tH rH rH
o O O O to to toto LO
O t
o O tb CM CM tb tbO CM LO t
• « ft • « • • • • •
H4 b- CO 05 CO 05
0
0
CM
IO CM
CM CM CM CM CM o tH rH rH rH
rH rH t— 1 rH rH
rH
rH
rH rH rH

N C D 'T f iD C O b - C O O iq W c o ^ lD ^

rH rH rH H rH rH

•

CO
LO

ft

CM
CM
rH

00
M4
•
rH
CM
rH

a
CD

-

10
O

P
a
B
3

£4

154 -

ID ID ID ID ID ID
t — ID ID CM t > t>

*

w
O
o
aj

•

ID ID

ID O
ID t > O
•
•
•
CO CO 05 00 CD CM CO M4 ID LO ID
t— t> t> N- N - CO t - t - t - t> tr-

• • • CM
•N•t>•O• CM• t -•

a

CM 00 05 05
t - t> t> t ID ID q

ID

ID

ID ID ID
N•t -•O•t -• ID• CM
• fc— tr- CM•O • •
CO o o O H CO
CD CO rH
t > CD CO C O N N
t> 00 tr0

*O• O• O• ID
• •ID •<0 0 0 0

ID

LO 'LD
ID CM t •
•
•
CD ID 00
tr- C- c -

ID
•
ID
t-

0

0

O

H
O

O

0

LD
ID O
O
•
*
•
•
•
CO rH 05 CO LD
COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM CM CM CM CM

trLD
•
CD
CM

ID O
O
O
*
•
■ •
•
O CO 05 05 CO 05 CO tr- ID CM ID O
CD tH CO
CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CO

ttH
•
LD
CD

O

S^t^20t>;cocoo5coco
M ^ O O O tN -O O lD lD O

O

APPENDIX

I D (Continued)

• ^ • O ID CM O
r
H
t— C M p ' t * 0 5
CD CD
<0 0 0
>-,
H’o H
Cm
Cm

O

O

CO ID CD O ■M4 O
ID O
0
•
•
•
•
•
0 0 t r - l D l D tH 05 OO CM CO
tT—t — CD CD CO CD CD CD CD ID CD CD CD

LD

O

• O •CO rH

LD ID CO O

C-

CM

•a

N rl O ID CM LD CD O

• • •

CD O
U P

J
d
p PQ
fcuO|

tH CD

CD

ID ID CO O O O CO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
tH CO LD LD CM CO "Cf4
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

■r-j -+->

O rH O

CO
CD
•
ID
CD

ID ID ID O
O
•
» «
•
•
CO
CM tD 'ct4
CO CO CO CO CO

LD
tr•
CO
CO

LD CD
ID 0
•
•
•
•
*
CM M4 'Cf4 CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO

ID
CO
•
CO
CO

ID O
ID ID LD
•
•
•
■ •
tH CO CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM

rH
05
«
CM
CM

L D t - LD
ID O
•
«
•
•
•
tH CO CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM

CO
OO
•
CM
CM

0

£

tH

•

CD
tr-

•
ID
CM

N-

O O O lD lD C M C O O O O

H ^
o
do 3

io
ID

•
•
•
•
•
CO CM CD CM CO
CM CM CM CM CM

CD tN N- LD (O S

(O

O

05
•
CO
tr­

CCf
•
tH

O CM O ID O 00
•
•
• • •
•
ID CO CM CO CO

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
P

£

H

{-1

O

O

ID ID O LD CO CM 05
•
•
•
•
• •
•
CD rH O tH CD tH tH O

rn tHo

CM CO CO CO CM CO CO

O

O

•

LD O

ID O
•

•

•

•

05 O
O
00 05 00
CO CO CM CM CM

S i Cm
P

0 O
1
"*"*
cn

ID ID O
O
ID LD ID LD CO O 00 O CO O 0
•
•
*
•
•
«
•
m • • • •
05
00
05
05
05
CM
CM
05
CO tH 05
O
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CO CM CO CM CO CO

tH

CM
£
pi

00
CD
•
05

CM
05
O
•

O
CO

ID ID
ID ID O
ID CM O ID ID 0
0
» •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
tr- tr- t — tr- 00 00 CD C O
0
tr— CO O O CD 0
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
C
M
CM
tH CM
tH rH CM

05
tH
•
00
t— !

C O L D lD ID C O lD tH lD C M L D O L D -^ L D ID

ID
CM

N' COCTi OCDDOoOCONcqCOOqCDD

CO

r-j O
cci

H

£

CD
CD
P

to

t>
a>

lO

H

H

N

H

H

N

H

r l i H

r l r l H

H

H

tHCMCO^lDCDt-OOOSQCMCO^lDCD

tH tH tH tH rH rH

£
<
ci
0)
JES

-

155

-

CO

o

L O lO O LO O O O LO O LO LO O LO LO O

05

TO »Q
© *H
bO

$0

OO

C

O LO O

LO O O tH o

rH tH r l

tfi K

S

NcOWCONCOcOWcOCOCOCOCVIfMN

^ ^

ooidoldoidioidoldold

•
CM

c-

IH

*

00
P^COCMCOCOCMCOCMCMCOCMCOCMCMCM

TO

CM
LO

H ^ l f l t j i O l f l O C O O O W O l O O l f l

o

^
■??9rj?jQ^HNNOiHOiH(D
tHCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMtHCMCMCMtH

tH

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

C
M

^ L O L O O O O O C O O O L O O O O L O
•

3

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

#

? J O W W H O J H O J N

*

«

ffl H

«

H

»

t h o>

tHCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMrHOvlCMCMr-l

rH

CM
CO

O O O O O O O O O O O L O O O O

CM

■ ^ C O tD ^ tH tH ^ O C D r H tH C N J r -ltH C M

CM

LOr-lO<Ot>CD<DCDt>CD<OlOLDU)CO
L O O O O O O O O H ' O O O O L O O
• •••••••## ••••■
'^H'^'q't'tOCO'^oi^O-iooOOtD
lOt-lOCDCDCDOCOCDCDlOlOLOLDCD

I D (Continued)

O O o CO ID O IH 00 o O ID O o O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
00 tH 0
5 o tH 05 o 05 05 o CO 05 05 05 00
tH CM tH CM CM tH CM tH tH CM tH tH tH tH tH
tH 0
0 O IO 00 EH 05 LD CM o ID LD O O LD
•
•
•
• • * • • V • • • • •
•
5 05 05 00 05 05 O o tH 05 05 o OO
tH O 0
tH CM tH tH rH tH tH tH CM CM tH tH tH CM tH
O
O

O
O

CM
CO
OO
M4
•

05
tH
tH
CO

•

05
tH
IH

O

O

O

O

• • • • O• • • O•
H 05 co CO co H4CO
o t
ID LO H4LO LO ID ID LD

O

•

CM
LD

O LD• O
•
•
H405 ID 00 CD M4
ID M4■
M
4M4 M4ID
O

•

O

•

O

•

O
8
o O o o
O O O © O LD O ID O O
• • • * • • • • o • • o • • •
05 CM 05 CD ID 00 CM CM CO CO 00 00 CD 05 CO
LD
H4LO H 4 LD LD ID LD ID ID LD H 4 H 4 M4

APPENDIX

CO
CO
LO

co

*
tH
ID
O
CD

•

tH
ID
CO

£
$

PQ

LO LO © O O O O
•
•
•
•
• •
•
05 © LO ID I
Ho o
05 CM 0
5 tH 05 tH o
tH CM tH CM tH CM CM

cS

tH

O O
•
•
H 4 CO
O o
CM CM

O O ID O
•
•
*
•
IH H4CO H4
5©
O CO 0
CM tH tH CM

O O O © 05 O O o O O o O O O O
•
•
•
•
« •
« •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
05 o CO CO tH O 05 ID H4H4CO tH ID H 4 ID
05 CM 0
5 tH 05 tH 05 O © O o o 00 05 O
tH CM tH CM rH CM tH CM CM CM CM CM tH tH CM

©
•
o 05
CO
r—

00 O
•
•
OO tH
CO 00

O LO O O
•
•
•
•
tH CM CO tH 05
tH tH tH t - CO
rH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH i—1 tH
O
•

■a

O O
•
•
CD H 4
O O
CM CM

O O
•
*
rH 05
c - IH

O

•

O

O

•
•
tH CO
tH LO

tH

Pi

1

tH

<»

Jh
O

u

05
• t<D O LO
-P ^ 05
tH
CO

•
CM
O
CM

05
IH
•
CM

O

CM

05
O

•
oo
CD

O

CO

05
CO

IH.

•

CM

tH tH tH

P=<

1
o3

00

CO
LO O

H4

o
o

O O © O O © O O O O O o o
•
• o • • • • •
•
•
•
•
•
0
EH tH CM tH CO H4 00 IH rH CO oo CO 05 0
CO tH CO co 00 IH CO tH tH tH tH co CO cc

CO
tH

tH

tH tH

•

•

tH

tH

tH

tH

tH

tH

tH

tH tH

tH

o o o o

CO

tH tH
O

•

tH

O

O © O © O O O © O
•
•
a
•
*
•
•
•
•
LO 05 CD CM CO tH H 4 tH 05
05 CO OO tH OO tH IH 00 tH
tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH H I

tH rl H rl H

O O O O
LO O O 05 o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IO tH CM CO CM CO tH LO tH 00
!H 05 t- 00 tH 00 tH EH 00 IH
tH iH tH tH tH tH tH i—1 tH

O
•
4 05 00
CO rH "M
c - CC LO O O
tH tH tH tH tH

tH

HCMCO^LOCOtH0005 qCMCO^LOCC

£
ctf

•

• • • •

00 tH CO 05 05
l>
IH CO (D

© o o £

tH tH tH tH t~t t—
i

■

t-

J
H
tH
CO
t—

■

t-

tH

05

- 156 -

■3

Gj
Ua
rH
P

LO LO LO

a

CM

<M

LO

WNNNNCMHWN

8

CM

LO LO LO

h h

o h

m

t>

*h

CM CM CM CM CM CM

LO LO LO LO

IO

to

rH CO CM CO rH CO r I H N C M C M W O ) N C M
C V C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M rH C M C M

cm

CM

r
H
rH
0
m
P

LO
^
• • * • • • • • »
»
m
i£!!£<&SPl
3i-OcD'M4iocO'M4’
Mi'M4tocoooio
CM CM CM 04 CM (XI CM CM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

l o l o o l o o l o io o l o

CtJ

Xi
P
04
o

to to

LO to

to

to LO

ct-

to to

'
'3cO'M4CDCMt'-H100'M4H4-^a0CMHHLO -M4
C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M CM

«
p
CO

0

X

o
4-*
ccj

LO

rH
CO

IO

t - t - t - t > t - O O O O C O < O C O l D t — L O t-C O O iC D
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

.3
P

IO

IO

IO

IO

tc
o

LO IO

L D O 5 C D t-< D O O C O C O c 0 C -lO C O tO C O fCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

Q
0j

Q

00

P
cci

to

p

I D l O t — L O t ' - D ' - C O ,ci4 ^f4 '*34 C M t D ,Mi lO O O O O L D

.iiO|
3

to

LO

IO

LO CM

to

to

IO LO to

to to

io

tr­
-M*

O0iOW<MM'CO^^^HCOH^M

•rH

0
tc
10
O
0

X

p
•H

LO
to

LO

to

CM

LO

’M ^ O O '^ C M C M C O C O C M C M '^ L O C M C O C M O O C O C O

£

to LO

to to to

to

t o to

LO

05

O ^CM CO O CM CM CM CO CM O O O CM CM

X

bX)

