';.'1.*:

THE RELATIONSHIP or SOME LINEAR AND AREA
MEASUREMENTS TO Museums m max CARCASSES;

Theses fat {he Dogma ofM, ~S. ’
Ml-cHtGAN STATE UNNE 1&3va-
JohnMac-Leoidé. _ ‘ . :

 

THESIS

MICHIGAN STAT TEU

I I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII’IIIIIIIIIIII

591 4082

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME LINEAR AND AREA MEASUREMENTS TO

MUSCLING IN PORK CARCASSES

presented by

John MacLeod

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in An. HUSb.

/-Tj//. 7277/ /1/

Major professor

\I\_\3

Date Jan; 143 1964

 

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME LINEAR.AND AREA.MEASUREMENTS
T0 MUSCLING IN PORK CARCASSES

By John MacLeod

The current emphasis placed upon the production of lean pork has
created the need for the deve10pment of simple and reliable measurements
of carcass muscling. This study was conducted to investigate certain
linear and area measurements and their relationship to carcass muscling
characteristics. Skeletal measurements of the length of chine bone and
depth of loin, were correlated to the area of longissimus dorsi muscle
and trimmed loin weight. The influence of the "bulge" of the ham upon
separable lean of the ham was investigated from certain linear measure-
ments on a longitudinal section while a cross section of the ham.was
studied to determine the influence of "thickness of cushion" on the muscl-
ing of the ham.

The product of the length of chine bone and depth of loin was sig-
nificantly correlated with area of the longissimus dorsi muscle _R.= .69
and to weight of trimmed loin ,R.= .71 for gilts. Corresponding values
for barrows were slightly lower, R = .63 and R.= .52 for area of
longissimus dorsi muscle and loin weight, respectively. Area of longissi-
mus dorsi muscle at the 10th rib was highly related to weight of separable
lean of the ham Ir = .78 for gilts and r = .64 for barrows. The in-
fluence 0f "bulge" of ham, from the longitudinal section, upon the separ-
able lean content of the ham was investigated. The multiple correlation
coefficient indicated "bulge" of ham was only moderately related to

separable lean content of the ham, R = .44 and R - .63; for gilts and

 

 

III; It|l

John MacLeod

barrows, respectively. The "thickness of cushion", as measured through

the thickest portion of the ham on the cross section, was highly signi-
ficantly related to separable lean content of the ham. R.- .80) for gilts
and R.- .81 for barrows. The single measurement with the highest rela-
tionship to separable lean in the ham was the thickness through the cushion
of the ham, Ir - .79 for gilts and r - .681 for barrows. In general,

the correlation for gilts were higher than barrows and greater variation

in most measurements were observed in the case of barrows.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME LINEAR AND AREA MEASUREMENTS

TO MUSCLING IN PORK CARCASSES

By

JOHN MacLEOD

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Animal Husbandry

1964

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation is éxPressed to Dr. R. A. Merkel, Associate
Professor of Animal Husbandry, Food Science Departments (Meats) for his
help in setting up the project and his invaluable assistance during the
completion of the study, to Dr. W. T. Magee for his advice on the analyses
of data and on the interpretation of results, to Mrs. Beatrice Eichel-
berger for her typing of this thesis. The author also wishes to thank
the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland for their finan-
cial support during his studies in the U.S.A.

Finally, the author would like to express most sincere appreciation

to his parents whose assistance and understanding were unfailing through-

out his education.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRDD UCT ION O o o o o o o o o 0 O o o o o O 0

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Longissimus dorsi as a measure of muscling
'Muscle to bone relationship . . . . . . .
Skeletal dimensions in loin . . . . . . .
Sample cuts as a measure of muscling . .
Measure of muscling in the ham. . . . . .
Live animal measures . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability of estimates . . . . . . . .

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . .
History of animals . . . . . . . . . . .
Slaughter procedure . . . . . . . . . . .
Cutting procedure and loin measurements .
Freezing and storage of ham . . . . . . .
Splitting and separation of hams . . . .

Analysis of data . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .
Loin measurements . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship of loin and ham.measurements

of muscling

Comparison of left and right ham separation values .

iMeasurements of muscling in the hams . .

iii

Page

11
12
14

15

18
18
18
18
19
19

26

28
28
32
35

36

Page

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

B IBL IOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 44

APPENDIX 9 o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O o 50

iv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page

I Correlation coefficients between length of chine bone and
weight of loin and area of longissfinus dorsi muscle . . . 29

II Correlation coefficients between depth of loin and weight
of loin and area of longissimus dorsi muscle . . . . . . 30

III 'Multiple correlation coefficients of length of chine bone
at 4 locations or depth of loin at 4 locations or length
& depth at 4 locations with loin measurements . . . . . . 31

IV Correlation coefficients for measurements of muscling
between the ham and loin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

V Correlation coefficients between left and right ham
physical separation values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

VI Correlation coefficients between separable fat and lean
of the ham and area measurements of the ham . . . . . . . 37

VII Correlation coefficients between left ham linear measure-
ments and areas and separable lean . . . . . . . . . . . 38

VIII Correlation coefficients between right ham linear measure-
ments and areas and separable lean . . . . . . . . . . . 40

IX iMultiple correlation coefficients between the linear
measurements of the ham and areas and separable lean of
the ham 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I I O O O O O O 40

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
I ”Measurement of depth of loin . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
II Location of the point of separation for the cross

section of the ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

III Cross section of the ham showing constructed axis . 23
IV' Longitudinalt section of the ham showing constructed
axj-S . O O O O O C O O O O O O O C C I O C O O . . . 24

vi

Appendix

II
II
II
II
II

II

Barrows

Barrows

Barrows

Barrows

Barrows

Barrows

Gilts -

Gilts -

Gilts -

Gilts -

Gilts -

Gilts -

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

- Carcass Data

- Carcass Data

- Carcass Data

- Carcass Data

- Carcass Data

- Carcass

Carcass

Carcass

Carcass

Carcass

Carcass

Carcass

Data

Data (continued).

(continued).
(continued).
(continued).

(continued).

Data (continued).

Data (continued).

Data (continued).

Data (continued).

Data (continued).

vii

Page
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O

61

INTRODUCTION

In the past two decades increasing emphasis has been focused upon
the production of lean pork. This trend has created the need for the
development of accurate and simple measures of degree of muscling. The
problem has been studied both on the live hog and the carcass with varying
degrees of success. iMcMeekan (1939), Bratzler gt El. (1947), Zobrisky
.25.31, (1960) have used the composition of portions of the carcass such
as a wholesale cut to estimate the gross composition of the whole carcass.
Hazel and Kline (1952) used a probing technique to measure backfat and
utilized this as an indicator of leanness and the percentage of lean cuts.
Since the loin and ham provide most of the edible lean and represent ap-
proximately 55 percent of the carcass value, accuracy of estimating muscling
in these cuts is of obvious importance to the swine industry. Estimation
of the area or size of the longissimus dorsi muscle which is the major
muscle of the loin, might well begin by studying the influence of skeletal
characteristics. McMeekan(l939)emd.K1ine and Hazel (1955) investigated
the area of longissimus dorsi,while KrOpf (1959) and Orme (1959) studied
the relationship of muscle to the skeletal dimensions of the loin.

In the ham various attempts have been made to develop "indices of
plunpness" and "ham indices" as estimates of muscling, Hankins and Hiner
(1939), Zobrisky gthgl, (1959), but with varied success.

The present study was undertaken to investigate the relationship of
the length of chine bone and depth of loin to the area of the longissimus
dorsi muscle and weight of trimmed loin. The influence of "bulge" (plump-
ness) and "thickness of cushion", (thickness through the thickest portion

-1-

-2-

of the ham) taken from linear and area measurements on longitudinal and
cross sections of the ham.upon the quantity of separable lean was investi-

gated.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The concept of estimating the overall muscling of an animal from
the measurement of a single dimension or from a group of related factors
has develOped as the understanding of the interrelationship of various
anatomical portions has been elucidated. Perhaps the first attempt to
determine the composition of a carcass was carried out by Lawes and Gilbert
(1859) who completed separation studies on 10 animals including a fat pig
and a "store" pig. Hammond (1939) and MeMeekan (1940, 1941) demonstrated
the importance of the growth gradient in the meat animal and develOped
the concept of "anatomical joints" as a means of measuring degree of
muscle. Hammond stressed that in order to gain accurate knowledge of
the degree of muscling, the carcass must be cut and since the loin region
is not only the most valuable portion of a carcass but also the latest
develOping part of the body, it was the most appropriate region for esti-
mation of carcass muscling. He recommended a cut at the last rib, just
anterior to the head of the rib at right angles to the back, revealing
a cross section of the longissimus dorsi muscle. The relationship of the
area of longissimus dorsi or an estimator of area based on lineaereasures
to carcass lean and other carcass characteristics has been the subject
of much research. Linear measures of the width and depth of longissimus
dorsi or certain combinations of these measures as a shape index were
used by Hirzel (1939) and by MeMeekan (1939) before quantitative validi-
fication of their worth as indices of carcass leanness was obtained. The
first investigation into the relationship between depth and width of

longissimus dorsi and total weight of muscle was reported by MeMeekan (1941)

-3-

-4-

in which he found that depth was more highly correlated to total muscle
than.width. The most satisfactory estimator of total muscle weight was
2 X depth + width and width X depth with correlation values of 1r= .93
and r - .84 , respectively. Aunan and Winters (1949), however, failed
to show a significant correlation between longissimus dorsi area as esti-
mated by width X depth and the amount of separable lean in carcass.
Cahill §£_§l, (1953) used the area of longissimus dorsi muscle at the
10th rib as an estimate of lean as measured by percentage of the four
primal cuts. 'Whiteman‘gthgl, (1953) evaluated the longissimus dorsi
'muscle both by planimeter readings and by area estimated by depth X width
at the last rib. They found the method of approximating longissimus
dorsi muscle by using length X depth was as good as the planimeter read-
ing and easier to obtain. Kline and Hazel (1955) and Hegarty (1960)
studied the relationship of the longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th and
last rib with percent lean cuts and percent loin for both left and right
sides. The area of longissimus dorsi muscle at the last rib averaged
.43 square inches larger than at the 10th rib. They found no difference
among the correlatidns between percent lean cuts and loin area at the
10th and last rib. All these correlations determined by Hazel and Kline
(1955) varied between .65 and .74. Because of the high correlation be-
tween areas of the longissimus dorsi muscle as measured at different
points on the same carcass, there is little increase in accuracy of pre-
dicting lean cuts from measurements of the longissimus dorsi muscle in
more than one place. Freeden e_t.g.1. (1955) took planimeter readings at
the last rib and found these highly correlated with percent lean in the

ham. The area of longissimus dorsi muscle was correlated to lean weight

in ham r = .85, to percent lean in ham r = .79 and to ham weight r = .66.
Pearson 35 31. (1956) found correlation values of .53 and .52 between
percent lean cuts and area of longissimus dorsi at 10th and last ribs,
respectively. Zobrisky 25 31. (1959) estimated the area of longissimus
dorsi muscle at the last rib by multiplying width X depth and found a
correlation value of 0.60 with yield of four lean cuts plus lean trim.
Cole ggugl, (1960) took measures of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 5th,
12th thoracic and last lunbar vertebra and the average of these measure-
ments and found correlation coefficients with total separable lean of
0.59; 0.58; 0.39 and 0.68, respectively. In this study they also multi-
plied the carcass length by an average of the three longissimus dorsi
areas and correlated these with total separable lean obtaining a value
of 0.73. Marcum and Stouffer (1961) took cross sections of rough loin
from twelve positions between the 10th and last ribs and recorded them
photographically, measuring area of the longissimus dorsi muscle, width
and depth, modified fat cover area and modified fat cover depth. The
relationship of these values plus a lean to fat value (L.F.V.) to percent
lean cuts was investigated. Area of the longissimus dorsi muscle at the
12th and 14th rib positions gave the highest correlations, r = .39 and

r - .58, reapectively, with percent lean cuts. The correlations between
the L.F.V. and percent lean cuts were much higher, r = .71 and r = .76,
reapectively.~ Bowman gt 31. (1962) obtained a multiple correlation value
of R2 - .79 between percent lean cuts and longissimus dorsi muscle area.
Doornenbal 25 51, (1962) took the ratio of lean to fat at the 10th rib

and observed a correlation value of .80 with percent protein in the carcass.

