THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 6-50.7 IfU \-3-*2-3 ~T^- 3 < "*V&e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 322 SWINE TYPE STUDIES II. TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK BY SLEETER BULL AND J. H. LONGWELL URBANA, ILLINOIS, MAY, 1929 CONTENTS (PART II) PAGE INTRODUCTION 397 FIRST EXPERIMENT : COMPARISON OF CHUFFY, INTERMEDIATE, AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED TO 225-POUND WEIGHTS 401 Dressing Percentages 401 Carcass Measurements 401 Cutting Test 405 Physical Composition of Cuts 410 Physical Composition of Carcasses 416 SECOND EXPERIMENT: COMPARISON OF HAND-FED AND SELF- FED HOGS OF ALL TYPES SLAUGHTERED AT THREE WEIGHTS 418 Dressing Percentages 418 Carcass Measurements 420 Cutting Test 431 Physical Composition of Cuts 437 Physical Composition of Carcasses 451 Grading of Carcasses 455 Grading of Bellies . . 459 Grading of the Other Cuts 464 THIRD EXPERIMENT: COMPARISON OF INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED AND SELF-FED TO 225-POUND WEIGHTS 465 Dressing Percentages 465 Carcass Measurements 465 Cutting Test 467 Physical Composition of Cuts 467 Physical Composition of Carcasses 467 Grading of Carcasses 485 Grading of Cuts 485 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . 488 series of bulletins on SWINE TYPE STUDIES * includes the following: I. TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO RATE AND ECON- OMY OF GAIN (Bulletin 321). II. TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK (Bulletin 322). III. THE ENERGY AND PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF GROWING SWINE AND THE UTILIZATION OF FEED ENERGY IN GROWTH (Bulletin 323) . TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK BY SLEETER BULL AND J. H. LONGWELH INTRODUCTION The question of type has been of paramount importance in the minds of progressive hog breeders for many years. In the earlier part of the present century the prevailing type of lard hog was a small, broad, short, low-set, blocky animal which had plenty of quality, matured early and supplied plenty of lard.. The carcass produced by this Chuff y type is shown in Fig. 14. This type lacked constitution and prolificacy. Constructive breeders soon realized the imperfections of the Chuffy type and began to breed for greater height, length, and size. In a few years many breeders were producing a type with ex- treme length, height, and size, which had very long legs and neck, \\:is very narrow, and lacked quality generally. A typical carcass of this Rangy type is shown in Fig. 14. In the meantime a marked change took place in the market de- mands for pork. The pork consumer demanded smaller and leaner chops, hams, and breakfast bacon. In order to supply this demand, the packer trimmed more and more fat from the cuts, thereby in- creasing the lard yield from the carcass. In the meantime the price of lard decreased to the point where the trimming represented a dis- tinct financial loss that had to be borne by the more popular cuts of the carcass. These points were brought out forcibly in an address delivered by Mr. Oscar Mayer, President of the Institute of American Meat Packers, before the National Live Stock Producers in January, 1928. Mr. Mayer, in part, said : "A problem of vital interest relates to the production of the type of animal that is best suited to the demand of consumers. It obviously is wasteful to pro- duce an animal which does not meet fully the market demand. Let us examine the status of the contemporary American hog and the lard he produces. ' ' The development of the hydrogenation process has permitted the production in enormous quantities of vegetable substitutes for animal fats, chiefly lard. These vegetable fats such as cottonseed oil, cocoanut oil, palm oil, olive oil, soybean oil, etc. are produced cheaply, and some are shipped in increasing volume in world commerce. "As a consequence of the development of these cheaper substitutes, lard and fats accumulate faster than they sell. The price of lard is always affected by the supply of the vegetable substitutes. For protracted periods last year, for ex- ample, loose lard sold under the price of live hogs. 1 SLEETER BULL, Associate Chief in Meats, and J. H. LONGWELL, formerly Associate in Animal Husbandry. 397 398 Bn.i.KTix No. "-2- (Mo,,, ix S\VIN T K AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 399 FIGS. 1 TO 5. REPRESENTATIVE PIGS OF EACH TYIE AT 225 POUNDS The /' in the second experiment, while the Very Eangn pig was No. 1 in the self- fed group the same year. Note the pro- gressive change in length of leg, height of hack, and length of body. A lower degree of finish was typical of the more rangy pigs at this weight. 400 BULLETIN No. 322 "Along with the effect of the substitutes, consider the unwillingness of the public to eat fat attached to lean meat. The packing industry is each year re- moving more and more fat from the pork cuts it offers the public, putting this fat into the lard tank. Yet women, children, and even men fastidiously remove overy remaining vestige of fat from a piece of boiled or broiled ham or from a pork chop. ' ' The increase in sedentary work and the diminution of hard labor may have something to do with this aversion to fat, or it may be due to the universal yearn- ing for a more supple contour. At any rate lean meat is the style, and in my opinion this is due for no early change. "As a consequence it behooves the livestock and meat industry to conform to these mandates, just as it behooves the clothing manufacturers and the shoe manufacturers to heed changes in styles of dress and footwear. "Unquestionably the current marketing of lard and fats constitute a prob- lem for the packing industry. Because of this situation, the lean meats must bring higher prices. If the lean meats could be produced without the present undue accompaniment of fat. they could be sold more cheaply and would be con- sumed more liberally since tin-re an- few substitutes in the eyes of the consumer for good, lean meat.' 7 In order to produce pork outs of the proper size and quality, with- out an excess of fat, the producer must supply a ho? which is finished but not overdone at a weight, of around 22o pounds; which is firm and hard; and which yields a maximum of the high-priced cuts, that is, loin, bacon, and ham. Thus it seemed pertinent to determine which of the different typos of lard hogs now in existence best filled the requirements of both pro- ducer and consumer. A series of investigations designed to throw light on the question was therefore begun at the Illinois Station in the summer of 1922. The work was continued in the fall of 1923, and concluded in the summer of 1925. In these experiments Poland China pigs of the following types were used : T< /;/ Clinjfy. These were extremely short-bodied, low-set thick animals of a type that is capable of being fattened at an early age. tho never attaining an extremely large size (Fig. 1) . Perfection in this type was exemplified by the famous old boar. Chief Perfection 2d. Cltnffy. The Chuffy pigs were the same general type of animals as the Very Chuffy, tho they were much less extreme and showed con- siderably more size and growthiness. (Fig. 2) Intermediate. The Intermediate pigs were longer both in body and in legs and lacked the thickness of back and the early fleshing quali- ties of the Very Chuffy and Chuffy types. (Fig. 3) Rangy. The Rangy pigs showed more length of body and leg, were leaner and more growthy, showed a stronger arch to their backs, and carried somewhat more bone than piars of the types described above. (Fig. 4) Very Rangy. Tho more extreme in length and ranginess, the Very Rangy pigs were the same general type as the Rangy, (Fig. 5) 1989] T\ IM-. IN SWIM-. AS KI.I.ATH- ITY OK POUK 401 The dat;i assembled in this publication \vill he of particular inter- est to producers since it records the jinnies of pork obtained from the various types of hog.s. and indicates the actual market values of the types. For details concerning the care and feeding of the pigs up to time of slaughter, the reader is referred to Bulletin 321 of this Sta- tion, "Type in Swine, as Related to Rate and Economy of Gain." FIRST EXPERIMENT COMPARISON OF CHUFFY, INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED TO 225-POUND WEIGHTS In the experiment of the first year (1922-23) Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy types of hogs were slaughtered when they reached indi- vidual weights approximating 225 pounds. Fifteen hogs of each type were taken off feed the day before slaughter and the live weights taken immediately before they were killed. The hogs were dressed ' ' shipper style." that is, with head on, leaf in, and hams not faced. However, they were split down the center of the back bone while still warm. Both halves of the warm carcass were weighed and were then held in the cooler at 32 to 38 F. for several days, after which the right halves were placed in the sharp freezer at 10 to 20 F., where they were held until all hogs had been slaughtered. DRESSING PERCENTAGES In order to obviate the differences in the amounts of shrinkage due to varying lengths of time in the freezer, the dressing percentages were calculated on the basis of the warm carcass weights shrunk 2.6 percent. The live weight at slaughter, the warm carcass weight, the calculated cold carcass weight, and the dressing percentage of each hog are shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences in dressing percentage be- tween lots, the average of the Chuffy type being 76.9 percent, as com- pared with 77.6 percent for the Intermediate type and 77.4 percent for the Rang}' type ( Table 1 ) . CARCASS MEASUREMENTS A number of measurements were made on the different carcasses. While the authors were unable to devise any system which was abso- lutely accurate, yet it was found after some practice that certain measurements could be made with a reasonable degree of accuracy (Fig. 6). Some idea of the variations in the different types of carcasses may be had from Fig. 8. All photographs were taken with the same camera and at the same distance from the carcass. 432 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, The principal differences in the measurements of the carcasses from the three types of hogs were in length (Table 2). While the TABLE 1. LIVE WEIGHTS, WARM AND COLD CARCASS WEIGHTS, AND DRESSING PERCENTAGE? OF HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 225- POUND WEIGHTS: FIRST EXPERIMENT Hog No. Live weight Warm carcass weight Total cold weight 1 Dressin? percentage 2 Right half Left half Total Chuffy 1 Ibs. 230 225 218 220 225 223 224 223 223 228 229 220 232 231 217 Ibs. 92.1 91.0 89.4 85.5 91.8 88.0 88.8 8.5.4 88.3 88.5 87.6 84.7 90.5 90.6 81.6 Rw. 91.0 91.0 85.9 85.7 88.6 88.6 92.1 87.9 89.8 91). 1 90.3 88.0 92. 1 93.6 81.1 ib<. 183.1 182.0 175.3 171.2 1ST. 5 176.6 178.8 173.2 178.1 179.0 178.0 172.7 182.6 184.2 165.7 Ibs. 178.3 177.3 170.8 166.8 175.8 172.1 174.2 168.7 173.4 174.3 173.3 168.2 177.8 179.4 161.4 pet . 77.5 78.8 78.3 75.8 78.1 77.2 77.7 75.7 77.8 76.5 75.7 76.5 76.6 77.7 74.4 76.9 2 3. . . 4 5 16 . 7. . . 8 9 10 18 12. 17 19 15 Average Intermediate 4 221 89 7 01 180 7 176 78 6 9 221 91 4 86 177 4 172.8 78.2 16 . 230 91 3 92.0 1 83 . 3 178.5 77.6 11. . 230 91 94.0 185.0 180.2 78.3 5 230 90 9 90 6 181 6 176.8 76.9 2 230 89 9 92 9 182 9 178.1 77.4 8 222 87 2 90 1 177.2 172.6 77.7 6. . 226 89 6 91 2 180.9 176.2 78.0 12. . . 226 86 3 87 3 173.7 169.1 74.8 13 230 88 6 89.6 178.2 173.6 75.5 15 230 85 3 94 2 179 5 174 9 76.0 10 219 85 5 91 1 176 6 172 78.5 19. . 218 84 8 90 9 175 7 171.2 78.5 7. . . . 225 89 4 91 9 181 3 176.6 78.5 18 224 91 8 91 9 183.7 178.9 79.9 Average 77.6 Rangy 20. . . 221 89 6 89 178.6 173.9 78.7 16 225 92.9 91.2 184.1 179.3 79.7 12 223 88 5 88 2 176 6 172.1 77.2 5 229 90 2 90 3 180 5 175.8 76.8 14 224 85 7 93 3 179.0 174.4 77.8 1 219 88 2 90 3 178.5 173.9 79.4 2 223 92.9 87.2 180.1 175.4 78.6 19 219 90 5 87 7 178 2 173.5 79.2 7 . 236 94 2 92 4 186.6 181.8 77.0 4 232 91 8 90 9 182.7 177.9 76.7 9 222 85.7 88.2 173.9 169.4 76.3 3 226 81 3 92 7 174 169.5 75.0 15. . 228 89 3 90 4 179.7 175.0 76.7 G 230 87 2 90 7 177.9 173.3 75.3 18 224 83.9 91.0 174.9 170.3 76.0 Average. . . 77.4 'Equals 2. 6 percent shrinkage of total warm carcass weight. 2 Expressed in percentage of live weight. W29] TYPI IN S \VINK AS KKLATKD TO QUALITY OF PORK 403 Ratify can-asses were longer than the Intermediate and the ('huffy, this greater length was due to a longer head and neck and to longer legs. T \HI.K 2. CARCA-- Mi-: \-i IICMI.NTS OK Hoes H.\\i>-l-'i-:i> I \m\ IDUAUA IN Dm LOT, 22")- POUND WKICHTS: FIRST KXI-KKIMI 1-AprcsM'd in inches) Snout First Circum- Snout to to first thoracic H-bone to D.-ptli of Depth of ference of Hog No. rear toe thoracic vert, to rear too chest fat back fore shank vert. H-bone a b n c c d d b t- 19 Chuffy 1 ........ 65 5 17 27.5 21.5 15 1.9 f> 1 2 65 5 16.5 27.5 22.5 13.5 1.7 5 9 3 66 16.5 27.5 23 14.5 1.9 5.6 4 68 17 28 24 14 1.5 5.7 5 64 17 26 22 1 4 . .1 1.9 5.5 7 62 5 16 27 21.5 11 1.7 6 8 64 17 27 22 14 2.5 5.7 9 67 16.5 27.5 23.5 13.5 1.6 6. 1 10 67 18 27 23 15 1.7 6.2 12 67 18.5 27.5 L' 1 . .-> 14.5 1.9 5.9 15 17 27 23 ii.:, 2.0 5.7 If> BO 17 27.5 2o . 5 14 1.9 5.7 17 09 17 5 29 21 14.5 1.5 6.0 IS 67.5 16.5 28.5 21. r, 1 t 1.9 6.2 19 67 17 28.5 23.5 14 1.9 6.3 Average 66 17 27.5 22.7 14 1.8 5.8 Intermediate 2 67 16.fi 29 22.5 11.7 2. 1 5.7 4 68 16 30 23.5 11. 1 1.6 5.8 5 69 17.0 28 23.5 12.2 1.7 6.1 6 66.5 16 28 23 11. 1 1.9 5 7 7 16.5 27.5 23 11.9 2.0 5.7 8 17 28 22 11.3 1.7 5.6 9 66.5 17 28 22.5 11.2 1.7 5.8 10 .... 87 17.5 28.5 23 11.9 2.2 5.8 11 67 16.5 _".i.. -, L'.' 12.3 1.7 6.2 12 66 17 28.5 23 11.9 1.9 5.7 13 67 17.5 29 2-2. 11.6 1.7 5.9 15 66 I7.fi 28 23 11.5 1.5 6.0 16 67.5 17 28 23.5 11.6 1 6 5 8 18 68.5 17 28.5 23 . 5 10.5 1 .7 5.8 19 16.8 29 22.5 10.6 1.9 5 9 Average 67 17 28.5 22.8 11.5 1.8 5.8 Rangy 1 . . 70 18 28 2 1 . 11.2 1.5 6. 1 2 70 18 29 21 11.4 1.7 6.1 3 72 18.5 29.o 24.5 11.2 1.5 5 7 4 73.5 19 30.5 26 12 1.7 6.1 5 68 18 28 24.5 12.6 1.5 6.3 6 70.5 18.5 28 25 5 12 2 1 5 6 2 7 69 . 5 17..", 28.5 25 12.6 1.4 6.0 9 71 18.5 28.5 24.5 11.1 1.4 6. 1 12 67.5 17.5 28.5 21 11.2 1.9 6.1 14 16 26.5 24.5 12.0 1 6 6 15 69 18 28 25 12 7 1.2 6.2 16 69.5 18 29 23.5 11.2 2.0 5.7 18 72.5 19 27 24 11.6 1.5 6.1 19 68 17.5 28.5 23.5 12.0 1.6 5.6 20 69 17 29.5 23.5 11.2 1.5 6.1 Average 70 18 28.5 24.4 11.8 1.6 6.0 404 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, Length of carcass (from snout to rear toe: a-b) did not vary greatly between the Chuffy and Intermediate types; however, the average length of the Rangy Carcasses was 3 inches greater than the average of the Intermediate type. There was some overlapping of individuals of the two lots. Length of head and neck (from snout to the first thoracic vertebra : a-c) shows no difference between the Chuffy and Intermediate types. The Rang}- carcasses, however, were 1 inch longer in this respect than the 1 iiicrmediate carcasses. Again there was considerable overlapping be- tween the individuals of the two types. l.i nfl i - r O ""^ I s * e - - - - _ t- t- x ~ r~ t^ r** ^c *~ - :- - ~ r _ - - -- _ K ^ (. :- s - / 10 * ** c t~ x r r~ * * *" O t^- X X C -) r x - x re -^ ~. X ijj r. o - r. r: ~ t- ~- ?, ~ 0! - - - - e r^ Le <--. >-: - c x c x - - j ^, t ~- T re re * e w i-e e) re re re CO * .