*H

0

w

W)
3

0

IO LO IO

*-3

LO

IO

IO LO 05

C O L O ^ 'C O L O r H lO ^ ^ - L O C M C O ^ O ^ t - C & lO

H
•c?
o

LO
uu
C
O O lO
'3 4 iO 'M t

to

LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

to

CO

rH

05 t — 05 LO CD ^ 0 - CO t — CD OO OO t 'st, ^i4 'M4 'M4 ^i4 ,M4 ^t, T 34 ^i4 , 34 ^{4 ''vt'! 'M4

m

J
0h • CD
0 O LO
P ^
cn

to

rH

O rH CM CO H4 LO CO
rH y
—1 rH rH rH rH rH

LO rH CM CO ^l4 LO CD t — CO 05 O CM CO ^t4 LO CO 3
05
rH rH rH rH rH
rH 0
rH
S

- 157 -

in o

o o in o
• _•
•
•
•
CD t- CM
tH t- 00
in h 4 in
a

■

m w

in
m
•
oo
00
in

in
•
LO
tH
in

o

in in
• •
o 00 o
in Oi LO
in ■M4 LO
•

in

o

Oi
w<pcoMoctDcnmLoocoo(^o
00

CD Oi tH O CD CD 00 00 CO
• • a • • * • a «
00 tH 00 tH CD co tH tH
M4
tH tH tH rH tH tH
tH

a

a

LO

CM
CM
«
CD
CM
in

00
00
•
H co CO
C
O
CO
tH rH tH tH rH
tH

o

O O O in
in in o
• a a a a oa a a a
CM 00 05 CD CM CM O in CD
CM 05 tH O 05 tH CD M 4 tH
in CD in CD
CD LD in in

in o

tLO O

o in o

a a a a a a a
tH in 05 CM tH O o

CO tH in in 05 H 4 in
in in in H 4 H 4 in in

tH
o o in in O 00 in in in o tH O O tH H 4
m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
tH O in H 4 tH tH tH CD H 4 O tH CO O tH CD CD
tH CM tH CM tH tH tH tH tH CM CM tH tH tH tH tH
o

<D
.3
+->

to

0
+*

O IH O H 5 OO in o CO in
• * • * • • • a • • ih• o • o 9
tH o CO "5**
tH M 4 CD CM t- 00 00 CM
"M4
in
CO in ■M4 M 4
H4
H4

CD
Oi
a

H4
"nF

CO
O in O O O O O O O in in in o O in H 4
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
CO 05 O CD 00 LO CO CM tH CM <M4 H 4tH tH in CO
CO H 4 M 4 H 4 CO M 4 M 4 M 4 t !4 in H 4 in co •M4 H 4 •M4

A
X

o

tg

S
o
+>

CO
<3*
Eh
H <3!AO.<
w n A

0

TO
•rl

>H

H EH +>
e

•CL

ad
O
f 8 H©
PU
3
LO SB

O
Ph

tH

05
Oi t** oo t— co tH CO IH 00 05 CO LD CO Oi 05 co tn

LO
in o O in in in O 1 oo o o in ■M4
a a a a a
a a a a a a a I
CD O 05 CO tH CM e- LO O 05 1 coin t— tH 05
CO OO in IH 00 oo t- oo 00 in i t- CD oo IH CD

tH
CO
•
o
t> t> t~ t~ ( T 'C O 0 L D C O C D L O !> C D C C 0 t’ IH

tH
CD o o m in in o o in o o o o in O O
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a • a
00 00 CO h- CD 05 o CM 05 CO 05 05 LO t- CM i—I
CD 05 co tH CD CD tH t- tH t- in t- CD CO CD tH

05

CD
05 CM tH 05 CD tH in co in oo in CD tH tH M 1 05
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
OO CM
H 4 CO CM rH CM 05 CM CM tH O CO CO tH
tH tH tH
rH tH tH tH tH tH tH
tH tH t— 1

O D C O O O N O O O N C O C D N C gcC lD N O lD
in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
•

oooion^W0H^!>CMiococoio^

mooio\i|inio^oooHinoo«H0'T

^ C O ^ O ( D O O N O ! > ' ! l , Ot £i COl f i t l , n
OO
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a r ~ ~ •
rH
tH
tH t—
! tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

moNrlNCOHHHOWHOOia

4->

S
m
kS
0

CO
CO
•
CO

>

a

00
T
f**V
<Cs
tH

a

in
t> tH tH in CO CO CM H 4 C O ’M4 tH tH CO
a a a a a a a a a a a a a
CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO 'sF CO CO CO CO CO CO

o

a

CD O
a

a

CO 05 tH CO tH CO

tH

tH O

tH

05
C M C D t H O O ' !tf4 L O O C C i n C O O O r - I O O O O M 4 CMtH
tH
* a a a a a a a a * a » a a r
~
•
in
C^ 0 05 ^ 0 CO 0 M
0 N N N CO
^
CM C M C M CM C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M CCM
M
ts
0
-H

O

00
"st4
•

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a r - -

OtHC500C0C0C0tHOC0a5C0tH05CC

a

CO
IH tH CM in in CD in CD 00 CM tH CD O tH CO in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
O tH 05 tH tH T—1 05 05 CO 05 05 00 00 00 05 05
tH
tH
tH tH

t H t H C O t H C O O J C D C D O O S C O T F C O C O C O r H C CO
O
tH

a

•
CO

o

0

in O

CD
uo

l
OOOifiw
o o H N W N o ^ r o q i o p •.
HO)N<MO>
0 1 OOlD-0 O 0 5 O H l O b CCM2
CF5t-05COt-ODOOCOCOCOCOCOlH05COOO^
■M4
OO

a

a

a a a a
tH tH tH tH

EH
1 CD CO CD H 4 in co M 4 H 4 CM
1 a a a a a a a a a
1 tH tH tH rH tH tH tH tH tH

tH
CO in in in O O LD in O in © in o in in CD
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
CO CM CO CXD CD 00 05 00 CD co in tH CO 'M4 IH CD
CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

o O O
a a a a
00 tH tH CO
o CO CM in
00 o 00 05
tH
o

O
a
05
oo
tH

O

a

O

a

O

a

O

a

O O

• a

o o

a a

o

a

O

CD

a CM

05 00 CD OO CO CD cm in in CM a
M 4 CO 00 05 05 O 05 tH O in 05
05 00 00 00 00 00 00 tH 00 oo CD
OC

CO
i r0 •S H N C O ^ l f i C C ^ O O n O H N C O ^ l D C D t
& lO
0 O
05
0
rH tH H tH H tH *H
H 535 rH
S rH
CO

tH CM CO

H4in CD c- 00

g

05 o CM co-tF m CD
tH tH tH tH tH tH 0

- 158 -

LO LO LO to 0
0
O O LO LO O LO O LO LO GO
fc- CM t — fc- 0
LO O LO fc- CM O C— LD CM CM -M1
*
•
•
■ •
•
•
•
IO
CO 05 CO 05 00 00
LO CO to LO LO LO LO LO IO LO LO LO LO LO lO LO

^OOlOt-tPCO^t'

<D
>5
*C
CJ

IO
LO
IO
CMo CM O IO t - IO
•
w W «

J® •

•

IO LO LO IO
CM fc- t > CM O
•

•

•

0

0

0

t o ID LO IO
0

0

0

0

C O C M lO ^ J « C O C M L D O 'M 1 CM

LO LO
CM fc- O

to
LO O

LO o

O

O J lf lO t O t D lO C O H t '- O C t -

LO
LO LO
LO O O t - O l O C M C M O

^ 0 00 H

LO LO IO LO

PQ

LO

to

LO CO

LO LO

to

LO LO LO

fc- LO CM O CM LO
• * • • • •
CO O CO IO rH CM

•

to

IO LO LO

o

10

LO
CM o

O

CO

IO 00

to to

CM fc-

CO LO 00 IO O CO CO
00 CM CO fc- LO CO CO
• 0 • • • • •
CM rH
rH to CM CO
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

O

O
O

8

O

LO O

0 5 0 0

rH rH

O O LO O CC
O LO CM LO oc
• • 0 0 0
CO O rH CM CM
LO LO LO LO LO

to LO CMOS
• 0 • • 0
CO
to CO f
c
-

O

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

00

O 0 00 O IO 10 0
O 0 CO O fc- CM LO
• • • • • 0 • 0
CM CM rH IO rH
rH CO CO
to to to LO LO to to to to
CO

8

•

0
0

•

co

CO CO CO CO CO CO

to
CO
0 to 0 CM 0 0
• • • • •
CO CM
LO LO CO
CO CO CO CO co co

IO 10 10 CO CO to 00 IO to 0 CO 0 0
to
f
c
- CM t- rH rH CM 00 f
c
- t - to I—1 0
0
• • 0 • • • • •
• •
0
CO LO 00 CO 05
rH 0 rH CM rH CM 00
10 CO LO co IO CO CO CO CD CO CO CO 10

to to
•
t- to

•

rH CO 05
•

0

•
f
c
-CM

O
rH rH rH rH rH rH
rH rH rH rH rH rH

0

00

rl1

CO 00 10 00 LO LO 10 10 O O CO 0 LO O O
rH 00 t- CO CM fc- t - fc- O to CO LO CM LO 'M1
• •
0 • • • • • • • • • • 0 0

'
=
J
* to

0

CO
0

CO CO CO 00 LO 0
CO rH CD 00 CM 0 8
• • • • • 0 0
rH rH CM 05 rH CM CM
IO to LO
to LO LO

tCM
CO CO CO CO CO CO

•

CO ■M1
CO CO CO CO 8

f
c
- CO

■M1 10 CO CO LO CM LO CO

00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

0

LO
CM 0

to

to

IO LO

CM 0 LO LO CM 0 O CM t • • • • • • • • • • •
CM 00
00 05 CO
f
c
- LO CM CO
rH Q rH rH rH rH rH 0
0 rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH rH 3 rH
rH rH

00 00
00 00 LO
0
0
0
0
rH
CO CO CD

LO
tLO CM LO O

0
*

0

0

•

CM 05 O rH

0
CM

rH O rH r—t rH
rH rH rH rH rH

f c - t - o o o oot-t-coooooc -oo

00 CM CO fc- CO fc- c o c o o c o o c o c o o

coco

0 0 0 0 0 0
LO CD O
rH

IO
CM
•
LO
LO

•

0 CO 00 0
0 10 00 00 CO IO 0 CO CO LO
10 rH CO 0 8 0 t - 00 CO CO fc- LO rH rH t • * • • • • 0 • • 9 • • • 0 0
fc- CM 'M1 0 10 05 05 t - 00 00 fc- O CO fc- 00
IO
lO
"M1
LO

0

rH

CO CO CO
CO rH 00
• • •
IO rH
LO to LO

0
0

IO to
LO 10 0 5
CM CM LO CM fc- CO
• 0 • 0 • 0
O CO CO O fc- t~
LO ■M1 M 1 LO

CM fc-

Q
ol
<2;o
S
3
Cm
£U -aj
CM O

8

0

O CO O O CO CO 00 LO LO LO to CO CO LO tO O co O O 00 rH CO fc— fc- fc- CM CO rH CM rH
• •
• •
• •
• 0 • •
•
• • 9 0 0
LO CO •M* fc- CO CO CO
IO
CO fcCD CM CO

•

LO
LO CM O

8

0

LO LO LO LO
CO
CM t> CM t - LO O
0 •
• • • •
LO LO CO to C O M 1
CO CO CO CO CO CO

LO
fcfc- O O LO LO 05
• • • • * 0
CM CM rH t - CM ^i1 rH CM O CM
rH rH
IO LO LO -M* LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