In beef cattle, the use of the area of longissimus dorsi muscle has
not been particularly successful as an estimator of total muscling and
results have been even less consistent than in hogs. Butler (1957) when
using longissimus dorsi muscle area per hundred pounds of carcass weight
as a standard of comparison between beef carcasses found it was inadequate
as the heavier carcasses were at a distinct disadvantage. Cole gtugl.
(1959) obtained a correlation coefficient of .454 between the area of
longissimus dorsi muscle and the weight of separable carcass lean. Cole
gtflal, (1960) found that longissimus dorsi area was, however, associated
with only 18 percent of the variation of separable carcass lean. Orme
(1959) working with beef found an average measurement, of the longissimus
dorsi muscle taken at the 5th, 12th thoracic and last lumbar vertebra
was correlated with the weight of carcass lean with an.r value of .52.

When this average measurement of the longissimus dorsi muscle was multiplied
by carcass length the correlation coefficient increased to r=.6l. Orme gt il.(l96C
working with the weight of certain whole muscles and the correlation of
these to weight of total carcass lean found that, when slaughter weight

was held constant, they obtained a standard partial regression coeffi-
cient between weight of total carcass lean and weight of longissimus

dorsi muscle of 0.79. Goll gtugl. (1961), however, could show very few
measurements or yields which were closely related to longissimus dorsi
muscle area and in their study there was no evidence that longissimus

dorsi muscle area is closely related to items representing overall carcass
value. Cole gtkgl, (1962) found when carcass weightwas held constant, fat

thickness over the longissimus dorsi muscle at the 12th rib was associated

with much more of the variation in pounds of separable carcass lean than

was area of longissimus dorsi.

The relationship of muscle to bone and the skeletal dimensions of
the loin and the longissimus dorsi muscle has been investigated by
various workers. This field of study follows on from Hammond and Apple-
ton (1932) who postulated that growth in length of a given muscle followed
that of the bone to which it was connected; and that muscle thickness was
linked with bone thickness. McMeekan (1941) showed a correlation of 0.80
between the length of the fore trotter and total carcass muscle. He also
found a high correlation between certain individual bones and the total
skeletal weight, .94, .90 and .94 between total skeletal weight and
weight of bones in the ham, loin and in these two cuts combined. The
correlations were also high for the bones of the limbs and the total
skeletal weight. Lush (1926) reported that weight of shanks below hock
was a good indicator of skeletal weight. Palsson (1939) reported that
the weight of the four cannon bones lufiian extremely high correlation with
total skeletal weight for lambs. These above workers found a strong
positive correlation between the weight of bone in each animal and the
total weight of muscle tissue. McMeekan (1956) states, "So strong is the
relationship that the weight of muscle can be determined within one per-
cent if the weight of the cannon bone is known." Not all investigators
have found such high relationships between bone and muscling. Hankins
£59.33. (1943) could demonstrate no relationship between live animal
measurements and muscle-bone ratio and also no significant relationship

between carcass measurement and the muscle to bone ratio. Orts (1959)

showed that gross simple correlations indicated that cannon bone weight,
area, weight to length ratio and specific gravity were highly related to
wholesale cut weight and area of longissimus dorsi muscle. However, when
a partial correlation wascalculated, holding chilled carcass weight con-
stant, the values‘werenon-significant. ‘Wythe gt El. (1961) investigated
the muscle to bone relationship in beef and found that a partial correla-
tion coefficient with the chilled carcass weights held constant gave values
of .64 and .49 for the weight of the metacarpus bone trimmed of all

tissue to the total weight of the trimmed round, loin and rump and to the
area of longissimus dorsi muscle, respectively. In the case of the tibia
values of .73 and .51 for the same comparisons were found. 'When the weight
to length ratio for the metacarpus was correlated to the total weight of
trimmed round, rump and loin and the longissimus dorsi muscle area values
of .60 and .46 were obtained while for the tibia the values were .58 and
.59, respectively.

Kropf (1959a) studied the relationship of muscle and bone character-
istics in swine and found that.the percentage of bone (including ulna,
radius, cannon bones, humerus, femur, tibia and pelvis) tended to be posi-
tively correlated with percent lean cuts r - .35 for barrows, r - .45
for gilts and negatively correlated with average backfat thickness in
both sexes. In particular a highly significant relationship was calculated
for lean cut yield and percentage femur r a .52 . Vertebral length
(length of chine bone) was measured from the dorsal edge of the Spinal
canal to the lateral tip of the vertebra bone. The correlation with respect

to longissimus dorsi area are summarized in the table below:

Correlation coefficient of longissimus dorsi muscle area

Versus Barrows ‘Qilgg
Vertebra length - lst rib -.212 +.057
Vertebra length - 7th rib -+.110 -.l47
Vertebra length - last rib -+.504** '+.155
Average vertebrae length +.268 -+.l47
Percent lean cuts +3349* -+.509**

Thus longissimus dorsi area was not consistently correlated to verte-
bra length at lst, 7th or last rib but showed a significant relationship
to the percent lean cuts. KrOpf (1959b) in a similar study with beef
found non significant correlation coefficient of 0.14, 0.17, 0.21, re-
spectively, between length of vertebrae at the lst, 7th and last rib and
the area of longissimus dorsi muscle in beef cattle. The percentage sep-
arable lean was, however, strongly related to area of longissimus dorsi
per hundred pounds of carcass weight with a value of "r = 0.41 . Mathews
‘ggugl. (1959) working with lambs measured the depth of longissimus dorsi
muscle by a needle probe over the right transverse process of the second
lumbar vertebra while the width was estimated by halving the caliper
measurement between lateral extremities of the transverse process of the
second lumbar vertebra. Thus they were attempting to approximate the
area of longissimus dorsi muscle by measuring the skeletal dimension of
the vertebra in which confines the muscle lies. They estimated the cross
section and area of longissimus dorsi muscle by multiplying width X depth
and partial correlation coefficients were calculated while holding live .weight

constant. Highly significant correlations of .56 and .59 were observed

-10...

between estimated depth and actual longissimus dorsi area in two trials
while the estimated longissimus dorsi area and the actual longissimus
dorsi area were correlated with r - .55, and r - .69 in the two trials.
Orme SENEL: (1959) took radiographic measurements of the dorsal and lateral
view of the lumbar vertebra which disclosed that width of the body of the
lumbar vertebrae and width of the vertical process were the measurements
most closely associated with longissimus dorsi muscle area, accounting
for 22 percent and 20 percent, resPectively, of the variation in longissi-
mus dorsi muscle area. When the effects of live weight were held constant,
width of the transverse process and height of the anterior'articular pro-
cess were equal to the two previous measurements in predicting longissi-
mus dorsi muscle area,accounting for 18 to 21 percent of the variation in
area. Orme (1958) points out that since these same partial regression
equations showed an inverse relationship to rib eye with the exception of
width of lumbar vertebra, larger vertebrae measurements tended to be asso-
ciated with smaller longissimus dorsi muscle areas in beef cattle. The
multiple correlation for longissimus dorsi area and live weight versus
length of transverse process (distance from the lateral tip of left to the
lateral tip of right transverse process) had a value of R.- .46 and
with length of vertical process (dorsal tip of body of vertebra to the
tip of the Spinous process) had a value 'R.- .40 .

Part of the difficulty in use of the skeletal dimensions of the loin
could be assigned to the different rates of growth of the various portions.
Hammond (1932), MeMeekan (1941) and Palsson (1939) indicate this phenome-

non. Rees-Evans (1954) found a gradual increase in length of vertebrae

-11-

through the thoracic and lumbar sections followed by a rapid decrease
through the sacral region making the lumbar vertebrae most important in
final body length. Cuthbertson and Pomeroy (1962) found the rate of
growth was fastest in the young pig in the sacral region while the cervi-
cal increased most in the second phase of growth and in both periods the

growth in the lumbar region was slowest.

Another approach to estimates of muscling has been through the use
of sample wholesale cuts to predict the lean yield of the whole carcass.
Lush .(1926) was the first to examine the relation between the composition
of a single cut - the "wholesale rib cut" of beef - and the whole carcass
composition. Subsequently, the value of the "9-10-llth rib" cut was con-
firmed by Hopper (1944) and the ”12th rib cut" by Crown §E_§l, (1960) who
found correlation values between the HEhrib cut and total carcass of .82
for lean, .96 for fat and .75 for bone. Kidwell ggugl. (1959) found
fairly high relation between slaughter score, carcass score, percent areas
and longissimus dorsi muscle and fat in 9-10-11 rib. Hammond (1932),
Palsson (1939) and MeMeekan (1941) used the concept of an anatomical joint
as a measure of total carcass value. The latter author found correlations
between the weight of bone, muscular and fatty tissue in the combined leg
and loin of swine and in the whole carcass were .94, .98 and .98, resPect-
ively. Aunan and Winters (1946) working with pigs observed correlation
values of .80 and .82 between the percentage of lean and fat in the whole-
sale loin cut and the percent of separable lean and fat of the whole
carcass. Bratzler gt 31. (1947) found a correlation coefficient of .82

between yield of primal cuts in the hog carcass and the relationship of

-12-

trimmed loin to fatback. Pearson ggugl. (1958) suggested a loin index
which was the relationship of rough loin to the percent trimmed loin and
found a correlation of .81 to a .. percent lean cuts. The percent ham
on a carcass basis had a correlation of .76 to . lean cuts. Zobrisky
‘gghal, (1960) expressed the wholesale cut value and yield of each carcass
cut in terms of a single index, the ham equivalent, which reflected car-
cass merit. This ham equivalent was correlated to yield of four lean

cuts r - .82 ; yield of loin r - .56 ; longissimus dorsi muscle area

at 10th and last rib r - .60 and r s .65, respectively . Bowman g£_§l,
(1962) calculated correlation and regression relationships between various
traits (indices) and suggested that the multiple correlation of weight

of lean and fat in the ham had a high correlation to carcass leanness

R2 - .92 . Other workers have found a high relationship between percent
trimmed ham and percent lean cuts: Wniteman $1331. (1953) ,r2 = .89 ;
Smith gghgl, (1957) irz - .89'; Pearson 25,21, (1958) ,r2 = .90 ; and

Hazel and Kline (1959) ,r2 - .96 .