* - - :i re c x re r- - - CO x x x r~ x x x c x r y r 0> e M C - ei N us x o ce - - x -^ - C: T}< CJ Avcnu'i 19H9] TYPE IN SNVINK AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 409 - -" 2 - - - 8 1 a 6 a 5 o 2: C n H H - pp W oo oo oo OSC3O1OC5 QO A op CO O 00 9 9 CSC5OOC-. COOS 00t>. 00 t-- vr : : Lon... -.*. . 6.3 14.3 13.5 - . 6.9 14.0 12.1 - 1.9 1.9 Head - - ' - I 2.0 1 1.3 1.4 Total trim. 8.9 _ 10.3 2.8 Total. 99.2 - 9S.S PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS The wholesale cuts were divided as accurately as possible with the knife into lean, fat, skin, and bone. In case of hams, picnics, and bellies the separation was made on the basis of the rough nntrimmed cut, while for all other CUT - - on the trimmed basis. In this con- nection it should be noted that the chance for error in the individual cuts is considerable, owing to the incomplete separation of fat and lean, especially in such cuts as the head and belly. The individual data (Tables 7. 8. and 9) cannot be accepted, therefore as absolutely accurate. The average figures (Table 10) are probably more valuable. Backs. The fat backs from the Rangy hogs contained almost 20 percent more skin than those of the Intermediate hogs, while those of the Chuffy hogs contained about 7 percent less. Differences in their fat content were small. Cl -- A 2S J -* ' 93 58S h c oe L i TYPE i.v SWIXE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 413 t - - 3 - j s f - - - - a - - f : 1 ~ - r - : 1 - -* ; r - - - B r J - i i -', = -= - = - - -! 5 S : Z 8 i u. O - JLt :_ ^5 r t -^ ^ ~ - - . - 5 - r ~ z -~ ^Itl - - . - ; - - X. T Z f 414 .BULLETIN NO. 322 [Ma,/. TABLE 10. AVERAGE PHYS T CAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS FROM HOGS HAND-FED IN- DIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: FIRST EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of weight of cut) Cut ChufTy Inter- mediate Rangy Cut Chuffy Inter- mediate Rangy Fat back Skin 9.0 9.7 11.6 15. lly Lean 43.8 4:{.9 41.8 Fat 90.8 90.2 88.4 Fat 50.2 49.5 50.3 Skin 5.7 6.7 7.7 Skin 10.3 10.6 1 1 . r, ribs Fat 89.1 89.5 87.9 , :.:',. 1 48.8 49.7 Ham Hone 40. C 49.8 49.8 l.i'.'in .... 51.7 53.9 54.4 Bead :il .1; 29.6 1 ' .!i 21.3 20.7 Skin 4.5 4.8 5.2 Fat.. .. 38.0 29.8 27.9 9. 1 9.3 10.2 Skin.. . 12.1 14.7 14.9 .- 28.8 33.6 36.3 Lean 49.2 51.0 Skin. i :. . i 13.6 14.0 Skin 5.8 84.2 86.3 85.2 Bone 10.8 11.3 1 1 . r, NV'-k i 30.9 24.2 83.8 87.3 86.9 68.5 75.5 10.7 Bone 4.8 4.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Loin Lean 10.6 Bone 19.2 18.9 20.9 contained more than S percent more skin and the ('huffy hams 6 per- cent less skin than the Intermediate. The Ranu-y hams in 'general were OOarse, hniu r in the shank, and carried an excessive amount of bone. The Ivaniry hams had almost Id percent more bone than the Intermediate hams. There was little difference in bone between the Intermediate and the ('huffy hams. Four of the liantry hams, from HO-.TS IS, 4, 7. and li. contained 1 1 to 12.8 percent of bone. Only one Intermediate ham had more than 1 ().."> percent bone, that from Hou r 1 I hav'mu' 11.- percent. None of the ('huffy hams had more than 10.5 percent bone. I'n-nics. The picnics contained about the same amount of lean. The ('huffy picnics had 7..") percent more fat than the others. There were practically no differences between the Intermediate and Rangy picnics in amounts of fat, skin, and bone. Since no very close dis- tinctions are made in the commercial grading of picnics, all would probably have graded as No. 1. Bostons. No material differences in physical composition between the Rangy and the Intermediate bostons were evident. The bostons from the Chuffy hogs, however, were almost 45 percent fatter than those from the Intermediate and Rangy types. 1929] TYPE IN SWINE AS BELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 415 Bellies. In their average content of lean and fat there were no significant differences between the bellies of the different types. A study of the individual data reveals some interesting facts. The finish of the Chuffy bellies was not uniform. Three bellies were quite fat, containing 57 to 63 percent, and 3 were rather thin, con- taining 39 to 42 percent of fat. The other 9 bellies were moderately fat, containing from 45.5 to 54.4 percent of fat. The intermediate bellies were quite uniform in finish and all of them were moderately fat, containing from 44.1 to 54.7 percent of fat. One belly of the FIG. 9. BELLIES OF CHUFFY, 1 NTKKMKIHATE, AND KANGY HOGS HAND- FED TO 225 POUNDS The top belly from a Chuffy hog is a little too fat. The middle belly from an Intermediate hog is choice, and the bottom one from a Rangy hog lacks quality. Rangy lot was quite fat, containing 58.1 percent. The other 14 bellies of this lot were only moderately fat, ranging from 43.6 to 55.6 percent fat. In other words, the Intermediate and the Rangy bellies had the more desirable finish. The Rangy bellies were coarse and had a heavy rind. They contained 15 percent more skin than the Intermediate bellies, while the Chuffy bellies contained 15 percent less than the In- termediates. On the whole, the Rangy bellies seemed to lack quality. This point was emphasized by the butchers who did the cutting. Pig. 9 shows typical bellies of all three types Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy. Loins. The loins of the three types contained practically the same amounts of lean. The Chuffy loins contained 7 percent more fat, and the Rangy loins contained 17 percent less fat, than the Intermediate loins. In bone content the Rangy loins were 10 percent higher than the Intermediate loins. The Chuffy and Intermediate loins had prac- tically the same amount of bone. 416 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, Spareribs. The figures on spareribs cannot be regarded as very accurate, owing to the fact that in splitting the hog thru the chest, the butcher goes to one side or the other of the center, leaving a cor- respondingly greater or less amount of breast bone on the ribs. It should be noted that about one-half of the weight of this cut was bone, making it a very expensive cut at ordinary market prices. Heads. The data for the heads are not very accurate, owing to inequalities in splitting. In lean content there were practically no differences between types. In fat content the heads of the Chuff y type were approximately 28 percent higher than the heads of the Intermediate type. The Rangy heads had 6.4 percent less fat than the Intermediate heads. There was practically no difference between the Intermediate and Rangy heads in amount of skin, while the Chuffy had 18 percent less skin. In bone, the Rangy heads were 8 percent higher and the Clmity 14 percent lower than the Intermediate. Feet and Xcck Bones. There were no differences in the composi- tion of the feet of the different types. The neck bones are not a very definite cut, owing to differences in splitting. Amount of Lean. The differences in the average amounts of lean in the carcasses of the three types were insignificant (Table 11). If the percentage of lean is calculated on the basis of the fat-free car- cass, the influence of condition is eliminated and the result is an indi- cation of the amount of natural fleshing. Calculated in this manner the -Chuffy carcasses contained an average of 70.0 percent lean, the Intermediate 69.1, and the Rangy 67.6. In other words the results do not show that the Rang}' type contained more natural flesh than the Chuffy and Intermediate types. The amount of lean in the carcass is of particular importance to the consumer, who usually discriminates against a piece of meat which contains a small proportion of lean. Furthermore, the amount of lean indicates the amount of natural fleshing or muscling of the animal and thus determines to a large extent the nutritive value and the palatability of the meat. It should be borne in mind that a high per- centage of lean may be due to a large amount of muscling in the animal or to a small amount of fat, that is, to undercondition and that lack of finish is accompanied by lack of firmness. Amount of Fat. In fat content the differences between types were small but consistent. The Chuffy carcasses contained 5.4 percent more fat and the Rangy carcasses 6 percent less fat than the carcasses of the Intermediate type. Later investigations have shown us that the carcass of a 225-pound hog must contain at least 37 or 38 percent of fat (as separated with the knife) in order to be sufficiently finished. 1929] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 417 TABLE 11. PHTSICAL COMPOSITION OK CABCASSKB OK Hoes HAND-FED INDIVID- UALLY IN DRY LOT, 225-PouNo WEKJHTS: FIUST EXPERIMENT 1 in piTccntiiL' 98 weight) Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Lean Skin Bone Chuffy 1 49 9 36 8 5 6 11 7 10 44 9 39 o 4 5 117 ' 43.2 39.8 5. 1 11.9 12 37 1 5 3 11 9 ., 43 2 39. 1 4 1 13 6 15 38 8 5 2 13 5 4 47 33 9 5 5 13 6 16 4 3 40 3 5 4 12 o 5 41.8 40.5 5.4 12.3 17 . 44 4 38 6 4 4 12 6 7 45.3 39.1 4.8 10.8 18 41 1 42 5 3 11 6 S 45.9 36.0 5 5 12 7 19 39 9 43 5 12 9 38.5 42.0 6.0 13.4 Average. . 43.4 39.1 5.1 12.4 Intermediate 2 44.6 37.5 5.6 12.3 11 ... 44.8 34.4 6.6 14 1 4 44.7 36.3 5.8 13.2 12 42 5 40 3 4 9 12 3 ' 43.8 36.8 5.6 13.8 13 43 4 37 7 5 6 13 2 6 39 5 5 7 12 1 15 46 3 36 5 3 12 4 7 . 47.3 34.6 5.4 12.7 16 46.4 35 2 5 3 13.0 8 46.4 36.8 5.0 11.8 18 41 9 40 4 5 1 12 6 9 45 2 36.2 5 5 13 19 45 2 36 5 6 1 12 3 10 44.2 37.7 5.2 12.8 Average. . 44.6 37.0 5.5 12.8 Rang}' 1 4^ 4 38 6 5 5 13 5 12 43 37 2 6 1 13 8 2 47.3 33.5 5.6 13.7 14 43 7 37.6 6.4 12.3 3 45 7 34.9 6.6 12 8 15 46 6 32 1 5 4 15.5 4 43.5 32.2 6.9 17.5 16 43.0 38.6 5.1 13.3 5 . . . 44.9 34.6 6.4 14.0 18 40.1 39.4 5.9 14.5 6 43 4 35.4 6.6 14 6 19 48 8 30.7 5.6 14.9 7 48.1 30.0 6.7 15.1 20 45.4 35.2 5.6 13.8 9 47.9 31.0 5.8 15.3 Average. . 44.9 34.7 6.0 14.3 Using 37 percent as the minimum, it is seen that 3 Chuffy hogs, 9 Intermediate hogs, and 10 Rangy hogs were not fat enough. None of the Chuffy and Intermediate carcasses were particularly lacking in condition. Five of the Rangy carcasses were entirely too thin, con- taining only 32 percent or less of fat. It should be noted that 10 of the 15 Rang}- carcasses contained less fat than the average contained in the Intermediate carcasses, while 12 of the Chuffy carcasses contained more fat than the average of the Intermediate carcasses. Judging from results in later experiments, none of the carcasses was too fat for the general trade. The amount of fat is very important as determining the finish or condition of the hog. Pork which is unfinished is soft, flabby, watery. and unpalatable. The bellies are too thin to make a good grade of bacon. Furthermore, lard is an important product of the carcass for which there is a constant demand. On the other hand, pork which is overdone contains more fat than the consumer desires, particularly 418 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, in the bellies and hams and therefore sells at a discount unless lard is high in price. Also, the consumer is quite particular as to the size of the cuts which he buys. While his taste in this matter varies some- what with different seasons of the year, a hog weighing 225 pounds meets his requirements. Hence it is desirable for the producer to supply a hog which is finished, but not overdone at this weight. Amount of Skin. The Chuff y carcasses contained 7.3 percent less skin and the Rangy carcasses .">.."> percent more skin than the Inter- mediate carcasses. The amount of skin is of importance as an indi- cation of the quality and texture of the meat, a heavy, coarse skin usually being associated with coarse, stringy meat. Also, since the skin is inedible, the consumer objects to a tough, heavy rind, particu- larly on bacon and ham. Amount of Bone. The Chuffy carcasses contained practically the same amount of bone, and the Rangy carcasses 12 percent more bone, than the Intermediate carcasses. The amount of bone is of interest both to producer and to consumer. The producer demands that there be enough bone for the hog to be a good "rustler." stand up well on his feet, and carry his back high. The consumer demands as little bone as possible, since it is inedible. In fact, the consumer would have no bone in his meat if such a thing were possible. The ideal, therefore, is to have no more bone than is necessary for the needs of the live hog. SECOND EXPERIMENT COMPARISON OF HAND-FED AND SELF-FED HOGS OF ALL TYPES SLAUGHTERED AT THREE WEIGHTS In the second experiment (1923-24). 6 hogs of the Very Chuffy type. 3 of the Intermediate, and 3 of the Rangy, all hand-fed, were slaughtered at approximately 175 pounds. Two of the Very Chuffy type (hand-fed). 4 of the Intermediate (hand-fed), 5 of the Rangy (hand-fed), and 2 of the Very Rangy (self-fed) were carried to 275 pounds. All the other hogs were slaughtered at 225 pounds. The hogs were taken from the feed lots, fasted overnight and their live weights taken just before slaughter. The procedure here differed from that of the first year only in that the hams were faced. The warm carcass weights were taken and the carcasses placed in the re- frigerator at 32 to 36 F. until they were cut up several days later. DRESSING PERCENTAGES As in the preceding experiment, the dressing percentages were based upon the warm carcass weights shrunk 2.6 percent. The indi- vidual and average dressing percentages are given in Tables 12 and 13. 1929] TYPE ix SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 419 TABLE 12. DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF SELF-FED HOGS, 225-PouND AND 275- POUND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed as percentage of live weight) Chuffy Intermediate Rangy Very Rangy Very Rangy 225-pourd we'ghts 275-pound wei :hts ffo. 4 Ob pet. 81.5 80 7 30s vet. 79.6 79.8 80.1 79.6 78.4 80.1 77.7 79.1 79.0 79.3 2b pet. 79.1 70.5 78.9 78.1 82.1 76.9 74.9 77.6 77.0 76.4 77.8 No. 9b 30b pet. 76.4 78.2 75.2 75.2 77.3 76.5 No. 60b pet. 78.7 77.7 78.2 9s Os 9b Ob lOb 79.8 76.8 79.1 81.2 79.8 78.3 80.7 79.8 33s 30b 90b Os Average 30b 99b Omb . . . 93b Os 60s 20b. . . Ob 30b 99s Average 10s 91s .... Ob Ob 90s Ib. . Q6s 99s 3s Average . Average 20s Average TABLE 13. DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 175-. 225-. AND 275-Pou.ND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed as percentage of live weight) Very Chufly Intermediate Rangy 175-pound weights Hog .Vo. ISb . . pet. 77.4 78.3 79.1 77.5 78.2 80.3 78.5 Hog No. 13b pet. 75.1 74.2 75.8 Jioa ' 14b pet. 75.0 74.7 76.8 75.5 20s 20b 15b.. Average 19b 3s 9s Average 6b 16s Average 225-pound weights lob 80.1 9b 75.6 9a 77.5 lib 80 1 18s 77.0 16b 78.5 17s 77.1 15b 78.0 8b 74.7 19b . 78.6 2b . 79.3 2b 80 lib 77.5 20s 78.7 5b 77.4 Ib 81.8 Average 79.1 Average 78.6 Average 77.5 275-pound weights 5s 80.5 12b 80 8 13b 79.9 8b 81 3 16b 80 8 3b 81.3 17b. .. 80.2 6b 79.8 10s 81 Is 83.0 lOb 80.3 Average 80.9 Average 80.7 Average 80.9 420 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. Of the hogs killed at 175 pounds, all of which were hand-fed, the Very Chuff y dressed sig- nificantly higher than the Intermediate and the Rangy. This is prob- ably explained by the fact that the Very Chuffy hogs were relatively fatter at this weight than the Intermediate and Rangy hogs. No significant differences were revealed between the Intermediate and Rangy hogs killed at this weight. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The average dressing percentages of the hand-fed hogs slaughtered at 225 pounds were as follows: Very Chuffy (3 hogs), 79.1 percent; Intermediate (7 hogs), 78.6 percent; and Rangy (6 hogs), 77.5 percent. However, there is so much individual variation that the differences do not appear significant. Self-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The self-fed hogs slaughtered at 225 pounds gave the following average dressing per- centages: Chuffy type (9 hogs), 79.8 percent; Intermediate type (9 hogs) , 79.3 percent ; Rangy type (10 hogs) , 77.8 percent ; and Very Rangy type (5 hogs), 76.5 percent. From a study of the individual data it is seen that there were practically no differences between the Chuffy and Intermediate hogs in this respect; in fact these two lots were quite similar in appearance, conformation, and condition more so than were those of any other two lots. Neither does the difference between the Intermediate and Rangy lots seem to be significant. Only one of the Very Rangy hogs dressed higher than the lowest of the Intermediate type. Apparently the difference between the Inter- mediate and Very Rangy types is significant, while that between the Rangy and Very Rangy is not. Hogs Slaughtered at 275 Pounds. Of the hogs slaughtered at 275 pounds, all were hand-fed except the Very Rangy, which were self -fed. The average results were as follows: Very Chuffy (2 hogs), 80.9 percent; Intermediate (4 hogs), 80.7 percent; Rangy (5 hogs), 80.9 percent; and Very Rangy (2 hogs), 78.2 percent. From the indi- vidual data it is observed that there were no differences between the first three types, while the Very Rangy type dressed lower than the others. These results arc explained by the fact that the Very Rangy hogs were decidedly lacking in condition at this weight, 275 pounds. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS The same carcass measurements were taken as in the preceding experiment except that the depth of fat was taken at the loin just over the lumbosacral union (h-i, Fig. 6, page 404). Also, an attempt was made to obtain an idea of the length of the foreleg by measuring the distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of the toe as the cooled carcass hung from the rail. 19S9] TYPE IN SWIXE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 421 Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. The individual and average measurements of the carcasses of the hogs slaughtered at 175 pounds (all of which were hand-fed) are given in Table 14. The Very ("'hut';. much shorter from snout to rear toe (6.7 inches) than the Intermediate carcasses and there was no overlapping of individuals between lots. On the other hand, there jfnincant difference between the Intermediate and Rangy sses in this ivspeci. From snout to first thoracic vertebra, the Very ('huffy carcasses were distinctly shorter (1.3 inches) than the Intermediate c iasses. A train, there was no overlapping of indi- viduals and no difference between the Intermediate and Rangy ear- ss 3. In length of body (first thoracic vertebra to H-bone) the ('huffy carcasses were 2.3 inches shorter than the Intermediate ear- 8, with no overlapping of individuals. There was no difference between the Intermediate and Rangy carcasses. In length of hind leg H-bone to rear toe), the Very (.'huffy c -.9 inches shorter than the Intermediate c s, with no overlapping of indi- viduals. There is an indication that the Rangy a may have been slightly longer in the hind leg than the Intermediates. However. uall number of individuals and the overlapping of the same, de- tracts from the importance of any apparent difference. In depth of chest, there were no differences between lots. In depth of fat over the loin there was such great individual variation that it is impossible to draw any definite conclusions. Apparently, however, the Rangy hogs carried less fat than the others. In circumference of fore shank (size of bone) the Very C'huffy hogs were smallest, with no difference between the Intermediate and Rangy types. In length of foreleg the Very C'huffy carcasses were shorter than the Inter- mediate carcasses by 1.3 inches. There was no overlapping of indi- viduals. The forelegs of the Rangy carcasses were .7 inch longer than those of the Intermediate type, with one case of overlapping. The carcasses of Hog 9s of the Very Chuffy type, Hog 3 of the Intermediate type, and Hog 20 of the Ransry type, all slaughtered at 17.") pounds, are shown in Fig. 10. The measurements of each of these carcasses represent the average measurements of its lot; thus, they are the "average" carcasses. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The individual and average measurements of the hand-fed pigs killed at 22.") pounds are jivrii in the second part of Table 14. The carcasses of the Very Chuffy hogs were 5.9 inches shorter than those of the Intermediate hogs and the carcasses of the intermediate hogs were 5 inches shorter than those of the Rangy hogs. These differ- ences are significant, especially in view of the fact that there is no overlapping of individuals between lots. 422 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 14. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS OF HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 175-PouND AND 225-PouND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in inches) Hog No. L've weight Ibs. Snout to rear toe Snout to first thoracic vert. First thoracic vert, to H-bone H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest Depth of fat back Circum- ference of fore shank Length of fore- leg 175-POUND WEIGHTS Very Chuffy 18b 178.9 167.0 178.9 183.8 168.9 190.7 178.0 61.5 58.7 58.7 59.6 59.7 59.7 59.7 16.0 15.5 14.7 15.4 14.5 16.0 15.3 26.2 25.4 25.1 25.6 25.5 25.0 25.5 20.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.2 19.2 19.4 12.2 12.0 12.6 11.6 12.5 13.6 12.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.3 5.4 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.1 12.7 11.7 12.2 12.0 12.7 12.4 12.3 20s 19b 9s lib 16s Average Intermediate 13b 182.6 170.9 183.6 179.0 67.0 66.5 65.6 66.4 16.3 16.7 16. a 16.6 27.9 28.1 27.4 27.8 22.5 22.0 22.4 22.3 12.2 11.9 13.2 12.5 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.5 13.5 13.5 13.9 13.6 5s 3s Average Rangy 14b 109.9 174.9 188.2 177.7 66.0 66.5 68.5 67.0 16.5 17.0 17.0 16.8 27.1 27.9 28.1 27.7 23.0 22.1 23.7 23.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 13.5 14.0 15.5 14.3 20b 15b Average 225-POUND WEIGHTS Very Chuffy 15b 208.2 59.2 15.2 25.2 19.4 14.1 2.1 5.5 12.4 lib 226.1 65.5 17.2 27 7 20.5 13.0 1.5 5.9 13.2 17s 234.8 (il 5 16 2 25 7 20 2 14.4 2.0 6.0 12 9 Average 223.0 62.1 16.4 26.2 20.0 13.8 1.9 5.8 12.8 Intermediate 9b 224.0 66.7 17.2 28.5 21.5 13.2 1.5 5.6 14.5 18s 239.2 69 18 2 28.7 23 14.2 1.7 5.6 15.0 15b 224.4 70.5 18.2 29.0 24.2 13.7 1.5 5.6 15.4 19b 223.9 68.0 17.5 28.0 22.5 14. 1 1.7 5.5 14.2 2b 20s . . 228.2 235.0 68.0 68.0 18.1 18.0 28.4 29 2 23.1 22.2 15.2 14.7 2.0 1.7 5.6 5.5 15.1 13.5 Ib 218 6 66 17 27.5 22.5 14 2 1.6 5.5 14.5 Average 227.6 68.0 17.8 28.5 22.7 14.2 1.7 5.6 14.6 Rang y 9s 228 4 72 7 17 7 30 4 24 7 13 6 1.6 5.9 16.1 16b 225.3 71.2 18.0 29.0 24.0 13.9 1.0 6.0 15.7 8b . . 219.9 74.4 18 5 31.5 25.0 13.5 1.0 6.2 16.6 2b 221.0 71 9 18 1 30 24.4 14.2 1.5 5.9 15.7 lib 240.4 74 4 18 4 31 2 25 5 14 5 1.5 6.0 16.0 5b 232.4 73.2 17.9 31.0 25.1 14.5 1.1 6.0 16.0 Average 227.9 73.0 18.1 30.5 24.8 14.0 1.3 6.0 16.0 192!)] TYI-I-: IN SUIM. AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 423 In length of head and n inch greater than in case of the Intermediate lot; furthermore, there uas much variation within these two lets. In length of body (first thoracic vertebra to Il-bone) the average of the Very ( 'huffy hogs was 2.3 inches less than the average of the FIG. 10. TYPICAL CAKCASSSS OF VERY CIIUFFY, [NTEBHEDIATX, AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED TO 175 POUNDS Left, avenii; ' of the Very ('huffy type; middle, average of Intermediate type; ami right, average of Rangy type. Note the differences in length, hams, necks, ami legs. Intermediate, with no overlapping of individuals between lots. The average of the Intermediate hogs was 2 inches less than that of the Rangy hogs, with only one hog overlapping. In length of hind leg the average of the Very Chuff y hogs was 2.7 inches less than the average of the Intermediate hogs. Again, the lowest figure of the Inter- mediate lot was greater than the highest figure of the Very Chuffy lot. The average of the Intermediate lot was 2.1 inches less than the average of the Rangy lot, with only one individual overlapping. In 424 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, length of foreleg the same relationships held true, the Very Chuffy being 1.8 inches shorter than the Intermediate and the Intermediate being 1.4 inches shorter than the Eangy carcasses, and again there was no overlapping between lots. In depth of chest the differences were small and apparently insig- nificant. In depth of fat over the loin two hogs of the Very Chuffy type were greater than all the hogs of the Intermediate type except one. but the average of the Intermediate lot was .2 inch less. The FIG. 11. TYPICAL CARCASSES OF VERY CHUFFY, INTERMEDIATE, AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED TO 225 P.OUNDS Left, average of the Very Chuffy type ; middle, average for Intermediate ; and right, average for Rangy type. Compare with self -fed hogs, Fig. 12. highest hog of the Rangy lot was higher than the two lowest hogs of the Intermediate lot, but the average of the Intermediate lot was .4 inch greater than the average of the Rangy. The circumference of fore shank was .4 inch greater in the Rangy than in the Intermediate hogs, with no individuals overlapping. Considering the small num- ber and the great variations in the Very Chuffy lot, no conclusions can be drawn as to any difference between this and the Intermediate lot. The "average" carcasses of the hand-fed hogs slaughtered at 225 pounds are shown in Fig. 11. Self-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The individual and the lot measurements for the Chuffy, the Intermediate, the Rangy, and 1929] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 425 the Very Rangy hogs which were self-fed and slaughtered at 225 pounds are shown in Table 15. These data show no difference in length of carcasses of the Chuffy and Intermediate types. As stated previously, these two types when self -fed were quite similar. The average length of the Intermediate carcasses, however, was 4.5 inches less than that of the Rangy car- casses. The longest Intermediate carcass was longer than the two shortest Rangy carcasses; otherwise there was no overlapping. The average length of the Very Rangy carcasses was 3.9 inches longer than the average of the Rangy carcasses ; there was considerable individual variation, however, within the lots. In the distance from the end of the snout to the first thoracic vertebra, there were no significant dif- ferences between the types. In length of body (first thoracic vertebra to H-bone) there was no material difference between the Chuffy and Intermediate lots. The average length of body of the Rangy lot, however, was 1.9 inches greater than that of the Intermediate lot. It will be noted also that the longest individual in the Intermediate lot was shorter than the shortest in the Rangy lot. The average of the Very Rangy lot was 1.7 inches greater than the average of the Rangy lot. However, there was con- siderable overlapping of individuals. The length of body of the Very Rangy type was significantly greater than that of the Intermediate and Chuffy types. In length of hind leg there was no difference between the Chuffy and Intermediate lots, but the average of the Rangy lot was 2 inches greater than the average of the Intermediate lot. Furthermore, the highest individual of the Intermediate lot was lower than all except one of the Rangy lot. The average of the Very Rangy lot was 1.5 inches more- than the average of the Rangy lot; however, there was considerable overlapping among the individuals of the two lots. In length of foreleg there was no difference between the Chuffy and Intermediate types. The average of the Rangy type was 1.2 inches greater than the average of the Intermediate type. Two indi- viduals of the Rangy type were slightly lower than the highest individ- ual of the Intermediate type. The average of the Very Rangy type was .9 inch greater than the average of the Rangy type, but the indi- vidual variations detract from the significance of this difference. In depth of chest there were no significant differences between any of the lots. In depth of fat over the loin, there was but small difference between the Chuffy and Intermediate lots, particularly if one elimi- nates Hog Os from the Chuffy lot. For some reason this hog was not in very high condition. There was a difference of .4 inch (about 30 percent) between the average of the Intermediate and the average of the Rangy lot. Furthermore, only two hogs of the Rangy lot were 426 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, ^^^^" ^^MHM^^^^^B ^^^^^E ^^^^^ ^S^^^ ^ v ^~ . _ JZ^fll^^S^^ .MMM. ii*. o P4 ~ O 1929] TABLK TYPE t SWINE \s BELATED T<> t{\ .\L\-\-\ \- -'27 -CAR<:A MKASI KKMKNTS OK SIM.I -I 'I;D SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in inches) llocs, L'L'fi-l'oi \i> \\ KICIITS: Hog No. Live weight Ibs. Snout to rear toe Snout to first thoracic vert. First thoracic vert, to H-boni 1 H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest Depth of fat back Circum- ference of fore shank Length leg Chuffy 40b 215.5 64.7 I6.fi 27.5 21.5 13.5 1.9 6.1 14.2 9s 215.3 67.6 17.2 28.6 22.0 13.2 1.7 6.5 13.9 lOb 226.3 67. 1 17.2 27.6 22.7 13.4 1.5 6.5 14.6 30b 234.5 67.7 17.2 29.0 22.2 13.5 1.7 6.0 13.7 Os 225.1 87.4 17.9 28.0 21.7 13.6 1.2 5.9 14.5 Ob 227.8 65.0 16.6 27.1 22.1 13.6 2.1 5.6 13.0 10s 231.4 68.5 18.0 27.9 23.0 14.4 1.5 6.2 15.0 Ob 246.4 66.5 17.2 28.0 22.5 15.2 2.0 5.9 14.7 96s 219.1 63.0 16.5 26.2 21.2 14.1 2.0 6.2 12.9 Average 226.8 66.4 17.2 27.8 22.1 13.8 1.7 6.1 14.1 Intermediate Os. . 217.4 66.1 17.4 28.2 22.0 14.4 2.2 6.2 14.0 30s 221.0 65.5 17.2 27.0 22.1 13.6 2.0 5.5 14.2 33s 224.7 67.2 18.0 27.5 22.2 13.6 2.1 5.9 13.5 60s 210.4 66.0 17.0 28.2 21.2 13.2 1.7 5.2 13.4 99h 230.9 66.5 17.2 28.0 22.2 13.4 1.7 5.9 14.5 30b 209.9 68.0 17.7 28.4 23.0 14. 1 1.7 5.6 14.2 91s 217.0 64.4 10.7 27.2 21.2 13.1 1.7 5.6 13.5 90s 217.0 66.0 17.0 28.2 21.5 13.9 2.0 5.4 14.5 99s . . . 219.1 63.1 17.2 27.0 20.2 14.5 2.0 5.7 13.5 Average 218.6 66.0 17.3 27.8 21.8 13.8 1.9 5.7 13.9 Rangy 2b 216.4 69.2 16.9 29.5 23.2 13.4 1.7 5.5 13.7 9b 220.7 68.6 17.7 29.9 23.0 13.5 1.5 6.0 14.2 30b 217.2 71.0 17.4 29.4 24.8 13.4 1.4 6.0 16.2 90b .... 227.6 71.0 17.7 29.6 24.0 14.0 1.6 5.9 14.7 20b 220.7 67.2 17.2 28.5 22.5 14.0 2.0 5.9 14.9 99s 227.7 72.5 18.5 30.7 24.0 14.0 1.0 6.3 15.0 Ob 224.4 76.1 19.0 32.0 25.5 13.1 .9 6.6 16.7 Ib . 225.9 67.9 18.1 28.5 24.0 14.2 2.0 5.5 15.0 3s.. . 228.6 69.7 17.5 29.7 23.5 14. 1 1.2 5.9 15.2 20s 225.9 70.0 17.5 29.2 23.6 13.5 1.5 5.5 14.9 Average 223.5 70.5 17.8 29.7 23.8 13.7 1.5 5.9 15.1 Very Rangy 9b 218.1 73.2 17.5 31.0 25.1 13.9 1.2 6.6 16.1 30b 229.8 70.1 17.6 30.0 23.5 14.0 1.5 6.0 15.1 Os . 219.1 76.2 19.2 32.1 25 4 13 1 1.0 6.6 16.4 Omb . 