IO LO LO

to
to CM

LO O 0
O LO O
fc- O 0
•
•
•
•
CM CO LO CO
0
05 rH O
rH 0 0 0
rH rH
rH rH rH

to O

CM

U ) U)
fc- CM

O

•
•
•
rH CO
O
05
rH

0

fc- 00 H'^HrOCMOOOD'^COO
—f
x—I t—1 t—I tH
H
1

COCOOOO
•
•
•
•
•
O H fc— CM CD
rH rH
rH

OOCOCOCOOOOOCOi o
•
•
•
•
•
«
•
«
»
»
•
l O t ” CO O CM O O LO O O O
rH
rH
rH
rH

CO

* # • • • • O
• • • • • • * • • * •10
CM t - O O O! 05 O t - O'; H H O O O H f f l ©
C M rH rH C M rH rH C M rH rH C M C M C M rH C M C M

t - C lt 'O C O C C 's f C M ^ O

rH rH

00 05 LO Q O to
rH O CM
CO CO

•

•

•

•

• •

CM CM 05 CM ^ rH
CO CD LO CO CO CO
Q

O O C D r H O C M O O O O O O t - O O
O
C M C M H C M rH C M H rH rH C M rH rH rH H C M rH

CM 05 00 LO
05 CO rH 00
0
• • •
CO CO CM CM

CO

CO CO CO CO

PH

00

O 0 co
* 0 •
rH O CO
CO
rH
05
CO 00 •M* CO CO rH
10 LO LO IO
IO
LO O

0

•

O O

•

•

lOrHCMCO^IOCOtr-OOOjprHCMCO^^COrf
H r l tH H r l n n
w

ip• LO• LO0 0 •
CO 00 p 05
rH 00 rH 05
LO CD lO to

LO O O L O

O

CM

OLOCDcOlOOtO'M'COCO

tO r H C M C O ^ lO C D t-O O O O C M C O ^ L O C O
05
rl H H rl H r l
rH

«5
O
S

- 159 ip <M
C- tH

2

IP

2

O COO

OC
M
C
MrH
rHtH

"

CO O

O

CM N

u,ooo co o 8 a

• • o t- o
rt

^

h

l O O l O O O O O L O L O

h

h

h

h

h

O

in

o

ags8

h

h

i
n O O o 00 in cmo
CM O O O 00 o
OC
Mrl o

S.

lo

o in in o

O t- O C
Mt- C
O

O l O t p C M H O N C O l O h l O O O H O C ;
pCMCMCOCMrfOCMCMOrlCMrlCOCMrH

h

H H H H H H r l H H H H rHr) r—
I rI rl

CM
O LO O o I O W O O

n H r l H H H r l H H H H r l H H H r I H

tH

ifioioomtowiflwooioiflooo^
• • • • • • • * • • • • # • # # »
C^i t - t ' ! > C D t D t > i O I > - C O C O O O C D C O C O t ~ I >

C
O

in Ln tn o in tn o o inin m o o ino o

WtDcOCO^TClOlCHOio^ffl^^iclD
H tHrl tHtHtHtHtHtHtHtHtHrl *
—
I rHt—
t

O O O L D l O t O O O O O o o in LO LO o
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a
COOCOOOt'-COOiCOOOOOCOCJlCOCOCOOO

H H H H H H H H H H H H rlrlH HH

HCMHHHHHHHHHHHHHrl

IflOlOlfllOOOlOtOWOOWWWlOO

• • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • *
WHNHHNWHNNNNrlWHHiM

O O O O l D L O O O O O O I D O l D i n C -

OCDOOOiOOKHHOOffiOOlOlO

OtHOCMOtHOrltHOtHtHOOtHO
D
JC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
M
C
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
M
C
MC
M

OtOOLOOOLOlOOlOOOOLOOLOCC
MM

O O O O W O t D O m O l O l D l D i n o

rHOOOOOOJOirHWOOQppcnQ
H H H H rl H
H H H H r! rl rl
H

0 0 0)00 00)000)000)00

LO
O Ifi O LO LO O O O L O L O L O I O O LO O O t~
• # • • • • • • • • • • • • * • •
C O C M c d C M C M C O C O C M C M cO C M C M C D C M C O C O C M

ooooinoomomintnomtno

to
4->
d *a

5 i*

d
-H

•H

4>
S?

to
CvJ

d oj a> 04
O E-S -H
O
tJ
X C
03 tn
co 6 -d
-4-*
M <=C| U> T3
M O o *H
04 +» J3=
o
?
H 5£ *Cf
&
Ch
o
pd
+■»

# • • * • • • • • • * * • • • • •

• • • • •
rl

tH

tH

rH

rl rl

a>

*0

s
■
a

cti

rl

P=«
+■»

ci
X
+»
cu
o

H H H H H H H rlH H H H H rlH H H

CO

CM ^

^

CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CM CO CM CO CM CO

HrlHHrHrlHHHHHHHHHH

sq
.Q

3
X

-H
t>

CM

OIOIOIOIOO^OIOOIOOCOIOWW
COHNNHCONHHCOHWmMNNN

+>

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CO
LDOLOlDlDlOOinOOLDOlOOin^
H "M1 CM CO tH C O C M C M C M C M C M CO H CM CM N
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

o.
0)
(=»
Jh

<
D

+»

crj

CD
MC
O
tn rl C

<x>

b-COOiOHNCO^igcD ®

IDC
D

tHtHrl tHH tHrl O

,£3

rH CM CO

ID CD tH CO 05 O

CM CO

in

co

d

cj

rl tH rl ri tH tH <U

0
o
C
0 xsj
u
0 CO
0
*R0 u
o
o
£
o

Ch
O

0
o
c
0
u
0
Cy
s

O O o
o o o o O
o
O
LO LO o o o O LQ LO O o
to o LO
• • • • •
• * • •
LO CO tr­ 05 CO
LO 00 LO t>
LO CO io LO LO
LO to LO LO
o

o
o

O
o

O

O

O O O

o

LO LO o
• •
CO LO CD o CD
LO CD LO CD
•

•

C
c
o
Pd
O <
h
& o
o

tH tH

o

•

o
o

tH

05

APPENDIX
II C
CA'tCASS DATA REPEATABILITY OF MEASUREMENTS
Measurements in Centimeters

«H

05

o

04

jC £
h-»o
•
tH
*?!»

rH

LO to
CM tH
• • •
<NJ LO tH
LO LO LO
O

O

o
o

LO
CM
•

LO
LO

LO
LO o
CM o tH o
• • • •
LO 00 t P tH
CO CO CO CO
LO

O lO
c - o LO O
•
•
•
•

LO lO

O

LO to o
CM CM o
• • • ■
00 CM Tp o
Tp LO TP LO
o

•
tH CM
TP LO

O LO
LO tH
* • •
CO CM O
LO LO LO

o
o

o

LO O

+■>
*3
V
C>rH
+&
0> p=4

HC-C>
S ,Q
x
:>a
+O ' x;
0 -H
Cl

LO

•
LO
LO

O

o

co

CO CO CO CO CO

o

LO

« •
rH CM

CO O
t o LO t o

LO

O

LO

O

LO O
t- LO
• •
tH TP
CD CO

LO LO
tH CM
• • *
CD CM CO
CO CO CO

LO o
CM o

o
to

o

o
o

•

LO o
CM o

o o o LO
LO t o o CM
• • • • •
05 tH o CO
Tp TP LO Tp TP

O O LO o LO O o
l O O t - l f i l > LO o

• • •
rH tH CM

o
o
o

to
LO

LO

05 o
TP to

LO to
tH CM
• •
TP CD
CO co

LO 10 o
o o
LO o CM CM o
• • • • •
LO Tp IO CM LO
CO CO CO CO CO

•

t-

o

•
»
Tp TP

o
o

o

O

88 LO• OO •

LO t o

tH tH
m •

00 t P
CO CO CO CO

O

o

■

LO

•

CO LO
CO CO

o

o
o

10 o
LO c - O

LO o
LO LO CM LO
• • • •
05 CD CO CM
LO CD LO CD

O

IH
•

CM
O

•

00
•

CM
LO
o

05
•

CM
LO
CO
CM
•
LO
CO
•
LO
CO

o

LO
•
00

Tp

o
o

tH

o

rH

•

00

Tp
CM
O
•
CO
Tp

tH

tH o
• •
tH CM

LO o
tH LO
• •
CO
CD CM LO
CD
c o CO CO CO CO

03
•

rH

o

LO LO IO LO LO t o
LO LO t o
tH CM t •
• •
tH rH CM
LO LO t o

•

CM
O

•
CO
CO

tH

LO o

•

05

LO

o
o

•

o
o

•

IO

to

LO O
CM O
«

o

LO

O

o
o

•

LO

O

• •
CO 00 o CO fc- 05
Tp TP LO Tp Tp Tp

Tp o
TP LO

o
o

to

LO O
tH LO
• *
CM tH
LO LO

•

O o
LO o
* •

LO LO LO
tH c- CM
• •
•
rH tH tH
LO LO to

LO o
O o

•
t-

rH

tH O LO LO O t• • •
• • •
tn LO CD CM CO TP

o

o

o

CO
TP

rH tH

LO LO LO LO LO LO

00 t P tH
00 CO co CO

e*l
H
»
3
X3 P4

tH

tn LO LO
• • • • •
CM rH CO o rH CM

Tp

Coh

tH

tH rH

LO
LQ to O
t- O O CM
• • • •
rH LO CM LO
LO LO LO LO

•

O

to O O
LO t o LO © O ©
• • •
• • • • •
•
CM Tp Tp
o tH 00 tH TP tH
O 05 o 05 rH O O tH o O 05 05 o O

rH tH

o

io

o

8 tH

CD
LO
tr­

LO o LO o LO O
• •
•
• ■ ' m
tH tH 00 tH CM tO 05 05 o o

to

O ’d
C
xs 0
H-» o
*0 Pd
►==

o o

LO LO LO LO LO LO

o

IO O LO
• • • •
CO CO LO TP
o o 05 o

LO
•
CD
LO

O O o o
O t o LO O
•
• • • •
00 to CO Tp OO Tp

LO LO LO 8

•

o

•

tH

•
CM
LO

CM
CM
•

CM
LO

CM
ID

LO
CM
•
CO
CO

CM
CO

LO

00

•
CO
CO

Tp
CO

tH

•

Tp
CO
Tp
•

tH

LO o
LO c - LO

Tp

CM o CM 00 o CO
CD CD CD LO CD CD

tH

CD

LO
CM

CD
CO

00 TP 05 TP
LO CD LO CD

to
CM rH CM 00
CD CD CD LO CO CD

CD

LO

•
CO 05 CO TP
o tH rH rH
rH rH tH rH

LO O O LO LO
• • • • •
CM 05 CM 05 o
o tH O T— 1
d rH tH tH tH

• «
• •
CO 05 CO Tp
o rH tH tH
tH tH tH tH

LO O LO O O
o
• • • • • •
CM o o CM 05 O CM
tH
rH Q tH O
tH tH tH tH d tH

o

«

O

•

LO LO
CM tH
•

•

o

•

O O o LO

•

O O O
LO LO o

«

•

o
•

•

o
to

• •

m

•

O
o

•
rH

•

•

•
rH
CO

•

H
->

•

LO
•

tot)]

c
0

C
tH
0
0 o•to
on
H
S
5
(A rH

O

O

•
tH
tH
rH

CM CO TP LO CD

tH rH tH tH rH tH

rH
<•
CM

tH
tH
O

•

S3

rH
R

a

0
s

- 160 -

t
o

o

->

1 6 1

S3 W 8
o

• r l 73

J

-

4) -M -M

c
e
>

u
. c

^

>5

O O O 00 r l ' t l 4 05 O t l 4 05
CO CO 05 LD b b
^ CO r l H 1/3 C
H C M N D 0 O 3 b 00 H O
*
*
•
« « « V « V W
C O O O C O C O C M -stfC O C D C O C O C M C M rlC M C O C O

