
 <*J 
 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 
 -I* 
 
 * 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RON CIRCULATING 
 
 CHECK FOR UNBOUND 
 CIRCULATING COPY 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Agricultural Experiment Station 
 
 BULLETIN NO. 158 
 
 RELATIVE ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND 
 
 NUTRITIVE VALUE OF THE VARIOUS 
 
 CUTS OF BEEF 
 
 BY L,. D. HALyL, AND A. D. EMMETT 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS, JULY, 1912 
 
SUMMARY OF BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 1. INTRODUCTION. A knowledge of the market products into which beef 
 cattle are converted is essential both to the producer and to the consumer of 
 beef. Owing to the increasing cost of meats, there is a growing demand for 
 accurate information on the subject. Pages 135 to 130 
 
 2. OBJECTS. To determine (1) relative proportions of lean, visible fat, 
 and bone in each of the retail and wholesale cuts of beef; (2) chemical com- 
 position and nutritive value of edible meat in each wholesale cut; and (3) net 
 cost of the lean, the total edible meat, and the nutrients in each cut at current 
 market prices. Page 137 
 
 3. ANIMALS USED. No. 1 : Choice grade Hereford steer, age 18 months, 
 live weight 902 pounds. No. 2 : Choice grade Aberdeen'-Angus steer, age 24 
 months, live weight 1190 pounds. No. 3: Prime pure-bred Shorthorn steer, 
 age 29 months, live weight 1,360 pounds. Pages 137 to 139 
 
 4. SLAUGHTER TESTS. Weights of dressed beef, hides, fats, and of the 
 various organs and other parts comprising the offal were recorded and re- 
 duced to percentage of live weight. Pages 139 to 141 
 
 5. WHOLESALE CUTS. The right half of each carcass was divided into the 
 "straight" wholesale cuts, viz., loin, rib, round, chuck, plate, flank, and fore 
 shank ; also four minor wholesale cuts, the rump, hind shank, shoulder clod, 
 and neck. Each cut was weighed and the percentage of carcass weight calcu- 
 lated. Pages 142 to 144 
 
 The amounts and proportions of lean, fat, and bone in each wholesale cut 
 were determined, and the relative economy of the cuts at wholesale market 
 prices was computed. Pages 144 to 147 
 
 6. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE. The boneless meat of 
 each wholesale cut was analyzed to determine the proportions of water, pro- 
 tein, fat (ether extract), organic extractives, mineral matter, and phosphorus. 
 
 Pages 148 to Io9 
 
 From the chemical composition and the calculated fuel value of the bone- 
 less meat, the relative nutritive economy of the wholesale cuts at market prices 
 was determined. Pages 159 to 163 
 
 7. RETAIL CUTS. Each wholesale cut was divided into its proper retail 
 cuts. After weighing, photographing, and trimming such cuts as are ordinarily 
 trimmed of surplus fat and bone, each retail cut was separated into lean, vis- 
 ible fat, and bone, and each portion weighed. Pages 163 to 170 
 
 Relative economy of the various cuts was computed in terms of the cost 
 per pound of lean and of total meat in each cut at retail market prices. 
 
 Pages 170 to 173 
 
 8. CONCLUSIONS. Pages 173 to 177 
 
 9. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RETAIL CUTS. Pages 177 to 200 
 
 10. APPENDIX. Tabulated results of cutting and trimming the wholesal? 
 and retail cuts, and of the chemical analyses of the wholesale cuts from the 
 three half carcasses. Pages 200 to 233 
 
BY Iy. D. HAL,!,, ASSISTANT CHIEF IN ANIMAI, HUSBANDRY, AND 
 A. D. EMMETT, ASSISTANT CHIEF IN ANIMAL NUTRITION 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Precise knowledge of the final market products into which 
 beef cattle are converted is essential both to the producer and to 
 the consumer of beef. In order to place beef production upon the 
 most exact and profitable basis, account must be taken not only of 
 economical methods of breeding and feeding, but also of the qual- 
 ity of the finished beef product as delivered to the ultimate con- 
 sumer. The relative efficiency of different types of beef cattle or 
 of systems of production cannot be accurately compared without 
 considering the adaptability of the beef to the purpose for which 
 it is used. The same considerations that prompt manufacturers 
 of other food articles to study closely the commodities they place 
 on the market should prompt the meat producer to inform himself 
 as thoroly as possible regarding his finished product. Notwith- 
 standing the evident truth of these propositions, no comprehensive 
 studies have yet been conducted and published which furnish a 
 basis on which to compare live cattle with the various cuts of beef 
 derived from their carcasses. Consequently, beef producers have 
 continued to conduct their operations almost wholly without re- 
 gard to this important phase of the industry. 
 
 Meat-market patrons are more directly, altho no more vitally 
 concerned with this subject than beef producers, since they deal 
 
 'The investigations herein reported relative to the retail cuts of beef were 
 suggested by Herbert W. Mumford, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and those re- 
 lating to chemical composition and nutritive value of the wholesale cuts, by 
 H. S. Grindley, Chief in Animal Chemistry. The work was planned jointly un- 
 der their general supervision, together with their associates, L. D. Hall and 
 A. D. Emmett. Messrs. Grindley and Emmett were entirely responsible for the 
 chemical analysis of the wholesale cuts, and rendered material assistance in 
 connection with the slaughter tests, physical determinations, and in the com- 
 pilation of the data on the retail cuts. 
 
 135 
 
136 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 directly with the market and have occasion almost daily to make 
 use of information concerning- the relative values of the different 
 retail cuts. Those who would buy meat most intelligently must 
 know the nature of these cuts, especially with reference to the pro- 
 portions of lean meat, fat, and bone which they contain and the 
 food value of meat from different parts of the carcass. A large 
 majority of meat consumers have no knowledge whatever of 
 these matters, but make their selections of meat solely according 
 to habit or fancy. In fact, but little accurate data along this line 
 have hitherto been available to those who wished to buy meats on 
 a rational basis. As a result, a few well-known cuts are greatly in 
 demand, and the remainder of the carcass is a "drug on the 
 market." To such an extreme has this condition developed that 
 a portion of the carcass (loins and ribs), forming only about one- 
 fourth of its weight, represents nearly one-half of its retail cost. 
 In view of the large place which meat occupies in the American 
 diet, amounting to nearly one-third of the average expenditure for 
 all food, the importance of an intelligent understanding of the 
 subject on the part of the consumer is readily apparent. 
 
 Not only are the foregoing statements true of meat producers 
 and consumers as individuals, but it is highlv essential to the entire 
 beef-cattle industry, on the one hand, and the economic welfare 
 of the beef-eating public, on the other, that a more intelligent 
 understanding of the different cuts of meat be acquired by con- 
 sumers generally. An increased demand for those portions of 
 the carcass which are now difficult for the butcher to dispose of 
 would contribute largely toward a more stable condition of the 
 trade and thus enable the producer to operate with greater confi- 
 dence and economy. At the same time it would effect a tremend- 
 ous saving to the consumer himself by more nearly equalizing the 
 market values of the various cuts and by enabling the retailer to 
 operate with a smaller margin of profit. A thoro awakening of 
 our own people in this matter is no less essential to the future of 
 beef production in this country than the development of our for- 
 eign markets, on the one hand, or a more efficient system of cattle 
 raising, on the other. Thus producer and consumer are in a 
 large sense inter-dependent with respect to the whole question, 
 and the dissemination of useful information along this line is 
 clearly to their mutual advantage. Further, cattle raisers them- 
 selves constitute an important proportion of the beef-consuming 
 class; hence they have a two-fold interest in the matter. The 
 increasing cost of meats, in keeping with prices of other foods, 
 has stimulated popular interest in the whole subject, and there is 
 a growing demand for accurate information bearing upon it. 
 
7O/.?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 137 
 
 OBJECTS AND PLAN OF INVESTIGATION 
 
 The principal objects of the investigation reported in this bul- 
 letin were to determine (i) the relative proportions of lean, visible 
 fat, and bone in each of the retail and wholesale cuts of beef ; (2) 
 the chemical composition and nutritive value of the boneless meat 
 (all lean and fat) of the various wholesale cuts; and (3) the net 
 cost to the consumer of the lean, the gross meat, and the food 
 nutrients in each cut at current market prices. Incidentally, data 
 were obtained relative to the amounts and proportions of the vari- 
 ous internal organs and other by-products of slaughter yielded by 
 cattle. 
 
 Steers from the University herd were slaughtered at a local 
 abattoir, the weights of hides, fats, various internal organs, and 
 other by-products being recorded, as well as those of the different 
 live animals and their dressed carcasses. After proper refrigeration 
 in a cold storage room at the abattoir, the right half of each car- 
 cass was brought to the laboratory and divided into wholesale 
 cuts ; and these in turn were cut up as in retail markets. Some of 
 the retail cuts w r ere trimmed free of surplus fat and bone in accord- 
 ance with meat-market custom, and the lean, fat, and bone of 
 each cut were then separated as carefully and completely as could 
 be done by the use of boning knives. A composite sample of all 
 the boneless meat derived from each wholesale cut was taken for 
 chemical analysis. Each step in the slaughtering, cutting, and 
 sampling was performed rapidly in order to minimize loss by 
 evaporation, and careful precautions were observed to make the 
 records exact and complete. 
 
 ANIMALS USED 
 
 These tests were made upon the carcasses of three steers : a 
 choice grade Hereford, a choice grade Aberdeen- Angus, and a 
 prime pure-bred Shorthorn. 
 
 Steer No. i, the grade Hereford, was one of a carload of 
 choice calves from the Panhandle of Texas, purchased by the 
 University in December, 1904, at the International Live Stock 
 Exposition in Chicago. They were spring calves (April and 
 May, 1904) and ran with their dams on grass without grain until 
 November, 1904, when they were shipped to Chicago. About 
 December 10 they were shipped to the University, where they were 
 gradually placed on a fattening ration consisting of crushed ear 
 corn, cottonseed meal, clover, and alfalfa hay, with a small amount 
 of corn stover, and continued on full grain feed until marketed in 
 November (1905). Pure corn meal was used during a part of the 
 feeding period instead of crushed ear corn, and linseed meal was 
 
138 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 used instead of cottonseed meal part of the time. This steer was 
 about eighteen months old when slaughtered November 14, 1905. 
 It was a choice yearling in prime condition but not fancy in quality 
 nor form, and would have sold at twenty-five to fifty cents per 
 hundred weight below the top of the beef-cattle market. Thru 
 an oversight Steer No. i was not photographed. 
 
 Steer No. 2, a grade Aberdeen- Angus, was bought as a calf 
 in the fall of 1904 and was used as a specimen steer for the class 
 in stock judging. It was fed a ration of three parts corn, one 
 part oats, one part bran, and one part oil meal together with clover 
 hay, and was on pasture about five months in the summer of 1905. 
 When slaughtered (March 20, 1906, age 24 months) it was a 
 choice beef steer, sufficiently fat but not quite good enough in 
 quality nor form to grade prime. See Fig. i. 
 
 FIG. l. CHOICE ABERDEEN-ANGUS GRADE STEER. 
 
 Steer No. 3, the Shorthorn (Fig. 2), was bred and raised at the 
 University. It was calved in May, 1904; ran on pasture and was 
 fed milk at the pail during the first summer ; received a light ration 
 of three parts corn, three parts oats, three parts bran, and one part 
 oil meal during the winter; ran on pasture during the summer of 
 1905 ; and was changed to a ration of three parts corn, one part 
 oats, one part bran, and one part oil meal during the following 
 winter, which ration, together with clover hay in the winter and 
 
I9I-] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 139 
 
 pasture in the summer, it was fed until slaughtered October 22, 
 1906, at 29 months. At the time of slaughtering, this steer graded 
 strictly prime, somewhat over-ripe in condition, but fancy in qual- 
 ity and form, being the best of the three steers in these respects. 
 The carcass was cut up October 25, 1906. All the photographs of 
 retail cuts reproduced in this bulletin (Figs. 13 to 69) were made 
 from this carcass. 
 
 FIG. 2. PRIMS PURE-BRED SHORTHORN STEER. 
 
 The reader is cautioned against regarding this experiment as 
 a comparison of the three breeds of cattle involved. The differences 
 observed in the carcasses and in the cuts of beef must be attributed 
 chiefly to differences in age, condition (fatness) and individuality 
 of the animals. It also should be borne in mind that the results of 
 this investigation are not in all respects applicable to the medium 
 and lower grades of beef. 
 
 SLAUGHTER TESTS 
 
 The cattle were fasted twenty-four hours before slaughtering, 
 but were given water. The live weight was taken at the abattoir 
 immediately before slaughtering. Table i shows the weights 
 recorded in connection with the slaughter test and the percentage 
 of carcass and of by-products based on the live weight. 
 
 Comparatively little shrinkage occurred in cooling the car- 
 casses, owing to insufficient ventilation and a high degree of mois- 
 
140 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 TABLE i. RESULTS OF SLAUGHTER TESTS 
 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 pounds 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 pounds 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 
 pounds 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 percent 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 percent 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 percent 
 
 Live weight 
 
 902.0 
 
 ' 1190.0 
 
 1360.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 549.0 
 
 739.0 
 
 870.0 
 
 60.86 
 
 62.10 
 
 63.97 
 
 Dressed beef cold .... 
 