235.3 73.5 18 9 30 5 25 2 14 1.5 6.2 15.5 93b 249.2 79.0 19.2 33.2 27.5 15.0 1.2 6.2 16.7 Average 230.3 74.4 18.5 31.4 25.3 14.0 1.3 6.3 16.0 Xo. :>ii greater than the lowest one of the Intermediate lot. The average of the Very Rangy lot was 3i ineh less than the average of the Rangy lot. However, there was considerable overlapping of individuals in these two lots, making: the difference insignificant. Differences in the circumference of the fore shank were small and probably ^ignifii^>iit as between lots. Individual variations within the lots were great. The " average" carcasses of the self -fed hogs slaughtered at __ pound weights are shown in Fi_ 12. Hogs Slaughtered at 27 S Pounds. All the hogs slaughtered at pounds were hand-fed except the two Very Rangy ones. The individ- ual and the average lot measurements are given in Table 16. The average length of the Very Chuffy carcasses was 5 inches less than the average of the Intermediate carcasses, with no overlapping of individuals. The Intermediate carcasses were 2.9 inches shorter than the. Rangy carcase _ i there was no overlapping of indi- viduals. The Very Rangy carcasses were 5.3 inches longer than the Rangy carcasses, with no overlapping of individuals, and there was a difference of 13.2 inches between the average lengths of the two ex- treme types. In length of head and neck the offy type was 1.5 inches shorter than the Intermediate type, with no overlapping of individ- uals. There were no significant differences between the Intermediate and Rangy types. The Very Rangy hogs were considerably longer in the head and neck. In length of body th huffy carcasses were 2.0 inches shorter than the Intermediates, with no individuals overlapping. There was no significant difference between the Intermediate and the Rangy lots. The Very Rangy lot. however, was 3.6 inches longer than the Rangy, with no overlapping of individuals. The hind legs of the Very Chuffy carcasses were 2.8 inches shorter than those of the Intermediate lot, with no overlapping of individuals. The average of the Intermediate lot was 1.5 inches less than the Rangy lot, with only one case of overlapping. There was no significant dif- ference between the Rangy and Very Rangy types. The forelegs of the Very Chuffy carcasses were 1.5 inches shorter than the Intermediate, with no overlapping: of individuals. The In- termediates were 1 inch shorter than the Rangy carcasses, the shortest of the latter being the same as the longest of the former. The Very Rangy type was 1.2 inches longer than the Rangy type, with no over- lapping of individuals. There were no differences in depth of chest between the Very Chuffy. Rangy, and Very Rangy lots. For some unexplained reason, the Intermediates were deeper than any of the other lots. The Very Chuffy and Intermediate carcasses carried the same TTFE DC SWIRE AS RELATED TO QUALITY or POBC TABLE 16. C ABC ASS MKASCBEMESTS OF FOUE TYFES OF HOGS, 275-Porxu VN EIGHT'-: ."^EC-OVD F-XJ-TZJlgEVT Lve 'C' f K C -* "_- t^ :: 276 8b , .J26S.- : 29. . 22 15.0 1 14.6 s 5-9 34.0 13.4 33- - 279.1 2*5 S -_ ' 70.7 i 17.5 71.9 I 19.2 | 30.2 . - 15.6 2-2 : -: 29.7 . 16.7 1 2.1 i 6.4 ! 15.2 15.4 Kte . " 9.0 71-9 i 18.6 - . 1.9 ] 6.0 , 3O-2 24.5 2.0 15.0 13b 1 269.0 .9.1 25.9 14.O .5 6.2 15.4 271.1 73.O : 18.9 25- . ''' 25-4 ' 6ul 16.6 | 280.2 76.O ,1 19.7 31 35.5 15.5 .5 6.5 17.9 ->" 7 76.0 | 19.O 31.0 j 26.5 .2 i 6.9 IfiuO 275.6 74.O 19.0 .l 3R.O 15.6 - 6.9 16.2 -. --"ir- .". '-9.1 X.4 Mu : r *:*> h 2>t'. v 2TI.4 .- . .- - 14.5 15.1 1.2 1.4 . A! -i- r,:.e joi-:*i tiif VTT EiTr rrf*- depth of baek fat, with but little individual variation. Two of the Rangy carcasses had as much fat as the thinnest carcass of the Inter- mediate lot,, but the average of the Rangy lot was .5 inch less. Both the Very Rangy carcasses were thinner than the Intermediate and Very Chuffy carcasses. In the circumference of the fore shank the average of the two Very Chuffy hogs was .4 inch less than the average of the Intermediate lot. The average of the latter lot was .4 inch less than the average of the Ranay lot; however, there were two instances of overlapping. The average of the two Very Rangy hogs was .4 inch greater than the average of the Rangy lot. with overlapping between individuals. The "average" carcasses of the Very Chuffy, Intermediate. Rangy, and Very Rangy types, slaughtered at 275 pounds are shown in Fig. 13. 430 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, M &P K > EH Q o 1*3 "& 1 Sj cS > o o = JS '" E-i ^T3 L- = S S s HS tc 19X9] TYPE ix SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 431 Summary of Type Differences in Carcass Measurements. The Very ( 'huffy can-asses \\ere considerably shorter than the Intermediate can-asses, regardless of the weight at which the hogs were slauglu Between the carcasses of the C huffy and Intermediate types ther> no difference in this or any other measurement. The Intermediate carcasses \veiv considerably sliorter than the Rangy carcasses in cases of hogs slaughtered at 225 pounds and 275 pounds. Also the Rangy considerably shorter than the Very Rangy carcasses of hogs slaughtered at these weights. Differences in length of carcass may be due to differences in length of head and neck, length of legs or length of body, or a combination of any or all of these factors. In the first year's experiment, pages 401 to 404. it was found that the greater length of the c-irc'isses of tho Kanyy type was due to greater length of legs and of head and nock. the length of body being practically the same for all three types. In this second experiment, however, the length of legs, length of head and neck, and length of body all varied with the type of the hog. No differences between types were found in depth of body. While there are many individual variations in depth of fat, the Very < 'huffy type was deepest, the ('huffy and Intermediate types next, then the Rangy, and finally the Very Ranyy. ('ontrary to what one might expect, the differences in circumfer- ence of foreleg were rather small between lots and showed much in- dividual variation. CUTTING TEST After the carcasses had thoroly cooled, the right half of each was cut into the wholesale cuts and the cutting percentages determined. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. Individual cutting percentages and the average cutting percentages of the hand-fed hogs slaughtered at 175 pounds are given in Table 17. It is needless to discuss these results except in so far as apparently significant differ- ences occur. In view of the small number of animals in the lots, any conclusions must be drawn with care. However, it seems safe to say that the picnics and feet of the Very ('huffy hogs were smaller than those of the Intermediate "and Rangy hogs. The Very Chuffy car- casses had more trimmings, probably due to a larger amount of fat. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The average per- centages of fat backs of the Very ('huffy and the Intermediate types were greater than those of the Rangy type, with only one case of over- lapping between lots (Table 18). Also, the leaf fat was greater in the Very Chuffy and Intermediate types than in the Rangy type, with but little overlapping. The percentage of feet of the Very Chuffy type was lower than the Intermediate type which, in turn, was lower 432 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 17. CUTTING PERCENTAGES OF HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 175- POUND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of carcass weight) 3 o H \ 7 ery Chuffy 3 6 2 1 1 -a 3 * I g *7 Z .Q V r fci T! i a M a c 03 _x "3 a d 'o j a s 8 a '3 S - 3s t. o C3 5 cl 4J .M OS fe 5 1=3 S- 3 ?1 a| Hog No. 00 O 00 00 O CO 00 O> N 00 O to o to t Cs O C Cs OS OS Ci O O Cs Cs O Cs Cs OS O O O O O O O OS O O OS OS O O O O i-i ^ CO 00 m l- co in m oo os to o w OS 00 O 00 00 00 GC to o t- t- t>- t- r~ 0* ,-< CM i ~* M (N ^i W -1 -H IN co co Tj" co cc co co co co -: C5 oo oo O5 oo oo o o o c i CS CS O J O CO 5O <*" ^ o * o CM -H O C^ C5 O5 G3 O 00 O O5 O) O N rt rt rt CS O O O ^ CM CM CM * to o> >o co IN 10 O "0 o co O -H O CM CJ IN -H N N CO M o oo i- io o t~ -H co co o co to o m O * "O 00 CO 00 CO "5 1-1 co co CM 00 00 O OS t^ co co os t~ t~ (^ t-- t^ TJI Ol O >O O) N O IO O -H N CM oo m oo 2ooooomrfi en :Sot~5ot~ot~ o 00 * N 00 o to t>. to ^" ~* * to it, f O tO O> 00 O Oi O5 t>- O to o to o OS CM CS t^ Soocot^odood 06 St^oocot^oci t^ IN O CO O5 00 ^ 00 t- OS 00 * t~ o oo t- r~ & 0) o a .0 ji js oo s; 00 O5 O O> tO tO .2 ^1 N r-l rt < : : : g _o * * *y CO 10 W ^ : : : S J3 XI .0 SJ Tf O 5 19 S9] TYI-K ix SWIXE AS BELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 433 2 E U 0} jl 00 * 00 O ^OiOrocrroo o O 00 O - oooocior - c; o O5 ~ x os o> Ok O Qb flb CD vl OS W CO -< O OCOfOCOSOC^ (O u-: - ro co X ! to 00 Ci 00 CO o ao o> t~- a> h- oo X X X X X OS X ,H _ ~ ~ ? M i N M re 'M ri ri M CO CO CO CO CMMC^rt-rr?:': rr TC co T co co co co --* f" (NOINNCO ira * X Tf f T '2 ~* ^* " " " " ~ * " , _ M , -< O O COCOtO'J < O C5 O O IN IN IN IN (NMiNINiNt * ro CO t CN CM tN d d IN t< M rt ~l C-l IN IN IN IN M IN M IN CO "-^ t~ ~- >~ - / : M CO * t^ X re : -.'. tM * CO CO CO IN rt -r -c M CO IN IN CN O ro N CM 8 03 -H CO O 03 3 O O> ffl us o O O ^ o o o f cs x r CO ^< * T)< E CO * re rr ?i i- - a I PS us ^j* us -^ -^ -^ Tf ^l 00 IN -^ q :: oo CN ^J< O * - 00 O5C3OOOt>-O3 OO X * OS OS t** C3 OS 5 OS < O O " O4 CO N IN N COCO(NINCO r~ IN o o CS O X t~- X X X O 00 CO CO-HOOOOO> O5 IN -X(NOtO O Tf CO ^" OS ^" 06 rr o e< co IN -< -1 M P r >o x r^ CONiNNCMro N NIN a i .0 ^1 J2 J3 m' J3 gj XOSU5OSINO Jj Q J3 a) jQ ^ ^ -^ to CS X N US 434 Hi I.I.KTIN No. 322 (Expressed in percentage of carcass weight) "a "o H 1^ C'Z H- '3 H >> 5 as : = &.S 7 , E* -a a = i m g a'C -/. _>> TJ m c 3 c o 8 '5 I m J-2 S2 a) a Era .^-* 33 - 3 pi 5 . 3"S ~ Hog No. ~CNOT).CCc>COt-00 TT woKN-w-icr-eo c ClCiC^CwC". 20Ci"S5 Ci Ci C^ Ci C". ~ C". Ci ~ Ci Gi 5-. cB b S si si 5i 5 S ~io.-ooooOTi.t~ (N (Nccaoxxoxo V ocsoot-xooacso o> OOXXt^t^OOOOXSO X co co w co TT co co CON co CO M CO CO N CO CO SI CS:~. XCXOOOJ a eSCOTft-CO-OCOCS CN user.* 10 o^-iO^c* co ~CNtNCNCNMM7l-H 71 n -i - C^ " "" '." i- <0 ooco^x--cot-^ o weousn-M-cocoio o C5 00 O O5 00 00 O5 I s " 00 Cl a>a>oooaa>o>t. X t-l-USNOOOCOO - *^ cCCO^O-'-C^-OC- 10 NCNNNricO^NCM 1929] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 435 5 S t-i a) 03 .3 v a O'ft cc cc -TO m o oo t~-> t- OOOOCOt- CM gii8? s iS 8 WOOCOTOOOCNOOOO * t >O CM TO O O COt-t-OOOCSOCCOCCD 00 COOOt-OOOO t -NCMCNOIMCMIN-HTO CM TOCMINCNCN CM TO^TO^TOTOMTOTHTO TO CO IN TO IO TO TC INCM.OOOINLOININOTO - T* TT TP TO * -* TO -H -tfi CM TO TO(NrHTj<0 (M COiO CCt^t^t^iOOM 5 IOTOCOOI> Tj< CM ^N IN ~H TO TO Ti< ro * TO 03 TOTO-^rfO T)< b CO TO 1-1 CM b- r-i CM O "5 I-H CO 0) Tj.T).M^t> CO >OU5iOO^COiOiO>Ot- U5 >nioco>cio 10 lOOOTOOTOOr-dN "O * t- 00-^10 ooooooooooo.-; o ooooo o T 1 1 1 I 1 I TOOTOOl-CMOOOCNt- OiN^COO ^ OOOlOiOJOOlOOClO5O5 OS oooooo o OOTOTOOCO^^OOO - l-TOTOOOO 00 CM CM CM TO i-H CM (N i-l CM i-H CM iH i-l rl T-I t-* O O O iO O IO i I nOi-lOOt CO -r "M ~+ >O O t^ O O l>- TO CO 00 00 00 00 O 00 00 00 CO 00 00 ooooooooo oo rf t^. IN CD t* t^ O CO O ^ O t-(OOr-(TOIN TO '-'CN Ol ?i -M Cj ^1 NCN CM IN CN IN CN CN CM CN CN CM CM CN COOOiOO O rtIN i-HTO't" TO CNCMCMCMIN CM :::::::::: S CO ..a os CM O O C O C. -H TO O O _5 MOCMO CM SB w "^ 'S ^ ? ~ Hog No. O T* O O3 D CO O2 CX3 O5 00 O ^ Cl ^iO O O OS C5 Ci Cs O O 0000 o _. ~ .. _. O O O O5 O O O O o> o o o * rt O> n "O 00 O O 00 O5 C3 t- 00 co t^ o t^ -^ oo CO O O5 ^ ^ - Ol IH C^ (N rH M IN -H -! 1-t ^> oi co w N o o !N n ,-. T)< N CS -T ~l .-H CO i OJ CO IN f O >rt IN (N , tx C co <( co 00 10 n o g ^H co oo o m Ml c O> N "3 CO O CM Tjl ij! Tf 1*10 "O 1 "S : u: ^< =2 LO o c; - ^ o o u o i.O 10 C 00 t^ t~- CO O -" t- O o o o * o a h- t^ 1- t- t^ 00 t~ 00 00 00 W OS CO ffi O C: O O C5 O O CC f. \C "i t) "5 00 O -" 1C * S M IN r 00 UJ t^ oo a o oo t- t^ t^ ^ o o co 00 t- t- TJ< 05 O -* ..-3 iffl Tf C CO O 1} O 00 O 00 O co ^ co co co co co co CO CO CO N -i (N -H l 1 ^1 T)I IN 00 CO N CO "-O 00 1-1 L- ^* O 00 1-1 1Q 00 (N CO IN co * * co co CO C-l CO CO (N CO CO N CO O O t t~ O 5 IN O 5 m oi t- I-H 1-1 O> t- CO S S S O (N i O 00 O O t- O O CO C5 CO f-H CO .-H I-H o co co oo t- oo oo -^ co 0-0" IN O CO O Tf - IN 00 1-1 O (N O O 1-1 O 1-1 O 11 CO h- O ^H O I 1 * 00 O i-i m oo o co O a t>. N o oo t* t- co t*- IN (N IN IN M PI CD * O oo b- oo IN IN CN o '.'.'.'. o a; : : a *' | : : : S .fl ^2 J> ffi c-i o r- o _5 s .D ^! ^J .0 a g co o ro o 1-1 i . . r. > A % < 19S9] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 437 than the Rangy type. Again, there was little overlapping of individ- uals. The picnics of the Kaiiuy type were greater than those of the Very Chuffy type, with only one case of individual overlapping. The percentage of belly in the Very Chuffy lot apparently was greater than in the Rangy lot, probably due to higher condition. There is an in- dication that the percentage of loin in the Very Ran try type was slightly higher than in the Very Chuffy type. Self-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. There is an indica- tion that the fat backs and clear plates of the Very Rangy hogs were than those of the Intermediate hogs (Table 19). Also, the leaf I'at of the Very Rangy hogs was less than in case of the Intermediate hogs. The picnics of the Very Rangy type were greater than those of the Intermediate type. The feet of the Very Rangy type were greater than those of the Rangy, and these, in turn, were greater than those of the Intermediate type. In general, the differences in cutting per- centages of hogs of different types do not seem to be as marked when the hogs are self-fed as when they are hand-fed individually. Hogs Slaughtered at 275 Pounds. All the hogs killed at 275 pounds were hand-fed individually, except the Very Rangy ones wluch were self-fed. Cutting percentages of the 275-pound hogs are shown in Table 20. In amount of fat back there was no difference between the Very Chuffy and the Intermediate carcasses nor between the Rangy and the Very Rangy carcasses. However, the two latter types were dis- tinctly lower than the two former types in this cut. In leaf fat, the Rangy carcasses were lower than the Very Chuffy and Intermediate carcasses, and the Very Rangy carcasses were lower than the Rangy ones. In picnics, the Rangy and Very Rang}- carcasses were higher than the Very Chuffy and Intermediate. The percentage of feet was greatest in the Very Rangy type, next in the Rangy, next in the Inter- mediate, and lowest in the Very Chuffy. In bellies, the Very Chuffy. Intermediate, and Rangy carcasses were higher than the Very Rangy. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS The wholesale cuts (trimmed) and the total trimmings were divided as accurately as possible into lean, fat, skin, and bone, and the per- centage of each in the various cuts was determined. These results are given in Tables 21 to 26. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. Again the discus- sion will be confined to differences which apparently are significant (Table 21). The fat backs and clear plates of the Very Chuffy type contained less skin and were correspondingly fatter than those of the Intermediate and Rangy types. However, there were several instances of overlapping of individuals. 438 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, C C^X OOCO WCS^OQO CC^t^OO M C". C ? i > t*^H cio -fcsfo ^^^"^ PCM^r "Xr-rx B ooeo oo o c;^ooc^ c^te^Tf >:?) -rr-r- f- S "" "- y - ~ i'- re f o T i " rr~t' 3 W 1 t-^ xx M-^-C-. c-.c-- t^re^ ^xoo O 2 i t*^H o C r* -* c CC'^r'^ 1 ^i >-~ *: i * y oo^-t x ri -^:^ Xi-* '.r O " r t-* ^~yrr XT* >^t~-H ^^c^O - J * CiO T*)/ c ~ '" '~r^ I s - C oo r-t * * r j >~^) ^- t^-C 1 )* *^ h o c^ *~ e- -x^o-^ o-^r^ x.ere D < !