«
>
h»

<2

^

t
«o

O *r:

« «
S
Or a

rj
<C to
e -h
•h 3

t
Ho
Pm

u

4>

VO +>
C
l

EC

^

m

H h

CM ©
•

CM

03

w

COCO CO O
•

•

•

•

•

CO 00 ID "M4 CO
^ H OJ H OO

0408 OS <n

00

« • • •

00 N

COCO 0 0 00

N

H

COH

w

HrH rllCI0500U5O Ht0bC 0<O rl^H

H

H

r lH

r l H

•

•

•

«

M

• •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 •
tOOJHHiONrJ'OCO'^
C M C O C M cM rH C M rH O O rH C O CM

H r lH

H r H H

r lr lr lH

rH

•

•

0

0

0

0

9

9

9

0

0

0

9

9

0

0

C M e O C O - M 'r H ^ C O C D T F C O r H c O O C M C M C O
rH r l rH r l r l rH rH rH rH rH rH r l r l rH r l r l

3 2 d S S 9 c5S2!5,!,;root'r<i>«o
rlTrtHO>lOiOi/5^0HOOtOCOO'^tOOC»
••• • • * 090 •••*»• t *

^ H H O C M m H O H O r lC r lH O W
r H C M 0 5 lO O O C M © r H C M c o 0 5 C O r H ^ C O b-

£3 9 S3 ^
C M b -C D C M rH C O rH ^ C O C O C M O
CO r | CM r-J rH CM C M O lC M C M rHC M rH CM CM CO CM

O c D b D O S ^ C O rH N D N tO O tX O P O
CO CD CM 'M1 rH ID CO CO "M4 CM CM CO rH rH CO CO
r l r l rH rH r l r l rH rH r l rH r l rH rH r l rH r l

O

Ol

•

^ rH rH C?5 CM OO r l CO r l O r l O r l H O 05
b - lD C 5 lD C D C M t b b - 0 0 0 5 lD 0 5 0 5 T j'0 5 0 0

•

CO o

Cii

• « »«••••••*••••

rH rH CM 05 C O a D L O ^ C O O b - r H b - C O CO
COCM ,M4 rH OP CM ID CO CO 00 b - rH b - 05 CM

*

4)

O <*

rH 00 CM ^j4 LO CD rH CO CO CM O CD CM O CD CD
CO LO CO CO H •M4 L Q C M C O C M tO C M c D 0 3 O CM
C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M rH C M C M rlC M C M

in
(
4 S
h

«

rH CM rH CM CM

^S4 CO
t*" 0 0

CM CM CM CM rH

^ HHH

O +»

b -rH b -C O c O
I OC CO CO LO 03

•

O

O

O

CO

10

93

O ''O 5 C D C O r H © \X > r H C 0 O > rH
•

S

9

S

00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9
*5

HtHrHHHHHHH

*

"

■

CO 0 0 O

$

b

i
f
io

H

10

LO r l ID M4 N r O C O O C O C O C O m o J ^ ^ ' ^ 0 0
H H H H tH tH r H H H r H H r H r H H H H H

• • * •••••••••••

O O

IO CM

•

•

O

O

•

•

O

to O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

• »

O

o

O O C O r l0 5 0 < 0 (D U 3 C D M lO

•

•

•

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

•

•

CM

CM r l 05 L O ^ C D C O C D C O b - C D O C M C D C D O
CO CO CM ID OJ i c ^ CO X f M4 CO 'M4 rH CM 00 M4
rH r l rH r l rH r l r l rH r l H r l r l <—I r f rH 1—I

t
U
>

S fe

tuO VO
a

s
(4
4>
ta Eh

S
9 2
,9 2
0
o o o q o o o o o o c M
00 ^ 0 5 ( O C O ( D t O O ) O O H b « M O O O C O O i ( £ )

• • •#*••••••••••••

rH H

r l

H

H

H

H O H

W

r lH r » N H H

H

O
O

O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O
CM
rH 00 00 CO i H O O l D U D W C C H Q O b O H

eooo*M4b-a3CM05coob-CMo>c-ioa>
9 • • • * • • • • • * • * • • oo0

rH CM r I r l r l CM r l r l CM r l CM rH r-i H

H

rl

C
/3
&H

O

■
M
4

!
£? £" 22 bOJtOUJOJOOWCM^OO^OlH
00 b “ CO b - 00 00 O O C O O O O O b -O O b -O C b -O O 00

LO ■M4 CO CD ID CO r l CO b - M4 00 LO LO tO b - 00
•
•
*
• • • • • • • • • • • •
•
^ O lO r H O O tO tD ^ b lO O O S O O O O C O N
b O C C 0 5 b 0 5 C C 0 0 0 0 C 0 b b C C b b C 0

O O p O O O Q O O Q O O O O O O O
1/3 00 00 C O b O ^ C C b ^ b O b W t C C P b-

b~
M4 OO 'd4 b -C 7 > C M C O lO C O O O r lL O O O O C 'r lC O

to

t n r l ( D b C 0 0 3 t 0 M , O t f l ^ 40 5 l 0 ' ^ l O « 0
r l CM r l r l r l r l r l r H C M r l r l rH r l r l rH r l

•

•

•

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

O
M

M
W

E
«
Eh

• • • • • •• • • * « • • • • «

"

00

to

c o tO T fto c M c D tn ^ b -to c o c n o o

•

to

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH t—I rH rH rH rH rH rH
H

<*1

*

Eh

O O O p O O

0 ,

00

O O O O O O O O O O

00 CM b - CM <x L O m O t H C O O ^ N ^ M O

•

=
«
!

• •

*

• •

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

b-

M4
•

0

<C
o

£

P

2

2

£

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O O O O

CO

co b c c o ^ W r ^ t o b c c c n ^ c n c ^ m ^ c c b

• •

o

O

rH

* • ••

•

•

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

CD M4 rH 0 5 C O r l r l O U 3 b

•

•

•

0

0

0

CO C5 b

0

•

0

IO ^

M4

•

r l b - 0 0 H 1/J H 00 0 0 05 O O O CO CO O 00
C M C M r H C M r H C M r H r H r lr H C M C M r H r lC M r H

tO O lO ^ N N c o o O tD lO b C O tD C O b ir i^
rH rH rH t-H rH rH rH
H H H H r H H H H
H

CO
CO

•

•

Tjt ID CO M4 LO lO C M -^LO C JO C O LO C O C O tO LO

O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O C O

'
M
4

CD CD ©

M L 0C 7> 05M 4 H tO H TO C ^ CO CD
• • • C•
•••»•*•*••• •

r l CO LO r H l O 0 5 b b b O r l 0 5 C 0 ( 0 r H
rl
rH
r l rH
rl

00

t o CO t o

CCtOrHDOJCObCO^lOOtDCM bCM O

CO 00 CO 0C 0 ) 0 0 W M " ^ C C O b b C J S t o M 4 tO
b -L O b -c o io c o c O L O c o c o c o c c io c o c o b -c o

b M O O lO ^ r H O O O H M C O O iH L C
CD 00 CO b - C O O O t ~ b - b - b - C O C O L O C O C D

O O 0 0
o O O O O O O O O O O O
rH
ftjO lO C M O N f f iif lH b b lO O H ^ H O

C M C O r H C M c D ^ C D O O O i O O O t C C O O b - CD

t - L f J O b - C O L O t O C O M ^ ljO
• • • LO• CM
• LO•C•M •
•••••«*• *

• • • • ••••••«••••••

b~ CO OC CO M4 LO C O C O ^ ^ l O C M L C C O t ^ X ^ LO
rl r l H rl r l H rl
r l r l H H r l r l H r l r l

0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^
OOlOOirHincOCTi^rCOCDCD^rHOSrtlOrH
0

05

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

O O H
05 03 O O D O O O ) O C r l O ) 0 ) 0
rH
rH rH
rH
rH rH
rH rH rH
rH

OO

rH

O O O o O O O O O O O O O O

M4

CD IO ©
LO CD O L D O C O C M C O C T iC O O O rH LO
• •
*••
•#*•••**••••

b -t-C M 0 0 5 0 rH ^ C M T frH C 0 0 3 C M L D C M rH
CM r l CM C M rH C M C M rH C M C M C M C M rH C M C M C M C M

OO

o

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C D

CO H W CO

•

9

0

•

*

o> 00 rH CO 05 CM rH 00 t —00 05

•

«

•

«

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CD 05 b CM C M lO C M C D C M C C C M C C C C C M C M ^-C M
CM rH CM CM CM CMCMrlCM CMCM CM CMCM CM CMCM

• • • •*•••«••••••

•

05
CD

05

•
•
•
• • • • • • • • • • • •
9
CM CM O M ; r H C O C O O L O t O C O 'M 4 O C O C O CO
H C ^ r l r l r l H H r l rH r l r l r l r l r l rH r l

a>HCDCO’
« •O» •b•- b#- C•D•C O•C D•H•
# • • «M r l•

IO 0 5

0 5

4

b-CMOrH0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 C
7 5 0 0 5 0

rH r l rH

rH r l r l

rl

rl

rH

rl

M4 00 05 O O O ^ C D O C M O j C M c D C O b - C O

• • * #•»*••••••*•

CO
CO

•

05 b - CD C 0 b - C 0 O C 0 0 5 0 5 C M C M t 0 b - O O
r l CM r l C M H C M C M H r l r H C M C M r H H C M CM

rH
0

CD
CM

CD'd4 O O tO C M c D C D C M C M b -b -C M T fO ? CD
0

•

•

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CO■M4 O N b b C D O O O O O a O O C O W CD
COCM COCM CM CM CMCM COCM CM rlCMCM CM

C
"
4) •
4> O

S

53

CM 00 T*4 LO CD b C 0 0 5 0 H C M C O ^ t D C D
H r l r l r l r l H H

<3 _0 rH CM OO M l O C D b C O D O ^ O O M l O t D
rl r lr l H rl H
4) 05
si rl

4>

-

162

«+>
3 w
o H i>
2; *h
«H

t H l O ^ C O I O r H l O L O l O O O O C C D O ^ t - CM
CO O CM o O CO tH rH rH tH o O 00 rH rH tH
* • * • • • • • • # • • •
• •
•
tH tH tH rH rH rH tH tH tH tH tH tH
rH tH rH

•a

w

u

«( O
O

tO

flJ

h£
© coiocmio
£
l £?S=? ^ ^ 0:1t>cm00 1 t»(Don co
t - C O C O O i O H O ) O O O O O l > I tH 00 tH CJ5 00

05 CO 00 CD 05 CO 05 CM
rH CD CO CO C O t H 05
!H'M4T H C 0 t H 0 5 0 5 ’M 4t H O r H r H C ' - l H t H CO
OOt-Ot-OOt-COOOOOOOCOOCr-lt-t'* 00

^
<
t5'5£'HCOC0LDiOrHCMLO05C005rHCML0
L O r H C O I > l 0 0 5 t H O O t D t H t H ' c t 4 O O C O C O C D CO

l O O l O t - r H 0 5 C M C O C M O O O t > 0 0 5 C O OO
CO LO CM CO 05 t — ( Ot— t“— ^ f C M C O O CO t> tH