Estimates of muscling from linear and area measurements in the ham
have been studied by several workers. Lean to fat and lean to bone ratios
have been used. Zobrisky gtflgl, (1958) reported that the pattern of ham
‘muscle development is more closely related to the ham bone increase than
to ham fat deposition. Hankins and Hiner (1937) deve10ped an index of
plumpness for hams to facilitate comparison of hams and to gain informa-
tion regarding gross composition of the whole carcass, as regards fat,
lean and bone. Aunan and Winters (1949) used a ham index as follows:

circunference of ham at midpoint between aitch bone and hock X 100 divided by

-13-

the length of the ham. This index showed a non significant correlation
to lean content of the ham. The length of the ham had a correlation value
of .61 to the area of longissimus dorsi muscle. ”When the ham was cut in
cross section one inch from and parallel to the aitch bone, an estimate
of area was made by multiplying the length X thickness but it had a non
significant relationship to the separable lean of the carcass. Arthaud
and Dickerson (1952) found that the higher the score for plumpness as
estimated by visual appraisal, the greater the weight of skinned ham.
Whiteman and Whatley (1953) removed the hem from the loin end at a point
half way between the aitch bone and the posterior end of the 6th lumbar
vertebra and at right angles to the long axis of the ham. The exposed
surface was measured by planimeter and found to have a correlation of .68
to the . percentage lean cuts. Freeden g£_§l, (1955a) found the
simplest and most reliable appraisal of ham composition was the percent
area of lean in the ham.eXposed when that cut was removed during routine
slaughter. By this measure the predictability of the percent lean in the
ham was approximately 64 percent. In their study, they also found that
tapering hams carrying weight well down the hock were leaner than those
which appeared to be plump through being well filled in the upper portion.
Freeden.g£ngl. (1955b) showed that when the percent area of lean in the
proximal face of the ham was combined with the area of longissimus dorsi
muscle exposed at the last rib this measure accounted for 72 percent of
the variance in percent lean of the ham. Zobrisky gtflgl. (1959) used the
ham.index develoPed by Hankins and Ellis (1934) but the correlation value
to carcass lean was .13 which was non significant. They also estimated

the ham lean area on the butt end by multiplying depth, as measured from

-14-

the exposed cut illium to the dorsal edge of the subcutaneous fat, by the
width as measured at right angles to the previous dimension across the

ventral edge of the illium. This cross sectional area had a correlation
of .46 with carcass lean cuts and when combined with area of longissimus
dorsi muscle the multiple correlation coefficient with carcass lean cuts
‘was .65. Doornenbal gtpgl, (1962) took a cross section of the ham at

right angles to the femur, immediately posterior to the tuber ischii and
found that the ratio of lean to fat in this section had a correlation of

.66 to the percentage protein of the carcass.

From the point of view of practical production, it would be ideal if
a reliable method of estimating muscle on the live animal could be deve10ped.
Phillips ggwgl. (1936) studied a method of obtaining measurements for swine
comparing direct measurements, a scaling instrument and a photographic
method and found that the direct measurement technique was most accurate.
Hetzer ggugl. (1950) measured the length from ear to tail, height at
shoulder, width at shoulders, width at middle, width at hams, depth at
chest, depth of middle and circumference of chest and it was found that
the width at the hams was the most important measure when correlated to
percent lean cuts and meat in the hams. 'Wiley ggngl. (1951) indicated that
among lean groups of hogs within various weight ranges when body length
was increased the average carcass cut out value tended to decrease. Hazel
and Kline (1952) and many other workers used the fat cover of the live pig
as an estimator of muscling. Bratzler and Margerum (1953) studied the
accuracy of assessment of the live pig and found it needed considerable

training and experience to accurately grade live hogs to U.S.D.A. standards.

-15-

Holland and Hazel (1958) measured the muscle thickness and fat thickness
over the supraspinous fossa and over the illium and showed that fat cover
was the most accurate measure of percent lean cuts. Orme (1963) summarized
the current situation regarding the use of live animal measures as follows:
"The validity and usefulness of live animal appraisal techniques(visual,
linear measures and mechanical probes) depends largely upon the. (1)
objects for which they are intended; (2) care in which they are taken;

(3) the ability to repeat a particular measurement. At the moment no
particular live animal measurement will replace the so called bye balf“

techniquef'

If accurate assessment of muscling is to be based on a particular
carcass measurement then these measurements themselves must allow the
minimum of error and have a high degree of repeatability. Butler (1956)
showed that application of data from left to right sides was justified.

In the 9-10-11 rib of beef the left to right correlation for bone was .99,
for fat .97, for lean .99, for area of longissimus dorsi .98. Robison
2£_§1, (1960) gave further evidence for this assumption. Bowman 25 El.
(1962) showed that left and right data were transferable, that the area

of fat and lean was more accurately obtainable in the mid regions of the
carcass than at the extremities and that division of the ham from the car-
cass and its subsequent separation into fat, lean and bone was more accurate
than for middle and shoulder. Cuthbertson and Pomeroy (1962) in the

course of a study in anatomy ofpdg removed the central portion of the'
vertebzal column during slaughter and found that this did not give suffi-

cient accuracy for comparison of left and right sides. Thus they suggested

-15-

that a reduction in error would be achieved by cutting down through the
center of the sacrum and through the vertebrae Spines to the .atlae. Lasley
and Kline (1957) investigated the magnitude of cutting errors in the pig
carcass and found that failure to Split the carcass accurately was the
main fault. They found that ham weights were more reliable than any other
wholesale cut or combination of cuts. Harrington 35.21, (1960) investi-
gated the accuracy of visual appraisal of longissimus dorsi muscle area

and found it to be insufficiently accurate for experimental use. Bodwell
ggngl. (1959a) investigated the repeatability of eight measures on a beef
carcass and suggest that all measures should be taken on both sides of the
carcass and averaged and also that certain of the standard reference points
used in carcass evaluation should be redefined and clarified. As regards
the measurement of the area of longissimus dorsi, Hirzel (1939) used maxi-
mum width X.maximum depth while Naumann(l951) used three width measurements
averaged times depth. Skjervold (1958) used a planimeter and an estimate
based on width and depth gaining a correlation of .66 between the two.
Backus gtflgl. (1960) found a correlation ranging from .54 to .88 between
width and planimeter measured area of longissimus dorsi muscle. Bodwell
.ggugl. (1959b) compared methods of measuring longissimus dorsi muscle area
and found that taking a single area measurement from each duplicate tracing
increased accuracy 30 percent. Superimposing a grid and counting squares
gives 25 percent less accuracy than the planimeter. Area estimates based
on linear measurements were highly repeatable but insufficiently accurate.
Pearson (1957) points out that the plane of cut through the muscle causes

variation in surface exposed. Also pressing down on the muscle when tracing

-17-

can cause considerable alteration in area and to minimize this the tracings

should be done on the rough loin giving the maximum rigidity to the muscle.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

History of Animals

Forty Yorkshire and crossbred swine of varying degree of muscling
from heavy to very light muscling were included in this study. The forty
hogs consisted of twenty barrows and twenty gilts. The data were recorded

and analyzed separately for the two sexes.

Slaughter Procedure

All animals were slaughtered at 200 to 210 pounds live weight in the
Michigan State universittheat Laboratory in accordance with normal slaugh-
ter procedures. The animals were dressed with the heads off, leaf fat in,
and with the hams unfaced in order to retain the natural shape of the ham
and to facilitate later measurements. The carcasses were chilled at 34-

38°F for 24 hours before measuring and cut after 48 hours chilling.

Cutting Procedure and Loin Measurements

Carcass length and average backfat thickness were recorded. All
linear measurements were recorded to the nearest millimeter. Length of
the chine bone, which is the split exposed surface of the verticalspinous
process of the vertebra,was recorded. from the dorsal edge of the spinal
canal to the dorsal tip of the Spinous process, at right angles to the
spinal canal. These measurements were recorded Opposite the 3rd, 7th,
10th and last rib. For the measurement of depth of loin, a sliding T
square shown in Figure l was used. The body of the square was placed
against the Split surface of the vertebra and the slide adjusted until it
touched the corresponding rib. The first figure shows the T square at the

-13-

-19-

 

Figure 1. Measurement of depth of loin

.20..

10th rib position and the depth of loin is the distance from the split
body of the vertebra to the rib surface. This measurenent was taken 0p-
posite the 3rd, 7th, 10th and last rib positions. The carcasses were cut
according to the procedure described by the pork evaluation committee of
the 1952 Reciprocal Meats Conference with the following exception: The
ham was removed between the 2nd and 3rd sacral vertebrae and perpendicular
to the line of the shank but was left untrimmed and with the foot remain-
ing on the ham. The remainder of the carcass was separated into conven-
tional wholesale cuts and both the rough and trimmed weights were recorded
to the nearest .1. pound. The right rough loin was cut immediately pos-
terior to the 10th and last rib and the area of longissimus dorsi muscle
was traced on acetate paper and read by a polar planimeter. After tracing

the right loin was trimmed and the trimmed weight recorded.

Freezing and Storage of Hams

Immediately after separation from the carcass, the hams were susPended
on a frame, by means of a string passed through the Achilles tendon, in
such a fashion as to insure freedom from contact with other hams or the
frame itself. Care was taken in suspending the hams to insure retention
of their natural shape and to allow free passage of air between the hams
to facilitate freezing. The hams were frozen in the blast freezer at
-20° i 4°F and after twenty four hours were removed and stored on the
plate freezer at -20° i 2°F degrees until subsequent Splitting and sep-

aration.

Splitting and Separation of Hams

Right ham - The right ham was cut in cross section at right angles

-21-

to the longitudinal axis of the ham.3 1/2 inches posterior to the anterior
tip of the pubic symphasis as indicated in Figure II. The frozen ham was
Split on a power band saw to obtain the section as shown in Figure III
exposing the areas of lean, fat and bone at the thickest portion of the
ham. A tracing was taken on acetate paper of the exposed areas of fat,
lean and bone. Two axes were constructed on the acetate tracing as indi-
cated on Figure III. The first axis was constructed from the most anterior
point of the subcutaneous fat through the mid point of the exposed surface
of the femur bone to the posterior edge of the subcutaneous fat. This
axis will be referred to hereafter as the width axis of the cross section.
Linear measurements were recorded along this axis for the total width of
the ham including fat plus lean and that of the lean by itself. The second
axis was constructed at right angles to the width axis at a point bisecting
the linear measure of the width of lean. On this axis linear measurements
were again taken with reSpect to the total dimensions and to the dimension
of lean only. Planimeter readings were obtained on the acetate tracing
of the area of bone, lean and fatleftcxfthe width axis as shown on the
split ham section in Figure III. All area measurements were recorded to
the nearest one tenth centimeter.