* V 0)0 MM o-rt-r- xt^cx .-t-^M -^ = - * 7. n a 1 s-. " - ~ i 1 ft " ' " -3 ' ' 2 S r - H E i MX c:r --^-^re r^o 1 -*on *& I < ^ D 3 .8 a ~ " ~ - '_ ; ;. < ~. - S-- '* r. re -c r. re -^ M re t~ re r; cr. ri ei -j; :: / " ~ w iQCC W :: r -r ri r: .- re ~ = = 7 - = k.' - x t- ?i x ri ie re i- ri : E T < t - t - i~ ~~ ~ i / '^ / :' ~ i :- ~. ~ ?i -^ -^ x -^ or- o- L er.x-^ t ~-4; = x -or-, ^o. X """ JH | ~ re t^^ os r -^ t-j _ f ^ z S. ~> s I-.*- -- -I :: ~. i-ei-ei : E 7 :- ' ^ ~- J\~.-:i~. rr. rt re re -r ~. ^r M ^ _; ;_ ^ tx ct~ xo-ro t^^co ^-^ ^OSM - I- C - - r o b rr. t - r 1 1 e i e :e ? ^ / "j: -: ? j BP OD *C M c x - -^ ei - i t j> fjq JQ > X 1 s - b- ^ cs ! ej rr. >e *-^ ei t^> re M '^ c r 4 3 r. r OC - - - s t t>-t>. c^ ^i-rx-r M i- x .: re t>.rox c S ^ i - ei iQO 3 ot^ -M res-.^-^ u;^ -^o 3 J X xc x retiree 1~ re -cx-r x is t- X 05 OM C 00 -r J H C \ H 4 i K IN SNVIXF. AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 439 . CNOCO .-. - 7) 71 7j r~ts. y -. X!Nr~o 1 n c t- >-. ~i OTJI CNtN 00 :-. :- y y o o (NO ceceoce >n 1 re c -c O I** oir (NCN CN 00 re i S Oi ts. oo OTj< OCNMOO ffi" 001- cr. c r. i coo" S " 5 J 1 IT 'sS OOgOtN OO ONt-O MTK COOJ CN-Hi-iO * - -i -- re t-e ie M *-" ooo o ei o o O^OiN u* Ci-rce 000 re 00 r. - - < y r re i -e gg ~ 00 ce co coco e o ei re -0 SSOCN^. 00 O3 t-. C re r^ C5 ^ Ot-OCN t-0 00 x o s ce S 3 ts.CO i^ t- - -^ -; o) r> M C5 00 ?.Z OCOCN ^< r. y r K50 0-H OCN^ 6 re '"e - - o ^ CqoOO r: M M ri f H3 X ^. M -a o en*--* ce -: tc co-^o IN N CNOO y y 1 > c: : ~ re el re ei C-. O 00 ^f .3 2 P. '' ~ ^ 0000 ri y NCOOt- t^co oo -| '- F I ^0^ 00 O coco SS - S 82 S -3 coooo o o o re re oo A d o CN CO s - - - .a tc h o ^ i-e re S32S 00 IN oi cN'i a 00 o o > L f- '- T ceo o5 .y re i.e re 28 ce '3 ~i y tN CO > - y -. -^ c-. c re -* t- C ot- ~ l C. as r y ce C: --; re oo ^* co co M ce ei ooo 00 g^ t- s - r- c '~ t>o ^-050 X N r. y r. g oC'Oico is ce ei ei s t~CN re -; CO CNOO r- r-o 00 * r- tNTf - re i- re X 00 ce '; ~ -fi - - ce (- re - CNCO M 00 O5 t CNCO re--: !>. "" d 9 a 3 ^ a f $ ^ is 2 o Trimniings Lean Fat Skin Hone 440 BULLETIN No. -- The hams of the Very Chuffy K ssea iu most cases contained more lean, more fat, less skin, and less bone than those of the Inter- mediate and Rangy <_;.. 39 3. The significance of these differences is doubtful, however, due to the small number and variation of indi- viduals. Also, most of the Very Chuffy picnics contained more lean and less skin and less bone than those of the other two types. The loins of the Very Chuffy hogs contained less bone than those of the Intermediate and Rangy. In composition of bellies, the only differ- ence was that the Very ("'huffy bellies contained less skin than the others. The spareribs of the Rangy hogs contained more bone and an than those of the other types. -it--- J r s ri r- j f- _ ? ! z - r C r- ._- - ~ . - t E r - - _ i - 04 r - - . - o s X CC rircrrn :*. ~ ~ ^ - - - | 1 r r f - - .- m - - - - z z -- - : - -a .- - r ^ V I r. B r t- r~ r^ r - - ; - - . l a M t- r - - z - r - - : r - r - V. 2 - I - -_---_ ._-j -f. 1; x" I ..- s. ~ s ' u '_' r ~ - ~ h - r -" ?' i?!""' sz-r- z^~ K = - ^ n n n r- x vr r: r r - : J _ :: t~ X B "7. I - -f - o - - - -. - z :.----. j -. -i xt~<-- o -- ~ J3 - - z - - - - : - !2. Pm i. Very C'l.uiK s. - o" t* : ' ' r_ g J 442 BULLETIN No. 322 |M ISISOO t-OS TfiNOOOS OiS TfCN O O CS O g < $S' 8 CM-S2S 25 3 So- occ < /. 00 t- 00 O iO Ci CO O O OO C^ O Ci O W Tt< s o IS *"** 5 2$2cM Si coo Sf: 1 "^ s J3 O OO -^ Ci *O O CO ' C^ * i b. C^ GO O i- 1 Oi ^* f Q S^ Tf* 00 O ' < O O I s - < ' -t 00 < ' t- 00 C^ Tt* O CO C^l CO ' CO -< 00 >O Tf ^*1 g >> bC OOCM CO 1-t-i-cCM COt- 00 OO.S-t- s CM i J TfOOTf CNb- COOIS^P t^CO OM -HCit-*-H ** OCO COIN-HCN -HOO COO CM O O 3 "SCOiS OO OCOOOX is >S t-00 *OOOO > ~ o ^ c O X * ws S r-oco o^ orn^c-. ^o oo r-oooo 03 H o a. S OS 1 M S S OCO COCN-H(N -HOO COO CMO WH ^ t~00 ^00 -Ht-COt^ t-00 O-H 001-.SO S g -73 O ^ CD IS Tt-is oco COCO-HN -HOC TPLS t-i t- BJ O Vj r" O 02 C^-HO OOS OiSOOO OOS (NS CO CO O O C: O 00 IN IS O O -H TJ < CO -1" OCO CO-SiOO OOS OO O-Hl^.-H Tt< IS CO CO CN ^* -H -H I It- T}< IS -H IN. r. o 00 COOOTf ISIS OlN-HCM OOt^ Ot- T>< OS CO OS C- T^IS OCO O1CO-HCM -HOO iS^f CMO u i - i t-00 TjiOOOCO OC ro I^HALITY OP PORK 443 the Very Rangy ones, and there is an indication that the Chuffy hams had more fat than ihose of the Intermediate and Rangy carcasses. Most of the Intermediate and Rangy hams were fatter than the Very lv;iiiy. The Chuffy hams had less skin than the others. The Very Rangy hams had 39 percent more bone than the Chuffy and Inter- TABLE 23. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS FROM CHUFFY Hoes SELF-FED IN DRY LOT TO 225-PouND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of trimmed cut) Hog No . 40b 9s lOb 30b Os Ob 10s Ob 90s Fat back Fat 91.1 92.1 91.9 92.5 92.6 93 3 92.8 90.0 94.0 92 3 Skin . 6.8 8.0 7.2 7.2 7.4 6.1 7.2 8.4 5.3 7 1 Clear plate Fat 90.7 92.7 92.5 91.1 93.7 93.5 94.6 93.4 94 4 93 Skin 6.3 6.7 7.5 8.5 5.6 4.8 5.7 7.0 5.1 Ham 55.9 58.4 60.1 59.7 62.6 58.0 61.5 61.4 54.1 59 1 Fat 28.1 30.5 28.3 30.5 26.8 32.8 26.8 26.2 34.9 29.4 Skin 4.1 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.3 3.3 1.9 2.6 Bone 11.0 8.5 8.9 7.1 7.9 7.0 8.2 8.9 7.9 8 4 Picnic Lean 59.4 59.1 57.7 53.0 66.5 60.6 57.5 59.5 50.6 58.2 Fat 23.0 25.5 26.3 31.8 19.2 23.7 26.2 24.0 36.7 26.3 Skin. . 4.3 4.5 3.7 3.1 3.0 3.7 2.3 4.0 2.8 3 5 Bone 10.6 11.5 12.1 11.2 11.4 10.6 12.5 12.6 9.5 11.3 Boston 82.9 85.5 82.5 86.8 88.7 87.5 79.2 79.2 76.8 83.2 Fat . . 11.8 10.9 11.9 8.8 7.2 8.4 16.1 15.8 19.5 12 3 Bone 6.8 4.3 4.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 4.4 5.3 3.6 4.7 Loin Lean 62.7 63.2 67.4 70.3 72.5 66.5 68.2 69.6 58.2 66.5 Fat . 22.4 19.9 15.2 12.3 10.2 18.0 14. 1 12.7 25.3 16 7 14.6 15.8 17.8 16.8 17.1 15.5 17.0 19.1 16.1 16 6 Belly Lean 37.9 33.8 28.6 36.0 42.0 36.8 37.0 42.6 28.7 35.9 Fat 57.9 61.8 66.2 59.2 52.2 59.4 57.6 51.0 67.9 59.2 Skin 3.8 4.6 4.4 4.3 5.8 3.7 4.6 4.6 2.9 4.3 Spareribs Lean .... 58.5 63.4 63.3 68.3 65.8 75.9 66.0 61.4 69.8 65.8 33.5 35.6 32.6 35.1 32.9 33.3 33.5 39.5 32.0 34 2 Head Lean 14.7 18.3 23.0 22.9 16.5 24.4 22.2 26.9 17.3 20.7 Fat Skin.. 42.0 21.5 37.9 16.0 39.8 15.3 47.5 11. 1 46.0 13.7 40.9 12.5 45.1 13.1 37.3 15.0 57.2 10.4 43.7 14 3 Bone 21 4 22.5 21 1 17.8 24.5 21.0 19.1 20.7 14.2 20 3 Feet Skin 15.3 20.5 19.1 18.5 16.5 15.8 21.7 21.9 20.0 18.8 Bone 79.6 77.4 80.4 81.9 82.5 83.2 77.5 77.7 78.5 79.9 Neck bones Lean 36.8 38.5 39.6 29.1 40.0 42 33.0 47.3 44.4 39.0 Bone . ... 57.9 61.5 59 4 68 2 52 53 65 2 53.4 51.8 58 Trimmings Lean 16.2 15.5 14 1 20 18 4 14 6 14.3 23.1 12.4 16.5 Fat 72.2 76.2 76 3 71 71 3 76 8 74.4 67.2 79.2 73 8 Skin. . 8.5 7.7 7 2 7 7 9 6 7 1 9 2 8.8 6.2 8 Bone 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 .7 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.1 444 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, mediate types, and the Rangy hams had 18 percent more bone than the Intermediate and Chuffy types. The picnics of the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy types were fatter than those of the Very Rangy type except in the case of one hog. Also, there is an indication that the Chuffy picnics were fatter than TABLE 24. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION or CUTS FROM INTERMEDIATE HOGS SELF-FED IN DRY LOT TO 225-PouND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of trimmed cut) Hog No Os 30s 33s 60s 99b 30b 913 90s 99s Fat back Fat. . . 88.0 92.2 93.0 90.8 90.0 91.6 92.0 92.8 92 5 91 4 Skin . ... 12.5 7.7 7.0 8.8 9.8 7.4 7.3 7. 1 7 2 8 3 Clear plate Fat 85.4 92.4 92.1 93.1 88.9 93.1 92.9 93. 1 !i:i i 91 6 Skin. 8.4 6.3 6.6 6.9 10.2 7.2 8.6 6.9 6 5 7 5 Ham 60.0 59.3 61.7 60.6 66.9 58.6 63.4 62.0 58 4 61 2 Fat 27.2 28.8 26.6 25.4 21.7 26.6 27.1 26.7 29 26 6 Skin. . 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.6 3.7 4.1 2.1 2.8 2 8 3 5 8.8 8.3 7.6 9.0 8.4 10.5 7.2 8.4 8 5 8 5 Picnic 57. 1 56.0 59.5 56.0 60.5 60.5 67.1 65.3 62 4 60 5 Fat 26.1 30.1 21.7 23.9 22.8 21.6 18.8 19.5 19.5 22.7 Skin . . 4.9 4.3 5.6 6.1 5.3 5.9 3.1 3.6 4.7 4 8 12.2 9.8 11. 1 10.1 11.7 12.5 10.7 11.8 13 4 11 5 Boston Lean 83.6 85.8 80.2 84.5 83.2 85.7 88.8 84.3 81.3 84 2 Fat 10.9 8.9 14.9 9.9 12.4 9.1 6.9 10.9 11 5 10 6 Bone . ... 5.9 5.1 5.3 5.6 4.6 5.7 4.4 4.2 4 8 5 1 Loin Lean 67.2 65.2 68.4 65.8 65.1 lit. 2 73.9 66.2 61. 1 66.4 Fat 16.7 17.1 16.0 18.4 18.6 17.7 13.3 17.0 20.9 17 3 Bone 18.1 16.8 15.5 15.5 15.7 18.2 13.1 16.1 16.2 16 1 Belly 36.2 30.0 34.6 40.4 40.2 36.3 48.2 41.3 43 38 9 Fat 57.9 64.5 58.6 55.2 54.0 58.5 46.8 53.4 53.0 55 8 Skin. . .... 5.6 5.2 7.0 4.6 5.4 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.0 5 1 Spareribs 58.1 62.3 64.7 65.6 63.4 63.0 68.1 61.5 63 63 3 42.4 38.2 40.6 28.8 37.5 37.5 31.9 36.0 37 6 36 7 Head Lean 21.0 23.2 20.1 18.3 31.5 23.5 31.2 17.9 18.2 22.7 Fat 42.4 45.3 41.8 44.2 30.7 37.4 33.2 51.4 47.0 41.5 Skin . 16.0 13.9 16.6 17.2 19.1 17.3 17.3 12.1 13.6 15 9 21.8 18.5 21.9 20.6 19.4 22.1 18.9 15.7 21 2 20 Feet Skin 18.9 19.1 17.6 17.6 13.5 19.7 21.7 22.1 24.0 19.41 Bone 82.5 82.0 81.4 82.3 82.7 79.8 77.8 77.9 76.0 80.3] Neck bones 31.8 37.9 35.7 43.2 55.1 24.0 40.0 44.4 39 39. Oj 67.3 64.4 66.7 53.7 43.2 76.9 55.0 55.5 60 60.3 Trimmings Lean 13.5 6.0 10.1 17.5 23.4 14.0 19.7 18.0 16.6 15.41 Fat 75.0 82.9 78.6 73.1 64.2 73.4 71.9 73.2 72.8 73.9] Skin 10.6 8.4 10.0 9.4 11.2 9.5 6.9 7.0 6.9 8.9 Bone 1.1 1.7 .6 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1989] TM-I: i.v SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 445 a CQ 05 o - . 02 cS g.. < g J H o s 3 J < u s >*- n f o ".c ic r- t^ M o M wo 1 co oc tc IN 00 O CT~C<5 Qt-"5 r^h-iO QOCO i oo o M i-t ^ i-i ri oo ; c^ 00 00-, I <0-1 i-l 00 ooo oo "5 oi o - COO'J'Oi (NCOdO tt^05 -~C < CO-HM-H osoofod tcoo-j< 0:0:0 TPOO OOOtOO tOOSOOO i-i 0)0000 IN -^ cn-ri . / rr ?) co i i- (N O c CN oo co i" oc o c^ oo os T}< co co ocs^ >c o o CO OS "OCO 1C CN i 00 O i oos iOo t^Tj^^os co^r^t*- ooco coc CNl^ OO OOMCS iNOOCOf Ht^iO c 00 OS tC rH I OS 1CO (NOO OCN IN OsOTfOO -it^t^ I> O CO O CO OS O i i O i i CO COO -rl-COCOOO ^OOCOOl COIN*!< OS O IN i -( OOi O i-ii-i CO CO i COOOCS lOCOCN OOOO OO COOO OOCOCOO CSCOt->O OOUJ OS 00 IOCS'*-! OCN -i OO-i OOO t^co O OS OS i OS I'fCO COCNOO an 100 CNOO iCOCOO OS OS COIN i "3CN i OS CO>OCO "5OSOS dwo cot-t~ OOO 0*0 I>Ct>-cN COOsO^ 1 iOt*- l^CMOS (Nt^ oioi ddeNOs OIN'^CN ost^-* cooscd OS 00 CCO IO CO i 1 i O i i *il ^^^ BULLETIN No. 322 02 . ,-cx- o :c r^ ? < t^t* o o CS a mt-00 c s rr. c >c Q 00 O O ~ ~ O t^- - 00 O T O CM T OT O O "53 -S W TO ore cc CM x> rco ^^t^- - i TWt- OO Tt^-CROO OS CO 00 O Cl O 1 CM X X c-i t^ c [^ o T o re ox re ei CM OW OT W CM CM 00 WO W O |M fc t^OOlN WI> t^TOO OS "C t- X T , E JD ~ . c s M 'C M M o o c-i o w r: - o re c-1 re M CM r>- TO CM o s 1 CMOOS t-n-< xxxre rere xre Tret^-T -i fc - O N re o o re e ire CM CM r^ re "t no" " S o TOO c-.r- dXToo OT CMX ooocs s ^ '* O O - o o t; 'C Ji T re r- t>- w XT X o X o OOW OX ^HOXH TOO CMO C / s w re o o re ei re c-i c-i x ic i - " & OTO t-OS OWt- -OS (NX -t-OOCS o W OT (NT CM r^- WO t-i- Q XT OST Wt-*t*t OO OO5 O C 1 . re O S3 o N OOST t^-X ^^CMh^l^ OsX O-* C: ei WO OW CM T t* TO 00 | o j o ED PH lO (N 3 H Hog No : : : : : : : : : : :8 : : S : : : : :.:: : : : : : c : : i^ilil-si^ii iiliilj*! i i | a g- g- 19S9] TYPE IN SWINE AS KKI.ATKD TO QUALITY OF POKK 447 the Intermediate and Rangy picnics. The Chuffy and Intermediate picnics had less skin than the Rangy and Very Rangy picnics. The Kaimy picnics had 20 percent more bone than the Chuffy and Inter- mediate ones, and the Very Rangy picnics had 18 percent more than the Rangy picnics. The Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy bostons contained less lean than the Very Rangy bostons. The Chui'fy. Intermediate, and Rangy bostons were fatter than the Very Rangy bostons. The loins of the Very Rangy type apparently contained more lean and less fat than those of the other types. The Very Rangy loins, except in case of one hog, contained considerably more bone than those of the other types, containing 25 percent more than the Intermediates. Also, the Rangy loins apparently had about 9 percent more bone than those of the Chuffy and Intermediate types, altho in this there was considerable variation. The Very Rangy bellies had more lean than those of the other types. Apparently the Intermediate and Rangy bellies had more lean than the Chuffy bellies. The Very Rangy bellies contained less fat than those of the other types, and the Intermediate and Rangy bellies apparently contained less fat than the Chuffy ones. The Chuffy bellies contained less skin than those of the other types, and the Intermediate bellies contained less than the Rangy bellies, which apparently con- tained less than the Very Rangy bellies. The spareribs of the Chuffy and Intermediate hogs contained more lean and less bone than those of the Rangy and Very Rangy hogs. The heads of the Chuffy and Intermediate types were fatter than those of the Rangy and Very Rangy types, while the Rangy heads were fatter than the Very Rangy heads. Altho the results are not conclusive, it is indicated that the Rangy and Very Rangy heads had more skin than the Chuffy and Intermediate heads. The Very Rangy heads had 36 percent more bone than those of the Chuffy and Inter- mediate types and, except in one case, more than the Rangy type. Also the Rangy heads probably contained more bone than the Chuffy and Intermediate. The trimmings from the Very Rangy carcasses contained less fat than those from the Chuffy and Intermediate carcasses, and those from the Rangy carcasses probably contained less fat than those of the Chuffy and Intermediate types. Hogs Slaughtered at 275 Pounds. Because of the small number of hogs in the lots slaughtered at 275 pounds, the results must be re- garded as tentative rather than conclusive. The fat backs of the Very Rangy type had more skin than those of the other three types (Table 26). Those of the Rangy type had more than those of the Very Chuffy and Intermediate types. 448 BULLETIN No. 322 u CIO NOS OKOCS -^ re c L- N-*O Le-t^ > b X ~. i- i- -i i-e * Le oo c ocd r-o ^ cc c; *o ce-r-M t^o- x re f F s O >> . O M t ; re S - >H x r "'" 5 = ^ o .0 > or- cet- I0^^ - - x 00~ * re - g 00 * " * X X x r M X C 82* %r o u. t-^ t-t- t--t-0 x c; ce M ot- 0--iC p o > <: X h- g S re M -H -i V " x -^ PL, _2 1-1 C - C , CCM OINOLe; CO COM wr- 3 Q tr < oo>o ~ ~ 5 = s 5 8 ^ *x re re as^ x rei- p5^2 ,; *o rao -~ - - ~ - gJ-MOO ?i re ri C M 7 - ~ Si:s fe S 'o -3 *CO C. C-l O ~ ~ ~. '-. wr-o - i| * i r. x M -.2 00 Ol - - re t- '-- ri ^ XM ~ s x^r-re K a - M'T X ~nOC4 .^c:o03> -00 5 ^.-, 2 & t^ g =* g" 5 .g reCi -??5- n ^ Sn" 1 g^J: Wo o O G J3 ^ ~0 00000 iO^^W >-: c re ^T" x re I 71 ~ o - ^ ?l ' ~ 5i ' 00 in* 1 * 355 1 - D re '-"^ c -T - x -r - - :: /. COIN O re CM 1 a: r. S- S. P X M w t- oo C3 r. 00 re re M c: C C -r M '5 = u " 00 l-H S O W jj s .-* .Nr.^.^ (No.-eo 00 OINt- ^ o < >> to g"" s- Si" M t (N xt>-^: -r S TT OO-i g^2 1 o 3 MW rfM -r^Let, ~ ~. ri M ^00 COO* ?2 1 X ? S ^ 3?r u ~ goccc i^" 3 X - - > co no cot- coo c-Ler- 0-t- t-cor- t? S o O L~ 01 c; ss^ 1 ^ g-"2 oo 22 PHYSICAL d-fed except tl d ii<-i,i,l<,l _c re -re ^t- ~ ri t- _re C30 f ~\ re ~i ri SS / - ore x=:c: t-t- -0 - f r -1 ~i -1 M t- -u- re t- - - 1 t~ ~i i~ M r. c j^ ?i re ri - 5JS ~ ~~l 1 M C - t- re ?s* " re 5 = 2S - : 1 S 1 - -- ro - i - .