 544.5 
 
 724.5 
 
 870 O 1 
 
 60.36 
 
 60.88 
 
 63.97 
 
 
 4.5 
 
 14.5 
 
 
 
 .50 
 
 1.22 
 
 
 
 Ri'j'ht half cascass 
 
 274.3 
 
 357.5 
 
 430.0 
 
 30.41 
 
 30.04 
 
 31.62 
 
 Left half carcass 
 
 270.2 
 
 367.0 
 
 440.0 
 
 29.96 
 
 30.84 
 
 32.35 
 
 Hide 
 
 67.5 
 
 77.5 
 
 87.5 
 
 7.48 
 
 6.51 
 
 6.43 
 
 Fats 
 Total 
 
 46.5 
 
 71.0 
 
 64.1 
 
 5.15 
 
 5.97 
 
 4.71 
 
 Caul 
 
 16.0 
 
 29.4 
 
 24.5 
 
 1.77 
 
 2.47 
 
 1.80 
 
 Intestinal 
 
 22.5 
 
 31.4 
 
 23.5 
 
 2.49 
 
 2.64 
 
 1.73 
 
 Pluck 
 
 8.0 
 
 10.2 
 
 16.1 
 
 .89 
 
 .86 
 
 1.18 
 
 Tongue 
 
 5.1 
 
 3.8 
 
 6.2 
 
 .57 
 
 .32 
 
 .46 
 
 Heart 
 
 3.9 
 
 4.4 
 
 5.5 
 
 43 
 
 .37 
 
 .40 
 
 
 13.0 
 
 13.6 
 
 14.0 
 
 1.44 
 
 1.14 
 
 1.03 
 
 Sweet breads 
 
 .6 
 
 1.0 
 
 .9 
 
 .07 
 
 .08 
 
 .07 
 
 Lungs 
 
 5.8 
 
 5.5 
 
 7.0 
 
 .64 
 
 .46 
 
 .51 
 
 Trachea (windpipe) 
 
 2.5 
 
 3.0 
 
 1.7 
 
 .28 
 
 .25 
 
 .12 
 
 Penis 
 
 .5 
 
 1.0 
 
 .8 
 
 .06 
 
 .08 
 
 .06 
 
 Tail 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.6 
 
 .18 
 
 .13 
 
 .12 
 
 Stomachs 
 Total, with contents . . 
 Rumen and reticulum, 
 empty 
 
 86.8 
 1 18.3 
 
 119.5 
 18.0 
 
 134.0, 
 22.5 
 
 9.62 
 2.03 
 
 10.04 
 
 1.51 
 
 9.85 
 1.65 
 
 Rumen and reticulum 
 with contents 
 
 66.3 
 
 98.0 
 
 102.5 
 
 7.35 
 
 8.23 
 
 7.53 
 
 Omasum and contents 
 Abomasum, empty .... 
 Abomasum and con- 
 tents 
 
 10.5 
 10.0 
 
 16.0 
 4.5 
 
 5 5 
 
 20.0 
 10.3 
 
 11 5 
 
 1.1(5 
 1.11 
 
 1.35 
 .38 
 
 46 
 
 1.47 
 .76 
 
 .85 
 
 Intestines 
 
 33.0 
 
 33.4 
 
 43.0 
 
 3.66 
 
 2.81 
 
 3.16 
 
 Spleen 
 
 4.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.9 
 
 .44 
 
 .13 
 
 .14 
 
 Gall bladder and contents 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.7 
 
 
 .08 
 
 .12 
 
 Head 
 Total 
 
 21.5 
 
 27.5 
 
 30.0 
 
 2.38 
 
 2.31 
 
 2.21 
 
 Bone 
 
 12.0 
 
 15.0 
 
 22.5 
 
 1.33 
 
 1.26 
 
 1.65 
 
 Trimmings 
 
 9.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 7.5 
 
 1 . 05 
 
 1.05 
 
 .55 
 
 Fore feet 
 Total 
 
 7.3 
 
 7.5 
 
 9.2 
 
 .81 
 
 .63 
 
 .68 
 
 Bone 
 
 6.0 
 
 6.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 .67 
 
 .50 
 
 .59 
 
 Trimmings 
 
 1.3 
 
 1.5 
 
 1.2 
 
 .14 
 
 .13 
 
 . .09 
 
 Hind feet 
 Total 
 
 7.0 
 
 7.5 
 
 9.5 
 
 .78 
 
 .63 
 
 .70 
 
 Bone 
 
 5.5 
 
 6.0 
 
 7.5 
 
 .61 
 
 .50 
 
 .55 
 
 Trimmings 
 
 1.5 
 
 1.5 
 
 2.0 
 
 .17 
 
 .13 
 
 .15 
 
 Blood 
 
 29.0 
 
 35.2 
 
 43 5 
 
 3.22 
 
 2.96 
 
 3.20 
 
 Loss in dressing 
 
 17 4 
 
 32.8 
 
 27 65 
 
 1.93 
 
 2.76 
 
 2.03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *No shrinkage, due to humidity of the cooler and fat condition of carcass. 
 
1912] ECONOMV, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 141 
 
 ture in the atmosphere of the chillroom, which retarded radiation 
 of moisture from the beef. Carcasses Nos. I and 2 remained in 
 cold storage 44 hours after dressing and No. 3, 68 hours at 
 a temperature of 38 to 40 F. Notwithstanding the longer period 
 of chilling, carcass No. 3, being extremely fat, showed no shrink- 
 age ; and the others sustained much less loss than commonly occurs 
 under normal packing-house conditions. 
 
 Referring to the percentage of dressed beef (cold basis), it is 
 found that Steer No. 3 gave the highest yield and Steer No. I the 
 lowest. Had the relative weight of undigested food in the stomach 
 at the time of slaughter been the same as in the case of Steer No. 
 i, the dressed yield of Steer No. 2 would have been 61.80 per- 
 cent and that of No. 3, 64.40 percent, thus comparing even more 
 favorably with Steer No. i than is indicated by the yields based on 
 actual live weight, as in Table i. The variations in yield were 
 due, chiefly, to the fatter condition of Steer No. 3 and the thinner 
 condition of No. i, but they were influenced to some extent by 
 differences in conformation and quality of the cattle. 
 
 The smallest relative weight of internal fat was yielded by 
 Steer No. 3, and the highest by Steer No. 2. Considering the high 
 condition of Steer No. 3 and the large percentage of dressed beef 
 netted by this animal, the small proportion of internal fat is sig- 
 nificant, indicating a high degree of efficiency for beef production. 
 
 Relative weights of the various organs and parts of the three 
 animals are scarcely comparable, being influenced to an unknown 
 extent by the differing degrees of condition and "fill" already 
 mentioned. It will be noticed, however, that the body of Steer 
 No. i contained the largest relative weight of organs and parts 
 'that constitute the offal, 1 due in part to lower condition and con- 
 sequently smaller percentage of carcass to live weight, and doubt- 
 less, also, to a natural tendency to coarseness of bone, skin, and 
 general quality. Steer Xo. 2, on the other hand, altho lower in 
 condition and therefore in carcass yield than No. 3, yielded a 
 smaller percentage of bone than the latter, as shown by figures 
 for the head and feet, also a smaller proportion of various internal 
 organs such as the paunch and intestines, and a similar percentage 
 of hide; thus indicating that the highest degree of general quality, 
 as between the three steers, was possessed by No. 2. 
 
 'By-products other than the hide and fats. 
 
142 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July.. 
 
 WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 After chilling, the right half of each carcass was taken to the 
 laboratory for cutting and sampling. Altho cut up on different 
 dates, the cutting in each instance was done by the same man, an 
 expert from the packing-house market of Swift and Company, 
 Chicago, and identical methods of procedure were observed as 
 nearly as possible with the three carcasses. 
 
 The accompanying diagram (Fig. 3) illustrates the wholesale 
 cuts that were made. In addition to the seven "straight" cuts, 
 four secondary wholesale cuts were made; viz., the hind shank, 
 rump, clod, and neck. In the section on retail cuts they are in- 
 cluded with the respective "straight" cuts to w r hich they belong. 
 
 Results of the cutting tests are summarized in the following 
 table. The weights were taken in terms of pounds and ounces 
 but are here reduced to decimals for convenience of comparison. 
 
 TABLE 2. WEIGHTS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE STRAIGHT WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 pounds 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 
 pounds- 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 pounds 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 percent 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 percent 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 percent 
 
 Average 
 percent 
 
 Loin 
 
 42.58 
 
 63.45 
 
 70.46 
 
 15.75 
 
 17.71 
 
 16.60 
 
 16.76 
 
 Rib 
 
 26.53 
 
 35 . 78 
 
 40.52 
 
 9.81 
 
 9.99 
 
 9.54 
 
 9.77 
 
 Round 
 
 60.15 
 
 77.12 
 
 92.11 
 
 22 25 
 
 21.53 
 
 21.70 
 
 21.78 
 
 Chuck 
 
 61.86 
 
 77.07 
 
 91.55 
 
 22.88 
 
 21.52 
 
 21.56 
 
 21.89 
 
 Plate 
 
 40.13 
 
 51.95 
 
 72.50 
 
 14.84 
 
 14.50 
 
 17.08 
 
 15.63 
 
 Flank 
 
 14.53 
 
 19.30 
 
 20.37 
 
 5.37 
 
 5.39 
 
 4.80 
 
 5.15 
 
 Fore shank 
 Kidney suet .... 
 
 13.93 
 10.65 
 
 16.50 
 17.03 
 
 21.96 
 15.06 
 
 5.15 
 3.94 
 
 4.61 
 4.75 
 
 5.17 
 3.55 
 
 4.97 
 4.06 
 
 Entire side 
 
 270.36 
 
 358.20 
 
 424.53 
 
 99.99 
 
 100.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 The proportions of the various cuts as shown above are similar 
 in the three carcasses. The percentages correspond in general to 
 average results of other tests on prime steers. Steer No. T ap- 
 pears to have been relatively lightest in loin and heaviest in round 
 and chuck; Steer No. 2 shows the largest percentage of loin, rib, 
 and kidney suet, and the smallest shank ; Steer No. 3 was lowest 
 in percentage of rib, round, chuck, flank and kidney suet, and 
 highest in shank and plate. To what extent these differences are 
 due to unavoidable variations in the cutting of the carcass, it is 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 143 
 
 Off) 
 
 LOIN 
 
 H/ND QUARTER. 
 
 Rump. 
 
 Round, R.&5. Off. 
 
 Hind shank . 
 LO/N 
 TLANK 
 
 QUARTER 
 
 r" 
 
 l\ 
 
 ^\ 
 ^J 
 
 ft. 
 
 R/J9 
 CHUCK 
 
 Chuck, knuckle 
 Clod. 
 Neck 
 
 'PLATE 
 
 ouf. 
 
 CHUCK t 
 
 (knuckle. o<A) I 
 
 WHOLE5AL CUT5 OF -BEEF - 
 
 FIG. 3. METHOD OF CUTTING THE THREE SIDES, SHOWING WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
 impossible to say, but probably this factor exercised considerable 
 influence. For instance, the large percentage of plate in Steer 
 No. 3, considered in connection with the small percentage of rib 
 and chuck, indicates that the plate was cut slightly higher on the 
 side than was the case in the other carcasses. The large percent- 
 age of round compared with the small percentage of loin in the 
 
144 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Hereford suggests that the round probably received a slight ad- 
 vantage in cutting this carcass. Undoubtedly, however, the carcass 
 of Steer No. 2 had a larger actual proportion of loin and suet than 
 the others; while that of Steer No. I was naturally heaviest in the 
 chuck and lightest in the loin. 
 
 The total percentage of loin and rib is generally considered 
 an important indication of the cutting value of a carcass ; hence 
 the following comparison will be of interest : 
 
 Percent loin and rib 
 
 Steer No. 1 25.24 
 
 Steer No. 2 27.83 
 
 Steer No. 3 26.05 
 
 The relative proportions of the fore and hind quarters as ex- 
 pressed in the following table were calculated from the weights of 
 wholesale cuts in each quarter. 
 
 TABLE 3. WEIGHTS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE FORE AND HIND QUARTERS 
 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 pounds 
 
 142.45 
 127.91 
 
 270.36 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 pounds 
 
 181.30 
 176.42 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 pound? 
 
 Steer 
 No. 1, 
 percent 
 
 Steer 
 No. 2, 
 percent 
 
 50.68 
 49.32 
 
 100.00 
 
 Steer 
 No. 3, 
 percent 
 
 53.36 
 46.64 
 
 Average 
 percent 
 
 Fore quarter . . . 
 Hind quarter. . . . 
 
 226.53 
 198.03 
 
 424.56 
 
 52.69 
 47.31 
 
 100.00 
 
 52.21 
 47.79 
 
 Entire side .... 
 
 357.72 
 
 100.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 EDIBLE MEAT AND WASTE 
 
 The straight cuts may now be compared with reference to the 
 relative proportions of lean, visible fat, and bone which they con- 
 tain. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the discussions 
 relative to the food values and waste of the various wholesale and 
 retail cuts will be confined to the average results obtained from 
 the three carcasses and will be stated in percentages. The com- 
 plete data on which the averages are based will be found in the 
 appendix. The following table is based upon the sum of the data 
 derived from the various retail cuts into which each wholesale cut 
 was divided. 
 
 This summary shows that the three sides used in this test 
 averaged about 57 percent lean meat, 30 percent visible fat, and 
 12 percent bone. The proportion of lean in the various cuts (ex- 
 cept the kidney) varied from about one-third in the flank to about 
 two-thirds in the chuck; the extreme percentages of visible fat 
 were 1 1 percent in the fore-shank and 63 percent in the flank ; and 
 the percentage of bone ranged from practically nothing, in the 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 145 
 
 TABLE 4. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE STRAIGHT 
 
 WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 Straight wholesale cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 Loin 
 
 58.53 
 
 31.75 
 
 8.89 
 
 99.17 
 
 Rib 
 
 55 21 
 
 30.17 
 
 14.18 
 
 99.56 
 
 Round 
 
 64.61 
 
 18.03 
 
 16.63 
 
 99.27 
 
 Chuck 
 
 69 47 
 
 18.63 
 
 11.26 
 
 99.36 
 
 Plate 
 
 50.61 
 
 40.73 
 
 8.47 
 
 99.81 
 
 Flank 
 
 36.30 
 
 63.18 
 
 .25 
 
 99.73 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 4V ,61 
 
 11.63 
 
 40.20 
 
 99.44 
 
 Kidney suet 
 
 7.01 1 
 
 92.99 
 
 
 
 100.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire side 
 
 56 90 
 
 30.29 
 
 12.34 
 
 99.53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Kidney. 
 
 flank, to 40 percent in the fore shank. From the data here given 
 we may also calculate the relative amounts of lean, visible fat, 
 and bone in the hind and fore quarters, with the following- results : 
 hind quarter, 54.42 percent lean, 34.55 percent visible fat, and 
 10.71 percent bone; fore quarter, 59.12 percent lean, 26.69 percent 
 fat, and 13.73 percent bone. 
 
 In order to render the important data in Table 4 more easily 
 studied, the following diagram (Fig. 4) is presented. 
 
 FIG. 4. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE STRAIGHT 
 
 WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
146 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 111 this diagram, and in similar illustrations in the following 
 pages, the various wholesale cuts are represented by vertical lines, 
 each being designated at the top. The horizontal lines represent 
 percentages, which are read by means of the numerical scale at the 
 right and left. The irregular lines represent various constituents 
 of beef, according to the key given on each diagram; thus their 
 position and direction are determined by the percentage of each 
 constituent contained in the different wholesale cuts. 
 
 Referring to Fig. 4, the heavy solid line shows the percentage 
 of lean meat in each of the seven straight cuts, which are arranged 
 from left to right in order of the percentage of lean which they 
 contain. The minimum percentage of this constituent, about 36 
 percent, occurs in the flank and the maximum, about 70 percent, 
 in the chuck; while the comparatively regular ascending course of 
 the heavy line indicates various percentages of lean in other cuts 
 between these extremes. Following the broken line from left to 
 right it is evident that in general the percentage of fat varies in- 
 versely as the percentage of lean , the shank, however, being a prom- 
 inent exception. The dotted line, representing the percentage of 
 bone, shows less variation than do the others, but, with the excep- 
 tion of the shank, its general direction corresponds to the line 
 showing the percentage of lean, and is opposite that of the fat. 
 The large percentage of bone in the shank corresponds to its low 
 percentage of fat, and in both constituents this cut varies widely 
 from the others. 
 