Left Ham.- The frozen left ham.was cut in longitudinal sections from
the medial malleolus on the medial surface of the tibia to a point 1/4
inch laterally of the exposed surface of the illium on the anterior sur-
face of the ham. These reference points were easily determined and pro-
duced a standard longitudinal section through the ham. The section ob-

tained is shown in Figure IV indicating the exposed muscles of the ham,

Figure II. Location of the point of separation for the cross section
of the ham

 

-23-

 

Figure III. Cross section of the ham showing constructed axis
A-B thickness of ham (cushion) C-D width of ham

-24-

subcutaneous fat cover and in particular the fat cover over the Rbulge"
portion of the ham, and the split surfaces of the tibia and femur. The
tail bones and the pelvis including the cut illium remain in the portion
removed to expose this surface. An acetate paper tracing was taken of

the exposed surface and axes were constructed on the tracing to facilitate
measurement. The positions of these axes are indicated in Figure IV. A
longitudinal axis was drawn parallel to the shank and through the mid
point of the luxflcjoint extending to the cut surface of the anterior por-
tion of the ham.. In an attempt to estimate the influence of the "bulge"of
ham upon total ham muscle, a series of perpendicular measurements were
obtained along the longitudinal axis at 10, 15, 20 and 25 cms anterior

to the medial malleolus. Linear measurement of the lean plus subcutaneous
fat and the lean alone were recorded at each of the 4 sites. It was haped
that these four measurements could be used as a measure of "bulge" of ham
and that the influence of the "bulge" upon total ham muscle could be deter-
mined. It was felt that by considering both total dimensions and the
dimensions of lean by itself, the effect of the lean and the subcutaneous
fat cover could be separated and show whether a large "bulge" was reflected
in more lean or fat. It can be seen from Figure IV that the four perpen-
dicular measurements include the major portion comprising the "bulge" of
the ham. Area measurements of lean, fat and bone were obtained by plani-
meter from the acetate tracings to the left of the longitudinal axis from
the origin of the section at the medial malleolus to a perpendicularline
drawn to the longitudinal axis at the separation point of the hem and loin.

The Special arrangenent of the tibia, fibula, femur and pelvic bones is

slightly variable from animal to animal. This slight variation in Special

-25-

 

Figure IV. Longitudinal section of the ham.showing constructed axis
E-F longitudinal axis (length of ham) G-H anterior tenminus
I-J. K-L. KEN and O~F. perpendicular axis at 10. 15. 20 and

-26-

arrangement of the bones produces variation in the surface areas of bone
and muscle exposed on the longitudinal section. Since the bone was pri-
marily responsible for this difference and since the greatest portion of
the bone surface is to the right of the longitudinal axis, it was decided
to measure only the areas of lean, fat and bone to the left of this axis
in an attempt to minimize the effect of this inherent variation of the
ham from carcass to carcass. It was felt that since the areas were to be
used as an estimator of muscling and since the longitudinal axis was con-
stant better results would be obtained using only the areas to the left
of the longitudinal axis.

The weight of the frozen hams with the foot attached was recorded
prior to Splitting. After splitting the foot was removed as recommended
by the pork evaluation committee of the 1952 Reciprocal Meats Conference
and the weight of the foot and the untrimmed ham were recorded. The hams
were thawed at room temperature under a damp shroud to minimize weight
loss through evaporation. The weight of the thawed ham was recorded and
then separated into lean, fat, bone and skin and the weight of each com-
ponent was recorded to the nearest gram. The tail or caudal vertebrae

were separated from each ham.and the weight recorded.

Analysis of Data

Statistical analysis procedures as outlined by Snedecor (1956) were
applied to these data. Simple correlation coefficients were determined
between all characteristics on a computer. 'Multiple correlations between
the linear measurements in the loin and ham and some measures of muscling

were computed. The r values were submitted to a test of significance.

-27-

In some instances a test for significant difference between particular

correlations for gilts and barrows was applied.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Loin Measurements

In an attempt to determine the influence of the length of chine bone
and depth of loin upon trimmed loin weight and size of the longissimus
dorsi muscle, these measurements were correlated with weight of the right
trimmed loin and with area of longissimus dorsi muscle as exposed at the
10th and last rib.

Simple correlation coefficients between length of chine bone at the
3rd, 7th, 10th and last rib with area of the longissimus dorsi muscle at
the 10th and last rib and with the weight of the right trimmed loin appear
in table 1. Weight of the trimmed loin was significantly correlated with
length of chine bone at the 7th rib for both barrows and gilts (r = .57)
and (r - .54), reSpectively. to length of chine bone for barrows at the
10th rib (r - .46) and for gilts at the last rib (r . .44). The
correlation coefficients approached significance at the 5 percent level
for gilts at 10th rib and for barrows at the last rib. Thus, with the
exception of the 3rd rib, length of chine bone influences the weight of
the trimmed loin in both gilts and barrows. The only significant correla-
tions between the area of longissimus dorsi muscle at 10th and last rib
with the length of chine bone were found at the 7th and last rib for bar-
rows (r - .53, r - .66 and r I .67, r = .45, reSpectively) and between
area at the last rib and the length of chine bone at the last rib for
gilts (r - .45). Thus, it appears that individual measures of chine bone
length are of little value with reSpect to influence upon area of the
longissimus dorsi muscle. This is in agreement with the findings of Kropf

-28-

-29-

(1959). Similarly, the length of chine bone provides little effect upon

the weight of the trimmed loin.

Table 1. Correlation coefficients between length of chine bone and weight
of loin and area of longissimus dorsi muscle

 

Length of chine bone

3rd rib 7th rib 10th rib last rib

 

Weight of right trimmed loin .26 .54* .43 .44*
(.22) (.57)** (.46)* (.41)
Area of longissimus dorsi .22 .39 .24 .38
at 10th rib (.30) (.53)* (.17) (.66)**
Area of longissimus dorsi .20 .32 .14 .45*
at last rib (.43) (.67)** (.35) (.45)*
* P< 0.05

Values for barrows in parentheses

The simple correlation coefficients for depth of loin as measured by
the T square at the 3rd, 7th, 10th and last rib with the weight of right
trimmed loin and the area of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th and last
rib are presented in table II. Of these correlations, only those for gilts
between depth of loin at the last rib and the area of the longissimus
dorsi muscle at the 10th and last rib are significant at a 5 percent level
with values of .49 and .46, respectively. These data indicate that indi-
vidual measurements of loin depth are of little value in estimating loin
weight or area of the longissimus dorsi muscle. These obServations are

in agreement with the investigations of Mathews 25.21, (1959).

-30-

Table II. Correlation coefficients between depth of loin and weight of
loin and area of longissimus dorsi muscle

 

Depth of loin

3rd rib 7th rib 10th rib Last rib

 

Weight of right trimmed loin -.08 .36 .17 .19
(-.26) (“.05) ('o37) (’o31)
Area of longissimus dorsi .04 .40 .ll .49*
at 10th rib (.06) (.01) (-.13) (-.08)
Area of longissimus dorsi .03 .32 .13 .46*
at last rib (-.18) (.15) (.05) (.08)
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

Multiple correlation coefficients between the length of chine bone,
depth of loin measures and the lengths. depth measure to weight of the
right trimmed loin, the area of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th and
last rib appear in table III. Multiple correlation coefficients for length
of chine bone with the two areas of the longissimus dorsi muscle are higher
for barrows R.- .74 , R.- .71_ than for gilts R.= .55 , ‘R.= .56 , re-
spectively. The correlations for barrows were significant at the P'< 0.05
level, whereas those for gilts were not significant. However, the multi4
ple correlations between the depth of loin and the two areas of the long-
issimus dorsi muscle for giltswere highly significant with values of R = .74
and R.- .66 whereas the values for barrows .R.- .24 and 'R.= .28 were
not significant.

The multiple correlation coefficients~ for length of chine 6:

depth of loin with area of the longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th and

-31-

last rib are quite similar, R = .69 and R = .66 , reSpectively for
gilts and R.= .63 and R.= .59 for the barrows. Thus, these data indi-
cate that the multiple correlation for length of chine bone 5.depth of
loin has the highest relationship, in both gilts and barrows, with the
area of longissimus dorsi as measured at the 10th and last rib.

Table III. Multiple correlations coefficients of length of chine bone at

4 locations or depth of loin at 4 locations or length X depth
at 4 locations with loin measurements.

 

 

 

weight of

right Area of Area of

trimmed longissimus dorsi longissimus dorsi

loin at 10th rib at last rib
Length of chine bone at .70* .55 .56
3rd, 7th, 10th and last (.62) (.74)* (.71)*
rib
Depth of loin at 3rd, .61 .74* .66
7th, 10th and last rib (.55) (.24) (.28)
Length 6 depth at 3rd, .71* .69* .66
7th, 10th and last rib (.52) (.63) (.59)
* P< 0.05

Values for barrows in parentheses

The multiple correlations between weight of the trimmed loin and those
three measurements of loin are consistently higher for gilts than for
barrows. weight of the trimmed loin was significantly (P-< 0.05) correlated
with length of chine bone (R.- .70), but depth of loin was not significant
for gilts (R.- .61). Length of chine bone & depth of loin was significantly
correlated with weight of trimmed loin for gilts (R = .71). Comparable
multiple correlation coefficients between weight of trimmed loin and length
of chine bone, depth of loin and length of chine bone & depth of loin for
barrows were non significant (R = .62), (R = .58) and (R.- .52), respect-

ively. Thus, it appears from these data that a greater percentage of the

-32-

variation in weight of right trimmed loin is attributable to skeletal di-
mensions of the loin (length of chine & depth of loin) for gilts (52 per-
cent) than for barrows (27 percent). As might be expected, the correlations
between skeletal dimensions and the three measuresments of the loin indi-

cate that the influence of skeletal dimension is more consistently related to
the weight of the right trimmed loin than with the areas of the longissi-

mus dorsi muscle. However, a pig with greater loin skeletal dimensions,
namely longer Spinous processes and a greater spring of rib, would be more
likely to have a larger longissimus dorsi muscle than a pig with smaller

loin skeletal dimensions. This agrees with the work of Hammond (1932) and other
later workers who have postulated that muscle size is correlated to the

dimensions of the bones to which that muscle is attached.

Relationship of Loin and Ham Measurements of Muscling

Correlation coefficients between area of the longissimus dorsi muscle
at the 10th and last rib and weight of right trimmed loin with weight of
separable lean, area of lean of the left and right ham and the linear mea-
surement of thickness through the ham appear in table IV. The correlations
between weight of separable lean of the left and right ham with the area
of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th and last rib were essentially the
same as that for the weight of trimmed loin. All of these correlations
were highly significant except that between the separable lean of the
right ham and trimmed loin weight for barrows (.44),which was significant
at the P-< 0.05 level. The correlation coefficients were consistently
higher for gilts than barrows,but markedly similar values were obtained
between separable lean of the right and left hams and those loin measure-

‘ments.