^S^Z^OOOOOOIHCOCOIh OOO^OO t-

C O C O |H t-a 0 t-0 0 0 0 O 5 O 5 tD 0 0 C 0 O 5 C O

^^.Sd^Ol^OOlO^NtOlOOOO) 00
C— i H 0 0 0 0 O 5 6 - r t f C 0 | H © 0 5 O C O C O L O t H C M
• • • « * * # *
• • t t t * • • »
ioooig^cotoaooot-«>t-t-t-i>t/)N t>

L O L O C T S O O O S C M C O O O c O C O C O H ' T f 1 tH 05
LOCOCOOi05tHt'-OOOOt-OOCM-M4 LO 00

• • • • • • • • • • *
rH rH
tH

o* a
«? to
•H

•

£°
4)
TD -H
.g i>
w
3
O'
Sh
fl)
c +»
S-. ^
o fli
3
O'

-

^

•

» • • • «

• • * • • • • • * • • • • • ♦

tH in 0 5 C M r H 0 5 r H O C 0 L D C 0 H * L 0 C M r H C D

•

• • • • • • • • • * • • • ■ •

'MJtH'M<LO,HCOrHtHCMCOCMCMCMCMCOCMCM
10

•

oo

05 t-* 05 OO 00 05 00 CO 05 CO t~ 05 05 00 00 OC

l O C C t H C M O O O S t - C M ^ L O ^ C O C O CM O CO
“M 4 tH CO O O CM CM O H CM CO !H LO ^ r H tH
•
• • •
© C M O t H H O t H t H O C O C M O O r H r H tH
l O L Q L O t D t D L O L O L O L O L O L O L O l O l o l o lo

N O O H H O WlOCO COCOOO) C O tO ^iM t *

•*•*••«••••••••

l o l o l o l o l d l d l o l o l o l o l d l o l o l o l c lo

bG

sb
§s
im 6-i
bO TJ

« to
■H C
o

3

H
W

d3

rH O

w
M

I
—i

£3

C O © L O C i C O t H I H i H ,M « 0 5 © T t < C M C M 0 5 i D C O
CM H t - N C O H O l O O O W t O ^ l O t - O O N
CO CD CO CO IO CO CO
t— 00 CO ^ LO tH CD CD CO

* •••••••••*•••••

2!

•

o

^

^COlDLOtHf-COLOlHCOCOCOtr-

t** CO•
• « • • * • • • # • * • • ••
©

t- O
05 © C M l O C M l O t H © CMCD H 1 CM 00
C 0 O 5 r H © t H t > 0 0 ^ t > a 0 O t H t H C5 tH CM
• • • • • • • • * • * * •
* • *

t ' - c q r H C O C - r H r H < O O 5 t H ’M (C 0 £ - 0 0 t H IH

•COMcoOJCCCOO^OlCOOiOOCOHOt••••••*•••••••••

25 S2HOCCOJM LOHOOHOCOCONH
C
M COOOcOCOCOPOOOCOOOOOeOOOCDCMOOCO

O O O O C O O S C M Q O rH O O H C O O tH O O ©
CM CM CO CM OCCOCOCOCOCOCMCMOO COCM CO

t'-CMtHtnCO''HOOCMOOOOOOtH Tt<J><00 ^
C O O t O c O ’d'OOiNCdlOOiOOlfi l O O C O t - rl

CC< C O t H © O O ^ T f O C M O C O ^ C r i CM LO 05
00 rHOOCO CC H C 0 ^ r H t " ^ O O O CO ©

lOCDLOlOCOlDCOCDCOlOlOCOCOCOC'-COCD

L O C O C O lO L O C O L O L O tH L O L O tH H -^ C L O CO

•

Owi

lD C M t4 i C " -t> 0 5 r H c O r - lO O C O C D O O O tH ^
0 5 C D ^ t l 0 t > O 0 0 0 5 O r H H < C 0 C 0 r H t H CO

****•••••••••

• • • • • • • # • • * « • • • *

O J r l O O O O N C O t O l f l H O J o O Ifl ^

O

H

CO

OOt-^tr-OOiC<Jr-lCMOOCr>OOtHO,
^CO
• • • • « * • • * » • • « • •clt•
•
IO ' ^ L O l O I O H 4C O H 'C O LO CO LO C O LO C O LO

•• •

C M 0 5 © t H C O © O O r H H < lH tH L O L O 0 5 ^

CO

CMOOOrHCMoO-^H-COOOOlOtH

©

•
• • • • • • * • • • « • • •
•
O O H L O H COCOCPCOCOCOCOtHCO LO tH co

10

cor£
c/5i£4

3S1&
% bis u
O Qu, gj [X4
Jitf
O

3

o

H->
e>
to
•H
5h
PQ

C M 0 0 0 5 t H t 0 0 5 C O c 0 0 5 0 5 C O < 0 0 5 O 00 CO
■'tf'ttfCMCDCMtdCOlH'cPtHCMCOCO CO CM rH

Ti« l O C O O O t H C O O i l O O O b - C O t - t - ^ l X N ! CO

t - O O in O O O C O O O N C O O H N H O N

• «•*••**••••«•*

• • • • • • • • • » • •
• • • • •
CO C M C M t H C M C M C M t H r H C M C O C M C M r H C O C M CM

05 ' c f O l O t O l O H O O H H c n ^ ' C O C M C C H O
■M1 LO tH 05 CM tH CO “M* CM 'M1CM rH 05 tH rH 00 CD
• • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • •
CO L O C O c O - = r C O C O t ~ L O l O H ‘CD C O C O l O C O to
CMCMCMcMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

CM LO CO LO L D r H C 0 O 0 0 © 0 5 C 0 0 0 O tH LO
CO CO-cfOO CMCMC0CMCD00COO5LO rH
CM

CO t>t-OO^OtHCOrHCOOOCOlOCMCOOO tO
05 COlOCMt-OOtHCMlOCDCMCOCM05lOO O
O

■ ^ C M C M L O ^ C M t H C M t H ^ C M ^ C M ^ C O tH
CO
05 CD t - C O C O O L O l H O O C M C O CM tH ©

to l O C O t > l O l O t - - ! t t O l O C O ' ^ C D ^ C O t O

■^h C O C O ' ^ H <'M<’M <'>^LOLO lO L O ,M < LO L O

• •••••«••••*•

C

^

{S

O

to
H-»
^
O
,c
00

o
ij
«J
h

•• •

L O H ' C O M ' C O c O L O C O ' s f l O C O C M c O LO H 1 LO
C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M CM

• • • • « • • • • • • • •• » • •
LO

t }1

C
MH t" COC
M00
COLOOOCOOOCDHCMOOCOOW^’
Cf^O)
• • • # « • • • * • * • • • • *
•
CO^COrfCOCO'^^Ht’
^CO'^-tf^COCOCO

C D r H O O C C O L O © 'M < C D H l r - , L O rH tH C M ©

05 t— 05 t— 05 CO t"
rH "d4CO tH 05 IH CO CO 05
C O C D © 5 0 0 O 5 C 0 O 5 C M © C M ' M i© C M L O t ' - O 5 CO
•
* * • * • • • •
•
05 [ H t H t H t H t H C - t H O O C 5 0 0 C J 5 C O a O C J 5 t H O O

© © C D C O O O ’^ O O H 'C O O C lO C D tH O ©
©
C O O L O L O C M L O C O © t > t H lO r H C O CM CO ^

05 00 t—t—05 CD^ tH 00 00
D

•

M ' C M C M C C C M c O C M C M C M C O - M ' C O C M C M H ^ CO

C O H - 0 0 © L O - M ' O O C O C M C O C O C D C O CO L O tH

• •*••••••••••

** •

C M C O C O C O r O C O C O O O O O C O C O C O - ^ H 4 CO CO

••••*•»«•••••••

•

H O O C O t H t H t H t H t H C D t H C C - O C C O IH tH tH

pH

rHrHCMiOrltCOOseO'^t-COt-COt-COTt'CO
O * ^ ,C 0 C 0 i H t - C 0 ^ C 0 0 5 r H 0 5 C 0 l O l O 0 5 0 5
• ••*••»*••••••••*

"M1 t H O O a O O t H © r H © O C O C O t H CM LO

C5C0ttOCMtH0C©C005©tHTHlO''tf
• • • • • • • • • • • A * • •©*
CnC50JOCTiC30C5'J O O O r J O 0 0 CT. O

05 00 05 00 05 05 00 OO OO 00 05 00 05 OO 00 00 00

CO
€> O in tH CM 00
05

id

rH

H H H

©

H

|H
3
iOrHCMCO'M<lO©tH©©OCM©,
M,lO©
d
H H H H
H H
0)

H
CO t- 00 05 Q tH CM CO
ID CO ttf
H H H H H H H
J) ©
js:

- 163 -

.a
d
o
©
*H M l p
P
o

u
Qi

> ©
•
H VI
P
•H

D

00 CO © tH ID r f <D ^
0 5 lD © © 0 0 5 tH © 0 5 © t-fc -lD lD lD lH ^

t H O O l Q 0 0 0 0 0 5 © © td-tH OO
H- © t— tH rH CO 00 0 0 " T © 05

2 3 £ 3 ? 2 S 2 5 2 r 1 ^ r 1 r n ,,H ,H C :o a < » »
H H H H H H H H H
H H H H tH
tH

O OC tH O O H O © O r H OO
O H H O C
t- i
t—t tH tH tH i—t tH tH tH
tH tH tH tH tH

cm

a w
OO rH
I
o
t—I

©

I
05

CO
se

d
•H

d
o
•H
P
0
©

©

-P

8

© CO
© X1
fssl

p

«
P

CO ©

C » C 0 © © © i D r o © < O © 05 05 CD tH tH LO LO
C D O O C N iO O O itH C O -^ T }' LO O O t —tH tH CO tH

CM © r-1 LO 0 - 0 O CD © CO tH © ^ CO O
© O O O lO © C M © tH lO C O tttH lO t~ 0 0
• • • • • • • « • • « • • • •
^ H c n c c m o c p t j lo o o o o o o c o lo
ID CD'M'LOLDIQiOLDLOLDIO IOLOLOlO

C O lO L O t— LO © tH 05 tH
L O O jO O O O L O C O C O O tH
•. * • * * • • * •
lO tH H O C C D C D H C C O
C O ^ ^ C O ^ H ^ C O lO ^

LOLO C DH H©CMlOCOCOCMcO C D H4COtH ©
CM 00 IH rH (HOC C O © OOO CM © © CM tH ©
« « ■ • * • • • • • • • • * •
•

**•*•*•#••••*««■ «
<^?52‘G?292<:51r^cc>t~^oo<»<
^>cc'ID
tHT
H 10
lO CO ^ ^ CO CO LO ©
LO ^f*
IO
"M1

"Si
a

05 ©

• • • • • • • « • • • • • •O «H ’ • r-i ID LO

CD
’d1 LQ 00 *H CO
tH LO LO CD © tH H• * • • • * #
CD 05 05 LO CO CM rtf'
CO 00 CO CO T f CO ^

CO
^
*
tH
-Cp

tH
tH
•
^
LO

© CO CO © C O © LO 00OO 03 tH ao LO CO
CO © © © © © © © C O © © COOOOOCD CO

O5COCOO5O5^lOcprHptH0a«MtHTHIH
LO
CO tH CD CD LO O 05 © 05 © © tH H 1CO CO CO tH
• ••♦*•••••••*••• •
H H H O H H H H H H O H O O O H
tH
w
n n c q n m n n w wnwnncmcj w

tH ID © GOOD H * © O ' * * ©
• * • * • • • « • •
H H H H H O lH tH H O Q
CM CM CM CM CMtH CM CM CM CM CM

CO o O tH 05 CD 00 CD CD tH 05 05 © CD 05 © 05
O5 0 5 r H t H H < 0 G O C C t '- © © O © ©
05 rS