 In general, the cuts containing a large percentage of lean have 
 a small percentage of visible fat, and vice versa, while the relative 
 weight of bone is more variable. The round and chuck are the 
 leanest cuts of the carcass. Loin and rib cuts are intermediate 
 with respect to lean, fat, and bone. The flank and fore shank are 
 low r in percentage of lean, the former being high in percentage of 
 fat and the latter in proportion of bone. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 147 
 
 RELATIVE ECONOMY OF MEAT FROM THE STRAIGHT WHOLE- 
 SALE CUTS 
 
 The relative economy of the different cuts may be further ex- 
 pressed in terms of the net cost per pound of lean and of total 
 meat (consisting of all the lean and visible fat) in each cut at 
 market prices. This is calculated by dividing the percentage of 
 each constituent into the market price per pound of the entire cut. 
 
 Thus the cost per pound of lean is based on the proportion of 
 lean contained in the cut in question, and the cost per pound of 
 gross meat is determined from the total percentage of lean and fat. 
 For this comparison wholesale prices are used, leaving the retail 
 cost to be considered in connection with the various retail cuts. 
 (Table 19). 
 
 TABLE 5. COST OF LEAN AND OF TOTAL MEAT IN THE STRAIGHT WHOLESALE 
 CUTS AT MARKET PRICES 
 
 Straight 
 wholesale cuts 
 
 Wholesale price 
 per pound of cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost per pound 
 of lean in cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost per pound 
 of total meat in 
 cut, cents 
 
 Loin 
 
 18.5 
 
 31.6 
 
 20.5 
 
 Rib 
 
 15.0 
 
 27.1 
 
 17.5 
 
 Round 
 
 11.5 
 
 17.8 
 
 13.9 
 
 Chuck 
 
 9.5 
 
 13.7 
 
 10.8 
 
 Plate 
 
 8.0 
 
 15.8 
 
 8.7 
 
 Flank 
 
 8.0 
 
 22.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 5.0 
 
 10.5 
 
 8.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 The net cost per pound of lean is, in general, greatest in the 
 cuts which command the highest prices, and vice versa. The flank 
 is an exception to this rule, and the chuck is more economical in 
 this respect than the plate. Referring to the last column it is also 
 observed that the more expensive the cut, the greater the cost per 
 pound of visible fat and lean combined, the flank being the only 
 exception. From these figures it is apparent that food values of 
 beef cuts do not correspond to their wholesale market prices, and 
 that the cheaper cuts are by far the most economical sources of 
 both lean and fat meat. On the whole, the different cuts vary 
 more widely in net cost of food ingredients than in market 
 price per pound of gross meat. The following discussion tends 
 to confirm these statements. 
 
148 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE BONELESS MEAT 
 OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 After separating each of the wholesale cuts mechanically into 
 lean, visible fat, and bone, as already described, the lean and the 
 visible fat were sampled for chemical analysis. The rump, hind 
 shank, shoulder clod, and neck were sampled separately, thus mak- 
 ing eleven cuts in all, as illustrated by Fig. 3 on page 143. 
 
 With Steers Nos. I and 2 the visible fat from all the cuts was 
 composited and analyzed, while the lean meat from each of the 
 cuts was subjected to a detailed chemical study. With Steer No. 3, 
 however, the visible fat and lean of each cut were combined and 
 analyzed. In none of these cases was the bone subjected to chemi- 
 cal analysis. 
 
 Methods of Analysis 
 
 The following determinations were made on the samples of 
 boneless meat : 
 
 1. Water 
 
 2. Dry substance, water-soluble and insoluble 
 
 3. Fat, ether-soluble matter 
 
 4. Protein, water-soluble and insoluble 
 
 5. Organic extractives, nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous 
 
 6. Ash, water-soluble and insoluble 
 
 7. Phosphorus, water-soluble organic and inorganic, and water-insoluble 
 
 The methods used in making the chemical study of the various 
 cuts of beef were those which have been published from the Lab- 
 oratory of Physiological Chemistry of this department. 1 It is not 
 the object of the writers to outline these methods at this time nor 
 to discuss these technical data excepting in as practical a way as 
 possible. 
 
 As in the preceding discussion, the corresponding data from 
 the three steers have been averaged, and it is upon these average 
 data that the statements herein are based. The detailed chemical 
 results for each of the animals will, however, be found in full in 
 the appendix. Attention should again be called to the fact that 
 the animals used in these tests were choice and prime steers. 
 
 PERCENTAGES OE WATER, DRY SUBSTANCE, AND FAT IN THE 
 BONELESS MEAT OE THE WHOLESALE CUTS OE BEEF 
 
 In the following table the data are given showing the distribu- 
 tion of water, dry substance, and fat in the boneless meat (all 
 lean and fat) from the eleven cuts. The results are expressed in 
 percentages calculated on the basis of the fresh substance. 
 
 'Journal American Chemical Society, 27, 658>-678, and 28, 25-64 (1905), 
 Grindley and Emmett. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 149 
 
 TABLE 6. PERCENTAGES OF WATER, SOLUBLE AND INSOLUBLE DRY SUBSTANCE, AND 
 FAT IN THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 Wholesale cut 
 
 Water 
 
 32.26 
 39.42 
 45.15 
 46.25 
 47.42 
 55.47 
 56.32 
 60.95 
 61.02 
 60.86 
 63.04 
 
 Dry substance 
 
 Other than fat 
 
 Fat 
 
 57.16 
 48.57 
 40 . 62 
 38.95 
 37.71 
 27.54 
 26.12 
 19.98 
 20.77 
 19.65 
 17.96 
 
 Total 
 
 Sol- 
 uble 
 
 Insol- 
 uble 
 
 Total 
 
 10.61 
 12.16 
 14.29 
 14.75 
 15.17 
 17.35 
 17.87 
 19.55 
 18.74 
 19.44 
 19.50 
 
 Flank 
 
 1.73 
 2.29 
 3.06 
 3.33 
 3.48 
 3.82 
 3.80 
 3.80 
 3.90 
 4.89 
 4.48 
 
 8.88 
 9.89 
 11.23 
 11.42 
 11.69 
 13.53 
 14.07 
 15.75 
 14.84 
 14.55 
 15.02 
 
 67.77 
 60 75 
 54.91 
 53.70 
 52.88 
 44.89 
 43.99 
 39.53 
 39.51 
 39.09 
 37.46 
 
 plate 
 
 Rib 
 
 Rump 
 
 Loin - 
 
 Chuck 
 
 Neck 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 Round 
 
 Clod 
 
 
 In the above table dry substance refers to that portion of the 
 flesh that is not driven off upon heating the sample at the boil- 
 ing point of water, or the flesh minus the water contained in the 
 cut. Fat includes not only visible fat but also all the ether ex- 
 tract derived from the so-called lean of each cut. The soluble dry 
 substance is that portion of the meat which is dissolved out by 
 pure water at ordinary room temperature. It is supposed that 
 the water-soluble constituents of flesh are more easily and quickly 
 digested than the non-soluble, and hence of greater use to the 
 needs of the body. The insoluble dry substance other than fat is 
 that portion which remains after treatment with water. 
 
 Water. The cuts are arranged according to the percentages of 
 water they contain. The percentage of water represents all that 
 portion of each cut not included in the dry substance. The wide 
 variation in water content of different cuts of beef is here shown 
 in a striking manner, ranging from about one-third up to two- 
 thirds of the weight of edible meat. 
 
 It will be noticed that the arrangement of the various cuts is 
 substantially in inverse order with respect to the percentages of 
 fat and of total dry substance; also that in general the higher 
 the percentage of fat, the lower the percentage of water. Two 
 of the cheaper cuts of the carcass, viz., the flank and plate, contain 
 the lowest percentages of water, due to their large proportions of 
 fat. The round and clod rank highest in respect to water because 
 of the large percentages of lean meat they contain. The high- 
 priced rib and loin cuts are intermediate. 
 
150 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Dry Substance. The relationship between the dry substance 
 content of the eleven wholesale cuts is shown graphically in Fig. 5. 
 It will be seen that the upper curve gives the distribution of the 
 percentages of total dry substance in the boneless meat. This 
 curve rises continuously from the clod to the flank cuts, indicating 
 an increasing percentage of dry substance with the fatter cuts. 
 The cheaper cuts such as the shank, clod, and round have the small- 
 est percentages of dry substance. 
 
 The order of increasing percentages of soluble dry substance 
 shown by the second curve, corresponds, with the exception of a 
 few minor rearrangements, to the order of cuts given in Fig. 6 
 for- fat. It is seen that the expensive cuts are not at all favorably 
 distinguished from the cheaper ones, the loin and rib cuts possess- 
 ing, in fact, smaller percentages of soluble dry substance than the 
 average-priced cuts. The round, however, a medium-priced cut, 
 has the largest proportion of soluble matter, 4.89 percent ; the clod 
 comes next, having 4.48 percent; while the flank is lowest, 1.73 
 percent. The values for the loin and rib are respectively 3.48 and 
 3.06 percent. 
 
 9 5 * * u * 
 
 i < 31 2 $ z i Si 
 S it n * 5 5 1 5 i d 
 
 PER 
 CENT 
 
 69 
 
 60 
 33 
 SO 
 4S 
 <K> 
 5 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^--" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - __ 
 
 
 
 1 SOLUBLE DRY SUBSTANCE 
 TOTAL DRY SUBSTANCE | 
 
 
 
 FIG. 5. PERCENTAGES otf TOTAL/ AND SOLUBLE DRY SUBSTANCE IN 
 BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
/p/,?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 151 
 
 If the influence of the difference in fat be eliminated by calcu- 
 lating the soluble dry substance of each cut on the fat-free basis, 
 the order of the cuts is considerably modified, as the following 
 
 data show : 
 
 Percent 
 
 Round 6.09 
 
 Loin 5.59 
 
 Clod S46 
 
 Rump 5.45 
 
 Chuck 5-2? 
 
 Rib 5-15 
 
 Neck 5.14 
 
 Hind shank 4.92 . 
 
 Fore shank 4.75 
 
 Plate 4-45 
 
 Flank 4.04 
 
 The most significant rearrangements are those of the loin and 
 rib cuts. According to these calculations the new arrangement of 
 the cuts conforms more nearly to the order of their decreasing 
 popularity as indicated by their market value, the round, loin, 
 rump, chuck, and rib cuts, representing the most expensive portions 
 of the beef carcass, clustering toward the top. 
 
 Fat. The distribution of the fat among the cuts is represented 
 in Fig. 6 by two curves, one on the fresh and the other on the dry 
 basis. These two curves run approximately parallel. This latter 
 
 PER 
 CENT 
 
 33 
 
 I 
 
 CENT 
 
 ON THE FRESH BASIS 
 ON THE DRY BASIS- - 
 
 U 
 
 85 
 
 63 
 
 $ IG. r>. PERCENTAGES OK FAT IN THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLHSAI,E 
 
 CUTS. 
 
152 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 relation indicates that an increase in the percentage of fat in a cut 
 results in a decrease in the percentage of water. In view of the 
 great differences between the various cuts as regards fat content, 
 the question arises whether these differences do not largely or 
 entirely account for the differences in the percentages of dry sub- 
 stance and water. This question is answered in part by eliminat- 
 ing the fat from the percentage of dry substance, that is, by 
 calculating the percentage of dry substance other than fat to the 
 fat-free basis. The uniformity of the data in this form leads to 
 the conclusion that, as regards the water content of the boneless 
 fat-free meat, the eleven cuts do not distinctly differ among them- 
 selves, being very nearly the same. 
 
 The differences among the eleven cuts of beef as to their content 
 of fat is shown in the curves (Fig. 6). The extreme positions are 
 occupied by the clod and round cuts, on one hand, and the plate 
 and flank cuts, on the other. The loin, rib, and rump cuts contain 
 more fat than the chuck, neck, and shanks. So marked are these 
 differences in fat that the percentages of all the constituents except 
 the total dry substance, calculated on the fresh basis vary inversely 
 as the percentage of fat. If the influence of the fat be eliminated 
 by calculating the percentage of total dry substance on the fat-free 
 basis, it is found that the leaner cuts are not clearly distinguished 
 from one another. 
 
 PERCENTAGES OE TOTAL AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN IN THE BONELESS 
 MEAT OE THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 Total Protein. The term protein as used here refers to the 
 percentage of protein nitrogen multiplied by the factor 6.25. As 
 already stated, protein is the essential constituent of lean meat. It 
 consists largely of albumin compounds which serve as muscle- 
 building material in the human body. The protein dissolved out 
 by water at room temperature, that is, water-soluble protein, is 
 thought to be more easily and quickly digested and hence more 
 available to the body than the water-insoluble protein. Since beef 
 is used chiefly for the lean meat it contains, the economic signifi- 
 cance of the data given in Table 7 is readily apparent. 
 
 The curves of the total and soluble protein are given in Fig. 7. 
 The order of the cuts for the two forms of protein is the inverse 
 of that for the dry substance and fat; i.e., the shanks, clod, and 
 round contain the highest amounts, and the flank, plate, and rib 
 the lowest. Since a high percentage of water indicates a low 
 percentage of fat, it naturally accompanies a large percentage of 
 lean meat. Consequently the curve indicates that a relatively large 
 percentage of protein is contained in the cheaper cuts of beef, while 
 
//<?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 153 
 
 TABLE 7. PERCENTAGES OF WATER-SOLUBLE, INSOLUBLE, AND TOTAL PROTEIN IN 
 THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 Wholesale cuts 
 
 Soluble 
 
 Insoluble 
 
 Total 
 
 Pore shank 
 
 1.42 
 
 15.56 
 
 16.98 
 
 Clod 
 
 1.81 
 
 14.88 
 
 16.69 
 
 Round 
 
 2.08 
 
 14.42 
 
 16.50 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 1.59 
 
 14 67 
 
 16.26 
 
 Neck 
 
 1.65 
 
 13.94 
 
 15.59 
 
 Chuck 
 
 1.47 
 
 13.40 
 
 14.87 
 
 Loin 
 
 1.37 
 
 11.59 
 
 12.96 
 
 Rump 
 
 1.26 
 
 11 30 
 
 12 56 
 
 Rib 
 
 1.20 
 
 11 12 
 
 12 32 
 
 Plate 
 
 .83 
 
 9 76 
 
 10 59 
 
 Flank 
 
 .66 
 
 8.78 
 
 9 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 the high-priced cuts, the rib and loin, are intermediate. Thus the 
 most essential food constituent of beef is seen to vary in the differ- 
 ent cuts quite independently of market prices. 
 