- J - re re r -. - i-r~ re - - f f r- - S r< re -\ C^ = t re r rtrt c - -. 3 c =.e -i j. t - r i ceo~ - t- re - _ : - tg 1- C re i ! re ceo O-Nt-O M=:-r QbQPCQ re ': 5? c-i re ?j 's. 8 re >e i- i- t- r: r. (-0 re r. x c i- r. re-c ; - / r re L~ " " - f. - C M - : r^re - S rt Tu UK 1'uKK TABLE 27. PHY>H \i. ( 'u\ii'-I'orND AND JL'.Vl'orM) \\ 'KI-.H r-: Su OND 1 \\I-KHIMKM ( Kxpressed in percentage of carcass Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone 176-POUND \VKIC I ITS Very Chuffy 18b 44.4 44.5 45.7 46.1 37.1 38.7 38.3 37.0 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 12.4 11.1 10.4 11.3 6b 50. 1 43.5 45.7 32.0 42.3 37.6 5.0 4.3 4.7 12.1 9.5 11.1 20s 16s 19b.. . Average. . 9s Intermediate 13b 45.8 43.5 32.0 34.7 5.8 7.3 14.2 14.0 3s 43.9 44.4 38.8 35.1 4.8 6.3 11.6 13.3 5s Average. . Rangy 14b 50.3 37.4 29.1 6.3 6.3 12.4 '13.8 20b 43.5 45.5 35.3 33.9 6.8 fi.4 13.1 13.1 15b Average . . 225-POUXD WEIGHTS Very Chuffy 17s 42.0 42.0 4.6 10.7 Average 41.7 42.9 4.6 9.9 lib 41.4 43.8 4.6 9.1 Intermediate 9b 47 8 35 8 4 8 10.9 2b 37 6 44 1 5.0 11.6 18s 45.2 38.2 5.1 10.7 20s ... 45.4 37.5 4.8 11.9 15b 46.0 37 4.3 11.7 lb 48.4 36.0 4.5 10.0 19b 46.1 37.3 4.7 11.0 Average. . 45.2 38.0 4.7 11.2 Rangy lib 44 4 35 9 5 1 13.4 2b . 44 7 35.7 4.8 13.6 16b 49 3 32 4 5 1 12.6 5b 44 35 1 4.6 13 2 9s 48.3 28 1 5 3 12.2 Average 45.9 33.2 5.2 13.4 8b 45.0 32.2 6.1 15.7 In case of the self-fed hogs type differences in composition of cuts were not great so far as the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy hogs were concerned. The cuts from the Very Rangy hogs, however, were much higher in content of skin and bone, some higher in content of lean and considerably lower in fat. The Very Rangy cuts were not fat enough. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CARCASSES The physical composition of the carcasses has been calculated from the total weights of lean, fat, skin, and bone in each carcass. These results are shown in Tables 27 to 29. In the lots where the number of individuals was small, results must be regarded as tentative. 452 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. The percentages of lean in the carcasses of the types slaughtered at this weight namely, the Very Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy were practically the same for all types, with some individual variation. The Very TABLE 28. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CARCASSES OF SELF-FED HOGS, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of carcass weight) Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone Chuffy 40b 36.6 44.2 9s 38.9 43.7 lOb 38.4 43.3 Os 43.9 39.0 30b 40.6 43.5 Ob 38.3 46.5 10s 40.7 41.9 Ob 41.2 41.3 96s 32.2 53.8 Avoraee 39.0 44. 1 Intermediate 30s 36.8 47.1 Os 37.8 43.4 33s 38.5 45.0 99b 44.3 38.3 60s 39.1 43.4 30b 38.7 42.6 91s 47.1 37.7 90s 41.4 43.3 99s 36.6 46.9 Average 40.0 43. 1 Rangy 2b 36.2 46.6 9s 39.8 41.4 30b 40. 6 38. 9 90b 40.2 40.9 20b 35.2 48.0 Ib 44.6 39.4 3s 43.3 38.0 20s 41.2 42.3 Ob 49.3 27.6 Average 41.1 40.3 Very Rangy 9b 42.5 32.0 Omb 44.7 33.2 93b 46.4 32.9 Average 44.5 32.7 5.9 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.8 5.5 4.0 4.9 10.6 10.6 11.2 10.9 10.1 9.3 11.0 11.0 8.8 10.4 5.3 6.6 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.8 4.5 5.2 5.6 10.2 11.2 10.1 10.4 9.8 11.7 9.6 9.6 10.1 10.3 5.3 5.6 6.6 6.2 6.1 5.1 5.0 4.7 6.8 5.7 10.6 12.2 12.3 10.7 10.0 10.0 12. G 10.9 15.6 11.7 8.5 6.9 6.1 7.2 15.5 14.2 15.5 15.1 19Z9] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY or PORK 453 Chuffy can-asso were fatter than those of the other two types and contained approximately 27 percent loss skin and 19 percent less bone than those of the other ty: Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. With the exception of one carcass in the Intermediate lot. the ca "f the Very Chuffy hogs contained less lean than the others, the average of the ('huffy carcasses being approximately 11 percent less than the other types. There was no difference between the Intermediate and Rangy types in this respect. Also, the Very Chuffy carcasses contained more fat than the other lots, with the exception of one carcass in the Inter- mediate lot. The average of the Very Chuffy type was 13 percent greater than the average of the Intermediate. The Intermediate car- s contained 13 percent more fat than those in the Rangy lot. With the exception of one carcass in the Intermediate lot. the Y Chuffy carcasses contained slightly less skin than those of the other TABLE 29. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CAK B l 8l*Al HTERED AT J7o-PorND WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIMENT K\!>r.-~cd in percentage of carcass weight) Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone Very Chuffy: Hand-fed 5s 45.5 38.7 Sb 42.0 44.0 Average 43.8 41.3 Intermediate Hand-fed 12b ' 41.7 40.5 lOb 36.6 48.4 17h . 37.9 45.5 10s 43.3 Average 39.9 44.2 Rangy: Hand-fed 13b 41.9 40.5 Gb 45.9 35.7 3b 40.8 43.4 lOb 45.5 37.4 Is 45.9 36.5 Average 44.0 38. 7 Very Rangy: Self-fed 60b 41.3 37.2 Ob 41.6 35.7 Average 41.5 36.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 9.0 9.5 9.2 5.1 3.9 4.7 4.5 4.6 11.7 9.1 10.9 8.9 10.2 5.0 5.0 4.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 12.1 12.1 10.1 10.9 11.5 11.3 7.1 7.3 7.2 13.1 14.0 454 Bru:rrrs Xo. S'22 types, while the Intermediate carcasses contained 9 percent less skin than those of the Rangy type, altho there was some overlapping of individuals. The Yery Chuffy carcasses contained 12 percent less bone than those of the Intermediate type. The Rangy carcasses contained 20 percent more bone than the Intermediate carcasses. It is interesting to note that the Very Chuffy type contained 2.6 pounds more edible meat (lean and fat) per carcass than the Inter- mediate type T while the latter contained 4.7 pounds more edible meat per carcass than the Rangy type. The Intermediate carcasses con- tained as much lean as the Rangy ones in spite of the fact that they were considerably fatter. Self-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The Chuffy, Inter- mediate and Rangy carcasses contained practically the same amounts of lean. There is an indication that the Very Rangy carcasses con- tained a trifle more lean than those of the other types. There was little or no difference in the fat content of the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy carcasses. However, the Very Rangy carcasses contained considerably less fat, approximately 23 percent less, than those of the other ty: There is an indication that the Chuffy carcasses contained less skin than the Intermediate and Rangy ones, there being no difference be- tween the latter two. The Very Rangy carcasses, however, contained ereent more skin than the Intermediate and Rangy types. The Chuffy and Intermediate carcasses showed no differences in amount of bone. There was an indication that the Rangy carcasses contained 13 percent more bone than the Chuffy and Intermediate car- casses. The Very Rangy carcasses contained considerably more bone than the others about 40 percent. The Chuffy. Intermediate, and Rangy carcasses averaged 9 pounds more edible meat per carcass than the Very Rangy carcasses. Hogs Slaughtered at 275 Pounds. There were no distinct differ- ences in the lean content of the carcasses of the Very Chuffy. Inter- mediate, Rangy, and Very Rangy types. In fat content the Inter- mediate carcasses ranked first, and the Very Chuffy second. The Rangy carcasses contained 12 percent less fat than the Intermediate, and the Very Rangy contained about the same as the Rangy. In amount of skin there were no significant differences between the Very Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy carcasses. The two Very Rangy carcasses, however, were 56 percent higher. In content of bone the Very Rangy carcasses were 20 percent higher than the Rangy carcasses. There were too few individuals and too much overlapping of individuals between lots to draw any con- clusions regarding the other types. 19S9] TYPE IK SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK loo GRADING OF CARCASSES The carcasses were graded as to finish before they were cut up. A carcass of each type of hog slaughtered when weighing approximately 225 pounds, is shown in Fig. 14. These carcasses were not typical in all respects, but they do show the ranginess. coarseness, and lack of condition that characterized many of the Rang}- and Yen- Rant: casses and the quality and finish of the other types. In grading, both the firmness and amount of fat were considered. In general the finished carcasses were hard or firm, altho there were a FIG. 14. CAKC.< . - KEY CHCKFY. CHUFFY. INTERMEDI . AND VERY RANGY HOGS FED TO 225 POUNDS Xote differences in form, quality, and condition of carca~- - few exceptions as noted. The results of the grading are shown in Tables 30 to 33. For convenience in study, the depth of fat over the back and the percentage of fat in the carcass as separated by the knife is also added. From these data it will be noted that the finished carcasses usually contained 37 percent or more of fat as separated by the knife, while carcasses containing less than 37 percent of fat usually were unfinished. Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 175 Pounds. Table 30 shows that of the 6 Very Chuff y carcasses. 2 were finished. 2 were almost finished. 4.36 No. 322 [May. and 2 were unfinished. All three of the Intermediate carcasses were unfinished and all three of the Rangy carcasses from hogs killed at this weight were unfinished. TABLE 30. GRADES OF ' - - OF HAND-FED HOGS, 175-PorND WEIGHTS: EXPERIM: Live weight Depth of fat Fat in c&ratBS Grade of carcass Very Chuffy ft*. **. pet. 18b 178.9 1.0 37.1 Soft, unfinished 9s 183.8 1.4 37.0 Trifle soft, almost finished 20s 167 38.7 Trifle soft, almost finished 19b. 178-9 1 38.3 Hard, well finished 66 168.9 1.0 3-> 16s. 190.7 - Hard, well finished - Intermediate 13b 182.6 1.0 32.0 Unfinished 17O.9 1.4 Unfinished 1S3.6 - 3S.g Average 1.4 36.1 Rangy 14b. . . 169.9 37.4 Unfinished 15b. . . 188.2 1.0 29.1 oft. unfinished 20b 174.1 35.3 Unfinished Averacr I 1.1 33.9 Hand-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The three Very Ohuffy carcasses were well finished (Table '<} . < >i 7 intermediate - milled at 225 pounds. 5 were well finished and 2 were unfinished. One carcass was criticised as rough. Six Rangy carcasses were all un- finished. The Rangy carcasses were quite deficient in percentage of fat as compared to the finished carcasses of the Very Chuffy and Inter- mediate hogs killed at these weights. Three of the Rangy carcasses were coarse and rough. Self-Fed Hogs Slaughtered at 225 Pounds. The nine Chuffy car- casses were all well-finished (Table 32). None were criticised for lack of quality. The nine Intermediate carcasses also were all well finished. The self-fed Intermediates were considerably fatter than the car- casses of the same type which were hand-fed. One of the Intermediate carcasses was graded as rough. Of the ten self-fed Rangy carcasses. 5 were finished. 2 were almost finished, and 3 were unfinished. B? TYPE DC SWIXE AS BELATED TO QUALITY OP PORK 457 comparing this lot with the similar type which was hand-fed, it is seen that the self-feeding produced much fatter and better finished carcasses. Two of these carcasses were coarse and lacked quality. All five of the Very Rangy carcasses were unfinished and three of them were rough and coarse. TABLE 31. GRADES OF CARCASSES OP HAXD-FED HOGS, 225-PorxD WEIGHTS: SECOND EXPERIM:- Hot Lire weight Depth Fat in of fat carcass Gr.i of carcass Very Chuff y B*. **. Ptt. : ' 20S.2 2.1 Hard, very fat lib. 226.1 1.5 43.8 Hiid. finisbed J 234.8 2.0 42.0 Hard, fin-shed - 1-9 42.9 ISa 239 2 _ 9b. . 224.0 .5 35.8 .-Jt nnprv-r.^ rr^jfK lob .5 37.0 T-r,t=nMh* EXPERIMEXT Hog No. Fat in belly Grade of belly Hog No. Fat in belly Grade of belly :'tNT> WEIGHT- Chuffy POUXD WEIGHTS Very Chuffy 40b pet. 57.9 61.8 . 59.2 59.4 57.6 51.0 67.9 59.2 Choice, finished Choice, finished Choice, finished Choice, finished Too fat Choice, finished Seedy, too fat Choice, finished Fair, too fat pc.'. 40.8 52.4 46.6 Choice, finished Too heavy for choice le 8b lOb . . Average Os 30b Ob 10s Ob 96s Average. . Intermediate 30s 57.9 58.6 54.0 58.5 46.8 53.0 55.8 Too fat Choice, finished Choice, finished Choice, finished .Seedy, too fat Choice, finished Choice, finished Choice, finished Choice, finished 12b 53.2 57.9 56.5 54.2 55.5 Choice, finished Too fat Good, too fat Good, too fat Os 16b 99b 10s 60s Average 30b - Average. . Raney 2b 59.8 63.4 59.0 65.0 Good, finished Finisned Rough, finished Unfinished Choice, finished Unfinished Unfinished, rough Unfinished Choice, finished Choice, finished 13b.!... 3b ib lOb Average 54.0 46.9 S3 50.4 Not quite finished Finished, coarse, too heavy Good, finished Good, finished, too heavy Unfinished 9b 30b 90b 20b Ob 38.3 50.8 51.6 54.9 55.5 Ib . ... 20s Average. . Very Rangy 9b 46.3 Thin, unfinished Thin, unfinished, rough Thin, unfinished, soft, rough Very thin, unfinished Unfinished, rough 60b Ob Average 49.2 46.9 48.0 Finished, rough, too heavy Unfinished, rough 30b - Omb .... 93b 45.6 44.8 Average. . 'The 225-pound hogs were all self-fed; the 275-pound hogs were hand-fed, except the Very Rangy type. N " p bi? ily . from, i . . mi- ii fl be%. f r j m on. InftnawdBdne &. is ASArf,. * B abe tti bat OHH. fram & IMP] TT?I --::- 1~ Ta-e -.:p b^Uj is fr >m. i Yen bdlr is too fat. Terr Baagr is quite de tfcnrd y > : The top beCy is froai m To sad tbe Very Bugr is fine^cd 464 BULLETIN X... __ GRADING OF THE OTHER CUTS [May, \ attempt was made to grade the other cuts, but it was noted that the Very Chuff y and most of the Chuffy hams and picnics were very FIG. 19. HAMS FROM HOGS OF DIFFERENT TYPES From left to right these hams are from Very Chuffy. Chuffy. Intermediate, Rangy, and V _- entered at 225 pounds. While there were no differences iu tli> hams cut from the various lots, there wore great diff- - quality. B Fin. 2i>. Pirxirs DIFFERENT TYPES From left to right these picnics are from Very Chuffy. Chuffy, In- termediate. Rangy, and Very Rangy \\-~. .\<>te differences in length - auk, short, thick, fat. and short in the shank. Many of them were too fat. Some of the Rangy hams and picnics were long in the shank, thin. and not fat enough. This was especially true of the picnics from the hand-fed Rangy hogs. The Very Rangy hams and picnics were es- pecially long in the shank, narrow and lean. The amount of variation in the hams is shown in Fig. 19. and a picnic from each type from hogs slaughtered at 225 pounds is shown in Fig. 'Jn. The loins of the Rangy hogs 'were longer and thinner, and those of the Chuffy hogs were shorter and thicker, than those of the Inter- mediate type, altho there was no difference in cutting percentage. In general, cuts of self-fed hogs were fatter than cuts of hand-fed hogs of the same type. !>!>] TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QTAI.ITY OK POKK THIRD EXPERIMENT COMPARISON OF INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED AND SELF-FED TO 225-POUND WEIGHTS Tliis i'.