O 00 o o © iDC M cDtH LO-^-M' ^ tH <p tH tH
i O C O i H H 'r - i ’M’ COt— ©OOCM O ID ^
CD

tH tH ^ C D

ID

CDCDCOLOHHOD'M<t^LOtHLO tH © LO CD LO

c o i r j c o c s o j o j t - r f ' r t 1 w h c ^ h c i d ^ lo
1 0 0 4 H
H 0 5 C D O I C 2 CD © CD
CO H" tH tH
• • # • • • • • • • * • • • • *
«
O L D C O C M C O C O O O L O O O O O O O O J C O tH ^ 03
t H t H t H t H t H t H l H t H t H tH tH tH tH tH tH tH IH

O LO CD tH CO00 © C M "=tfCD CO t- tH CM CM LO
CO 00OO CO C M O 00CO H O H H H C D O O ^

• *••••••* ••••••• •
C O C O lO O O rf tH CD ID CD LO tH

•

^ © CM © CM
• • • •
•
H H H O tH
CM CM CM CM CM

• •••••••«•••»•• •

in

U

APPENDIX III A
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

1

o
r-l
I
05

©

ML +nj»
£

rQ
•p •H
ctS S-.
•P XI
aS p
Ph ©
tH

P

at

P

'd

o
o

P
d
©

o
©

u
a

tH
©

t H O C D 'M 1 t H H H O O C O O c D t H C D 0 0 5 L D CO
C D tH tH C D IH O O O J U O O J tH 05 O j O CD O tH 00

•••••*«••••«*•••
tH

l0 0 5 C D © 0 5 tH © O IH O
© L D t H L D O O O S C O O t H LO

•

* • • • • • # • • « •
tH tH 'M* CM © t H © CM © t H ©

05 © CO © tH ^

CD

t—
■LO CM CD © CO CO
CD 05 CO tH IH
O CD 05
H ‘M* 00 CO CM C D H 0 5 0 00 © O 05 OO00 00 05
C M C M tH r H C M tH O J tH C M tH C M C M tH r -'tH tH tH

•

•
•
•
CM tH CM

© © © © © H * O L D O C 4 © H O O L O LO ©
© LO © © C M © 0 © 0 © C M r - i t H © 0 0 ©
«

tH tH O

• * * • • • * • ♦ • •05•tH•CM•CD•O •CO CM•

•
tH

•
t—!

•

• • •
tH tH

• •
t—I

• •
tH

•
• •
H H H

•

•

•
tH

OLOtHCM’
'^tHCD©tH'M<COcOOO©© ©
COOQ L D t - C D C O H H COIT © LD tH O © ©
j

•

• * « * • • • • » •
tH © tH tH CO © O H - t H ©
O IH
CO C005 0 05 D-CO if)
© tH rH tH tH tH © tH tH t—I tH

• »
© ©
00 IO
tH tH

• »
•
© © tH
CD (C t tH tH tH

•
I

O
*H
P is
*H 'H
O >
© at
& U
©
t£

♦
-P
W
W

w:
d
■H
tH
JD
d

C 0 ^ f C D t H 0 5 t H C M O 0 3 C D 0 5 C M t H t H C 0 C D CO
C O H t f CO t H « 5 t ~ 0 05 U 5 O l O H C C t - 0 0 ID
L D lH C D C D C D C D C D tH C D CCCDCDCCCDLOCC CD

© tH t-*t“
© © -M* ©
LO LO CD ©
O © © ©

H t H H H t H H H H H H H H H H H H

tH tH tH tH i—! tH tH tH tH tH H H H

O« O* O• O• O• O• O• O• O• O• O• O• O• O* O• O• O*

CO 03 CO tH COtH C O C O

O © O

tH

© CO O CD CD

© ^ *© © © ©
C D © IH tH © ©
CD LO CD CD CD IO
O O O O O O

© © tH © t"
© tH © © ©
CD CO CD CO CD’
© O O © ©

©
©
©
O

* • *•••••••• • • » • ♦
tH t—I tH

tH tH O © O O O t ' - t H C O O O O O t H
© © © © O O O © © © O O O O ©

©
©

«•••«••••*•

•

r f l D C D O t H O O t H - ^ t H © © O 05 CO H ' 00 05
tH
tH
tH
tH tH tH tH
tH

O tH tH © © L O IH © © © © O lD © 0 ©
H H
i—I
t—I
tH
tH
tH

< t * C ) 0 t '- O 3 C O © 'd 1 ' ' d © O 5 © © L D C O C O l D CO
CO 05 O 00 03 i d CD 05 00 O O C O C M C 0 0 5 0 5 ©
•
* • • • • « • •
• » • • • • •
•
© C 0 0 5 0 0 t H C 0 0 5 t H C 0 0 5 05 05C O C G a505 ©

IH © © © t H H 1 tH tH tH tH O
© © © tH d * < D H O LO © ©

g

©
©I O
©S
* &
a

• • • • • • • « • • •

©

© © ©

© ■L©D t H C M C O H ^ I iO C D t H O O © © t H 0 3 C O ^ 'm C D OSSEin— t H ©
© O
tH tH tH tH tH rH tH © D5
P » B)
^
32tH
C/i

GOO) C T J © tH © O T

© td * ID © t H © © O ©
H H

© © © IH ©
H ‘ tH LO O in

t • t

•

•

0 5 © tH 0 5 ©

© ^ in ©
H H H H

d
CtS
D
S

-

g
XI
ta
4)
U
o
Cm
O
«
45
i3

tH
P
O
Eh

H lH 4CO 00
co co o o
• • • •
H4CMCO tH
CMCMCM CM

at
c*
P
£

tH
at p
p at
o <m
Eh

*3
£
4)
tH

CO CMtH t>
cm in b- CO
• * • •
LO CO CO
tH tH tH tH

CO
m w
• tH
P LO 00
s i tH •
oo II 4*H >H

CO CO in
© in LO o
CO© CO b• • « •
CO CMb 03
LO COin LO

&
tH
P
O
P

45
C
O
PQ

cm

W

CM
00

45

* 1
b-

g
£
►n

0 > b - C M COO? r H r H 0 0 CO l O t H 0 0 0 0 0 0
I © CM H * l b © 0 5 0 H 4 H ’ OO © 0 5 CO H *
• * • • • • • • • • * •
* •

cob - o o co co o oo 05 co oo i n b - t > b -

0 0 C 0 tH 0 5 C 0 O tH t> b -C M O 0 5 O C M b -

OO

050500TfScot>ooooo5incMin'M, co o

•••*•«•••••••••

•

C M o o ' ^ i n i n i n c o c o o o i n i n c o i n m r t 4 co
CM
tH

0 0 0 5 Q 0 0 0 5 CO ^ O O O b - t H C M C O t H CM CM
© b - H ‘ H 4 b - O 5 O M <-M4 C 5 C 0 © t - 0 5 0 0 t H

IO

© H 4H 4 C M © © © L O ' M 4 O C M H 4 C O i n c o i n
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
tH

**••*•••»«••«••

*00
I to

•

C M i n - ^ 0 0 'M400 0 0 ' M ( 'M1 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 C C i n
b " M 4 b - C M C O © H ' H 4O 5 - M 4 t H © 0 0 O 5 C M b tH O in C M O O b 'C O tH O in O O O C O ^ C M o
* • • • • • • • • • • • • » •
•
CM CO i n o CM CO tH 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 H 4 CM OOiCM

in ,M
<iDtniniDinin'ct4LO-M4in tn in io tn

* • • •
tH r> in CO
tH tH tH tH

CM

_
OC t > O C O O O O O O O C 5 L D L Q t — b - O
^H*H tH
O ©
O C

CM

05
0 5 0 5 © C M 0 0 0 5 0 0 © C O O O O O t H H 4 H 4 CO 0 5
• • • • * • • • • • • • • * •
•
O O tH C M L n c O O O tH C O O O L O O O -^ ^ C O C M oo
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H tH

00
•n .•
• ■r••
•I■r•fr
•■r•k• •In«^ • • K•_ •
nh•
_I•
K. A•
V
nr•
viv•

0 > C O O t H 0 5 M s H 4O ^ O C C O t H ^ ' O C O
•

COH* CO in
• • • •
© b - tH
lo in m m

CMm^oo^oooo^TboscoococoLO

00 LO CO tH
COCMCO OS

• • • * * • • • • • • • * • 05•
<mit1«coh4H4cohicoh4coH4H4coco'M4H4
OOiOOCMOinCOb-lOtr-M100[>COH O

ID 0 0 O 5 C M lD © 'M < © fH © tH C M 0 C lO ©

■M4CO‘
'M4H4H4LO'M4'M4'M<H4'M,,st,M4'M4'Mi

00

p

tH x:
OS u
P •rt
O 45
Eh *

coco tH ©
LO COCM ©
00 co
H CO

tH
a*
p
o
Eh

H4b- OO 03
© O CO t LO CO b* tn

45
g
o
x>

tH
Oj p
p rtC
O Cm
Eh

03 00 05
ocO 00
b- OOto
tH
tH

dfef
P
Rt tH
Cm flt g
£
O 45
Eh tH
vv
§
45
tH
45 P
tH 45 g
n J5 £
P 45
© t—I
h
(V
o
cn 45 P
<5 •CJ
aC
1 ♦H
X> 45
>
a

03
©
CO
tH

O b 03 CO
00 00
CMO i H 1CO
CMtH CMCM

tH

^ b - h * H 4^ i n oo 05 oo c o tH co i n tH o
00 0 5 C M C M ^ '> f C 0 C M t H O 0 0 r t 1 ^ O t H
r i'L n H C O O - ^ O b ^ O C D O S C D O Q H

'M'coH4m ,
M 4H 4iO'M4i o i o ,
M ?t3ico'M4H 4 b-

b*

o
CO
CO H 4 OO CD 0 5 CO OO H 4 o o o t H CO Tf* b - CM
•
r H O O t H L O l O t H O ' . O O C M 0 5 H ' 0 5 C M O ' H 00
c o b - i n o o i n c o i n b - b - b - c o c o m b - t n co
co