 SOLUBLE PROTEIN 
 TOTAL, PROTEIN 
 
 FIG. 7. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL. AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN IN THE BONELESS 
 MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
 The relationship between the water, fat, and total protein con- 
 tent of the eleven wholesale cuts is shown in Fig. 8. The curve 
 representing the distribution of the percentages of total protein in 
 
154 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 the boneless meat rises continuously from the flank to the fore 
 shank, being approximately the same as the curve representing the 
 percentages of dry substance other than fat. 
 
 When figured on the dry basis the curve shows that the 
 percentage of protein increases much more rapidly from the flank 
 to the fore shank, due to the fact that the shanks, clod, round, and 
 neck contain more lean and less fat, and also to the fact that lean 
 is higher in water. If the fat be eliminated from consideration by 
 calculating the protein on the fat-free basis, the eleven cuts are 
 not markedly distinguished from one another, as the curve in the 
 diagram shows. Here the curve is nearly a straight line, again 
 showing that the market prices have no relation to the nutritive 
 value of the cuts. 
 
 From the data available it would seem that the most expensive 
 cuts of meat, the rib and the loin, occupy an intermediate position 
 as to their protein content with respect to the eleven cuts of beef. 
 This statement applies when the data are presented on either the 
 fresh or the water-free basis, but not on the fat-free basis. In 
 this last case there is little or no difference between any of the cuts. 
 
 PER 
 
 CENT 
 
 44 
 
 uZ 
 
 f< 
 
 OX 
 
 U(ft PER 
 
 CENT 
 44 
 
 FRESH BASIS 
 
 DRY BASIS 
 
 FAT-FREE BASIS 
 
 FIG. 8. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL. PKOTEIN IN THE BONELESS MEAT OK THE 
 
 WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
 Soluble Protein. On an average about one-tenth of the total 
 protein of beef is soluble in water. The data given in Table 7, 
 page 153, show the relative proportions of soluble protein in the 
 
/<?/.?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 155 
 
 various cuts. In Fig. 7, page 153, the distribution of soluble protein 
 is shown. The percentage values for the individual cuts arrange 
 themselves in approximately the same order as the percentages of 
 total protein. The most significant difference in the two cases is 
 the position of the round cut, which is third in relative value as 
 regards total protein and first as regards soluble protein. The 
 percentages of soluble protein range from 0.66 in the flank to 
 2.08 in the round. These differences also appear to be largely 
 due to the fat content of the cuts. When the data are calculated 
 to the fat-free basis, it is of interest to note that the arrangement 
 of the cuts then conforms more nearly to the current market prices 
 
 Organic Extractives. The organic extractives of meat consist 
 of certain water-soluble compounds. They aid in giving cooked 
 meat its flavor. They also serve in part as stimuli to several of the 
 glands of the digestive tract. They are increased to some extent 
 during the ripening of meats. The nitrogenous form of extractives 
 is made up mostly of creatin and purine bodies. The non-nitro- 
 genous form is composed chiefly of lactic acid and glycogen. The 
 organic extractives form the essential ingredient of beef extract, 
 and, altho possessing only slight food value, their influence on the 
 palatability of meat undoubtedly renders them of considerable 
 nutritive importance. 
 
 The data given in Table 8 show that the various cuts rank in 
 practically the same order with regard to organic extractives as to 
 
 TABLE 8. PERCENTAGES OF ORGANIC EXTRACTIVES AND ASH IN THE BONELESS 
 MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 Wholesale cuts 
 
 Organic extractives 
 
 Ash 
 
 Nitro- 
 genous 
 
 Non-nitro- 
 genous 
 
 Total 
 
 Sol- 
 uble 
 
 .76 
 .71 
 .65 
 .64 
 .66 
 .53 
 .53 
 -.54 
 .50 
 .38 
 .30 
 
 Insol- 
 uble 
 
 Total 
 
 Round 
 
 .04 
 
 1.11 
 1.12 
 .99 
 
 .92 
 .90 
 .84 
 .91 
 .88 
 .75 
 .62 
 .42 
 
 2.05 
 1.96 
 1.73 
 1.67 
 1.68 
 1.54 
 1.54 
 1.57 
 1.35 
 1.08 
 .76 
 
 .11 
 .14 
 .18 
 .17 
 12 
 .14 
 .11 
 .10 
 .12 
 .13 
 .10 
 
 .87 
 85 
 .83 
 .81 
 .78 
 .75 
 .64 
 64 
 .62 
 .51 
 .40 
 
 Clod 
 
 .94 
 .74 
 
 . 75 
 .78 
 .70 
 .63 
 .69 
 .60 
 .46 
 .34 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 Chuck 
 
 Neck 
 
 Rump 
 
 ILoin 
 
 Rib 
 
 Plate 
 
 Flank 
 
 
156 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 protein. Comparing these data with those in the preceding table 
 (No. 7) a rather close correlation is observed between the amounts 
 of protein and organic extractives, indicating again that the leaner 
 cuts contain larger proportions of organic extractives. Altho, so 
 far as these figures indicate, no relation exists between the market 
 prices and the flavor of the various cuts, it is interesting to note 
 that the cheap cuts contain considerably larger percentages of 
 flavoring matter, as measured by the percentages of organic extrac- 
 tives and soluble ash, than do several of the high-priced cuts. The 
 proportions of nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous organic extractives 
 are similar in the different cuts, the average ratio being about 
 i to 1.25. 
 
 In Fig. 9 the data for the total and the nitrogenous organic 
 extractives are represented by curves showing the relative distri- 
 bution of the two forms among the eleven cuts of beef. In general, 
 the two curves run in the same direction; that is, the percentage 
 values increase in both cases from the flank to the round cuts. The 
 chief irregularity is in the fore shank, where the percentage of 
 nitrogenous extractives seems to drop, giving the chuck cut a 
 higher value. The more expensive cuts, the rib and the loin, occupy 
 an intermediate position, while the round, clod, and chuck are near 
 the top of the curve. 
 
 PER 
 
 CENT 
 
 2.00 
 
 I.7S 
 
 1.50 
 
 I.Z5 
 
 $ Z fc * , QZ 2 UZ Q 
 
 ? X 5 5 1 1 I ii 1 si 3 
 
 u. a tr a 2 _i Z(o u L.IO o C 
 
 PER 
 CCNT 
 
 Z.OO 
 1.73 
 1.50 
 1.25 
 1.00 
 075 
 OSO 
 
 azs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 ^_^^^-^~ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 * 
 
 --'-' 
 
 ,''~' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 s 
 
 <* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TOTAL. ORGANIC EXTRACTIVES 
 NITROGENOUS ORGANIC EXTR/ 
 
 
 CTIVES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OM 
 
 FIG. 9. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL AND NITROGENOUS ORGANIC EXTRACTIVES 
 IN BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
1<)I2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 157 
 
 Asli. Ash, or mineral matter, is the residue that remains after 
 cautiously burning the sample of meat until all the organic matter 
 has been driven off. It is made up chiefly of the chlorids and 
 phosphates of potassium, sodium, calcium, and magnesium. These 
 contribute to the structure of bone and other body tissues, aid in 
 the digestive functions, and increase the palatability of cooked meats. 
 
 In Table 8 the percentage values for the soluble, insoluble, and 
 total ash are given. The soluble ash forms from 70 to 87 percent 
 of the total. The percentage values for the total ash are about 
 one-half those for the total organic extractives and about the same 
 as those for the nitrogenous extractives. The soluble and total ash 
 data are higher in the cheaper cuts. 
 
 In Fig. 10 the relative distribution of the total and the soluble 
 ash is shown. There is a close correlation between the two curves. 
 The main exception in the soluble ash lies in the chuck cut. To 
 give a continuously rising curve the chuck cut should interchange 
 places with the fore shank. Here, as in the case of the organic 
 extractives, the rib and loin cuts occupy a place on the curve below 
 the average value, being third and fourth respectively from the 
 flank, between the plate and rump cuts. The chuck, shanks, clod, 
 and round cuts are nearer the top. 
 
 PER 
 CENT 
 0.86 
 
 If 
 
 xn 
 
 uZ 
 ff< 
 PI 
 
 0.48 
 
 7 
 
 PER 
 CCNT 
 
 0.34 
 
 FIG. 10. PERCENTAGES OF TOTALBAND SOLUBLE ASH IN THE BONELESS 
 MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
158 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 These facts are of further interest when we consider that while 
 it is known that some of the mineral constituents of meat con- 
 tribute to its palatability, it is probable that the water-soluble 
 constituents are the most active. The percentage of soluble ash in 
 the edible meat of the different cuts of beef should therefore be 
 some indication of the relative degree of palatability. The curve 
 for the soluble ash calculated on the fresh basis does not, however, 
 distinguish the cheaper from the dearer cuts of beef. If these 
 data be calculated to the fat-free basis, the tendency then seems to 
 be toward making the different cuts more nearly alike; thus, the 
 round contains 0.95 percent soluble ash and the flank 0.70 percent, 
 while on the fresh basis the range for these cuts is 0.76 and 0.30 
 percent respectively. 
 
 In the same way, when the total ash is calculated to the fat-free 
 basis the differences between the minimum and maximum percent- 
 ages are much less. Thus, the round has the maximum percentage 
 of i. 08 and the flank the minimum of 0.93. 
 
 Phosphorus. In view of the important functions of phosphorus 
 in animal nutrition, as indicated by recent investigations, a compari- 
 son of the forms and amounts as they occur in the various cuts is 
 of interest. The data in the following table show that the per- 
 centages of total phosphorus vary from 0.077 in the flank to 0.184 
 in the round. Thus the various cuts rank in substantially the same 
 order with respect to phosphorus and ash content. Phosphorus, 
 like total mineral matter, is most abundant in the leaner cuts of 
 beef, and vice versa; and its amounts are entirely independent of 
 current market prices of the various cuts. 
 
 TABLE 9. PERCENTAGES OF SOLUBLE AND INSOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS IN THE BONE- 
 LESS MEAT OF EACH CUT 
 
 
 
 Soluble 
 
 
 Insoluble 
 
 Total 
 
 
 Inorganic 
 
 Organic 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 Round 
 
 .093 
 
 032 
 
 125 
 
 .059 
 
 .184 
 
 Clod 
 
 094 
 
 033 
 
 127 
 
 .046 
 
 173 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 085 
 
 024 
 
 109 
 
 052 
 
 161 
 
 Chuck 
 
 091 
 
 015 
 
 106 
 
 052 
 
 158 
 
 Neck 
 
 085 
 
 013 
 
 098 
 
 050 
 
 148 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 092 
 
 016 
 
 108 
 
 033 
 
 141 
 
 L>oin 
 
 072 
 
 017 
 
 089 
 
 053 
 
 142 
 
 Rump 
 
 062 
 
 022 
 
 084 
 
 051 
 
 135 
 
 Rib 
 
 065 
 
 019 
 
 087 
 
 043 
 
 130 
 
 Plate 
 
 .050 
 
 015 
 
 065 
 
 039 
 
 104 
 
 Flank 
 
 048 
 
 006 
 
 054 
 
 03 
 
 077 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 159 
 
 The amounts of soluble phosphorus are, in general, about twice 
 as great as those of insoluble phosphorus, and the different cuts 
 stand in approximately the same order with regard to the soluble 
 and insoluble forms as with respect to the total. The exceptions 
 to this rule do not appear to follow any regular order. The same 
 is true of the inorganic and the organic forms of soluble phos- 
 phorus, as indicated by the first and second columns of the table. 
 
 PER 
 
 CENT 
 
 0.18 
 
 UZ 
 
 tr < 
 ox 
 u.m 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.10 
 
 006 
 
 006 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.06 
 
 FIG. 11. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL AND SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS IN THE 
 BONELESS MEAT OF THE "WHOLESALE CUTS. 
 
 The above diagram (Fig. n) shows the distribution of the 
 total and the soluble phosphorus in the eleven wholesale cuts. From 
 these curves it is apparent that the prices of the various cuts of 
 beef are independent of their phosphorus content either total or 
 soluble. 
 
 RELATIVE FUEL VALUE OE THE BONELESS MEAT OE THE WHOLE- 
 SALE CUTS 
 
 As stated previously, fat, which is one of the chief food 
 nutrients of meat, either is deposited in the body as such, or else 
 yields energy, i.e., it produces heat and thus has fuel value. Pro- 
 tein, the other chief food nutrient of meat, may be used in the 
 body not only for the formation of muscular tissue but also for 
 the production of energy. 
 
160 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 It therefore will be of interest to compare the fuel value of the 
 fat and protein in the different cuts of beef, and also to compare 
 the total fuel value of the cuts. It has been found experimentally 
 that a gram 1 of fat when burned will yield 9.45 calories 2 of heat 
 and that a gram of protein will produce 4.35 calories. 3 
 
 If then the composition of the meat is known, the fuel value can 
 be calculated by means of the above factors. In the following 
 table these values are given for each of the eleven wholesale cuts 
 and for the percentage distribution of the calories between the fat 
 and protein. In order to make the relative comparison of the cuts 
 more direct, the amounts of boneless meat necessary to furnish 
 1000 calories have also been calculated. 
 
 TABLE 10. RELATIVE FUEL VALUE OF THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE WHOLESALE 
 
 CUTS 
 
 Wholesale cuts 
 
 Calories* furnished by 100 
 grams of boneless meat 
 
 Percentage 
 distribution of 
 calories 
 
 Pounds of bone- 
 less meat re- 
 quired to furnish 
 1000 calories 
 
 Fat x9 
 
 Protein x4 
 
 Total 
 
 In fat 
 
 [n protein 
 
 Flank 
 
 514.4 
 437.1 
 365.6 
 350.5 
 339.4 
 247.9 
 235.1 
 186.9 
 179.8 
 176.9 
 161.6 
 
 40.5 
 '46.0 
 54.1 
 55.3 
 57.4 
 65.8 
 67.9 
 71.0 
 73.9 
 73.6 
 73.5 
 
 554.9 
 483.1 
 419.7 
 405.8 
 396.8 
 313.7 
 303.0 
 257.9 
 253.7 
 250.5 
 235.1 
 
 92.7 
 90.5 
 87.1 
 86.4 
 85.5 
 79.0 
 77.6 
 72.5 
 70.9 
 70.6 
 68.7 
 
 7.3 
 9.5 
 12.9 
 13.6 
 14.5 
 21.0 
 22.4 
 27.5 
 29.1 
 29.4 
 31.3 
 
 .40 
 .46 
 .52 
 .54 
 .56 
 .70 
 .73 
 86 
 .87 
 .88 
 .94 
 
 Plate 
 
 Rib 
 
 Rump 
 
 Loin 
 
 Chuck 
 
 Neck 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 Round 
 
 Clod 
 
 In the above table the data were calculated as follows : The 
 percentages of fat in the various cuts were obtained from Table 6, 
 page 149. Those for the protein, as previously referred to in Table 
 7, page 153, are not applicable. In this case the total nitrogen 
 content of the meat was multiplied by 6.25 to obtain crude protein, 
 that being the value usually assigned in calculating the energy of 
 protein. The percentage of fat was multiplied by 9, and the per- 
 
 '453.59 grams equal one pound. 
 