-33-

Table IV. Correlation coefficients for measurements of muscling between
the ham and loin

 

 

 

Weight of Area of Area of
right longissimus dorsi longissimus dorsi
trimmed at 10th rib at last rib
loin
Weight of separable lean .70** .73** .67**
left ham (.46)* (.63)** (.66)**
weight of separable lean .72** .78** .72**
right ham (.44)* (o64)** (064)“
Lean area left ham, .65** .50* .47*
(longitudinal section) (.11) (.34) (.38)
Lean area right ham .75** .82** .82**
(cross section) (.64)** (.76)** (.76)**
Thickness of right ham .60** .51* .58**
(A-B axis} (.62)“ (.64)** (.67)**
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

When the correlations between the lean area of the left ham Gongitu-
dinal section) and the three measurements of the loin were examined, it
was found that the values for gilts were all significant (r I .65),

(r I .50), (r I .47) with weight of trimmed loin and the two area measure-
ments, reSpectively. The correSponding values for barrows (r I .11),

(r I .34), (r I .38) were non significant. These correlation coefficients
between barrows and gilts were significantly different. Thus, the lean
area of the longitudinal section was significantly associated with mus-
cling in the loin of gilts but not barrows and it was shown that there

was a significant difference between barrows and gilts in this reSpect.

The lean area of the right ham (cross section) was highly significantly

-34-

correlated with the three measurements of the loin for both barrows and
gilts. However, the correlations for gilts were consistently higher than
those for barrows. Furthermore, the lean area of the right ham was more
highly correlated to the area of the longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th
and last rib for both barrows and gilts than with weight of trimmed loin.
Identical correlation coefficients were observed between the lean area
of the right ham and the area of the longissimus dorsi mm cle at both the
10th and last rib ,.82 for gilts and .76' for barrows. Thus, approximately
67 and 58 percent of the variation in lean area of the right ham was
associated with the area of the longissimus dorsi muscle in gilts and
barrows, reSpectively. The linear measure of thickness through the right
hem (cross section) was more highly correlated to the loin measurements
in barrows (r I .62 , ‘r I .64 , r I .67 than in gilts r I .603, 'r =
.51 , (r I .58: for weight of trimmed loin and area of the longissimus
dorsi muscle at the 10th and last rib, respectively. These values were
highly significant with the exception of thickness of right ham with area
of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 10th rib for gilts. Thus, ham.thick-
ness, which can readily be evaluated on the live hog,is highly related
to the trimmed loin weight as well as area of longissimus dorsi muscle.
The correlations as shown in table IV, with the exception of the
lean area of the left ham (longitudinal section) eSpecially for barrows,
Show a high relationship between measurements of muscling in the loin and
ham. In addition, these correlations show the differences between barrows

and gilts and indicate the importance of analyzing such data separately.

-35-

Comparison of left and right ham separation values

The simple correlation coefficients between the physically separated
components of the left and right hams, namely lean, fat, bone and skin
are presented in table V. The correlation coefficient values from left
and right hams for fat is higher for the gilts r I .87 than for barrows

r I .73, but both values are highly significant. Highly significant and
nearly identical correlations between left and right separable lean
.r I .89 for gilts and r I .80, for barrows were obtained.

The correlation coefficient between left and right bone separation
values are .mrrpriningly low, r I .62 for gilts and r- - .46‘ for
barrows. Other workers have shown that the bone to bone relationship
between left and right sides is consistently high with correlation co-
efficients of r I .9 or more in many cases (Butler, 1956; Robison‘gt
_§1., 1960; and Bowman gt $1., 1962).

Table V. Correlation coefficients between left and right ham physical
separation values

 

 

 

Left fat Left lean Left bone Left skin
Right fat .87** - - -
(.73)** - - -
Right lean - .89** ' '
" (o86)** " "
Right bone - - .62** -
‘ ' (.46)* "
Right skin - - - .87**
- " - (o47)*
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

-36-

There is considerable difference in the correlation coefficients for
skin separation values between barrows and gilts. It is apparent that
correlation values for gilts are consistently higher and it would appear
from these data that there is more variation between left and right hams

for barrows than gilts.

Measurements of Muscling in the Ham

Correlation coefficients between the separable lean and fat in the
left and right ham and the reSpective total areas, lean areas and fat
areas are shown in table VI. The total measured area of the left ham
(longitudinal section) which includes lean, bone and subcutaneous fat
showed a non significant correlation to separable lean or fat r.= .41,
f I .30 and r I .22, r I :23 for gilts and barrows, reSpectively.

The lean area of the left hem, however, was significantly correlated to
the separable lean (r I .56 for gilts and r I .45; for barrows and as
might be expected a non significant relationship was observed with separ-
able fat. However, the fat area of the left ham was highly significantly
correlated to the separable fat with r values .63 and ,.59' for gilts
and barrows, reSpectively. Thus, the lean and fat areas are significantly
correlated to the separation values of lean and fat, reSpectively,but the
total area is of little use in predicting muscling.

The lean area of the right ham (cross section) was very highly corre-
lated to separable lean with r values .92; for gilts and .82, for barrows.
The area measurement on the cross section of the right ham through the
thickest portion of the ham was of much greater value as an estimator of
separable lean and muscling of the ham than was any of the area measure-

ments of the longitudinal section of the left ham.

-37-

Table VI. Correlation coefficients between separable fat and lean of the
ham and area measurements of the ham

 

 

 

 

 

Left ham Right ham
sgparation values separation values
Lean Fat Lean Fat
Total area left ham .41 .30
(longitudinal section) (.22) (.23)
Lean area left ham .56** .16
(longitudinal section) (.45)* (-.08)
Fat area left ham -.04 .63**
(longitudinal section) (-.39) (.59)**
Lean area right ham .92** .28
(cross section) (.82)** (-.20)
Fat area right ham .15 .77**
(cross section) (.28) (.35)
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

The correlation between lean area of the right ham and separable fat
was non significant .r I .28, and .r I 2.20, for gilts and barrows, re-
Spectively. A.non significant relationship was found between the fat area
of the right ham.and the separable lean r I .15_ and ,r I .28. for gilts
and barrows, reSpectively. However, the correlation between the fat area
and separable fat was highly significant for gilts .r = .77 and non
significant for barrows r: I .35 Simple correlation coefficients between
the linear measurements of the left ham (longitudinal section), and areas
and separable lean.are presented in table VII. The "bulge" of the ham as
measured by the four lines drawn perpendicular to the longitudinal axis

of the ham (Figure IV) were constructed in an attempt to measure the

influence of the "bulge" of the ham upon total ham.muscle. The simple

-33-

Table VII. Correlation coefficients between left ham linear measurements
and areas of separable lean

 

 

 

Separable
lean
Total area Lean area Fat area left ham
Total at 10 em .54* .21 .19 .01
(.29) (.22) (.20) (-.11)
Total at 15 cm .66** .42 .06 .15
(.29) (018) (.28) ('o16)
Total at 20 cm .83** .62** .04 .25
(.37) (.34) (.12) (.06)
Total at 25 cm .88** '.6l** .14 .21
Longitudinal axis -.12 .19 .04 .41
of ham (.40) (.32) (.09) (.46)*
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

correlation coefficients between the total area of the left ham.and the
total linear measurements (linear measure of lean plus subcutaneous fat)
increased in the gilts from r I .54 at 10 cms to ,r I .88 at 25 cms.
There was a similar trend for barrows but the correlation coefficients
were much lower .r I .29 , r I .29 , .r I .37 , r I .50 and only the
perpendicularat 25 cm was significant“ This trend of increasing correla-
tion values for the perpendicular at 10 em to that at 25 cms is repeated
for the correlation for the area of lean but in this case all values are
lower and only the correlations for gilts ‘ at 20

em ,r I .62‘ and at 25 em r I .61 are significant. In no instance were
the values for barrows significant. The correlation coefficient between

fat area and the total linear measurements of "bulge" of ham.wererun:

_39-

significantly correlated,but the linear measurement of the longitudinal
axis was significant (P-< 0.05) for barrows (r I .46) and approached sig-
tiificance at the 5 percent level for gilts (r I .41). Thus, the linear
measurements of "bulge" of ham.had little relationship to separable lean
of the ham. The only linear measurement from the left ham which was
significantly correlated with separable lean of the ham.was the longitu-
dinal axis.

The simple correlation coefficients for the linear measurements of
the right ham (cross section) and ' areas and separable lean are
presented in table VIII. The width axis of the ham (figure III) was
highly related to the separable lean both gilts and barrows _r I .64,
and r I .52 , reSpectively. Thickness of the ham, as measured through
the thickest portion of the hem, (figure III) was highly significantly
correlated with lean area of the ham. r I .83 for gilts and r I .85;
for barrows. The correlations between the thickness of ham and separable
lean are highly significant r I .79 for gilts and ’r I .68. for
barrows. These linear measures of the width and thickness through the
"cushion" of the ham are of Special interest since they can be estimated
visually or measured by callipers on the live pig or carcass and therefore
could provide a useful criterion for selection. The correlation coeffi-
cients were higher for gilts than for barrows but all values are signifi-
cant, eSpecially for thickness through the cushion which was the most
significant single estimator of muscle in the ham.

The multiple correlation coefficients between linear measurements

of the ham.and areas and separable lean of the ham.are presented in table

IX. The combined linear measurements of "bulge" of ham on the left ham

-40-

Table VIII. Correlation coefficients between right ham linear measure-
ments and areas and separable lean

 

 

 

Total width Total thickness
(C-D axis) (A-B axis)
Separable fat right ham .56** .55*
(029) ('010)
Separable lean right ham .64** .79**
(.52)* . (.68)**
Lean area right ham .78** .83**
(cross section) (.46)* (.35)**
Fat area right ham .68** .55*
(cross section) (.18) (.14)
* P < 0.05
** P-< 0.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

Table IX. IMultiple correlation coefficients between the linear measure-
ments of the ham.and areas and separable lean of the ham

 

Combined linear measurements of "bulge" of ham (longitudinal section)

 

Lean area left ham .79*
(.40)

Total area left ham .92**
(.56)

Separable lean left ham .44
(.63)

 

Linear measurements (depth.& width) of right ham (cross section)

 

 

Lean area right ham .88**
(.92)**
Separable lean right ham .80**
(.81)**
* P'< 0 05
M P< 6.01

Values for barrows in parentheses

-41-

(longitudinal section) and the lean area was significant R.I .79 and
highly significant R.- .92 for total area for gilts. However, corres-
ponding values for barrows were not significant. The multiple correlation
between the combined linear measurements of bulge of ham and separable
lean of the ham.were R.- .44 and .R.I .63 for barrows and gilts, re-
spectively. 'While the latter value is approaching significance these

data indicate “bulge" of ham as measured in this study was of little pre-
dictive value for the separable lean content of the ham.

The multiple correlation coefficients between the combined width and
depth linear measurements of the right ham.(cross section) and the area
of lean are highly significant R.I .88 and R I .92 for gilts and
barrows, respectively. The multiple correlation coefficients between the
combined linear measurements of the right ham.and separable lean R.- .80
for gilts and R.- .81 for barrows were also highly significant. Thus,
the combined cross sectional linear measurement of the ham were more
highly related to the separable lean of the hem than combined measurements
of bulge of ham. The simple correlation coefficient also indicate separ-
able lean of the ham is more highly associated with thickness of "cushion"

than either "length" or "bulge" of ham.