00
CO

tH tH

•
tH
CO

•sjt

VV W w**W 1-1>*»VN fc»«r

tH t— 11— t tH tH tH tH t— I CO
tH

H4

o o c M o o tn tH o o c R -o in t-c o o c M in o :
tH b -c o c o in b -O M n m c c b -c o c o c o tH
O O C M in o O C O L O tH b - '^ O O O tH O O C D O O
t H C O tH CM tH i H C M r H C M t H C M C M t H t H t H

i n t H c o co-M* c o t H t o o o c

o o
0 5 o» os
o-^ooocomb-OJco’tHtHCMLoin'^'
m•
O i n O H 4 O O C M C M tH C M C O C T 5 t H b - 0 5 0 05
C M C M C M C M t H C M C M C M C M C M t H C M t H t H C M 05
CM
oo

tH

b- CMCM ©
03 COCO ©
CMCMin CO
tH tH tH tH

COLO b- CM
t* CMCM tH
05 b- 03 ©

5

p
4) *
4) O
-P ^ 35
V3
H

2

tH

1

n
•H
P
tH
tH
1
©
tH
1
©
<5
3
o
n

j

O in
com
©
© © C©
^ © © tH tH H ^ iH O Q C M C O b -

P
at
lit

O
P
£
<15
O
P
45
ft*

O lO L O O C7 © 05 LO OO H 105 ^ 0 5 LO oo
?MCCOCMCMCOCMCMCMCMOOCMCMCMCM
CM CM

25 <m

tH
et
P
O
Eh

CO

COt-COCMCT3 H<Ttt-t-COt>t>CX>OOCC ' tH
* # • • * • • • • • * # # #
•

c u
O *H
00 tH 00 CO
LO CO 03 03
• • • *
CO COCM CM

© © © ■ ^ © © H rH O O b -b -m H tH C M

45

H €>
(5
P O
o CO
Eh

tH
<€
P
O
Eh

164

CO

CD CM 05 ^ CO ^ 05 05 CM CM CM b - O O m
•
CM tHCMt— O 0 0 05C0CM © 05 CO b * OO H 4 CO
CM CO CM in tH CO CO c o m CD tH CO H H CM rfr
i—
1tH tH tH tH H H H H H H H H tH tH CO

lO

05 05 05 CM 00 CM CM CO CO

CM CO 05 05 ^

b -C M O C O C M b 'b -C M tH 'M 'C M G O C O b — ©
b -© o o o o b -o o o o o o b -t> b ~ b -m b -o o

o
co

•

m
oo

b-

CO

C
n tH

35

cm

co H 4 i n c o b - oo ©

o

cm co

ra* i n c o

H H H H H H

«i

45

H
O
+-*
o

t5£?fc5S2^£'?°Soco,t'i>W5w©i>tDTi'co
H ^ l ^ C O O O C O t ~ C M L O t > C O i r j O D C D C D C O t ~ C— rH CO
• *• • • • • • • • * • • » * # • » • •

riH H M O rlH N H H N H O H H rlH H H H

*

o

21.62

- 165 -

o
'3’
gt
4) r
C
X
V5 CU
*>

rH
IO
O
*
T—t

CM CT>
OO CO
10 LO
O O
. «
H rH

CD
^t!
<JD
O
.
rH

LO
lO
IO
O
.
rH

O
CM
co
0
«
rH

71.25

t - C T > « o i o t - T t i c o ' ^ o > i > i ^ ’,vfi i n a > c < ; C T ) r H e o ^ ' ^
0
0 OO OH LO l O r t r l O O C D H O O H H H N O C W C O C O C D
C0t-C»Ot-0)H0?05O,!J*HC0^C0HWC0^C')

1.0611

T^fc;£v,£0 srlS,t>T^ C0t>LOCOCOr^^!CVSLocvi<cirH
lfiC O b -t> N O O C D O C O t-r tr lr l(O C O H H C V J H O
• • • * • • • • * • • • * . * • » . . .
OlOOOtDHOOCDOOCOt-Nt-lOCOTfCOtC^^lO
rH
rH

O
JH
S
•
P4

HNW^WCOl-OOOiOHNCO^lOCOt-COOiO

Mean

APPENDIX III B
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

^ rt
&H

6.75

y

AverageAverage
weight length

STUDIES

Steer
No*

O O O O O O L O O O O l O O IOLOO o
• • • • • « « • • • • • • • •
•

t

0 5 S i ’[rj C O 0 0 t>- < 0 O i
C^- C O
04 03 CO 03 03
03 03 02 02 03

1< 0
03CO

00
03 O 03 O O O
CO CC 00 03 CO
C D C O t““ C O
0 3 02 C M O0 O3 0 C
3O 0 2 C O 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 C v

l d o o o l d o o i d l d l d l d o o o o l o

•••••••••#••••##
^

3

LO 05 IO O

^

^

L O O O O O O O O O O b O L O
•

O O O
*••«•*••••••
••

•

03

CO C O C O C O CO C O CO CO CO CO CO CO 03 CO CD CO

CO

O O lO O O lD in iC O W O O lfiO O O

oc

• •••••«»*•••**•«•

H r j r j C . Q Q O , H H r t O r j r~j

tH H

H

H

H

H

O L O

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

LO O

•

•

O

•

O

•

O

•

O

•

O

*

O

•

O

•

O

•

O G C D O t— 0 0 CD r H 0 3 C O C D 0 0
O tH h h c h h o h h o o
H H H H H H H H r l H H H

t H 1— 1 1— ! t H t H t H t H t H t— I

O lfilfllO lO lD O lO O lO O lfilO lO O O

CO
CO

O O L O

•

•

•

•

LO LO O l O O O L O O

CO
CO

Q O C 0 0 3 I > C O C D O ) ' « ^ C O H , C O G O C D 0 3 CD
D N W O l O H O t H H H O O O H O
t H 03 03 0 3 02 03 03 03 0 3 03 0 3 02 0 3 0 3 03

03
rH
03

w o i n o o o w i D i o o i n o o o o o co

O O l O l O O O L O O l O O O L O L O O O

C O f f i r t t - l f i t O ^ O O H C O W l f i C O O ^ CO
tH C0050000t—COOOtHOH1t - LO05 LO CO CO

L O O O C D C C L O O O C O ' ^ L O O C O O O S t 'ttf0 0 0C C ' - O 5 ' ' c F t H H < O 3 0 0 TFfc- C D O ' t f

•

o

E>

00 r H ^ J 03
O O O O
H H H
tH

O O
L O O L O
• • • • • • « • •O *O *
*■
*•

H C C O O H 03 CO CO ^
CO O
^ H W C K O
03 tH tH 03 03 03 0 3 t H t H t - » 0 > C M t H 0 3 0 0 0
03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 0 3 t H 0 3 0 3 0 J 0 3 0 3

••••••••*•**#•••

•

o o o o c o o o c o c o c o o o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o CO

•

O H H H

t>

CMCOCOCD^tHLOlCCOOOCOCOLOtHCO

OOCOtDinOJOOOOSOOOOUiOOrHt-OacM ©

Average
thickness
Fore
Average
length

O-

LO

■

«

• • • • • » • • • * • « •••

e O ' 3 W t t f ‘ CO'tjt^^t<H*''tfO OOO c o c o c o

05

_
Cannon
Average Average
circuau
width

BONE

O O O lT lflO lflO O W O lD O W O O

O•O•O •I *
C•
OI
O <o•
• O• O•O•O•O•O•O•O •O •O •

O

O O O O O
•O *O •C •i ■O •O •O •O •O •O •
••••

t-

C O l O C D C O ^ ^ O S C O ^ ^ t H l O O S C O C O C O
0 3 0 3 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 02 03 0 3 03 03 0 3 03

CO
03

00 ^
^ ‘C O C O C D ' C f ' ^ C O ' ^ C O C O C O O J C O
020303030303030403030303030303

CO
03

I f l l O O O O O O C l f i O l O I O l f i l f l O l O

00

O O l O O L O l O t O O O O L O l O O L O O

CO
CD

0 5rHCOC'-OOf-lD0 3 L O t H C D O

OO

03 ^

05

CO O

03

CO’^ C O C O C O C O C O '^ C O '^ C O '^

o c w o i o i o o O O O O LO
• » » * • • * * » *
• • # * •

• *••••••**•••*•

CO

•

O C O O C O t - t - C C C O O O o O ^ O l O H
O H N H C H r l H H O O C J H r i C H
H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H

O H C O O O O I O H C D O

OOOOCC

•

•

C O 'C J 'rjt^ C O C O '^ 'c f'^ ^ O O O O O O C O C O CO

03

0 0 0 0

O L O L O O L O O O i O O O O O L O O O

tH

O j C O t— 1 C D C O ^ 0 2 0 3 0 0 C O C D C - C O
rH
C H H r l C r i r l r l H H O O O O O
H H H H H H H H H H m H H H H

O
tH
tH

•

03
tH
tH

•

03

O L C O O
i n i D C O t f i C O C O O I O LC tH
•
• • • • • • • • » • • • • * •
•
O > H L O C 5 0 3 C D t D 0 0 O C C C f t V ,Ct, < O C C O 5 O

l O O O O O O L O L O O O L O l O l O l O O

H

tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH

tH

LO ©

05

* * • • • • * » » * • • • » * L O•
LO
t-C7)O5C!2l>O500COO5O;t>C0aOCCl> 00
T H O O i H C D C 0 0 4 0 0 0 C ' t f 0 3 c D O r H 0 1 t~

ooo>o>ao>cno>ooojco<ooccoooc5 os

_
Average
weight

APPENDIX III C

__________________
Hind Cannon
___
Average
Average
Average
circum,
width
thickness

- 166 -

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

n

H

H

H

H

l O l f i lf l l C l D O O l O lO O O O l f iO O lC

*•••*•#••••*♦•••

C 0 0 3 C O L O L O t-C O ^ O > tH C O b -O O C O !>
LO 03 03 CO CO 03 LO C O LO LO 05 O

tH

CO
10
•
O

t H t H I D ■"CP t2~

C O C O -^ C O C O ’S»<COCOCOC0 0 3 ' ^ C O ' ^ C O H H CO

03
rH

03 ^

C

IO
L O t H 0 3 C O rtft L O C O

•

OO 03 O

03 CO

LO CD

H H iH rlttrlrl
rl
H

*

L O LO L O L O O

•

CO

«J L O t H 0 2 C O ^
© 05

S

•

•

•

•

O

•

O

•

LO LO O

•

#

•

O

•

LO L O

•

•

•

CCOC“^lOCC<COOt-t>,
!fOOt“CO o
05 03 LO tH C O C O ^ OO CD CD O C O 0 3 C O 05 LO

—I

C O CO CO C O CO C O CO CO C O CO 03

LO CD

CC 05 O
H

03 CO
H H
H

LO CD
H H

CO

fl)

'H.

X)
fcbU
g
c to •H
•H H-> 33
g
rt 4>
<d g
u o 4)
CC s U
O
pc-s

b-0

£2cdr^c°OCOOOiOCDI>HCDOO,cl(NOO
C O C O ©©C O O 0©O O
© © O O t - O C M 4© © !

> c c c o o t o io o o a o ^
>O>COC0©O>0CrHCM

to
XI to
+* 4>
tbO O
G O
o 5-.
rH G
X rH
rt
«H to o
to
*ri
o
0> H-»
.G o U
<D
H-» o
bo u r O-,
g
<D
tn
O
*«3

o
rt
u
©

4>

4-9
fn

P
a

.Q

0

co
H-»
a

1
CD
G
G

CO

rt

to x i
to ± i
« T3
o •H
3C
g
rn
a
rH
rt
o Xi
■rl -H
H-> w
S-. G1
4) OJ
r* r3
>5
rt
rH
rH
•rl
£3
rt

to
to
<D
O
o
G
G

jG
+*
4>
rt ■H
IS:
Xi
<D S3
-+-» +»
m
«> G
>

IflO O lO lO O O O lfiO lO O O O lfiH
^

©

0

0

•

©

•

©

•

0

•

©

•

0

•

©

*

©

•

0

•

0

•

0

©

©

O

J

*

•

•

•

•

•

cr ©
*

t

O

t - T- I CO LO H

CD CM CD

to

• * * • • • »

■M‘ 0 )O > C C rH I> t^ C M 0 0 C M C M C M C D O C 0 t>

O Q C O O O O O - M 4 C O C O ' M 4C O M 4 C O C O C O ' M , C O C O

lO O O O lO O IO lO IO io O O O O O C O

!>COO)IOU5<OLOOOO<Dl/)Mrla5N^ f
•

CM ^
*

© © C M © © C M © t —I C M © © © C M © C M C O ©

•

r-f ©
C2D O
• •
rH C-

0 © © 0 t > 0 0 C —© C O O O O O © 'M 4© C D
co co ■M4 M4 CO 'M4CO COCO CO CO CO ^ CO CO CO

4 c o © T i 4 ' M4 © ' ^ © ' ^ < o ©

*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
#
•
! £ $ £ t > : ! > ! £ i t > - 0 3 C T > C O ' :ti4 © t > M < © © r H ©