 2 A large calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 
 one kilogram of water one degree Centigrade. 
 
 S 95 percent of the energy of fat and 92 percent of that of protein are 
 available in the case of man. Hence, the approximate fuel values of fat and 
 protein are 9= (9.45x95) and 4= (4.35x92) calories per gram respectively. 
 
 'Large calorie. 
 
1912] HCONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 161 
 
 centage of protein by 4, and the two results added to give the 
 total calories in the cut. Thus, in the flank, the percentage of fat 
 is 57.16, and that of protein 10.12. Therefore, one hundred grams 
 of the meat will yield 514.4 calories from the fat (57.16x9) and 
 40.5 calories from the protein (10.12x4), making a total of 554.9 
 calories. 
 
 The data in the table show, as would be expected, the high 
 calorific value of those cuts which have a high percentage of fat. 
 Thus, in the third column the flank, plate, rib, rump and loin cuts 
 are from one and one-half to two times as great in fuel value as the 
 shanks, round, and clod. These differences are shown in column T, 
 also, where the extremes are 514.4 calories for the flank and 161.6 
 calories for the clod. In column 4 the percentage distribution of 
 calories in the fat is shown to range from 68.7 in the clod to 92.7 
 in the flank cut. In the rib and the loin cuts the fat furnishes 
 87.1 and 85.5 percent respectively of the fuel value, while in the 
 shanks, round, and clod cuts the fat makes up about 69 percent. 
 The protein, on the other hand, supplies from 7.3 percent of the 
 total calorific value in the flank cut to 31.3 percent in the clod 'cut. 
 In order to make a more direct comparison of the different cuts, 
 the amount of boneless meat required to furnish 1000 calories has 
 been calculated. These data, in the last column, show that the 
 flank and plate cuts require the smallest amounts, 0.40 and 0.46 
 pounds respectively. The rib, rump, and loin cuts come next, 
 averaging 0.54 pounds. The chuck and neck cuts follow with 
 values averaging 0.71 pounds. The shanks and round run about 
 the same, varying from 0.86 pounds for the hind shank to 0.88 
 pounds for the round and averaging 0.87 pounds for all three cuts. 
 The clod cut requires the largest amount of boneless meat, 0.94 
 pounds, to furnish 1000 calories. 
 
 RELATIVE ECONOMY OF THE NUTRIENTS OE THE BONELESS MEAT 
 OE THE WHOLESALE CUTS AT CURRENT MARKET PRICES 
 
 From the discussion of the distribution of the various nutrients 
 in the eleven wholesale cuts of beef, it w r as seen that some of the 
 cheaper cuts, such as the round, clod, chuck, and shanks, contained 
 just as high or higher percentages of protein, organic extractives, 
 and mineral matter as the more expensive cuts. The main difference 
 between the cuts was in the fat content. Since meat is bought 
 chiefly for the protein it contains and secondarily for fat, it will 
 be of interest to compare the net cost of a given amount of protein 
 from each cut, and also the cost of the meat from each cut needed 
 to supply a definite number of calories. These data are given in 
 Table 11. 
 
162 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 TABLE 11. COST OF MEAT REQUIRED TO FURNISH ONE POUND OF PROTEIN AND 
 1000 CALORIES FROM WHOLESALE CUTS AT MARKET PRICES 
 
 Wholesale cuts 
 
 Retail 1 
 price 
 per 
 pound, 
 cents 
 
 Boneless 
 meat in 
 the cut, 
 percent 
 
 Cost of 
 pound 
 boneless 
 meat in 
 cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost of 
 pound 
 protein 
 in cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost of 
 1000 
 calories 
 in cut, 
 cents 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 5 
 
 59.56 
 
 8.4 
 
 50 
 
 7 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 5 
 
 48.84 
 
 10.2 
 
 63 
 
 9 
 
 Neck 
 
 6 
 
 84.31 
 
 7.1 
 
 46 
 
 5 
 
 Flank 
 
 8 
 
 99.44 
 
 8.0 
 
 85 
 
 3 
 
 Plate 
 
 8 
 
 91.23 
 
 8 7 
 
 82 
 
 4 
 
 Clod 
 
 30 
 
 95 18 
 
 10 5 
 
 63 
 
 10 
 
 Chuck 
 
 11 
 
 87.99 
 
 12 5 
 
 84 
 
 9 
 
 Rump 
 
 12 
 
 79 85 
 
 15 
 
 119 
 
 8 
 
 Round 
 
 15 
 
 90 39 
 
 16 6 
 
 101 
 
 15 
 
 Rib 
 
 18 
 
 85 56 
 
 21 
 
 171 
 
 11 
 
 Loin 
 
 22 
 
 90 23 
 
 24 4 
 
 188 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Average prices calculated from the retail prices given in Table 19, page 171. 
 
 The calculations are based upon the prices given in the first 
 column. From the percentage of boneless meat, the retail cost 
 per pound of the boneless meat in the cuts was obtained. Knowing 
 the percentage of protein in the boneless meat (Table 7), and the 
 percentage of boneless meat in the cut, the cost per pound of 
 protein was calculated. The cheapest cuts for protein are the neck, 
 shanks and clod. The neck furnishes a pound of protein for 46 
 cents; the fore shank for 50 cents; the hind shank for 63 cents, 
 and the clod for 63 cents. The loin, rib, rump, and round furnish 
 a pound of protein for the most money: the loin for $1.88; the 
 rib for $1.71 ; the rump for $1.19, and the round for $1.01. The 
 flank, plate, and chuck cuts supply a pound of protein for 85, 82, 
 and 84 cents respectively. With reference to the cost of protein, 
 the most economical cuts which are suitable for general use are the 
 clod, plate, and chuck, in the order named. 
 
 From the cost per pound of the boneless meat and from the 
 amount of boneless meat required to furnish 1000 calories (Table 
 10), it is possible to determine the cost of the meat necessary to 
 supply the same fuel value for each cut. These results are given 
 in the last column. They indicate that the eleven cuts can be 
 grouped into four classes : first, the flank, plate, and neck, costing 
 3, 4 and 5 cents, respectively, per 1000 calories; second, the fore 
 shank and the rump, costing 7 and 8 cents respectively ; third, the 
 hind shank, chuck, clod and rib, costing 9, 9, 10 and n cents 
 respectively; and fourth, the loin and round, costing 14 and 15 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 163 
 
 cents respectively. Considering their adaptability for general use, 
 the most economical cuts in terms of fuel value are the plate, rump, 
 chuck, and clod. 
 
 It will be of interest to see which cuts of beef are the most 
 economical for protein and fuel value combined. In the above 
 discussion the relative order of the cuts is not the same in the two 
 cases. The neck, shank, and plate are among the cheapest cuts in 
 both instances, while the round, rib, and loin are the most expen- 
 sive. From the standpoint of both protein and energy value, the 
 most economical cuts adapted to general use are the clod, chuck, 
 and plate, in the order named. 
 
 It should of course be borne in mind that some of these cheaper 
 cuts are less tender and therefore more difficult to prepare for use 
 than steaks and roasts. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that 
 there is little difference between the various cuts as to their per- 
 centages of organic extractives and ash (the nutrients which assist 
 in giving flavor and palatability to cooked meat), and since the 
 digestibility 1 of protein is independent of the kind or cut of meat 
 and of the method of cooking (broiling, roasting or boiling), the 
 cheaper cuts, in general, may be said to compare favorably with 
 the higher-priced ones, even in regard to flavor and palatability. 
 Considering the further fact that they furnish more protein and 
 fuel value per unit of meat, these cuts are evidently more economi- 
 cal sources of food nutrients. 
 
 RETAIL CUTS 
 
 The wholesale cuts (Fig. 3, page 143) were further divided into 
 the various retail cuts that are commonly made in meat markets. 
 Fig. 12 represents the manner of cutting and the location of the 
 different cuts. The weight of each, taken immediately upon cut- 
 ting, is recorded in the appendix (Tables 10-23). The outs that 
 required trimming to remove surplus fat and bone were so. trimmed 
 in accordance with meat-market custom, the trimmings and the 
 trimmed cut being weighed in each case (Tables 24-38, Appendix). 
 Each retail cut was then carefully separated by means of boning 
 knives into lean,- visible fat, and bone, and the weight of each 
 portion recorded 2 (Tables 24-32, Appendix). In the case of 
 trimmed cuts the different constituents of the trimmings were 
 likewise separated and weighed (Tables 33-38, Appendix). 
 
 Bulletin 162, U. S. Dept. Agr., O.E.S. (1903), by Grindley and Emmett; 
 also Bulletin 193 by Grindley, Mojonnier, and Porter (1907). 
 
 B In the case of Steer No. 1 the weight of bone in each cut was determined 
 by difference. In Nos. 2 and 3 the bone was weighed ^separately, which ac- 
 counts for the slight amounts of loss and error recorded in those instances and 
 in the general averages. 
 
164 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 H/ND QUARTER 
 f?OUND 
 
 Rump 
 
 1 Rump 
 
 Pound: rump <S shank off. 
 . Round steak, f/rjf cut. 
 3-/J Round steaks. 
 
 14 Round steak, /cut cut. 
 
 15 KnuckJe ^oup bone 
 
 16 Pot roast 
 Hind shank. 
 
 17. /8 3oup bones 
 19 Hock soup bom 
 
 LOIN 
 I 
 
 
 Buff- end sir/oin steak. 
 
 Wedge - bone str/o/n steak. 
 J,4 Pound -bone 
 
 5,6 Double -bone 
 
 7 Hrp -bone 
 
 8 Hip -bone. Porterhouse ^feak. 
 9 -15 Regular 
 
 /6- 18 Club steak-s. 
 
 t Flank steak 
 Stew. 
 
 R/B 
 
 llttr & 
 9W& ) 
 -I>J)& I 
 
 QUARTER 
 
 R/b roast 
 
 4 
 CHUCK 
 
 I 5tb ff/o roast. 
 
 - 9 Chuck 
 
 10 -/J Pot roasts. 
 
 14- Clod 
 
 15 Neck 
 PLATE 
 
 Navel 
 4- Rib ends 
 
 SHANK 
 
 I 3tew. 
 
 Knuck/e. ^oup hone. 
 
 3-6' Soup bones. 
 
 RETAIL CUT5 OF- BEEF 
 
 FIG. 12. METHOD OK CUTTING THE THREE SIDES, SHOWING RETAIL. CUTS. 
 
 In order to compare the various retail cuts as to their relative 
 amounts of lean, fat, and bone, the weights of these constituents 
 have been reduced to percentages ; and in the interest of brevity, 
 average percentages of the respective constituents yielded by cor- 
 responding cuts from the three sides of beef are made the basis of 
 the following summary and discussion. Tables 12 to 18, inclusive, 
 
K)i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 :6S 
 
 represent untrimmed cuts. Further differences brought about by 
 trimming will be briefly summarized in connection with the discus- 
 sion of the various cuts, and will be considered more specifically in 
 the following section with reference to the question of relative 
 economy. 
 
 LOIN 
 
 With reference to the proportions of lean and fat in the cuts of 
 the loin (Table 12) it will be noticed that the sirloin steaks are in 
 general leaner than the porterhouse and club steaks, and that all of 
 the latter are comparatively similar in this respect. The percentage 
 of bone varies considerably; and it is apparent that the double- 
 bone, hip-bone and club steaks have relatively more bone than the 
 remainder of the loin, owing to portions of the hip-bone contained 
 
 TABLE 12. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail loin cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1. Sirloin steak (butt-end) 
 
 70.46 
 
 93 39 
 
 5 . 67 
 
 99.45 
 
 2. Sirloin steak (wedge-bone) 
 
 69.82 
 
 23.27 
 
 6.40 
 
 99.49 
 
 3. Sirloin steak (round-bone) 
 
 65.71 
 
 28.17 
 
 5.37 
 
 99.25 
 
 4. Sirloin steak (round-bone) 
 
 61.43 
 
 29.18 
 
 8.94 
 
 99 . 55 
 
 5. Sirloin steak (double-bone) 
 
 59.01 
 
 26.55 
 
 13.84 
 
 99.40 
 
 6 Sirloin steak (double-bone) 1 . . 
 
 68 69 
 
 17 72 
 
 12 49 
 
 98 90 
 
 7. Sirloin steak (hip-bone) 2 
 
 50.11 
 
 31.73 
 
 16 05 
 
 97 89 
 
 8. Porterhouse steak (hip-bone) 
 9. Porterhouse steak 
 
 54.39 
 53 78 
 
 32.88 
 39 22 
 
 11.51 
 5 80 
 
 98.78 
 98 80 
 
 10. Porterhouse steak 
 
 53 56 
 
 39 24 
 
 6 64 
 
 99 44 
 
 11. Porterhouse steak 
 12. Porterhouse steak 
 
 59.41 
 56 22 
 
 32 . 93 
 35 96 
 
 6.46 
 
 6 84 
 
 98.80 
 99 02 
 
 13. Porterhouse steak 
 
 55 49 
 
 35 41 
 
 8 23 
 
 99 13 
 
 14. Porterhouse steak 
 15. Porterhouse steak 
 
 54.83 
 50 04 
 
 34.33 
 41 44 
 
 9.52 
 
 7 77 
 
 98.68 
 99 25 
 
 16. Club steak 
 17. Club steak 
 18. Club steak 
 19. Trimmings (wholesale) 3 
 
 55.38 
 55.33 
 54.10 
 9 79 
 
 36.35 
 32 93 
 33.81 
 90 21 
 
 7.89 
 12.80 
 11.19 
 
 o 
 
 99.82 
 99.06 
 99.10 
 100 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire loin 
 
 58 53 
 
 31 75 
 
 8 89 
 
 99 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 in the former and of the thirteenth rib in the latter. It is evident 
 from these figures that while porterhouse steaks command a higher 
 price than sirloin, they actually contain a smaller proportion of lean 
 meat and more excess fat. See Figs. 13 to 28. 
 
 Trimming the retail cuts of the loin reduces their weight about 
 12 percent. (Tables 33 and 34, Appendix). The relative amount 
 of trimmings is similar in the three classes of steaks; but those 
 
 This cut was made from the loins of Steers Nos. 1 and 2 only. 
 This cut was made from the loins of Steers Nos. 2 and 3 only. 
 3 This cut was made from the loin of Steer No. 3 only. 
 