SUMMARY

This study was conducted to determine the relationship of some
linear and area measurements to degree of muscling in the ham.and loin
of pork carcasses. The effect of length of chine bone and of depth of
loin upon area of the longissimus dorsi muscle and weight of trimmed loin
was investigated. The longissimus dorsi muscle was significantly corre-
lated with the product of length of chine times depth of loin. There
was a high correlation between the measures of muscling in the loin and
hem. The simple correlation coefficients between area of the longissi-
mus dorsi muscle and separable lean in the ham were r I .78 and r I .64
for gilts and barrows, respectively.

The influence of the "bulge" and "thickness of cushion" upon muscling
in the ham.was determined from linear and area measurements on longitu-
dinal and cross sections of the ham. The measurements of "bulge" and
length of ham were only moderately related to separable lean in the ham.
The multiple correlation coefficients between "bulge" of ham and separable
lean was R I .44 and R I .63 for gilts and barrows, reSpectively.

The linear measurement of "thickness of cushion" was very highly corre-
lated to muscling of the ham. The simple correlation coefficients be-
tween thickness of ham.and separable lean in the ham.were r I .79, and

r I .68 for gilts and barrows, respectively. This single measurement
of ham. . dimensions had the highest relationship to separable lean of
the ham. Thus, thickness of "cushion" of the ham was more highly related

to separable lean of the ham than either "length" or "bulge" of ham.

-42-

-43-

In general, the correlations for gilts were higher than those for
barrows. Also, more variation was observed among barrow data than that
for gilts. These data indicate the need for separate statistical treat-

ment of fat, lean and bone weights and measurements for barrows and gilt

carcasses .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arthuad, R. L. and G. E. Dickerson. 1952. Live animal scores and Split
carcass measurements as indicators of carcass value in swine. J.
An. Sci. 11:736 (abstract)

Aunan, W. J. and L. M. Winters. 1949. A study of the variation of muscle,
fat and bone of swine carcasses. J. An. Sci. 8:187.

Backus, W. R., J. C. Dollahan, J. C. Taylor, G. C. Williams and H. G.
Travis. 1960. Live animal values and carcass measurement as indi-
cators of meatiness and quality in beef cattle. J. An. Sci. 19:1231.

Bowman, G. H., J. A. Whatley and L. E. Welters. 1962. Physical indices
of leanness in swine. J. An. Sci. 21:955.

Bratzler, L. J., E. D. Farwell and W. N. MCMillen. 1947. An index for
estimating pork carcass yield. J. An. Sci. 6:481.

Bratzler, L. J. and E. P. Margerum. 1953. The relationship between live
hog scores and carcass measurements. J. An. Sci. 12:856.

Bodwell, C. E., G. C. Everitt, G. Harrington and R. W. Pomeroy. 1959.
An investigation of the repeatability of eight measurements of beef
carcasses. A. Prod. Vol. 1 Part 1, pp. 51-59.

Bodwell, C. E., G. Harrington, R. W. Pomeroy. 1959. A note on the mea-
surement of "eye" muscle area in beef carcass. An. Prod. Vol. 1,
Part 2, pp. 97-101.

Bowman, G. H., J. A. Whatley, L. E. Welters. 1962. Separation and mea-
suring errors in swine carcasses. J. An. Sci. 21:950.

Butler, 0. D., M. J. Garber and R. L. Smith. 1956. Beef carcass composi-
tion and yield of wholesale cuts as estimated from left and right
side. J. An. Sci. 15:891.

Butler, 0. D. 1957. The relationship of conformation to carcass traits.
J. An. Sci. 16:227.

Cahill, V. R., T. S. Sutton and L. E. Kunkle. 1953. Relationship of area

of longissimus dorsi muscle to other carcass characteristics. J. An.
Sci. 12:899.

Cole, J. W., L. E. Orme and C. M; Kincaid. 1959. Correlation of ribeye

size and separable lean of various cuts to total separable lean of
the carcass. J. An. Sci. 18:1155.

-44-

-45-

Cole, J. W., R. H. Epley, Jr., and L. E. Orme. 1960. Improving estimates
of separable lean in beef carcasses by using combination of carcass

length and longissimus dorsi area at three locations. J. An. Sci.
19:1232.

Cole. J. W., L. E. Orme and C. M. Kincaid. 1960. Relationship of L.E.A.,
separable lean of various beef cuts and carcass measurements to total
lean in beef. J. An. Sci. 19:89.

Cole, J. W., C. B. Ramsey and C. M. Epley. 1962. Simplified method for
predicting pounds of lean in beef carcasses. J. An. Sci. 21:355.

Crown, R. M. and R. A. Damon, Jr. 1960. The value of the 12th rib cut
for measuring beef carcass yield and meat quality. J. An. Sci.
19:109.

Cuthbertson, A. and R. W. Pomeroy. 1962. Quantitative anatomical studies
of the pig at 50, 68 and 92 kgs carcass. II. Gross composition and
skeletal composition. J. Agric. Sci. 59:215.

Cuthbertson, A. and R. W. Pomeroy. 1962. Quantitative anatomical studies
of the pig at 50, 68 and 92 kgs carcass. I. Experimental material
and methods. J. Agric. Sci. 59:207.

Doornenbal, H., G. H. Wellington and J. R. Stouffer. 1962. Comparison
of methods used for carcass evaluation in swine. J. An. Sci.
21:464. ‘

Freeden, H. T., G. H. Bowman and J. G. Stothart. 1955. Appraisal of
certain methods for evaluation of ham quality. Can. J. Agr. Sci.
35:91.

Freeden, H. T., G. H. Bowman, J. G. Stothart. 1955. Relationship between
certain measurement of ham and carcass quality. Can. J. Agr. Sci.
35:98.

G011, D. E., L. N. Hazel and E. A. Kline. 1961. Relationship between

some beef carcass measurements and yield of wholesale cuts. J. An.
Sci. 20:264.

Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep.
Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

Hammond, J. and A. B. Appleton. 1932. Growth and Deveopment of Mutton
Qualities in the Sheep. Part 5. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.

Hankins. 0. G. and N. R. Ellis. 1934. Physical characteristics of hog
carcasses as a measure of fatness. J. Agr. Research. 48:257.

~46-

Hankins, 0. G. and R. L. Hiner. 1937. A progress report on the meat
yield of Danish Landrace hog in comparison with certain American
breeds. Am. Soc. An. Prod. Proc. p. 255.

Hankins, O. G., B. Knapp and R. W. Phillip. 1943. The muscle-bone ratio
as an index of merit in beef and dual-purpose cattle. J. An. Sci.
2:42.

Hankins, 0. G. 1953. Physical analysis for determination of carcass
traits. Proc. Rec. Meat Conf. 6:31.

Harrington, G. 1958. Pig Carcass Evaluation. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureau, Farnham, Royal, Bucks, England.

Harrington, G., A. M. Pearson and W. T. Magee. 1960. Subjective evalua-
tion of cutting yields and loin eye area in hogs and their carcasses.
J. An. Sci. 19:1220.,

Hazel, L. N. and E. A. Kline. 1952. ‘Mechanical measurement of fatness
and carcass value on live hogs. J. An. Sci. 11:313.

Hegarty, G. R. 1960. The relationship between various physical factors
of swine carcass characteristics. IM.S. Thesis, Kansas State Univer-
sity, Manhattan.

Hetzer, H. 0., 0. G. Hankins, J. X. King and J. H. Zeller. 1950. Rela-
tionship between certain body measurements and carcass characteristics
in swine. J. An. Sci. 9:37.

Hirzel, R. 1939. Factors affecting quality in mutton and beef with
Special reference to the pr0portion of muscle, fat and bone. 0nder-
stepoort J. Vet. Sci. & An. Indust. 12:379.

Holland, L. A. and L. N. Hazel. 1958. Relationship of live measurements
and carcass characteristics of swine. J. An. Sci. 17:825.

Hopper, T. H. 1944. Method for estimating the physical and chemical
composition of cattle. J. Agr. Research. 68:239.

Kidwell, J. F., J. E. Hunter, P. R. Ternan and J. E. Harper. 1959. Rela-
tionship of production factors to conformation scores and body
measurements, association among production factors and the relation

of carcass grade and fatness to consumer preference in yearling steers.
J. An. Sci. 18:894.

Kline, E. A. and L. Hazel. 1955. Loin eye area at 10th and last rib as
related to leanness of pork carcasses. J. An. Sci. 14:659.

Kropf, D. H. 1959a. The relationship of muscle and bone characteristics
in swine. Proc. Rec. Meat Conf. p.139.

-47-

Kropf, D. H. 1959b. Relationship of certain muscle and bone character-
istics in beef cattle. J. An. Sci. 18:1154.

Lasley, E. L. and E. A. Kline. 1957. Splitting and cutting error in
swine carcass evaluation. J. An. Sci. 16:485.

Lawes, J. B. and J. H. Gilbert. 1860. On the composition of oxen, sheep
and pigs and of their increase whilst fattening. J. Royal Ag. Soc.
Eng. 21:443.

Lush, J. L. 1926. Practical methods of estimating the proportion of
fat and bone in cattle slaughtered in commercial packing plants.
J. Agric. Research. 32:727.

Marcum, J. B. and J. R. Stouffer. 1961. Relationship of loin indices
to pork carcass meatiness. J. An. Sci. 20:919.

Mathews, D. J., R. A. Merkel, J. D. Wheat and R. F. Cox. 1959. Relation-
ship of objective measurements of the longissimus dorsi in live
lambs to carcass muscling characteristics. J. An. Sci. 18:1480.

MeMeekan, C. P. 1941. Growth and deve10pment in the pig, with special
reference to carcass quality characters. IV. The use of sample
joints and of carcass measurements as indices of the composition of
the bacon pig. J. Agr. Sci. 31:1.

McMeekan, C. P. 1940. Growth and deve10pment in the pig with particular
reference to carcass quality. J. Agr. Sci. 30:276.

McMeekan, C. P. 1956. Beef carcass judging by measurement. The Pastoral
Review andlBrazier's Record 66:1273.

Naumann. H. D. 1951. Recommended procedure for measuring and grading
beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Rec. Meat Conf. p. 89.

Orme, L. E. 1958. Methods for estimating carcass characteristics in
beef. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Orme. L. E., A. M. Pearson, L. J. Bratzler, W. T.'Magee and A. C. Wheeler.
1959. The muscle bone relationship in beef. J. An. Sci. 18:1271.

Orme. L. E. 1959. A different look at beef carcass composition. Proc.
Rec. Meat Conf. 12:60.

Orme. L. E., J. W. Cole, C. M. Kincaid and R. J. C00per. 1960. Predict-

ing total carcass lean in mature beef from weights of certain entire
muscles. J. An. Sci. 19:727.

Orme, L. E. 1963. Estimating composition from linear measurements, live
probe and body weight. Annals of N.Y. Acad. Sci., Body Composition
Pt. 1, Vol. 110, p. 307.

-48-

Orts, F. A. 1959. The relationship of the long bones of the thoracic
and pelvic limbs as indicator of muscling in beef animals. Proc.
Rec. Meat Conf. p. 46.

Palsson, A. M. 1939. ‘Meat qualities in the sheep with special reference
to Scottish breeds and crosses. J. Agr. Sci. 29:544.

Pearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler, J. A. Hoefer, W; T. Magee and R. J. Deans.
1956. The fat-lean ratio in the rough loin as a tool in the evalua-
tion of pork carcasses. J. An. Sci. 15:896.

Pearson, A. M. 1957. ‘Measures of muscling in pork carcasses. Proc.
Rec. Meat Conf. p. 139.

Pearson,.A. M., L. J. Bratzler and W. T.‘Magee. 1958. Some simple cut
indices for predicting carcass traits of swine. I. Cut out and loin
lean area. J. An. Sci. 17:20.

Pearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler and W. T. Magee. 1958. Some simple cut
indices for predicting carcass traits of swine. II. Supplementary
measures of leanness. J. An. Sci. 17:27.

Phillips, R. W. and W. M. Dawson. 1936. A study of methods for obtain-
ing measurements of swine. Am. Soc. Ani. Prod. Proc. pp. 93-99.

Rees-Evans, E. T. 1954. Investigation on the vertebral column of the
“Welsh pig. Proc. Brit. Soc. An. Prod. p. 65.

Robison, O. W., J. H. Cooksey, A. B. Chapman, and H. L. Self. 1960.
Estimation of carcass merit in swine from live animal measurements.
J. An. Sci. 19:1013.

Sisson, S. and J. D. Grossman. 1956. Anatomy of the Domestic Animals.
4th ed. 'W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London.

Skjervold, H. 1958. Registrering av kjdttproduks-jonsegenskapene hos
storfe (Recording meat production characteristics in cattle). Meld.
Inst. Avls-og Raselaere Norg Landbr Hbgsk No. 123.

Smith, C., R. M. Durham, A. W. Munson, E. L. Lasley and E. A. Kline.

1957. The defatted ham as an indicator of hog carcass value. J.
An. Sci. 16:1072.

Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed. Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, Ames, Iowa.

White, F. E. and W. W. Green. 1952. Relationship of measurements of

live animals to weight of wholesale cuts of beef. J. An. Sci.
11:370.

-49-

Whiteman, J. V., J. A. Whatley. 1953. Evaluation of some swine carcass
measurements. J. An. Sci. 12:591.

Whiteman, J. V., J. A. Whatley, Jr., and J. C. Hiller. 1953. A further

investigation of Specific gravity as a measure of pork carcass value.
J. An. Sci. 12:859.

‘Wiley, J. Rh, D. Paarlburg and R. C. Jones. 1951. Objective carcass
factors related to slaughter hog value. Ind. Agr. Research Sta.
Bul. 567.

wythe, L. D., F. A. Orts and G. T. King. 1961. Bonewmuscle relationship
in beef carcasses. J. An. Sci. 20:3.

Zobrisky, S. E.,‘W. G. Moody and H. D. Naumann. 1960. Hem equivalents
as an index of carcass value. J. An. Sci. 19:1244.

Zobrisky, S. E., Brady, D. E., J. F. Lasley and L. A. Weaver. 1959.
Significant relationship in pork carcass evaluation. 1. Lean cuts
and total lean as a criteria for live hog value. J. An. Sci. 18:420.

Zobrisky, S. E., D. E. Brady, J. F. Lasley and L. A. Weaver. 1959. Sig-
nificant relationships in pork carcass evaluation. IV. Loin equiva-
lents as a criterion for live hog values. J. An. Sci. 18:594.

Zobrisky, S. E., H. D. Naumann, J. F. Lasley, D. E. Brady and A. M. Mullins.
1958. Physical composition of swine during growth and fattening.
Univ. of Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 672.

APPENDIX

-50-

 

 

 

Appendix I. Barrows - Carcass Data
Average Length of chine bone
Tattoo Number backfat 3rd rib 7th rib 10th rib last rib

~ ems cms cms cms
X70-9, E18 1 3.40 9.3 6.8 4.8 3.5
X70-10, E36 2 3.65 8.8 7.5 5.5 3.7
X74-8, E16 3 3.35 7.1 5.5 3.9 3.6
X76-6, E25 4 3.13 9.2 5.4 3.6 3.3
X76-11, E26 5 4.00 7.5 5.9 4.3 3.2
X76-7, E26 6 3.66 8.6 5.8 3.9 3.4
X96-5, 26E 7 2.95 9.2 7.1 4.5 3.9
X98-4, 05E 8 3.30 8.8 6.8 4.6 4.0
Y19-8, E18 9 4.00 8.5 6.9 5.0 3.1
Y21-8, E25 10 3.20 8.5 5.6 4.1 2.9
Y22-6, E08 11 4.16 9.0 6.8 4.8 2.7
Y23-9, E16 12 3.80 8.5 7.0 4.5 3.3
Y24-11, E17 13 3.90 9.2 7.5 4.5 3.7
Y26-11, E35 14 4.80 8.3 6.1 4.6 3.1
A, 05E 15 3.98 8.2 4.8 3.6 2.9
C, 07E 16 3.15 8.8 6.8 3.9 3.4
D, 08E 17 2.65 9.4 6.3 3.9 3.6
G, 16E 18 3.55 8.9 6.3 4.5 3.5
H, 17E 19 4.78 8.1 5.4 4.4 3.3
I, 18E 20 3.28 9.0 6.2 4.1 3.8
Mean 3.64 8.6 6.3 4.4 3.4

 

-51-

Appendix I. Barrows - Carcass Data (continued)

 

 

 

 

Depth of loin Weight of Area of
3rd 7th 10th Last right longissimus dorsi
Number rib rib rib rib trimmed loin 10th rib Last rib

cms cms cms cms kgs sq. ems sq. ems

1 5.1 7.9 8.4 11.1 5.81 25.81 27.29
2 3.9 8.9 8.8 10.8 5.40 19.94 22.13
3 4.9 7.6 8.8 11.5 5.22 22.58 23.80
4 3.5 5.8 6.7 10.5 5.40 21.36 23.10
5 4.1 6.6 7.2 10.1 5.44 21.94 24.07
6 4.7 7.2 7.7 10.2 5.67 24.52 24.07
7 4.8 8.1 8.3 10.4 5.90 26.78 28.39
8 4.3 6.9 8.4 10.0 5.85 28.32 26.39
9 4.7 8.6 9.6 12.2 5.08 22.19 24.32
10 3.6 7.7 9.2 13.0 4.58 19.16 23.36
11 4.0 6.7 7.6 8 .8 5.62 20.13 25.16
12 4.7 7.4 8.1 11.4 5.62 23.29 23.23
13 4.0 7.4 8.7 11.5 5.58 24.58 28.64
14 5.3 7.5 8.4 12.3 5.03 22.65 23.87
15 5.3 7.1 9.0 10.3 4.04 16.39 16.19
16 4.2 6.8 8.0 10.4 4.57 22.84 23.87
17 5.3 8.6 9.3 11.6 4.72 22.64 24.39
18 4.9 8.0 9.9 11.8 5.03 19.87 25.74
19 4.8 7.4 7.6 10.5 4.85 18.78 19.94
20 5.3 7.0 8.4 10.5 4.85 22.26 22.52
Mean 4.6 7.5 8.4 10.9 5.22 22.3 24.02

 

-52-

Appendix I. Barrows - Carcass Data (continued)

 

 

 

 

Areas of
Left ham separation values - longitudinal section
Number Fat Lean Bone Skin Total Lean Fat
kgs kgs kgs kgs sq.oms sq.cms sq.cms
l 2.40 4.13 .69 .28 369.44 254.53 82.71
2 2.54 3.67 .66 .27 288.15 181.04 81.23
3 2.81 3.86 .58 .23 262.82 158.53 87.88
4 2.22 3.67 .68 .33 286.47 196.14 63.94
5 2.72 3.45 .67 .33 315.51 178.14 195‘55
6 2.68 3.95 .64 .30 258.98 157.69 88.52
7 2.04 4.54 .69 .27 324.02 236.21 64.20
8 2.72 4.49 .73 .32 367.25 238.14 92.46
9 2.45 4.17 .59 .35 351.83 245.11 72.33
10 1.95 3.86 .58 .21 239.24 167.49 63.94
11 2.54 4.13 .62 .31 324.28 199.24 95.04
12 2.63 4.22 .68 .23 288.08 173.95 86.91
13 2.09 4.26 .64 .31 299.89 213.11 69.42
14 2.72 3.90 .60 .20 264.60 156.78 90.78
15 2.30 3.45 .54 .31 367.83 214.92 107.62
16 2.13 3.58 .64 .25 307.76 205.95 71.68
17 3.08 4.17 .74 .40 383.96 244.85 85.81
18 3.49 4.26 .68 .36 349.05 221.37 90.13
19 3.13 3.49 .62 .37 313.44 176.85 113.88
20 2.95 4.54 .61 .32 295.50 192.85 76.97
Mean 2.58 3.99 .64 .30 312.9 200.64 84.61

 

-53-

Barrows - Carcass Data (pontinued)
Linear measurements of pegpendiculars on longitudinal section

A endix I.

 

25 cms

Total

20 cms

Total

CHIS

15 cms

Total

10 cms

 

Lean
cms

 

Lean

CHIS

 

Lean

 

Lean
cms

 

Total

Number

 

cms

cms

CHIS

cms

nW5r60201725152hh7—Io58622
0...... .

SAHAw8455_752.9288I453/+
O O O O...

01411923392110323121
11111 111 1111111111

1
lad—l6 08855001382r6or6063r6o
ooOooo ooo
992018120o919980o0h00888
111 1

5398809063677360o1898
co... co...
0o131102420o20102220o10
11111111111111111111

r6o0100JAh9W2408/60—lo307236
o o o o

O
L79986998896-[cr6088hqlo-Io6

[4.3/459(00925/41396529155
O O...

99101802091999009908
111 111 .I.

511669-[0935539898/4792

3455336655453345545/4u

J2J51470o0-ugl4555824237

66776579L676567~I¢6685

1234567890123 45 567890
111111 111.. 2

4.9 10.1 7.9 11.7 9.9 12.0 8.8

6.9

Mean

 

-54-

 

 

 

 

égpendix I. Barrows - Carcass Data (continueg)

Length of long axis ‘Bight ham separation values
Number fi_g£ longitudinal section Fat Lean Bone Skin
cms kgs kgs kgs kgs

1 35.3 1.77 3.67 .68 .31

2 35.6 2.63 3.63 .70 .29

3 36.8 2.45 3.86 .60 .26

4 35.3 1.86 3.49 .65 .32

5 36.1 2.36 3.76 .46 .21

6 36.8 2.31 3.72 .62 .35

7 35.6 2.09 4.81 .67 .31

8 36.1 2.68 4.58 .72 .33

9 37.3 2.63 4.17 .63 .32

10 33.0 1.81 3.54 .67 .25
11 35.7 2.45 4.22 .65 .33
12 36.8 2.54 3.99 .69 .31
13 38.3 2.13 4.40 .58 .21
14 35.7 2.04 4.22 .59 .30
15 36.4 2.68 3.36 .56 .32
16 34.8 2.18 3.54 .62 .25
17 40.4 2.95 4.31 .72 .38
18 39.7 2.81 3.90 .65 .32
19 35.2 2.99 3.36 .63 .36
20 39.0 2.72 4.49 .67 .35
Mean 36.5 2.40 3.95 .67 .30

 

-55-

Barrows - Carcass Data ficontinued)
Linear measurements of
axes on cross section

Append ix 1.