\|H'riment was confined t<> a comparison of two types. In- termediate and Rangy, inasmuch as tin-so had proved superior to the other types in the previous experiments. Kighteen [ntermediate hogs and 17 l-fan.gv ho-- band-fed similarly to the Imnd-i'ed 1. the two previous experiments. In order to obtain a comparison of the two types when fed on pasture. IS Intermediate and 17 Rangy hogs were self-fed mi alfalfa pasture. All hogs were slaughtered at ap- proximately Jo pounds. DRESSING PERCENTAGES As in the preceding experiments, the d 1 percentages were calculated on the warm carcass ueights shrunk 'J.u i>eivent. The indi- vidual and average dressing percentages of the hogs are given in Tables 30 and 37. No differences were apparent between lots in dn- due either to type or to method of feeding. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS In general, the 3 measurements indicate there was much difference in conformation bet \\een types in this experiment as in the preceding: experiments. The "average" carcasses of each type vi own in Fig. '2\ . Hogs Hand-Fed in Dry Lot. The average length of the carcass Rangy hogs hand-fed in dry lot was 1.1) inches greater than that of the Intermediate carcasses, altlio there is much overlapping of the individual data (.Table 3S>. From snout to first thoracic vertebra (length of head and neck) there was practically no difference between types. In length of body t first thoracic vertebra to H-bone) there was practically no difference. In length of hind leg (H-bone to rear toe) the average of the Rangy type was one inch greater than the average of the Intermediate type, with many cases of overlapping. There was no difference in depth of chest. The average depth of fat over the loin was .1 inch greater (10 percent) in the Intermediate than in the Rangy types; however, the individual variation in this respect was great. There was no difference in circumference of foreleg. The average foreleg of the Rangy type was .5 inch longer, but there were many cases of overlapping. - - :.??; Of . _* iT^ngp?- : b fcp* :if it- I i^!E_ :r > t i "^TUT _ ftr Am - ^ I- Ik i^i.i- T_ :V. ': 45 ii-. - 468 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 36. LIVK WKH;HTS, WARM AND COLD CARCASS WEIGHTS, AND DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Live weight Warm carcass weight Total cold weight 1 Dressing percentage 2 Right half Left half Total Intermediate lOb Ibs. 228 Hw. 90.0 Ibs. 91.6 Ibs. 181.6 Ibs. 177.2 pet. 77.7 2b 223.7 84.7 89.1 173.8 169.6 75.8 16b 221.4 87.9 88.3 L76.2 172.0 77.7 7b 223.6 87.7 88.9 176.6 172.4 77. 1 lob 220.9 86.9 90.6 177.5 173.2 78.4 14b 218.4 86.3 87.7 174. 1 169.9 77.8 9s _"'.". 1 89.7 91. 1 180.8 176.5 78.4 Ib 2 It. 2 81.0 85.2 166.2 Ifi2 3 75.0 3b 226.2 90.7 93.2 184.0 179.6 79.4 17b 22 1 . t 90.0 89.2 179.2 174.9 77.9 20s 226.8 91.4 91.3 182.7 178.4 78.6 1- 231.7 93.7 89.1 182.8 178.4 77.0 11s 86.7 86.5 173.2 169.1 76.6 OS 210 8 89.4 86.8 171; 2 171.9 78.2 lib 219.3 88.5 90.8 179.3 175.0 79.8 12s 222. 1 88 7 175.7 171.5 77.2 lOb 86.8 89.7 I7f. ~. 172.3 77.8 13b 222..'. '.Ml. 1 89.1 179.5 174.8 78.6 Average. . . 77.7 2s 222.8 86.7 88.8 1 7:. . r. 171.3 76.9 19b 221 7 87.9 88.0 175.9 171.6 76.4 5b 220 2 86.5 173.0 168.8 76.7 16s 216.8 83.4 84 . 5 167.9 163.9 75.6 7b.. . 230.9 88.3 91.4 17!'. 7 I 7.~> . t 76.0 4b 231.0 92. 1 !."> 4 187.5 183. 79.2 3s 89.3 88.8 178.1 173.8 76.2 18b. . 2:;i .6 90.0 90.6 180.6 176.2 76.1 13s 229. 1 88.2 91.4 179.7 175.4 76.6 12s 6b 223.6 22;. 7 90.5 89.2 94.3 177.0 184.8 173.4 180.4 77.5 79.6 9s 225 . 1 91.5 92.3 183.8 179.4 79.7 14b 218.6 89.9 89.4 179.4 175. 1 80.1 17s 222. 1 89.4 88.7 178.2 173.9 78.2 10s 226.1 89.9 87.1 177. 1 172.8 76.4 15s 220.9 88.1 87.7 175.9 171.6 77.7 20s 220.2 85.2 87.7 172.9 168.7 76.6 Average 77.4 Equals 2.6 percent shrinkage of total warm carcass weight. 2 Expressed as percentage of live weight TYPE IX SUMXK AS Ii'KI.ATKl) TO (^TAUTY OF PORK 4C9 TABLE 37. LIVE WEIGHTS, WARM AND COLD CARCASS WEIGHTS, AND DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF HOGS SELF-FED ON ALFALFA PASTURE, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Live weight Warm carcass weight Total cold weight 1 Dressing percentage' Right hilf Left half Total Intermediate 99b ' Ibs. 2"\ ." Ibs. 88.6 87. 1 Hw. 175.9 168. 171 7 pet. 77 5 39b 233.4 91.1 185.3 180.8 77.5 Os .... 218.2 88.9 87.8 176.7 172.4 79 6b 22 :> 4 92.4 89.2 181.6 177.3 78 6 70b 221 (' 87.7 89.5 177 2 172 9 78 1 3b 2211. I 91.4 90.0 181.4 177.0 78 2 80b . 221 !M>. 1 85.4 175.6 171 4 77 5 9s 221 1 89. 1 91.2 180.4 17ti 79 6 99s 220.9 90.7 91.2 182.0 177.6 80 4 20b 233 1 90.2 90.0 180.2 175 9 29b 221.9 88.7 88.6 177.2 173.0 77 9 Ob 89.7 90.9 180.7 170 3 79 96b 222.0 88.1 181.5 171 1 77 1 220 87.6 Mi 1 173 7 109 5 77 1 90b 225.0 89.4 S'.t. I 178.5 174.2 77 4 93b 221.7 91.7 93.4 185.1 180 6 81 5 66s 2SS7.fi 90. I 92.5 182.9 178.5 78.4 63b.. 22-1 1 92. 1 91.9 184. 1 17'. (I 80 2 Average. . . 78.4 Rangy 3b 221.7 88.8 88.9 177.7 173 4 78 2 10s 220.5 89.2 84.5 173.7 169 5 76 9 33b 224 6 . 88.6 Mi !) 175 4 171 2 76 2 36s 230.0 88.4 86.9 175.3 171 74 4 20b 222.0 87.8 89.2 177 172 7 77 8 2b 221 1 86 2 --7 7 174 169 8 76 8 93b 226.4 90.9 89.1 180 17 '5 7 77 6 30b. . 228.2 89.3 88.4 177 7 173 4 76 93s 231 1 90 !! 89 2 180 2 175 76 1 40s 222.9 87.2 89.8 177 1 172 8 77 5 3s 218.0 ' 85.7 86.9 172 6 168 5 77 3 6fl 222 2 91 6 92 9 184 5 180 1 81 Os 221.7 89.4 89.6 179 1 174 8 78 8 30s 223.6 90.0 88.9 178 9 174 6 78 1 99s 226 3 91 7 92 4 184 1 179 7 79 4 90s 220.4 89.2 88.6 177 8 173 5 78 7 9b 211.2 81.7 M ti 166 4 162 4 76 9 Average 77.5 'Equals 2. 6 percent shrinkage of total warm c:nc;iss weight. 2 Expressed as percentage of live weight. 470 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 38. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS OF INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS HAND- FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 225-PouND WEIGHTS 1 : THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Snout to rear toe Snout to first thoracic vert. H-bone to first thoracic vert. H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest outside Depth of fat over loin Circum- ference of fore shank Length of foreleg Intermediate 10b 68.5 17.2 28.5 23.2 12.9 1.6 6.2 15.0 13b 69.2 17.2 28.6 23.6 13.1 1.2 5.9 15.0 2b 71.7 18.2 30.2 24.0 13.0 1.2 6.1 15.0 16b 68.0 17.2 28.6 23.0 13.1 1.6 5.9 15.1 7b 69.5 17.6 28.6 23.7 11.5 1.4 6.0 15.2 15b . .... 69.5 18.5 28.6 23.0 13.1 1.9 5.6 14.7 Ub 69.7 17.7 28.6 23.9 12.7 1.4 6.0 15.0 9s 70.7 17.9 29.0 24.4 13.4 1.5 6.5 15.4 3b 71.4 18.0 30.2 23.7 13.9 1.5 5.9 14.2 lb 71.5 18.7 30.0 23.6 12.5 1.4 6.4 14.4 20s 71.2 16.4 31.0 23.5 13.7 1.6 6.5 14.2 17b 71.2 18.6 30.0 23.4 14.2 1.5 6.0 13.5 lib 71.9 17.6 30.1 24.5 13.7 1.9 6.2 14.5 12s 70.6 17.9 29.7 23.6 13.4 1.7 6.2 14.2 19b 71.0 17.7 30.7 23.1 14.1 1.6 6.0 14.1 Us 68.4 16.5 29.2 22.6 15.4 1.4 6.0 13.4 5s 70.2 18.6 29.4 23.2 14.2 1.9 6.0 13.2 Average 70.3 17.8 29.5 23.5 13.4 1.5 6.1 14.5 Rang; r 2s 70.7 18.1 30.5 23.7 12.7 1.2 5.9 15.7 5b 71.5 18.6 29.5 24.9 12.7 1.2 6.0 16.0 16s 69.5 17.7 28.5 24.2 13.0 1.1 6.0 15.9 19b 73.0 18.5 30.5 25.7 13.0 1.1 6.1 16.6 7b. . . 75.0 19.2 31.5 25.0 12.4 1.4 6.2 16.4 4b 71.6 17.2 31.0 23.7 14.0 2.2 6.5 14.2 3s 71.2 17.6 30.6 24.1 14.2 1.2 6.2 15.1 12s 71.4 18.0 29.7 24.6 14.9 1.5 6.1 14.1 18b 73.9 18.6 31.7 24.5 13.4 1.9 6.4 14.7 13s 71.9 18.0 31.0 23.5 13.9 1.5 6.0 14.2 9s 73.0 17.7 31.2 24.2 13.6 1.4 6.1 14.1 17s 72.9 17.2 31.5 24.4 14.5 1.6 6.1 14.2 14b 73.6 18.2 31.0 24.5 13.6 1.5 6.2 15.0 10s 72.0 17.7 29.0 25.0 13.6 1.5 6.5 14.7 15s 71.4 17.4 30.5 24.6 14.1 1.2 6.0 15.0 20s... . 73.2 17.6 31.1 24.6 12.9 1.5 6.1 14.4 Average 72.2 18.0 30.6 24.5 13.5 1.4 6.2 15.0 HDne carcass was not measured. 1929} TYPE IN SWINE AS BELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 471 TABLE 39. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS OF INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS SELF- FED ON ALFALFA PASTURE, 225-PouND WEIGHTS': THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Snout to rear toe Snout to first thoracic vert. H-bone to first thoracic vert. H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest outside Depth of fat over loin Circum- ference of fore shank Length of foreleg Intermediate Os 67.1 17.4 27.5 23.0 13.5 1.2 5.9 14 7 6b .... 66.5 15.7 29.1 22.2 13.7 1.7 5.9 13 5 70b 70.6 18.0 29.6 23.7 13.6 1.5 6.2 14.6 3b 07.2 17.0 27.9 22.7 13.5 1.6 6.0 14 2 80b 09.5 18.0 29.1 22.9 13.5 1.7 6.1 14 5 9s 70.0 16.7 31.0 23.0 13.7 1.5 5.7 14.5 99s . . 68.5 17.1 29.4 22.6 12.7 2.0 6.0 14.4 20b .... 70.0 17.7 29.0 23.5 13.5 1.6 5 9 15 29b 70.0 18.0 29 23 4 13 2 1 6 6 14 6 Ob. . . 69.5 17.5 29.2 23.2 13.1 1.6 6.0 14 7 96b 67.5 17.2 28.9 22.2 14 1 1 6 5 6 13 4 96s 68.0 17.2 28.6 23.1 13.4 1.6 6.0 15.0 90b. . .... 69.2 17.6 29.2 23.5 13.4 1 4 5 9 14 7 63b 69.4 17.6 29.2 23.7 13.4 1.6 5.9 14.0 93b. . 69.9 18.0 29.5 22.5 13.4 2 6 14 4 66s 69.5 18.6 28.7 22.7 13.1 1.5 6.1 14.2 Average 68.9 17.5 29.1 23.0 13.4 1.6 5.9 14.4 Rangi r 3b 70.0 17.5 29.5 24.4 13.6 1.5 6.0 15 5 33b. ... .... 70.0 18.5 29.4 23.5 13.4 1.5 6 9 15 2 10s 70.2 17.4 29 4 24 2 12 9 1 4 6 15 36s 72.6 17.9 31.0 24.4 13.1 1.2 5.6 15 7 20b . 69.0 16.9 28.9 24 4 13 4 1 2 6 15 5 2b 71.5 18.4 29.6 23.5 13.1 1.7 5.9 15.1 93b . . 70.7 17.7 28.9 25.0 13 5 1 5 9 16 30b 72.5 18.2 30 1 24 7 13 1 4 6 6 15 6 40s ... 70.0 17.0 29.5 24.1 13. 1 1.7 5 6 15 3s 69.5 17.2 28.5 24 2 13 6 1 9 5 4 15 93s 72.0 19.2 29.5 23.9 13.1 1.6 5.5 15 1 6s 70.0 17.0 29.9 23 9 13 1 1 7 5 6 14 Os 70.0 17.7 29 2 23 5 12 9 1 4 6 2 14 5 30s 69.5 16.6 29.9 24.1 12.9 1 6 6 1 15 1 90s 70.0 18.0 29 24 2 13 5 1 5 5 9 15 2 99s 68.0 17.0 28.7 23.2 13.5 1.5 5 7 15 9b. . . . 68.4 17.2 28.7 23 2 12 6 1 1 5 7 15 1 Average. . . 70.2 17.6 29.4 24.0 13.2 1.5 5.9 15.2 'Two carcasses were not measured. n BULLETIN N _i [May, - - a I - / - - - - - H -g i E 5 - - ~ - x - - = z - -_ = ^ r - r - ;- = - "7 ^ 1 1- M s ^ - - : fc B . - - - -' r r - r - - - r - - - . r > - ~ ?~. n vr - ) ~ a - * t- r. ri x r-: c c - r : IQ - - ~" t~ ~ M M t~ x :/: _: - z - r r =1 - - - - - - - - --_^__- : o fi s r - - - - ri - c: r: J --; - - ----r~c X _: r ri t- -> -f. - -~ t^ -i - - c =: - c " -.-__- _ - _ = ~ t- - - t~ --- ._.. _-__-- at - - - - - - - 9 r~ - - -. - *r - - - _- - g - - r 9 t>- r - - - - - / d = r - z - ~ - - r - - . r ' - t- ri c ~ i ?) t~ ~ - -. r " :- : - r * - - - - - - i - - - - : - c: r; J2 - - - - -r ---- - e - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ r - - - - >-- S r: - - ' - ~ c; ~. - ^ - -. - r - - - .- - .' .' - *-~. ~~ - ; - r - " ; :- - - - - c; - - j -i c. X S ^ nO'->: -r e ; -- - -> -s. <- - r - | ~. re ,; TI r. ~ ' t- ^i c X a - - r : r r- - : - - - - - .. - _ _ . .,-_.-_.- ' - - - - ::.-- -; 00 - - i - ?i in y. r. r. ti ~ a s !!,,, \,, :::::?: ^ :::: ; i ; - ~i = i |= ijljjlgjj 5=^ -----_: - , Y ~ - - -- -: - -- 1 ? 1920} 'I'VI'K IN S\VINK \S K'KI.ATKH 'in (^I'AI.ITY OK PORK 173 - - -, - ~ -, ~ - - -i r- .E >- -S :. V 'f- - i - 5. - ^ : x ' - H J i D O ij - CO - - 71 00 O X CO e S r. " 71 ~ - "' i-: / 71 c; X K "* s TO " - ,^71 CO ^ 71 C 00 as t. O "? T7 o ^. * t- - si Si TO rt rt t- 71 r --, c - 00 5 i M co i M .0 5 ~. 71 00 (M r co w co t. * * rt ^ 71 ' ' ** 71 ~ h 00 EC C: C^l - r- 01 TK c aa OS c: 71 71 - 71 = - m _r rl ~ ~ CS rt rt rt -r X .7 <* - h-. 00 77 M " - 71 r. f. LO 71 . 00 ifi B 1- 71 rt 4, TO S5 TO n ~ w 71 C5 O o! 77 (M - rt - - -^ / If) 71 ^ 77. - !: T7 - I o ~ X 71 - 00 C -r M - ?l L- - <~. - co M 00 oi TO C-l " 1- 71 '-. 00 M O 0> iO 71 K 71 1- _ O rt >-. 7-1 L- ~ 71 rt 77 71 r. CJ o St co 71 t- 71 r: f 71 ~ 00 Hog No M "c | 1 "i 01 ^ 3 o! s" 2 - J : Fat back . 1 Total trim - Bi uxnx N -: I if ay. - - ----- - - - - _ _ _ - - - - c ~ I - - T>. .- - I - - z _ _ - _ ~ _' : - - - - - - - - - - - : 4^- B - - i - L _ - J < : : - _ = _ _ - - - - - - - . - -_ - - - - - - - - . - - -. - - - - . . - - - - - . - - - - - : - - - : _ - . _ . - - - - - - - - ------- --- - - - - - ---'. - - - . . - - . - - - - - - : - - - - - - : - - - - - r - _: _ - - - . - BVLLETIV * - - - - M = X M ~r r -r t~m t t^ r-. x r. r. = ' e i e r~ re M re ri ^7 re~i' f i~ 2*":: re M M = r 82*: *0~ -x - - re x _r^ t re X t* M = re x - M re '-X x - -'- -?,--- I MX = : M o re - r - r - c t- c ~ 1- X i- M r- re M ? -X ! r< t^ . .. . - x t^- re 3 ?i c e = c re rj x t c o^re 1 "" :e c r * x re ~ - - 3 .1.. M JO DOC* X 71 r. =-. -~e - i t^TTM c - - : - t^s ?> ^' .e >-: -r t~ M.. .1 " " x M rer~ - -1 KX - o - - = c c: -.r owt. t x ' - 5 M ^ = 5-S: o = = re - -: ~ - * - - M X M = '- - re ~ x t- - - -__ 3 SS^S gd2 - - r X M - r r-M- -- - j r _-- Ss y ^'-~~J. 5 ?! " ~ 5-- 00 t-.-re *.. - -- re ^ -r~re - - y x I r e M ~. ^ M o t- ~*r - s = 0-0 M C r^ n - ; -i r y M X r- .. r~ -' ' ' * ' _ .> = re -. - -ere ~ M r~ S^ 3 x ~ * S?TS *r ~-^ = = o;=^w ox = ~ y M t~ ~ i^~ T ~ - - - -- re ri t^ . T '-T = r - - re re -c --= f- - - z - c ri ' " c n . M - f -re _- - - = x-r = :-/-. i- = M *~ -7 * ~- - X M Tl M .- -1 : i ?! '' * - o- rue ~ i- ri OMr.n N00d - = - - ~ - - - Ml- x O M C = y. - - -- - - re -^ - = M r~ y ?n- - - - -' ~ S re > ' - j - - : M -^ M re r n ~. ri ~ * re TYPE ix SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 477 ~l ,' - - " Ir : - - r - - J r - - - - 606 C -' - _ ; ; r~--- - - r - - 5 SS" -{:^~ z r t- 1- .: c r - ,' - DOC .- - - .- : - - : - - - - - - - - - : - r - - - - - - - - ' - - : r - - s - - - - - - .: - - ~ JO - - ~ - - r - - _ . - - - - ~ t- ~> v: " T.*r I- t- -- c ~ -" ;< ~ - - r - - z ' - - - : ' ~ /- - - - ; y - - - - -> t- _ - rit^ t- r ~ - - - - - - - _- ,- - - r - r r , . r DOC t - - - - - r-ri - - i - f. O et ' - - - r .- O CQ fi ;: :; ^-r. .::: f. COC ; = _ - - j - : - - - - - : r - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - . _ _ - - - - - - - z - - - :>*> ; m - - - - - - : z. - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ : - - - : i - - - ! I - - - _ BULLETIN _; ; f =" = I' -L - - - = - - - ~ = : : x : - - - - - \ - t - r - r - : - - - Mr~ -- - - - - - - r - < '- - s r- c: M ^xt^ X. - t- n r - - - .- - - - - - :- r,S 25 K?i L " = - ~\^r-.^-. ut M - - - - r ' - : - r _- - - r:- f. t~t~- : - - ( a - r rir~ : t~ x - - 1 ' - >-t tt- JT -.-_-; r~t~. ?-.= - r Tlt~ r- - - - 3 - - -- ri - 1 -. - r : J r - t - - r - X - - r - - - -- - -- r - - - r~T - r r r r - : - - r - - - - -- -- 2 S S - i - r - - : r r - = _ _ - _ _- / . ; - DC - r -- r i i ' - - t2 ] - -- - r - T - ~ - ; - , ' - 28 OO ! - - - - s ^ r r - f g*:2 A r~r: s r - IS" >^ - d Z - z = - '- ~L - -_ - -_ = - / _; J - - /. - V TYPE ix SWIXE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK - - - - - -. - - - - . - - - - - I - - - r - - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - : r - - ._ . _ -- -- r ~ - ~ - - r -. - - - - - - ' r i - - ; - r - r ~- - - - - - - ' r - - r - - - - -- ~ - - .- ; - t~ M -' r. - ~- - - - -. = = - - r - - -: - ; ~ ?*x - - c^ - " 482 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, i; t^cox NO OO oox -tt^ COTfXN coxxx * N 1 7-1 N CO N't- N 00 X ro ^}N Ncor-- ot-o ' CO O] 71 01 NC~ coo h-l>O X oo o COXCOTt o TfCONO ON oot^ o < H OOSTfCO os os OiO XNO o TfXON ooco cocot- 1) 4 o oox N X X xo -r o OiO -f o" N OCO CO oco t-ocoo CO ox O -H -H El "S t-OON N coco 71 / X TtOCOO NXOO COXN 3 1 TJ O CO t- O O 71 CO N t- CO CO '" x -r 17 X NX O NOCO-^ STt N O N o o o 5 a r. N N CO CO -: o CO 1- I ~ '' '^ ' Xt-cot- OOO 1 ' -It 7i re ~i Si 2 '- O -t X oo X -H O N CO CO O CO N X ON **" H 'o 01 t^CONN NO xo Tl-COt- 0-K O XO O O CO NNO S O O NN * N X X ot- coo r OO o CO CO 01 '7 01 O O 7-) O 10 CO 2S : - 'S3 t^XON Ol>^ XI^OO > S H CH CO r. ' 0) CO ~1 OO X O -" Orf * X OS ON O -t CO -H oox " ^ H C_J OOON THO -r- 000 r O OO NNOrJ. NOO 5 S. N I- N X 01 -r -H X '0 ,- _ O O T^ X 01 t- - oi oco co 71 ONO ON 10 r- 1- ^ _C co , o i-O i.O XN 00 ^^ --*-- t-o-t o 1-7 O O . 