166 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 from the porterhouse cuts contain the largest proportion of fat, 
 while the sirloin trimmings contain the most bone. The trimmings 
 from the various loin steaks consist of about 80 percent visible fat, 
 1 8 percent bone, and 2 percent lean. 
 
 RIB 
 
 Table 13 shows that the first cut of the rib contains the smallest 
 proportion of lean meat, while the last cut, or sixth rib roast, is 
 the leanest. The reverse is true of the percentage of fat. In terms 
 of gross meat, i.e., lean and fat combined, the first roast is most 
 valuable and the third cut least ; moreover, the greater degree of 
 tenderness and general quality in the first cut makes it the most 
 popular and therefore the highest-priced of the rib roasts. Since, 
 however, beef roasts are valuable primarily for the lean meat they 
 contain, it is evident that the sixth rib is the most economical* at 
 a given price. See Figs. 29 to 32. 
 
 TABLE 13. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail rib cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Roast (nth and 12th ribs) 
 
 49.44 
 
 37 74 
 
 12 41 
 
 99 59 
 
 2 Roast (9th and 10th ribs) 
 
 54.26 
 
 31.41 
 
 13 97 
 
 99 64 
 
 3 Roast (7th and 8th ribs) 
 
 56.00 
 
 27 81 
 
 15 79 
 
 99 60 
 
 4 Roast (6th rib) 
 
 61.43 
 
 23 72 
 
 14 27 
 
 99 42 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire rib 
 
 55.21 
 
 30.17 
 
 14.18 
 
 99.56 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ROUND 
 
 Comparing the retail cuts of the round (Table 14) it is found 
 that the rump roast is made up of about one-half lean and one-third 
 visible fat; the round steaks, from 73 to 85 percent lean and 9 to 
 22 percent visible fat ; and the hind-shank soup bones are exceed- 
 ingly variable in proportions of lean, visible fat, and bone. The var- 
 ious steaks are somewhat similar in percentage of lean meat, but 
 cuts Nos. 5 to 12 contain noticeably less bone and more visible fat 
 than those nearer the extremities of the round. The round pot roast, 
 which is usually a boneless cut, contains a larger proportion of 
 lean meat than any other cut of the round. The knuckle and hock 
 soup bones consist very largely of bone, while the remaining soup- 
 bone cuts have considerable percentages of lean. See Figs. 33 
 to 45. 
 
 Results of trimming the various round cuts are shown in Tables 
 35 and 36, Appendix. Rump roasts are thus reduced in weight by 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 167 
 
 TABLE 14. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail round cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 
 48.62 
 
 31.13 
 
 19.81 
 
 99.57 
 
 2 Round steak (first cut) 
 
 74.16 
 
 13.57 
 
 11.26 
 
 98.99 
 
 3 Round steak 
 
 76.99 
 
 13.19 
 
 9.02 
 
 99.20 
 
 4 Round steak . 
 
 84.47 
 
 9.71 
 
 5.13 
 
 99.31 
 
 5 Round steak 
 
 83.12 
 
 12.94 
 
 3.33 
 
 99.39 
 
 g Round steak 
 
 81.84 
 
 14.36 
 
 2.64 
 
 98.84 
 
 7 Round steak 
 
 78.79 
 
 17.63 
 
 2.52 
 
 98.94 
 
 8 Round steak . 
 
 77.53 
 
 19.61 
 
 2.62 
 
 99.76 
 
 9 Round steak 1 
 
 81.85 
 
 15.93 
 
 2.22 
 
 100.00 
 
 10 Round steak 1 . 
 
 78.15 
 
 19.33 
 
 2.52 
 
 100.00 
 
 11. Round steak 1 
 
 74.90 
 
 21.96 
 
 3.14 
 
 100.00 
 
 12 Round steak . . 
 
 73.73 
 
 21.95 
 
 3.77 
 
 99.45 
 
 13 Round steak 1 
 
 81.02 
 
 14.36 
 
 4.62 
 
 100.00 
 
 14 Round steak ... 
 
 75.05 
 
 16.63 
 
 7.31 
 
 98.99 
 
 15. Knuckle soup bone 
 
 19.00 
 
 21.78 
 
 58 . 36 
 
 99.14 
 
 16 Pot roast 
 
 85.43 
 
 13 38 
 
 0.87 
 
 99 68 
 
 17. Shank soup bone 
 
 40.13 
 
 11.37 
 
 47 62 
 
 99 12 
 
 18. Shank soup bone .... 
 
 66 72 
 
 12.35 
 
 20.19 
 
 99 46 
 
 19. Shank soup bone (hock) 
 
 8.08 
 
 10.36 
 
 80.86 
 
 99.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire round 
 
 64 61 
 
 18 03 
 
 16 63 
 
 99.27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'This cut was made from the round of Steer No. 1 only. 
 
 about one-third; and the rump trimmings are composed of about 
 56 percent bone, 30 percent fat and 14 percent lean. Fat only is 
 trimmed from the round steaks, as a rule, and they are reduced 
 only about 5 percent in weight. The greatest proportionate amount 
 of trimmings is taken from the first cut steak, in which case the 
 trimmings consist principally of bone ; and, in general, the fifth 
 to the eighth cuts are trimmed more than the remaining ones. 
 
 CHUCK 
 
 The fifth rib roast, taken from the chuck (Table 15), resembles 
 the prime rib roast in regard to proportions of meat and bone, but 
 exceeds them in relative amount of lean, just as the adjacent sixth 
 rib roast shows the largest percentage of lean in the prime ribs 
 (Table 13). It is also observed that the successive chuck steaks, 
 which are cut anterior and parallel to the fifth rib roast, tend in 
 general toward a larger proportion of lean meat with a smaller per- 
 centage of fat and bone. Three pot roasts, cuts Nos. 10, n, and 
 12, cut next to the chuck steaks, vary considerably with respect 
 to all three constituents, Nos. 10 and 12 resembling the chuck 
 steaks, while No. 1 1 has a comparatively small percentage of lean 
 and a large percentage of fat. The stew (No. 13), taken from the 
 lower portion of the shoulder near the brisket, is the fattest cut of 
 
168 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 TABLE 15. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail chuck cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1. Roast (5th rib) 
 
 64.07 
 
 20.78 
 
 14.65 
 
 99.50 
 
 2 Chuck steak - . . 
 
 62 11 
 
 18 80 
 
 18.33 
 
 99.24 
 
 3 Chuck steak 
 
 66 26 
 
 22 29 
 
 10 94 
 
 99.49 
 
 4 Chuck steak 
 
 72 41 
 
 15 81 
 
 11 37 
 
 99.29 
 
 5. Chuck steak 
 
 69.91 
 
 16.60 
 
 12.50 
 
 99.01 
 
 6. Chuck steak 
 
 75.64 
 
 14 . 23 
 
 9.68 
 
 99.55 
 
 7 Chuck steak 
 
 82.10 
 
 6.41 
 
 10.78 
 
 99.29 
 
 8 Chuck steak 
 
 75 . 60 
 
 13.60 
 
 10.28 
 
 99.48 
 
 9. Chuck steak 
 
 74 . 76 
 
 14.57 
 
 9.85 
 
 99.18 
 
 10 Pot roast 
 
 75 . 89 
 
 14 44 
 
 8 89 
 
 99 . 22 
 
 11 Pot roast 
 
 58.45 
 
 26.53 
 
 13 94 
 
 98 9? 
 
 12 Pot roast 
 
 78.06 
 
 9 07 
 
 12.66 
 
 99.79 
 
 13 Stew 
 
 60 79 
 
 33 86 
 
 5 03 
 
 99 68 
 
 14 Clod 
 
 80 39 
 
 14 62 
 
 4 69 
 
 99 70 
 
 15. Neck 
 
 60.47 
 
 22.12 
 
 16.48 
 
 99.07 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire chuck 
 
 69.47 
 
 18.63 
 
 11.26 
 
 99.36 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the chuck, and contains but little bone. The neck piece is inter- 
 mediate in proportionate amounts of edible meat and waste. The 
 clod is the most economical cut of the chuck in point of gross meat, 
 and, with one exception, also contains the highest percentage of 
 lean. See Figs. 46 to 60. 
 
 Retail trimmings from the chuck (Tables 37 and 38, Appendix) 
 consist chiefly of neck scraps, these making up nearly half the total 
 trimmings taken from the chuck of Steer No. i and about one- 
 third in the case of Steer No. 2. The chuck roast and steaks are 
 trimmed to about the same extent as the round steaks, amounting 
 to 5 percent of their weight; the trimmings consisting largely of 
 bone. Of the remaining cuts only No. n (the pot roast adjacent 
 to the clod and knuckle) requires much trimming, the surplus in 
 this case being chiefly fat and bone. On the average the chuck 
 'cuts are reduced in weight by about 10 percent, and the trimmings 
 are composed of about 40 percent fat, 30 percent lean and 30 per- 
 cent bone. 
 
 The two principal divisions of the plate, viz., the brisket and 
 the navel, are remarkably similar in proportions of lean, visible fat, 
 and bone (Table 16). The rib ends, which are small pieces cut 
 from the upper portion of the navel, contain relatively more bone 
 and less lean than the remainder of the plate, but are similar to it 
 in percentage of visible fat. The wholesale trimmings consist chiefly 
 of surplus fat taken from the lower edge of the plate. See Figs. 
 61 to 64. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 169 
 
 TABLE 16. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail plate cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Brisket 
 
 53.33 
 
 38.81 
 
 7.78 
 
 99 92 
 
 2 Navel 
 
 54.87 
 
 37.22 
 
 7.91 
 
 100 00 
 
 3. Rib ends 
 
 49.44 
 
 37.31 
 
 12 35 
 
 99 10 
 
 4. Rib ends 
 
 50.79 
 
 36.39 
 
 12.36 
 
 99.54 
 
 5. Wholesale trimmings 
 
 13.89 
 
 86.11 
 
 
 
 100 . 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire plate 
 
 50.61 
 
 40.73 
 
 8.47 
 
 99.81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FLANK 
 
 About half the weight of the flank cut from prime cattle consists 
 of surplus fat which must be trimmed off and sold for tallow 
 (Table 20, Appendix). A boneless steak is then stripped off, 
 which, in this test, consisted of about 83 percent lean and the 
 remainder, visible fat. The rest of the flank (cut No. i) is stew- 
 ing meat containing about two parts of lean to one of visible fat. 
 See Figs. 65 and 66. 
 
 TABLE 17. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail flank cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Stew 
 
 64.11 
 
 34 79 
 
 58 
 
 99 48 
 
 2 Flank steak 
 
 83 05 
 
 16 44 
 
 
 
 99 49 
 
 3 Trimmings (wholesale) 
 
 37 
 
 99 63 
 
 
 
 100 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire flank 
 
 36 30 
 
 63 18 
 
 25 
 
 99 73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORE SHANK 
 
 The boneless stewing piece taken from the front of the shank 
 (cut No. i ) contains a larger proportion of both lean and fat than 
 the shank soup-bone cuts. Of the latter, it is seen in Table 18 that 
 
 TABLE 18. PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Retail fore-shank cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 99.68 
 99.18 
 99.24 
 99.62 
 99.72 
 98.88 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 
 Stew 
 Soup 
 Soup 
 Soup 
 Soup 
 Soup 
 
 
 82 
 29 
 28 
 39 
 68 
 17 
 
 58 
 38 
 03 
 88 
 88 
 43 
 
 17 
 11 
 10 
 13 
 5 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 12 
 98 
 14 
 68 
 51 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 58 
 60 
 46 
 25 
 
 74 
 
 68 
 23 
 61 
 16 
 94 
 
 bone (knuckle) 
 
 bone 
 
 bone 
 
 bone . . 
 
 bone 
 
 
 Entire si 
 
 lank 
 
 47 
 
 61 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 99 
 
 44 
 
 
170 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 the two cuts nearest the chuck (Nos. 2 and 3) are very similar, 
 containing small proportions of lean and much bone. In the next 
 two cuts the percentage of lean increases and that of bone decreases. 
 The fifth cut contains a remarkably large percentage of lean and 
 of gross meat, while the sixth cut, containing about 75 percent of 
 bone, has the smallest relative amount of meat. See Figs. 67 to 69. 
 
 RELATIVE ECONOMY OE THE VARIOUS RETAIL CUTS 
 
 From the proportions of lean, fat and bone in the different 
 cuts, their relative economy at retail market prices may be deter- 
 mined. The net cost of lean meat is an approximate index of the 
 relative economy of steaks and roasts, since they are purchased and 
 used primarily for the lean they contain ; but in comparing boiling, 
 stewing, and similar meats, the cost of gross meat, or fat and lean 
 combined, should be more largely considered, because the fat is 
 more completely utilized, as in the case of meat loaf, hash, Ham- 
 burger and corned beef. Soup bones, being valued for flavoring 
 matter as well as for the nutritive substance they contain, are more 
 difficult to compare with other cuts in respect to relative economy. 
 They vary materially, however, in proportions of edible meat and 
 waste, and should therefore be studied in this connection. 
 
 The relative cost of lean meat in a given cut consists of the 
 price per pound paid for the cut divided by the percentage of lean 
 it contains ; and, similarly, the cost per pound of gross meat is the 
 market price of the cut divided by its total percentage of lean and 
 fat meat. For example, in a steak costing 20 cents per pound and 
 composed of 80 percent lean, 10 percent visible fat and 10 percent 
 bone, the net cost per pound of lean is 20 cents -4- .80, or 25 cents, 
 and the net cost per pound of total meat is 20 cents -r- . 90 
 (.80+. 10), or 22.2 cents. 
 
 Retail prices of beef cuts vary widely, depending upon market 
 prices of live cattle and carcass beef; also upon the method of 
 cutting and trimming used, and upon local customs and conditions. 
 Consequently, the relative economy of the different cuts varies 
 accordingly and cannot, therefore, be expressed in fixed terms 
 The following table is based upon prices charged for the highest 
 grade of beef cuts in first-class city meat markets. Altho it fairly 
 represents the relative net cost of the retail cuts under the condi- 
 tions stated, the table is designed primarily to illustrate the method 
 by which the relative economy of different cuts may be calculated 
 for any given scale of prices. 
 
 Table 19 is based upon Tables 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the text, 
 and, in the case of cuts that were trimmed, Tables 26, 29 and 32, 
 Appendix. In case it is desired to compare the untrimmed cuts, 
 
i')i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 171 
 
 then Tables 12 to 18 inclusive in the foregoing text should be used 
 as the basis, and prices assigned accordingly. 
 