©

0 0 r H CO C7> © © ©
D O O H r i t > CM O
• • • • «
• •
© C O COO O © O

' ^ n o i D ^ o o H c a o c o i D o o ^ L O
a ^ H O N O 0 0 OC LO CO CO OO © © O t > ©
«
• • *
• • • * • • • • • • • •

t'-rH©*M4'M4COt--t--rH©Tt4'M4C O © O r H ©
Ti4© © © © © ' M

CO I O CO
ID N H C
• • •
r H © t -

rf4Tf4'M4"M4© rr^ ©Tt4© M''M4M4© "M1-M4

COCO'M4-Mj COM4 COCMCOOOCO’M4COCOCO'M< CO

to
0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 © © 0 0 0 0 00©
4>ro
<O
11 g
0 © © C — © 0 0 C 0 © T j < © O © < 4 £ ) © C 0 0 } CO
G

o M
•rl X i © 33
H-*
■
a CuO 0
<D G o
U 4)
CO G G ! «>
H
-» rt o
to o Ptt
g

CO © © > Oi
O O
C V JrH
«
• • •
0 0 CO O CO

0 0 © © © © © Q O O O C O O O O O © M <
© © © © © © © O O r H © © ^ © ^ © © ©
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
*
•
*
*
#
#

t - rH CC CM CO D-CD O r H <7> rH CO “M4CM CO I O

•••***•«••••»•••

m
'^tlH<0CDlrtH’
CfTj<O0>CD0ilflt>l0C0
COCO,
*!l4C O C O O O C O © C O O O © C O © 0 0 © T j 4 CO

00 CO CM © CM Tt* © CO © rH CO CO C—CO Oi
CM CM CO CO CO CO CM COCM CO CO CM CO CMCM CM

C 0 C ' 3 Q t * ^ 0 > N H O N 0 ) t " H O H , i, (0

Ho>^cococ»o^tHojcaoococr>Hco

5

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

CT5©OCGCMCM©'M4
''3<©00a300C0CMLOM'
tO 'M 4© - M 4C O C O t O t O t O t » .© © ^ C O C O N _ CD

i

i
i
i l l

H H H H H H H H H H H r I rH rH t—I rH rH

©
©
H

fc~- OO t — © © r H CO N C J C O O H C O O C O C O O O
O O t - t ' “ © t - 0 © O C S © © © O i C O O ,M4 © ©

CD
© 1 * 1

COOOCOOOCO-M4COOOCOCOCOCOOO’M4 CO'M4 00

CM

Q ^ C O ^ t-O O C O C O O O iC ^ O iM C V J C O ^ O l
^ 4C T > © t - © © r H r H © 0 0 © r H O C M © ' M 4 rH
•

CM
CM

I

I

CD©
l t “ ©

’M4
I©

|

♦ • I

CO CM

’Ct4©
|

• I
t-

t - c o c o c o t - l > l > - t - t > C - l > t - l > C - c o b - t -

© © © ©
t©
©
■M4
t-t-^ r H
• • • • 1 •
1 • I
© © ©
1 O
1 rH I
©
© © © -M4
©
T—1
rH rH rH rH
rH

©rH

• I

•••• • • • « * • « • • • • *

© ©
© 00
1 ♦ •
1 CM©
o ©

1

I I

I

I ©

I

©

Q OC ^ t » r H ^j4
I C O © CO O r H M4

*1

CO

©
I ©

• • • • • •

CO CO 0 0 "d4 0 0 CO

CiCT>COaOCO©
CO O CD t - ©

I ©

• • I • I
oo o ©
o © t> © t-t>

O O l O S H l O O O H t O O l t O O O O H ^ O H

O © ^J4 CM © C M © r H © © © © rH C M © CO

C O t-O O ^ O O O J C fc C O C O < O fc -r> -O lD O O O

© o r o o u o © © © © © L O r^ t ' - t > - © t -

COCOOOCOCO'M4 OOOOCOC,OOOCOOO'sJ400'M 4 00

CO^CO-^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

CT5COt-COc-tOO'^b-^f<MlO',
^OOOC^lLO<M

rHO>CDCD©©00©CD

© © I > © © 0 0 0 © 00© 00©t-©0>c000

O O O C -O O t^ C T jt-t-©

© C O C M C M © © C O © © © C M C M C M C M © C M C M

©

© •^ © © © © © O O C O O O O O O C fc C M T O t-r H
C O © © C O C O t - C O M 4<M ' r H r H L Q a : © © C D ' M 4

t-G O C D rH C 0 0 5 © © 0
©CT>OOfc-OOGOCDCO©

© © © © © ©

© © © © © © L O

••••••••*••#•••• •
© © © © © © ' M 4© © © ©

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

© ©

CO

M" 00 O ©
1 CO © [ > 00
I
• • » •
© © © ©

i! t -•
©

© © -M4©
I rH © CD t |
•
• • •
© © © ©

©
i ©
i
•
©

I
$-1

l

X

a)
tLCJ

rt
t-i

a>

>
<4

to X3
to +*
o XJ
o ■rl
o
u
cx
rt
V 4?
to G
u <4
<D
> hc
to +»
a w
rt G
^4 o
es Xi

OOOOt-t-COlOOiQC^OiCatOcOOl^fOOtt-OOJOrHiOO^OOOtXMt-CNIt-COO
• • • • • • • • • • •
» • • • « •

©
O•
••#*•••••••••• I
t
©OOCOCO©©©COCOCOCM © C O ©
©

0 © ^ C O © t - © r H t - © © © t - ^
00 M 4 © C M © © © O O t - H © r H r H ©

©OOCO©COCO©OOCO©©CO©CO©OOCO
OOOOJCDOOOCO^COHOl^OrtCOCSI

C O © © © t > T T © © © © © © t - C M

fc-Nt-Tft-COCOOOCOlOtHCOt-O^OOCO

C O © rH rH t-© © © C M C M C O rH O O ©

■M4 ' M4 ^

© © © © © ^ ' 5 f 1,M 4 ' t 4,M 4 ©

^

,M4* ©

•'tf4 ' M4 ' Mi ' M4 -rt4<M 4 c o © M t 4, M 4,,5i4

i r J H O ^ ^ C O O O O O ' ^ t ' O O O C O O N
^ N H H H c n H O O O l O O O l O W t n C D t -

’M4 ' ^ 4 ' M4

■M4

O O C T J O r H M O O C r t^ O f -C O t O ^ 4

COt-''34©<D©GCCDCOOOrHrH-M4CO
* » • • • • « • • • • • • •
r H r j: © Tt4 © © © © r H H O N C O H
CM CM CM CM CM © C M C M © © © © © ©

OtHCO<M^COCOCOCVlcOOJCMT-(COOOCOC^

© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©

4) * t o
a) o © r H
+■> 5ZJ t o
©

rH

I©•
I

g

CM C O ' M 4 © © t > * Q O a > O r H © CO 'M4 © ©
H H H H H H H

rt
o

© r H ©
©

rH

C O ^ * © C O C - 0 0 © 0 © 0 0 ' M 4© < 0
H r H H H H H

3!

IS

- 168 -

i?
•rt
rH
© ‘H
rH JO
O *H
CO co
q q
s ©
©
4->
x—!
C
£
to
3
g

LO IO
oo cm
• 0
t-rH

O l O L O L O m p O L O O O lO lO

*

©

•

•

O

IO OOO

"t 03 CM O ^ t-t- t-Tt COCM I l D C D H
• • » • * » » • • * • » [
* * *
b- b- b- 00 O CD LO b- b- 00 00 bOOb-b*

•

* ,

to TO c3
•H
rH ©
CO o .q
o o to
q
©
*o
r
*
t .
S +» c3
+» o ©
j3
•H m
to
g
O
to
14
o
o°

co
to
<
H2

Cm
o to
£
• ©
o £
S o
+*
•rt
rH
©
© -rt
rH rH ,C
O O *rt
CO to to
3 q a
g S ©
+*
•C
rO
t
&
U
o
TO
t.
«S xt c3
©
3 rH
O JC
•rt O 00
CO
CO
•rt
U>
S3 -H h
3
Q o ©
M ffi q’
to
ao
q
•rt
CO
o co
O Q
o H

CO rH
b* rH
• •
CO IO

b - C O O O C D C O C D C D l O L O t - l O C O Cr— C— t— <-C3

OO CM
b-CM
• 0
t- b

CDOQiDCMHC-rfLOCOCOCMcOb- CMH
O W l O M C O H O O N O i O O Q O id o oo cm

rt lo

'^bOTft-'^NincotriOifi b-ooos

• • • • * • • • • * • 0 • » •«

ICLOCOCOCOCDCOCCIOCOLOCO b - CO LC CO

CM O
• •
00 CO
CM CM

t > C O H ^ O > O l O O ) O O L 5 C O H CO 03 CO CO

• • • • ♦ • • 0 0 0 0 0 0000

coco
cococococooocococoooeoco cocococo

C M C M b - r t C M C O C M C M C M C O r F C M rt O

CO N
LO rH
0 0
o o
CM CM

O
Q
OQ

LC O O LO o
CO CM CM OS CM

L O O l O O O O

OOJ
V V V W V W 'VC OWN VO CV- V
V

LOLO LO rF
< 0 0 00 CM

W W f V

CMCMOr-fWLON-rttOrtfocoO r!<OCOO)
C O O O C O O O O O C M C M C O C M C M C M C M CO CM CM CM

O lO O lD O lC ^ O O O lfilO O lO Q O

L O O L O O L O O O L O i O O l O L O lo lo lo H
O t - r H C O T i W t O t - O O O O l O C S IO H CD LO

00 r? (OWt-<DO>«OaOt-OlHOOCO^OO
OCV
00
•
• 000000000*00000
rJ1IO

00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COrtlOCOlOrtCOrtrtCMCOCMb-ccrtrt

rtf IO CO ’5}* LO CO CO tO tO r t r t LO CO CO rj* OO r f

CD rj<

C O l O O C r ^ r H O O t - t H O O O O C O C O CD 05 CM CM

lOb-OOCOOOt-cnrtCOb-rHlOOt-ICMt0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

CD• CO•
OO LO

OO 05 b- GO GO lO ID GO CD ID CD b* O CD o £-

OO 00
ID CO
a •
CO LO

'^ r-!C O O O C M C D C O t-C -^ J< O O rH C D C O O O rt(
OO 05 rH 00 CM O b - CD CD H CC 00 H « 3 OO H

to
as C O O O ^ r H O L O t - O l l O H CO CD OC CM bID OS
b
rt
t^rtOOGOOOOO^TFCOrtCDIOCMlDCDrtCO
• 0

OOLOrHrHCDt-rtrtCOCOCMrtCDLOcDCO
CM CC 00 LC LO CD rj:O CM CO Tt OC b“ b* CM 05
00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 • • • •

• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * • f 00
oob-coccoortiort^rt'ioioortioco

rf CO O CM t- ID b~ CO b g- <D r-1 CD rt CD IO
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
ICM CM CM CM CM CM

CD rH
CM CM

q
• CD
© o LO HI CM
CD
+»
^
to rH
©

CO COO O
IDb*b“CMaiCOCOO>OOCO0it75
• • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO^OCR
0000

OHiOrHOHOlCOtCXOOO

b-

p

LOrHCMCOrtLOCDt~*OOa>OCMCO‘
rtiOcD «?
CD
H H H H H H O
S