4 T3 o> o 0) CO h- COO ?l CO X CO COO '7 X '7 X -f. 01 CO 17 IO N CO CO CO O ON coxt^ ) fe oo N 71 x 00 ot- -01- -r OSXNO co o t* co TCOX H p. CO O O CO -* Ol CO OI X O X TJ* o r :: o o ^ - -*- *^ O O NO ON ~ ~ ~ 5 *-' .0 oooo -*t- CO-* ON CO ^ooco t-N 1OCO t-NX H CO CO 71 X O NN CO oo ot^ coo 1.7 o X OS o o o 10 o O -H -H COOtfN xo N 3 OXOX OO r^o OCO xo X N-* COON t-t-0 3 01 N N CO 7-1 h- ox ^o Nl> O O b-OCOO O 2S2 ) NO 00 ot> o O OS OCO ONNO NOOt^ NCO J co ON CO CO N-f N 2S NCO-* X o ~. X Ot^CON O *NNO3 ON ONt- S ? d J Q < H Hog No S 1 -1 r . . o fill - cooo o 51*- t O5 *O O 00 O5 *~* CO TT-* N5O " t , re oo * r- :r> c-i ~ t^ -, o to oo "5 c r. /: co * TJI (NO OO-H ocqco re cc tr-r ccio o -~ co DO oo i - r i - -r t o INOO ccm t - -M o XX ceo oo co re ~ - i- re - r. c-o c - ~ o tcmos *^ c-. o o O w os oo ~. cece ceo Hi c: 10 OC S C-. i- c- ce c -r - d i^ c coo 484 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 48. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CARCASSES OF INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: THIRD EXPERIMENT (Expressed in percentage of carcass weight) IntermeJiate Rangy Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone Hog No. Lean Fat Skin Bone Hand-fed individually in dry lot lOb 45 3 36.5 6 1 11.5 2s 45.2 36.0 5 9 12 8 13h 45.0 36.5 4.7 11.9 16s 46.2 34.5 6. 1 12 5 2b 47.1 35.0 5.2 12.4 5b 46.7 32.8 6.0 13.8 7b 41.7 41.1 5.0 11.8 19b 45.1 32.9 5.8 14.3 16b 11' 7 39.1 4.7 12.7 4b 44.5 36.2 6.1 15.3 15b 45.9 39.5 3.8 11.2 7b 47.5 32.8 5.9 14.2 14b 46.5 35.5 4.7 14.1 13s 49.3 32.3 5.5 14.4 9s 48.4 33.2 5.8 13.4 3s 46.2 33.5 4.9 17.1 Ib 44.7 35.9 6.0 15.0 12s 46.5 32.9 5.8 14.3 3b 41.4 38.4 6.2 15.1 18b 43.5 34.9 6.0 17.2 17b 47.9 33.6 4.9 14.9 6b 44.5 35.7 5.7 14.7 20s 46.8 33.7 5.5 15.4 17s 17. 4 31.8 6.3 15.4 lib 46.9 32.9 5.8 15.7 14b 43.2 34.6 6.6 16.6 4s 47.5 30. 1 6.3 17.4 9s . ... 48.3 32.9 5.3 14.1 12s 43 3 36.4 5.7 14.8 15s 47.7 32.2 5.3 14 4 i9b 43.8 37.3 5.5 14.0 10s 52. 1 26.2 6.4 15.1 6a 42. 1 38.1 5.5 14.2 20s 51.9 28. 1 5.8 13.7 Us 49.8 29.9 5.9 13.8 Average. . . 45.4 35.7 5.4 13.9 Average. . 46.8 33.0 5.8 14.7 Self-fed on alfalfa pasture 99b 45.6 37.3 4.8 12. 1 3b 4(1. 1 35.3 5.6 12.7 39 b 42. 1 42.7 4.9 11.0 10s 46.0 35.2 5.3 13.3 Os .... 48.9 35.2 4.8 11.8 33b 43.3 33.3 7.6 15.3 6b 41.0 41.3 5.1 11.6 36s Mi. 1 36.0 5.1 12.5 70b 45.7 36.5 5.8 12.0 20b 40.6 40.5 5.4 12.4 3b 38.5 45.5 4.6 11.1 2b 42.7 40.5 5.0 11.6 80b .... 38. 1 43.4 5.0 13.0 93b 41.5 39.7 4.8 13.0 9s 45.7 37.0 5.0 11.0 30b 40.9 39.5 6.0 13.3 99s 39.4 43.5 4.5 12.4 93s 37.9 45.4 4.7 11.3 20b 41.9 41.2 5.1 12. 1 40s 45.1 38.7 5.0 11.1 29b 40.4 43.0 4.3 11.5 3s 44.3 38.6 4.5 12.3 Ob 36.4 46.6 4.4 11.7 6s 37.0 46.6 4.9 11.1 96b 41. 1 42 4.3 12.3 Os 46.5 35.2 5.2 12.7 96s .... 38.5 43.8 4.8 12.1 30s 39.5 43.7 4.5 11.6 90b 41.6 41.1 4.6 12.3 99s 38.0 46.0 4.8 11.7 93b 35.5 48.7 5.6 9.9 90s 42.0 40.5 5.6 12.2 63b 40.5 42.3 5.3 11.3 9b 39.7 43.1 5.3 11.7 66s .... 41.5 41.2 5.6 11.7 Average. . . 41.2 41.8 4.9 11.7 Average. . 42.2 39.9 5.3 12.3 1929] TYPE IN SWINK AS KKI.ATKH TO (.^i AI.ITN 01 |'f the carcasses was quite unsatisfactory due to poor tvt'ri'^eration during a considerable part of the experiment and the illness of the investigators during the latter part of the experiment. In the former investigations it was found that carcasses containing :!7 percent or more fat were usually finished, while those containing less than :!7 percent were usually unfinished. Judged by this standard, 6 of the 18 Intermediate hogs hand-fed in dry lot were finished at 225 pounds, while none of the 17 hand-fed Rangy hogs was finished at this weight (Table 48). Of the hogs self-fed on alfalfa pasture, 16 of the 18 Intermediate hogs were fat enough and 12 of the 17 Rangy hogs were finished at 225 pounds. Of the self-fed hogs, 15 Intermediate carcasses were graded "smooth" and 3 were faulted as being a trifle rough. Twelve of the 17 Rangy carcasses were criticized as being too rough. The grading of the hand-fed hogs (many of which were slaughtered during the illness of the graders) was quite incomplete. Eleven Inter- mediate carcasses were graded as rough, 3 as smooth, and 4 were un- graded. Eight of Rangy carcasses were graded as rough, 2 as smooth, and 7 were not graded. GRADING OF CUTS A ham, a belly, and a picnic from each carcass were cured and smoked. The cured cuts were then graded by an expert from Swift and Company. Inasmuch as the picnic is a cheap cut, the trade is not very particular regarding it. In fact, the expert stated that all picnics were good enough for the No. 1 grade altho some were better than others. Hams and bacon were graded as No. 1, 2, or 3. Hogs Hand-Fed in Dry Lot. All the Intermediate and all the Kanuy hams were uraded as No. 1 (Table 49). The grader criticized 3 of the Intermediate hams as too long in the shank and 1 as not fat enough. Six of the Rangy hams were faulted as too long in the shank, 1 as containing too much bone, and 1 as not enough fat. Eight of the Intermediate picnics and 14 of the Rangy picnics were faulted as too long in the shank. Fifteen of the Intermediate bellies were graded' as No. 1, and 3 as No. 2. Of the latter, 2 were faulted as too thin and 1 as too fat. Eleven of the Rangy bellies were graded as No. 1, 5 as No. 2, and 1 as No. 3. The No. 3 belly was too thin and lacked quality. Three of the No. 2 bellies were too thin, a fourth was "seedy," and the fifth was soft. Hogs Self-Fed on Pasture. Fifteen of the Intermediate hams were graded as No. 1 and 3 as No. 2. Two of the No. 2's were soft and one was too fat. One of the No. 1 hams was too fat and another was too long in the shank. Ten of the Rangy hams were graded as No. 1 and 486 BULLETIN No. 322 [May, TABLE 49. GRADES OF CUTS OF CURED MEAT FROM INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS HAND-FED INDIVIDUALLY IN DRY LOT, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Ham Picnic Bacon Intermediate lOb ... No. 1 No 1 No 2 thin 13b No. 1 Xo. 1, fair quality No. 1 2b No. 1, prime No. 1, fair quality No. 1 7b No. 1, not fat enough No 1 No 1 16b No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 15b No. 1 No. 1, fair quality No. 1 14b No 1 No 1, fair quality No 1 9s No. 1, very good No. 1 No. 1 lb No. 1 No 1, long shank No. 1 3b No. 1 Xo. 1, long shank No. 1 17b No. 1 No. 1, long shank No. 1 20s Xo. 1 No 1, long shank No. 2, too fat lib... No. 1, very good, long No 1, shank 1 inch too Xo 1 4s shank No. 1, long shank long No. 1, long shank No. 2, trifle thin, quality 12s. . No. 1, long shank good 19b No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, trifle thin 5s No. 1 No 1, long shank No. 1 11s No. 1, very good No. 1 No. 1 Total, 18 No. 1 Total, 18 No. 1 Total, 15 No. 1, 3 Xo. 2 Rangy 2s No. 1, perfect No. 1, fair quality, long No. 1 16s shank No 1, fair quality Xo 1 5b No. 1 No 1, long shank No. 2, soft, poor quality 19b No 1, long shank No 1, fair quality No. 3, thin, poor quality, 4b No 1 breaks apart No 1 7b No. 1 Xo. 1, long shank No. 1 13s No 1 Xo 2, seedy 3s . . No 2, too thin 12s No. 1 No. 1, long shank No. 2, thin, seedy 18b No 1, very good No 1, shank 1 inch too No 1 6b No 1 long No 1 17s No 1 long No 1 14b No. 1, long shank, big too Ion t No 1, shank 1 inch too No. 1, excellent 9s bone No 1 long No 1 15s No. 1, long shank long No 1, long shank No. 1 10s No. 1, very good, long No 1, trifle thin 20s. . . shank No 2, too thin shank Total, 17 No. 1 shank Total, 17 No. 1 Total, 11 No. 1, 5 No. 2, 1 No. 3 1929} TYPE IN SWINE AS RELATED TO QUALITY OF PORK 487 7 as No. 2. Two of the No. 2's were turned down because the bone was too large, one of these also being soft. Another ham was turned down as soft. Four hams were graded No. 2 because of long shanks, one of these also being criticized as "staggy. " Four of the No. 1 hams were faulted as too long in the shank (Table 50). TABLE 50. GRADES OF CUTS OF CURED MEAT FROM INTERMEDIATE AND RANGY HOGS SELF-FED ON ALFALFA PASTURE, 225-PouND WEIGHTS: THIRD EXPERIMENT Hog No. Ham Picnic Bacon Intermediate 99b No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 2, soft, poor quality No. 2, soft No. 1 No. 1, long shank No. 1 No. 2, too fat No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, too fat No. 1 No. 1 Total, 15 No. 1, 3 No. 2 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, soft No. 1, fair quality No. 1, fair quality No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, fair quality No. 1, little soft No. 1, long shank No. 1, little soft No. 1, soft, poor quality No. 1, poor quality No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, trifle soft Total, 18 No. 1 No. 2, too fat No. 1 No. 2, soft No. 1 trifle fat on shoulder No. 2, soft No. 2, too fat No. 1 No. 1 No. 2, too fat No. 1 No. 3, very soft, too fat No. 2, too fat No. 2, too fat No. 2, soft No. 2, soft No. 1 No. 1 No. 1, prime Total, 8 No. 1, 9 No. 2, 1 No. 3 39b Os 6b 70b 3b 80b 9s 99s 20b 29b Ob 96b 96s :.. 90b . . 93b 63b 66s Rangy 3b No. 2, soft, big bone No. 2, soft No. 1 No. 2, long shank No. 2, long shank No. 2. staeev. toueh skin No. 1, soft No. 1, soft No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 2, soft, too fat No. 1 No. 2, soft No. 1 No. 2, yellow, poor texture No. 1 10s 33b 36s 20b 2b... 488 BULLETIN No. :\~2- All the picnics of both types were graded Xo. 1. Five of the In- termediate picnics were faulted as soft, 1 as too long in the shank and 2 as lacking quality. Four of the Rangy picnics were soft, 1 was too long in the shank, and 2 lacked quality. Eight Intermediate bellies were graded as No. 1, 9 as No. 2, and 1 as No. 3. The latter belly was too fat and soft. Five of the No. 2 bellies were too fat, and the other 4 were soft. Nine of the Rangy bellies were graded as No. 1, 5 as No. '2. and -'! as No. 3. The No. 3 bellies were all too soft. One of the No. 2 bellies was too thin. 2 were too fat, 1 of them also being soft : another was soft, and 1 was yellow and had poor texture. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this investigation hoys of Very ('huffy, ("."huffy, Intermediate. Rangy, and Very Rangy types were studied from the standpoint of the desirability of the pork produced by them. The experiments covered a period of three years ( 1922 to 192.")) and included the study of the carcasses and cuts of a total of 189 hogs slaughtered at 175 pounds, 225 pounds, and 27") pounds. Some of the hogs were hand-fed indi- vidually in dry lot. some were self-fed in dry lot. and some were self- fed on alfalfa pasture. Drcut>. Various carcass measurements showed that length of carcass, length of head and neck, and length of legs varied with type, the Very ('huffy carcasses being shorter and having shorter legs, heads, and necks than the ('huffy can-asses, which were shorter than the Intermediate, which, in turn, were shorter than the Rangy. The Ranyy carcasses were shorter than the Very Rangy. Apparently type had little or no effect upon the depth of chest. Length of body proper seemed to vary with the different individuals rather than with type. Cutting /'< rc< )il.':> I TYPK IN ,Swi.\i: AS K'KI.ATKD TO QTAI.ITY OF PORK 489 iVd in dry lot. the percentages of feet and picnics in the Very Rangy carcasses were greater than in the carcasses of the Intermediate type. and the percentages of leaf, fat barks, and clear plates were less. There was but little difference in cutting percentages between the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy types when self-fed in dry lot. In the ex- periment of the third year, \\hen differences between types were not so pronounced, there were no differences in cutting percentages. rhifxirtil ('(unitnxtiiuH of Carcasses. In the ease of the hogs hand- led in dry lot the percentages of lean in the carcasses of the Chuff y, Intermediate, and Rangy types were practically the same, the Very ('huffy carcasses containing less than the others. When the hogs were self-fed, there was no difference in the lean content of the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy types. The Very Rangy carcasses contained a little more lean than the other types. When the hogs were hand-fed, the Very ('huffy and ('huffy types contained more fat and the Rangy type contained less fat than the Intermediate type. When the hogs were self-fed, there was no difference in fat content of the Chuffy, Intel-mediate, and Rangy types. The Very Rangy type, however, had considerably less fat than the other types. When the hogs were hand-fed to 225 pounds, the Very ( 'huffy and Chuffy types contained less skin and the Rangy type contained more skin than the Intermediate type. When the hogs were self-fed, dif- ferences in skin content of the Chuffy, Intermediate, and Rangy car- casses were small. However, the Very Rangy carcasses contained con- siderably more than those of other types. When the hogs were either hand-fed or self -fed, the Very ( 'huffy carcasses contained less bone than the Chuffy and Intermediate, and the Rangy carcasses contained more bone than the Chuffy and Intermediate. The differences, how- ever, were not so great when the hous were self-fed as when they were hand-fed. The Very Raniuy carcasses contained considerably more bone than the carcasses of the other types. Grade of Carcasses. When hand-fed, the hogs of the Very Chuffy type finished before reaching the market weight of 225 pounds. .Must of the ( 'huffy and Intermediate hogs were finished but not too fat at this weight. Most of the Rangy hogs were not finished at this weight, and many of the Rangy carcasses were too rough. When self -fed, the Chuffy hogs were finished at 225 pounds, some of them being over- done. The Intermediate hogs were usually finished but not too fat at this weight. Many, but not all the Rangy hogs were finished at this weight. Self -feeding improved the quality of the carcasses of the Rangy type. The hogs of the Very Rangy type did not finish at 225 pounds, and most of the Very Rangy carcasses were too rough. Grade of Bellies. Many of the bellies of the hand-fed Very Chuffy and some of the bellies of the hand-fed Chuffy hogs killed at 225 490 BULLETIN No. 322 pounds were too fat. Many bellies of the self-fed CImffy hogs were too fat ; they were usually very smooth. Most bellies of the Intermediate hogs, either hand- or self-fed, were about right in finish and had good quality. Many bellies of the hand-fed Rangy type were unfinished and lacked quality. However, when this type was self-fed, more of them were finished. Very Rangy bellies were generally unfinished and lacking in quality. Grade of Hams. The hams of the Very Chuffy and Chuffy hogs were short in the shank and excellent in form. Many of them were too fat for "regulars." Hams from the Intermediate hogs were excellent in form and finish. Hams from the Rangy hogs were often too long in the shank for the first grade, and many of them contained too much bone. Hams from the Very Rangy hogs were long in the shank, thin, unfinished, and heavy-boned. Grade of Picnics. The picnics of all types except the Very Rangy were good enough for the first grade. However, the shanks of the Rangy type were considerably longer than the shanks of the other types. Quality of Other Cuts. The quality of the other cuts was not affected materially by the type of the hog. Intermediate Type the Most Desirable. From the butcher's stand- point, the Intermediate type, either hand- or self -fed, proved the most desirable of the different types studied. The Rangy type, however, was quite acceptable if self -fed. t - :