 TABLE 19. COST OF LEAN AND OF TOTAL MEAT IN THE VARIOUS RETAIL CUTS 
 
 AT MARKET PRICES 
 
 RETAIL CUTS 
 
 Diagram 
 number 
 .Fig. 12) 
 
 Retail 
 price 
 per pounc 
 of cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost per 
 pound of 
 lean meal 
 in cut, 
 cents 
 
 Cost per 
 pound of 
 lean and 
 fat meat 
 in cut, 
 cents 
 
 STEAKS 
 Porterhouse, hip-bone 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 38 6 
 
 28 9 
 
 Porterhouse, Jfcgular. 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 40 2 
 
 27 2 
 
 rlllK Cffrlk jiff: 
 
 18 
 
 20 
 
 32 1 
 
 22 6 
 
 Sirloin, bui^Rid 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 25 3 
 
 20 6 
 
 Sirloin, n^HB-bone 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 28 3 
 
 21 1 
 
 Sirloin, ^Mole-bone 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 28 7 
 
 22 7 
 
 Sirloin, ^HP-bone 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 32 3 
 
 24 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 19 3 
 
 16 
 
 Rniinjj^Krcf ^nt 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 17 
 
 15 3 
 
 Rouj^^middle cut 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 17 3 
 
 15 6 
 
 Pnnj^p 1a=t nit 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 19 3 
 
 16 
 
 Chuck, first cut 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 18 3 
 
 14 1 
 
 Chuck, last cut 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 15 7 
 
 13 1 
 
 ROASTS 
 Prime ribs, first cut 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 40 5 
 
 22 9 
 
 Prime ribs, last cut 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 26 1 
 
 18 8 
 
 Chuck, 5th rib 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 22 8 
 
 17 3 
 
 Rump 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 19 4 
 
 12 8 
 
 BOILING AND STEWING PIECES 
 Round pot roast 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 11 6 
 
 10 1 
 
 Shoulder clod 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 12 3 
 
 10 5 
 
 Shoulder pot roast 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 14 3 
 
 11 6 
 
 Rib ends 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 16 2 
 
 q o 
 
 Brisket 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 8 7 
 
 Navel 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 12 8 
 
 7 7 
 
 Flank stew 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 10 9 
 
 7 1 
 
 Fore shank stew 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 8 5 
 
 7 
 
 Neck 
 
 15 
 
 g 
 
 K. 
 
 7n 
 
 SOUP BONES 
 Round, knuckle ... 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 26 3 
 
 19 ^ 
 
 Hind shank, middle cut. . . . 
 Hind shank, hock 
 
 18 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 7.5 
 6 9 5 
 
 6.3 
 p R 
 
 Fore shank, knuckle 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 17 2 
 
 -Ip K 
 
 Fore shank, middle cut 
 Fore shank, end 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 12.5 
 
 28 8 
 
 9.4 
 pfl q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Taking the net cost of the lean meat as a basis of comparison, we 
 learn from these data that the most expensive steaks at the prices 
 given are the porterhouse cuts, followed by the club, sirloin, flank, 
 round, and chuck steaks. Of the different roasts, the first-cut prime 
 ribs are the most costly in terms of lean meat, and the rump roast is 
 the most economical. The various boiling and stewing pieces furnish 
 
172 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 lean meat more economically at market prices than either the roasts 
 or steaks; the rib ends and brisket being the dearer cuts of this 
 class, while the neck and shank stews are relatively cheapest. Sev- 
 eral of the soup bones are very economical sources of lean meat, 
 particularly the middle cuts of both shanks; and only one of them 
 is extremely expensive, even on this basis. In general, the wide 
 variation between the various cuts in net cost of lean is remarkable, 
 ranging from 7.5 cents in one of the soup bones to 40.5 cents in a 
 prime rib roast, and up to 62.5 cents in the hock soup bone; the 
 latter, however, being used primarily for its flavoring substance 
 rather than for lean meat. It will be observed, also, that the market 
 prices of the cheaper cuts correspond much more closely to their 
 net cost of lean meat than is true of the higher-priced steaks and 
 roasts. 
 
 The net cost per pound of gross meat, or lean and fat combined, 
 varies much less as between the different cuts than does the net 
 cost per pound of lean, because the proportions of total meat are 
 more nearly uniform than the percentages of lean. The various 
 steaks and roasts rank in substantially the same order as to relative 
 economy on this basis as on the basis of lean meat. The rib roasts, 
 however, are considerably more economical as compared with the 
 porterhouse and sirloin steaks when all the edible meat is consid- 
 ered. The rump shows a very low cost per pound of edible meat, 
 due to the large proportion of fat it contains ; and a still further 
 difference is noticed in the case of the rib ends, brisket, navel, 
 flank, neck, and several of the soup-bone cuts. The stewing meats 
 are generally the most economical sources of edible meat at these 
 prices, while porterhouse steaks are the most expensive. 
 
 On the whole, the data clearly show that the cheaper cuts of 
 beef are by far the most economical sources both of lean and of 
 total edible meat, including fat and lean. It has been shown else- 
 where (page 156) that no correlation exists between market prices 
 and the proportion of flavoring substances contained in various 
 portions of the carcass ; and cooking tests indicate that the propor- 
 tion of waste and shrinkage is not necessarily greater in the cheaper 
 than in the more expensive cuts. 1 It is evident, therefore, that 
 retail prices of beef cuts are determined chiefly by considerations 
 other than their food value, such as tenderness, grain, color, gen- 
 eral appearance, and convenience of cooking'. 
 
 In view of these facts, Table 19 constitutes a striking illustra- 
 tion of the irrational standards which characterize the demand for 
 beef, and of the consequent wide variation in prices between retail 
 beef cuts from different portions of the carcass. A careful study 
 
 'Bulletin 162, U. S. Dept. Agr., O.E.S. (1903), by Grindley and Emmett. 
 
/?/.?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 173 
 
 of these data, together with Fig. 12 and the following photographs 
 of all the cuts from Steer Xo. 3, will enable the reader to purchase 
 the various retail cuts of choice beef with respect to the relative 
 amounts of edible meat and waste they contain, and thus to profit 
 by the prevailing discrepancies in market prices. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 1. The relative efficiency of different types of cattle or systems 
 of production cannot be accurately compared without considering 
 the adaptability of the beef to the purpose for which it is used. 
 
 2. .Those who would buy meats most intelligently must know 
 the nature of the different cuts, especially with reference to the 
 proportions of lean meat, fat, and bone they contain and the food 
 value of edible meat cut from different parts of the carcass. 
 
 3. It is highly essential to the entire beef-cattle industry, on 
 the one hand, and the economic welfare of the beef-eating public, 
 on the other, that a more intelligent understanding of the different 
 cuts of meat be acquired by consumers generally. 
 
 SLAUGHTER TESTS 
 
 4. Dressed Beef. The proportion of chilled dressed beef to 
 live weight yielded by the two choice steers used in these investi- 
 gations was 60.36 and 60.88 percent respectively, and that of the 
 prime steer was 63.97 percent. Page 140 
 
 5. Internal Fat. The killing fats yielded by the three steers 
 were 5.15, 5-97, and 4.71 percent respectively (live weight basis). 
 Notwithstanding the high condition of Steer No. 3, this animal 
 yielded the lowest percentage of internal fat, indicating marked 
 efficiency for beef production. Page 140 
 
 6. Hides. The yields of hides were 7.48, 6.51, and 6.43 
 percent respectively (live weight basis). Page 140 
 
 7. Offal. Steer No. i yielded the largest proportion of head, 
 feet, tail, tongue, heart, liver, lungs, trachea, paunch, intestines, 
 and spleen. Steer No. 3 had the smallest relative weight of offal. 
 
 Page 140 
 WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 8. Percent Yield. Average yiel Is of straight cuts were: 
 loins, 16.76 percent; ribs, 9.77; rounds, 21.78; chucks, 21.89; 
 plates, 15.63; flanks, 5.15; fore shanks, 4.97; and kidney suet, 
 4.06. Page 142 
 
 6. Lean, Fat, and Bone. The proportion of lean in the vari- 
 ous straight wholesale cuts varied from about one-third in the 
 flank to about two-thirds in the chuck ; the extreme percentages of 
 visible fat were 1 1 percent in the shank and 63 percent in the 
 
174 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 flank ; and the percentage of bone ranged from practically nothing 
 in the flank to 40 percent in the shank. In general, the cuts con- 
 taining a large percentage of lean had a small percentage of visible 
 fat, and vice versa, while the relative weight of bone was more 
 variable. Page 145 
 
 The relative amounts of lean, visible fat, and bone in the hind 
 and fore quarters were as follows : hind quarter, 54.42 percent 
 lean, 34.55 percent visible fat, and 10.71 percent bone; fore quar- 
 ter, 59.12 percent lean, 26.69 percent visible fat, and 13.73 percent 
 bone. Page 145 
 
 The three sides of beef used in this experiment averaged about 
 57 percent lean meat, 30 percent visible fat, and 12 percent bone. 
 
 Page 145 
 
 7. Relative Economy. The net cost per pound of lean meat 
 is, in general, greatest in the cuts which command the highest 
 prices, and vice versa. Further, the more expensive the cut, the 
 greater the cost per pound of visible fat and lean combined. Thus 
 the relative food values of the various cuts do not correspond to 
 their market prices, the cheaper cuts being by far the more econom- 
 ical sources both of lean and of total edible meat. Page 147 
 
 NUTRITIVE VALUE OF THE BONELESS MEAT OE THE VARIOUS 
 
 WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 8. Dry Substance. The average water content of the edible 
 meat of the wholesale cuts varied from 32 percent in the flank to 
 63 percent in the clod; and consequently the total dry substance 
 ranged from 37 percent in the clod to 68 percent in the flank. The 
 percentage of soluble dry substance varied inversely as that of total 
 dry substance in the various cuts. Page 150 
 
 9. Fat. In general, the various wholesale cuts stood in the 
 same order with respect to the percentages of both total fat and 
 total dry substance contained in the edible meat; in other words, 
 the higher the percentage of fat, the lower the percentage of water. 
 The total fat content varied from 18 percent in the clod to 57 per- 
 cent in the flank. Page 151 
 
 10. Protein. Protein, the most essential food constituent of 
 beef, varied in the different cuts inversely as the dry substance and 
 fat. The maximum percentage, 16.98, was found in the shank; 
 and the minimum, 9.44, in the flank. Soluble protein varied from 
 0.66 to 2.08 percent, and was, in general, proportional to total 
 protein in the different cuts. If calculated to the fat-free basis, the 
 eleven wholesale cuts correspond closely in percentages of protein, 
 ranging only from 20 to 22 percent. Page 152 
 
 11. Organic Extractives. These varied from 0.76 percent in 
 the flank to 2.06 percent in the round. The ratio of nitrogenous 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 175 
 
 to non-nitrogenous extractives in the various cuts was similar. A 
 rather close correlation existed between the relative amounts of 
 protein and those of organic extractives, indicating that the leaner 
 cuts contained larger proportions of organic extractives than did 
 those rich in fat. No relation seemed to exist between the market 
 prices and the flavoring constituents of the various cuts. The high- 
 priced cuts (the loin and rib) contained considerably smaller per- 
 centages of organic extractives than did several of the cheaper cuts. 
 These statements do not take into account the influence of marb- 
 ling upon flavor of the different cuts. Page 155 
 
 12. Ash. The percentage of ash varied from 0.40 in the 
 flank to 0.87 in the round. The soluble ash formed from 70 to 87 
 percent of the total. There was a tendency for both the soluble 
 and the total ash to be higher in the cheaper cuts, and since these, 
 especially the soluble form, contribute to the palatability of meat, 
 there would seem to be no relation between market prices and the 
 palatability of different cuts. Page 157 
 
 13. Phosphorus. Phosphorus, like total mineral matter, was 
 most abundant in the leaner cuts of beef, and vice versa, and its 
 relative amounts were therefore independent of current market 
 prices of the various cuts. The percentage of phosphorus in the 
 meat varied from 0.077 ni tne fl ar| k to 0.184 m the round. 
 
 Page 158 
 
 14. Fuel Value. The relative fuel value is a significant factor 
 in considering the nutritive value of meat. It depends primarily 
 on the fat content, the fatter cuts of meat being highest in fuel 
 value. One hundred grams of meat from the flank furnished the 
 maximum calories, 554.9, and one hundred grams from the clod 
 furnished the minimum number, 235.1. It required from 0.40 
 pound of boneless meat in the flank to 0.94 pouna in the clod to 
 furnish 1000 calories. Page 159 
 
 15. Relative Economy. There seems to be no relation be- 
 tween market prices and the percentages of fat, protein, extractives, 
 and ash. The cheaper cuts appear to be as valuable and in some 
 cases actually more so than the higher -priced cuts from the stand- 
 point of protein and of energy. These statements do not take into 
 account the factors of tenderness nor the influence the degree of 
 fatness may have upon the palatability of cooked meat. In purchas- 
 ing meat for protein primarily, the neck, shanks and clod are the 
 most economical cuts; the plate, chuck, flank and round follow; 
 with the rump, rib, and loin as the most expensive. From the 
 standpoint of fuel value, the flank, plate, neck, and shank cuts are 
 the cheapest, while the rib, loin, and round are the most expensive. 
 Considering both factors, protein and fuel value, and along with 
 
176 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 these the adaptability of the meat for general use the clod, chuck, 
 and plate are the most economical cuts at the retail prices given. 
 