Areas of cross section

 

 

 

Width axis Thickness axis Total Fat lateral

‘Egmper Total Lean Total Lean lean to thick. axis
cms cms cms cms sq.cms sq.cms
1 25.4 22.3 17.2 15.3 246.14 52.00
2 23.5 20.5 17.6 15.4 228.40 36.91
3 24.0 20.8 17.9 16.0 235.89 61.42
4 23.2 20.5 16.4 14.8 214.21 43.62
5 23.5 19.3 16.6 14.3 203.50 55.94
6 22.6 19.1 16.7 15.0 211.88 49.68
7 24.8 22.8 17.6 16.2 262.47 42.13
8 24.5 21.5 18.4 16.6 253.50 . 55.81
9 24.6 20.9 17.7 15.4 241.30 62.46
10 23.9 20.9 16.3 14.7 214.20 46.84
11 25.5 21.4 17.5 15.2 237.37 64.97
12 24.0 20.5 17.6 15.7 237.63 57.55
13 24.6 21.7 17.8 16.1 249.18 54.78
14 23.7 21.2 18.3 15.9 240.01 64.58
15 23.6 19.9 15.4 13.4 190.59 50.45
16 23.2 20.1 16.6 15.5 215.24 44.45
17 26.1 21.7 16.9 15.2 230.08 52.52
18 23.7 20.0 17.2 15.2 215.24 56.46
19 25.0 21.1 15.7 13.8 201.11 61.81
20 25.8 22.3 16.7 15.0 233.76 63.23
Mean 24.3 20.9 17.1 15.2 228.09 53.89

 

Appendix II.

-56-

Gilts - Carcass Data

 

 

 

Average Length of chine bone
Tattoo Number backfat 3rd rib 7th rib 10th rib Last rib

cms cms cms cms cms
X36-2, 28E 21 4.28 8.2 6.2 4.4 3.5
X70-1, E28 22 3.25 8.5 5.4 4.2 3.5
X70-3, E29 23 2.86 8.3 7.0 4.1 3.6
X70-5, E17 24 3.25 8.7 6.0 4.8 3.5
X98-1, 19E 25 3.28 8.5 6.5 4.0 4.0
Y18-4, E07 26 3.03 9.6 6.5 4.5 3.2
Y16-6, E27 27 2.65 8.8 6.8 4.6 3.5
Y21-2, E06 28 3.03 9.0 6.9 4.8 3.3
Y21-4, E15 29 2.76 9.0 6.8 3.5 3.1
Y23-2, E19 30 3.65 9.6 6.6 4.8 3.4
Y23-4, E19 31 4.23 8.9 6.8 4.7 3.0
Y26-1, E16 32 3.86 8.7 6.5 4.2 3.2
Y26-3, E09 33 4.03 9.0 6.4 4.6 3.4
Y26-5, E05 34 2.86 7.8 6.2 3.8 3.0
Y31-4, 16E 35 3.70 8.4 7.4 5.1 3.3
Y38-2, 08E 36 4.10 8.9 7.2 4.6 3.3
Y40-1, 09E 37 3.95 8.9 6.1 3.9 3.2
B, 06E 38 2.80 8.9 5.7 4.3 3.7
E, 09E 39 3.60 8.9 5.8 3.7 3.4
F, 15E 40 2.95 7.6 4.9 3.6 3.0
Mean 3.41 8.7 6.4 4.3 3.4

 

-57-

Appendix II. Gilts - Carcass Data (continued)

 

 

 

 

Depth of loin WEight of Area of
3rd 7th 10th Last right longissimus dorsi
Number rib rib rib rib trimmed loin 10th rib Last rib

cms cms cms cms kgs sq. cms sq. mms

21 4.7 7.9 8.4 10.5 6.12 27.74 27.74
22 4.4 8.2 9.8 11.0 6.17 28.39 29.94
23 4.1 7.9 8.6 11.4 6.35 26.90 29.42
24 4.3 7.2 7.0 10.2 5.94 26.65 27.10
25 4.5 8.6 8.6 10.8 6.21 31.61 31.94
26 4.5 7.9 8.6 11.0 6.12 29.16 27.10
27 4.8 7.9 8.9 11.8 6.03 27.55 31.68
28 4.5 7.2 7.7 10.0 6.31 26.13 27.10
29 4.5 7.4 7.6 10.7 5.62 28.26 28.52
30 4.5 7.4 7.6 11.8 5.58 29.23 28.77
31 4.0 6.3 8.0 10.1 5.44 21.94 23.61
32 3.8 6.2 6.7 9.1 6.08 28.20 32.26
33 3.4 6.4 7.1 9.4 5.67 23.55 22.71
34 4.0 6.1 7.1 10.0 5.26 24.90 23.29
35 5.1 8.6 9.2 10.4 6.08 26.90 24.45
36 4.7 7.2 8.0 10.0 5.81 25.42 25.36
37 4.3 7.3 7.8 10.2 6.03 25.23 26.84
38 6.3 8.5 9.8 11.4 5.35 23.16 25.23
39 4.1 7.2 7.9 8.5 5.13 18.26 19.36
40 4.7 7.2 8.1 10.7 4.58 20.58 20.32
Mean 4.5 7.4 8.1 10.5 5.79 25.99 26.64

 

Appendix II.

-53-

Gilts - Carcass Data (continued)

 

 

 

 

Areas of
Left ham separation values longitudinal section
Number Fat Lean Bone Skin Total Lean Fat

kgs kgs kgs kgs sq.cms sq.cms sq.cms
21 2.59 4.13 .72 .26 347.70 227.17 93.04
22 2.45 5.26 .66 .32 331.37 221.63 85.68
23 2.27 5.13 .71 .34 372.80 237.89 72.65
24 2.49 4.58 .60 .35 299.50 216.01 64.00
25 2.49 4.58 .64 .33 299.37 208.14 78.78
26 2.72 5.31 .68 .30 368.15 264.40 77.94
27 2.13 4.72 .73 .25 340.34 243.05 46.45
28 2.27 4.49 .66 .27 336.47 222.14 70.00
29 2.04 4.49 .65 .29 303.18 213.88 66.58
30 2.72 4.94 .75 .31 393.31 221.24 94.20
31 3.08 4.13 .59 .29 323.70 204.40 99.88
32 2.18 4.76 .67 .30 332.92 233.89 71.75
33 2.54 4.80 .64 .29 285.82 192.91 75.17
34 1.68 3.99 .62 .30 303.70 203.43 61.55
35 2.72 4.49 .69 .29 343.83 241.56 68.00
36 2.45 4.45 .64 .31 362.22 244.34 83.36
37 2.40 4.63 .71 .20 369.05 236.21 95.61
38 2.29 3.99 .63 .25 341.63 207.93 82.00
39 2.45 3.45 .58 .33 322.92 207.24 79.17
40 2.18 3.86 .66 .36 286.15 193.95 75.17

‘Mean 2.41 4.51 .66 .30 333.21 222.07 77.05

 

 

-59-

Gilts - Carcass Data (continued)

Appendix II.

Linear measurements ofigperpendiculars on longitudinal section

 

25 cms

Total

20 cms

Total

cms

15 cms

Total

10 cms

 

Lean

cms

Lean
cms

Lean
cms

Lean

Total

Number

 

CHIS

CHIS

cms

CHIS

5224078430.4h5

.00...I.—.7 ..0.
910971 . .900898800009m88

3.7.44910.13752252438.57.
O 0.0 0

3.14013.5.3.1423L233.3.2.20.

11111111111111111111

5 3
291.9400660/N1126.513
...6. ...0. ..09...

87m. 892970998oo78 887

3610.5972192285516960

..... . .

ugn/m80.003092119100110.0.9
1 1111 111 111111

0.6834238794558rm986-J0.
......0.. .

54636684476rnw56h—u5fiu6rnw4m

J110821177123J23100/hw3
.00. .00..

-/.68/47-/.0.65987r6.-/.6~/.88—/.6

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

5.8 10.8 8.8 12.7 11.0 12.7

7.3

Mean

 

Appendix II.

-60-

Gilts - Carcass Data (continued)

 

Length of long axis

Right ham separation values

 

Number of longitudinal section Fat Lean Bone Skin
cms kgs kgs kgs kgs
21 35.8 2.18 4.17 .73 .25
22 39.4 2.31 5.22 .68 .34
23 36.5 2.36 4.90 .74 .33
24 40.2 2.45 4.45 .66 .35
25 36.1 2.27 4.54 .61 .32
26 39.2 2.54 5.26 .72 .31
27 34.0 1.86 4.63 .76 .25
28 37.0 2.31 4.96 .77 .27
29 39.0 1.86 4.67 .71 .31
30 35.6 2.49 4.94 .67 .34
31 37.0 2.86 3.95 .64 .33
32 36.7 2.27 4.72 .68 .33
33 36.7 2.13 4.08 .64 .34
34 34.6 1.77 3.90 .64 .26
35 38.5 2.68 4.49 .68 .29
36 36.9 2.27 4.49 .64 .29
37 36.7 2.18 4.40 .68 .18
38 35.3 2.18 3.90 .59 .27
39 35.5 2.22 3.58 .62 .33
40 37.0 2.04 3.95 .64 .36
Mean 36.9 2.26 4.46 .68 .30

 

-61-

Appendix II. Gilts - Carcass Data (continued)

 

Linear measurements of

axes on cross section Areas of cross section

 

 

 

Width axis Thickness axis Total Fat lateral
Number Total Lean Total Lean lean to thick. axis

cms cms cms cms sq.cms sq.cms

21 25.0 21.7 16.8 15.4 238.72 48.84
22 25.4 22.3 18.1 16.4 270.53 52.78
23 25.9 23.4 18.3 16.8 284.79 51.49
24 25.9 22.1 17.6 15.9 250.53 54.13
25 26.4 22.9 17.5 16.0 264.27 58.00
26 26.5 23.2 18.0 16.6 279.63 50.45
27 26.4 23.2 17.6 16.2 275.89 47.87
28 26.9 23.3 17.7 16.1 262.02 53.10
29 24.9 22.6 17.0 15.7 252.40 46.07
30 27.4 23.1 18.5 16.9 280.92 66.26
31 26.3 22.2 17.6 15.6 239.24 66.07
32 25.7 23.1 17.8 16.1 266.08 52.26
33 23.8 21.2 17.1 15.3 226.72 54.20
34 24.3 21.2 16.0 14.6 225.50 41.94
35 27.2 22.4 17.2 15.3 253.18 - 62.07
36 24.7 21.2 17.7 16.0 244.66 51.29
37 24.4 21.3 17.3 15.8 240.98 47.74
38 23.5 20.9 16.7 15.4 221.37 44.07
39 24.2 20.0 16.9 14.4 206.01 58.39
40 22.3 19.5 16.6 14.8 215.69 38.52
‘Mean 25.4 22.0 17.4 15.8 249.96 52.28

 

l‘li'cvlli

 

 

.Illll' Ill (1‘

"111711111111131101111115