 Page 161 
 
 RETAIL CUTS 
 
 1 6. Loin Cuts. Loin steaks averaged 59 percent lean, 32 
 percent visible fat, and 9 percent bone. Sirloin steaks in general 
 contained a greater proportion of lean and smaller proportion of 
 fat than porterhouse and club steaks. Page 165 
 
 17. Rib Cuts. Rib roasts contained, on the average, 55 per- 
 cent lean, 30 percent visible fat, and 15 percent bone. The great- 
 est percentage .of lean was found in the sixth rib roast, and the 
 smallest in the eleventh and twelfth rib cut. Page 166 
 
 1 8. Round Cuts. The various cuts made from the round 
 averaged 65 percent lean, 18 percent visible fat, and 17 percent 
 bone. Round steaks contained 74 to 84 percent lean; the rump 
 roast, 49 percent; round pot roast, 85 percent; and soup bones, 
 8 to 66 percent. The maximum percentage of fat was found in 
 the rump roast, and the maximum percentage of bone, in the hock 
 soup bone. Page 166 
 
 19. Chuck Cuts. These contained an average of 69 percent 
 lean, 19 percent fat, and n percent bone. Chuck steaks varied 
 from 62 to 82 percent lean, and from 6 to 22 percent fat. The 
 shoulder clod contained 80 percent lean and only 5 percent bone. 
 Relatively more lean and less fat were found in the chuck rib 
 roast than in those cut from the prime rib. Page 167 
 
 20. Plate Cuts. The brisket, navel, and rib ends averaged 51 
 percent lean, 41 percent fat, and 8 percent bone. The brisket and 
 navel were similar in proportions of the different constituents, but 
 the rib ends were slightly higher in percentage of bone and lower 
 in lean. Page 168 
 
 21. Flank Cuts. The flank steak contained 83 percent lean 
 and 16 percent fat; and the flank stew, 64 percent lean and 35 
 percent fat. Page 169 
 
 22. Fore Shank Cuts. Soup bones from the fore shank varied 
 from 17 to 69 percent lean, and from 25 to 75 percent bone. The 
 boneless shank stew contained 83 percent lean and 17 percent vis- 
 ible fat. Page 160, 
 
 23. Retail Trimmings. Trimming the loin steaks reduced 
 their weight 12 percent, and the trimmings were about four-fifths 
 fat and one-fifth bone. Round and chuck steaks were reduced but 
 5 percent in weight by trimming, only fat being taken from the 
 former, as a rule, and principally bone from the latter. Other 
 cuts that were materially affected by cutting off surplus fat and 
 bone were the rump, shoulder pot roast, and neck. Pages 165-168 
 
/p/.?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 177 
 
 24. Relative Economy. Of the various steaks, the porterhouse 
 cuts were highest in net cost of edible meat, and chuck steaks lowest. 
 Of the roasts, the first cut of the prime ribs was relatively dearest 
 and the rump cheapest. The most expensive boiling and stewing 
 cuts, in terms of edible meat, were the shoulder pot roast and clod, 
 while the rib ends and brisket cost the most with respect to lean 
 meat alone, and the shank stew and neck were most economical, 
 either as source of lean or of total meat. Soup bones were exceed- 
 ingly variable in relative economy, the middle cuts from the shanks 
 being relatively cheapest, and the hock and end of the fore shank 
 most expensive. Page 170 
 
 In general, the low-priced cuts were by far the most economical 
 sources both of lean and of total edible meat. It is evident, there- 
 fore, that market prices of the various retail cuts of beef are 
 determined chiefly by considerations other than their relative food 
 values. Page 172 
 
 In the preparation of samples and in the analytical work of 
 this investigation, valuable assistance was rendered by P. F. Trow- 
 bridge, Elizabeth C. Sprague, L. F. Shackell and ]. M. Barrihart. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RETAIL CUTS 
 
 The following figures, Nos. 13 to 69, are photographs of all the 
 retail cuts of steer No. 3. As previously stated, this was the fat- 
 test of the three steers and was not only highly finished, but some- 
 what over-done. Consequently the illustrations do not represent 
 ideal cuts of beef, but show a larger proportion of fat than usually 
 is desirable. The photographs were taken before trimming. For 
 the amount and nature of the trimmings from each cut see Tables 
 33 to 38, Appendix. The numbers of the retail cuts refer to those 
 indicated in Fig. 12, page 164. The instances in which these num- 
 bers are not consecutive are due to slight differences in thickness 
 of the cuts. Below is shown the order of the photographs. 
 
 Fig-. No. 
 
 Loin steaks 13 to 28 
 
 Rib roasts 29 to 32 
 
 Rump roast 33 
 
 Round steaks 34 to 42 
 
 Round pot roast and soup bones 43 to 45 
 
 Chuck rib roast 4-6 
 
 Chuck steaks 47 to 54 
 
 Chuck pot roasts and stews 55 to 60 
 
 Plate cuts : brisket, navel and rib ends 61 to 64 
 
 Flank steak and stew 65 to G6 
 
 Fore shank stew and soup bones 67 to 69 
 
178 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig-. 13. Butt-end sirloin steak. L,oin Cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 14. Wedge-bone sirloin steak. lyoiii cut No. 2. 
 
 Fig. 15. Round- bon sirloin steak. L/oin cut No. 3. 
 
if>i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 179 
 
 Fig. 16. Round-bone sirloin steak. Loin cut No. 4. 
 
 Fig. 17. Double-bone sirloin steak. Loin cut No. 5. 
 
 Fig. 18. Hip-bone sirloin steak. Loin cut No. 7. 
 
180 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 19. Hip-bone porterhouse steak. L<oin cut No. 8. 
 
 Fig.. 20. Regular p rterhouse steak. L<oiu cut No. 9. 
 
 Fig. 21. Regular porterhouse steak. Loin cut No. 10. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 181 
 
 Fig-. 22. Regular porterhouse steak. L/oin cut No. 12. 
 
 Fig. 23. Regular porterhouse steak. L/oin cut No. 13. 
 
 Fig. 24. Regular porterhouse steak. L,oin cut No. 14. 
 
182 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July. 
 
 Fig. 25. Regular porterhouse steak. Loin cut No. 15. 
 
 Fig. 26. Club steak. L,oin cut No. 16. 
 
 Fig. 27. Club steak. Loin cut No. 17. 
 
1912} ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 183 
 
 Fig. 28. Club steak. lyoin cut No. 18. 
 
 Fig-. 29. llth and 12th rib roast. Rib cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 30. 9th and 10th rib roast. Rib cut No. 2. 
 
184 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 31. 7th and 8th rib roast. Rib cut No. 3. 
 
 
 Fig. 32. 6th rib ro'dst. Kit? cut No. 4. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 185 
 
 Fig. 33. Rump roast. Round cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 34. Round Steak. Round cut No. 2. 
 
186 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 35. Round steak. Round cut No. 3. 
 
 Fig. 36. Round steak. Round cut No. 4. 
 
i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 187 
 
 Fig. 37. Round steak. Round cut No. 5. 
 
 Fig. 38. Round steak. Round cut No. 6. 
 
188 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 39. Round Steak. Round cut No. 7. 
 
 Fig. 40. Round steak. Round cut No. 8. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 189 
 
 Fig. 41. Round steak. Kound cut No. 12. 
 
 Fig. 42. Round steak. Round cut No. 14. 
 
 Fig. 43. Hind shank soup bone. Round cuts Nos. 17, 18, 19. 
 
190 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 44. Round pot roast. Round cut No. 16. 
 
 Fig. 45. Knuckle soup bone. Round cut No. 15. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 191 
 
 Fig. 46. Chuck rib roast. Chuck cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 47. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 
 
 Fig. 48 Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 3. 
 
192 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 Fig-. 49. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 4. 
 
 Fig. 50. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 5. 
 
 Fig. 51. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 6. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 193 
 
 Fig-. 52. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 7. 
 
 Fig-. 53. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 8. 
 
194 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 i 
 
 Fig. 54. Chuck steak. Chuck cut No. 9. 
 
 Fig. 55. Shoulder pot xoast. Chuck cut No. 10. 
 
1912} ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 195 
 
 Fig. 56. Shoulder pot roast. Chuck cut No. 11. 
 
 Fig. 57. Shoulder pot roast. Chuck cut No. 12. 
 
196 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 \Jnly, 
 
 Fig. 58. Chuck stew. Chuck cut No 13. 
 
 Fig. 59. Shoulder clod. Chuck cut No. 14. 
 
 Fig. 60. Neck Chuck cut No. 15. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 197 
 
 Fig. 61. Brisket. Plate cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 62. Navel. Plate cut No. 2. 
 
 Fig. 63. Rib ends. Plate cut No. 3. 
 
198 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 Fig. 64. Rib ends. Plate cut No. 4. 
 
 Fig. 65. Flank stew. Flank cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig. 66. Flank steak. Flank cut No. 2. 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 199 
 
 Fig-. 67. Shank Stew. Fore shank cut No. 1. 
 
 Fig-. 68. Knuckle soup bones. Fore shank cuts Nos. 2, 3. 
 
 Fig. 69. Fore shank soup bones. Fore shank cuts Nos. 4, 5, 6. 
 
200 BULLETIN No. 158 [July, 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 The results presented in the text of this bulletin are, in" -'the 
 main, averages based on data obtained from the carcasses of three 
 steers, one side of beef being used in each instance. For the con- 
 venience of any who may wish to study the individual results, the 
 cutting tests and chemical analyses are tabulated in full on the 
 following pages. 
 
 Wholesale cuts of three sides of beef : 
 
 Weights and percentages of lean, visible fat, and bone. 
 
 Tables i and 2 Pages 201-202 
 
 Chemical analysis of boneless meat from three sides of beef : 
 Percentage composition of wholesale cuts, Tables 3, 4 
 
 and 5 Pages 203-205 
 
 Percentage composition and weight of nutrients in fore 
 
 quarter, hind quarter, and entire side. Tables 6 and 7 
 
 Pages 206-207 
 
 Ratio, non-protein to protein nitrogen in the wholesale 
 
 cuts. Table 8 Page 208 
 
 Percentage composition of visible fat. Table 9 Page 208 
 
 Retail cuts from three sides of beef : 
 
 Weights and percentages of lean, visible fat, and bone in 
 
 entire cuts. Tables 10 to 23 Pages 209-218 
 
 Weights and percentages of lean, visible fat, and bone in 
 
 trimmed loin, round, and chuck cuts. Tables 24 to 
 
 32 Pages 219-227 
 
 Weights and percentages of lean, visible fat, and bone in 
 
 trimmings from loin, round and chuck cuts. Tables 
 
 33 to 38 Pages 228-233 
 
1912} ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 201 
 
 1 
 
 "c3 
 
 583S!o'ggco'o ) 
 
 o 
 us 
 
 
 1 
 
 ------- r --- i3 
 
 > 
 
 IN 
 
 Tfl 
 
 
 0> 
 
 SSS-SS^oSw^Sow 
 
 O 
 
 C- 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 toioco>o>oc\!oco n aoo 
 
 i-l rH 
 
 C5 
 
 * 
 
 i* 
 
 
 
 ^^^ssg^^wS 
 
 CD 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 
 Oli-((MrH CQiH COi-l r-l 
 
 1 1 
 M 
 
 
 c 
 
 S^|2S^^S^SSIS 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 o> 
 a 
 
 CO Ol *O ^ O *O CO 
 
 (M 
 N 
 
 (M 
 
 
 73 
 
 JO GO O3 CO (M T i t CO "^ O *O O O CO 
 
 Cl 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 Sco'2!S2i>' n ' oS$2^ 
 
 t- 
 
 >o 
 tfl 
 
 N 
 
 a 
 
 ^5;gSwN*Soo 
 
 * 
 
 | 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 lH 
 
 CO 
 
 % 
 
 h 
 
 0) 
 
 <u 
 
 j_, 
 
 S^SSS^ggS^wS^S 
 
 >n 
 to 
 
 
 
 J>-OOO CO (M T ' T 1 GO i ) TH O 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 g S ^ S S5 S S g S o S S S 
 
 * 
 
 (M 
 
 
 rt 
 01 
 
 a 
 
 CO C^i O T^ O ^ (M 
 
 rH 
 OJ 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 SoSSS^^^NN^SSS 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 
 C-l O O O CO C^l 'rH Oi "^ 00 O "^ C^O O 
 
 O 
 t- 
 N 
 
 
 g 
 
 s^^^^^s^^gggs 
 
 OO 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 CO-*OITO-*(M!>CO iHCO T5O 
 
 T 1 
 
 w 
 
 CO 
 
 Ui 
 
 1) 
 
 ^ 
 
 S S g 3 S g 8 3 g 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 OJCDO>O COOt- i 1 O CO r- 1 OS 
 r- 1 r-t T-l T-I 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 fl 
 
 SwcowSoow^wSSiS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 (M rH CO CO * CO d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 n 
 
 V 
 
 t 
 g 
 
 cd 
 
 <u 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 ..-cn ^rtco 
 
 G X .S *-! O r^ O <L) O) * ni C 
 
 <u 
 IN 
 
 'c 
 
 w 
 
202 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 X 
 
 w 
 (/r 
 
 H 
 P 
 
 U 
 
 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 > 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 OOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 
 
 00 
 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 OOOOOOOC5OOOC1OO 
 C5OC5OOOC5CT. OOOCiOO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 <L> 
 
 ^S12S^S^^SS^ 
 
 (Q 
 
 I- 
 
 6 
 fc 
 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 ^^S S 2 2 2 * w *" ^ c 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 rt 
 
 S S w 5 1 8 S S g ? g S 
 
 CJ 
 
 t- 
 
 V 
 
 fa 
 
 
 ----------- 2S 
 
 >n 
 
 ro 
 
 
 rt 
 
 So5^SSwS?5S 
 
 t~ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 *O *O CO t* CO ^f ?O O l^- O "^ O^ "^ 
 
 M 
 
 >o 
 
 
 *rt 
 
 ssggssi^ss;^s 
 
 t- 
 t- 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 00 
 
 
 N 
 
 <L> 
 
 c 
 
 Sw^oSoSg^goiSo 
 
 <*< 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 PQ 
 
 ^S^SSwSS^ 0000 ^ 
 
 (M 
 
 rH 
 
 Id 
 
 <u 
 
 a 
 
 5SS^So^S^?gS 
 
 oo 
 o 
 
 _w 
 CO 
 
 
 C^JC'ii <rH C^J T 1 TH r-H CJ CO C C5 
 
 t- 
 
 (M 
 
 
 3 
 
 i^^SS^55^^S^ 
 
 -o 
 
 o 
 
 
 u 
 
 _! 
 
 . 
 
 o 
 
 IO 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 oooooooooooooo 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 V 
 
 3358o8o5ic38S 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 ;z; 
 
 o 
 
 rH iH tO Ol i"H rH T t Th 
 
 m 
 
 rH 
 
 h 
 
 IU 
 
 "rt 
 
 S2SoJ2^SSw^Sw 
 
 o 
 
 . 
 
 V 
 
 c/s 
 
 to 
 
 CJ Ol ^H iH CO rH i ( iH C*J CO >O Oi 
 
 I- 
 
 (M 
 
 
 c3 
 
 5*^w5!SSwg 
 
 00 
 
 eS 
 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 g B S g S 5 e S S S 8 S 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tn 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ... 5J-, .......... 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 : : .^ ::::::::: 
 
 
 
 tn 
 
 JU 
 
 O 
 
 . . etf ^ . . u 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 :: lei : _:j=j ::::.* 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 jyliljlllllll 
 
 '! 
 
 u 
 u 
 
<?] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 203 
 
 ll 
 
 O5 iH ^ 
 t- 00 CO 
 
 O O5 
 
 Tf CO 
 
 co ^ r^ TH cc TH 05 
 
 Ort<THCO t-COCD CO CDrHOO CMOOJOJ-H?'^ : iG5 
 
 CO Tf t> O5 CO 
 
 o-. 01 TH m t- 
 
 o co m 
 
 O CO 
 
 CO 
 
 TH m to i- 
 
 H C CM Ol 
 Ol 
 
 
 u 
 
 !- O CO 
 
 CM CO CO 
 
 O i-l 
 
 o ^ 
 
 CO t- O "* T(< O CO 
 OlcO<MC5 CDCOCO C COilJ> THOOlOlTfTHCD 
 
 00 Ol O ^f ^f 
 
 O C TH C TH 
 
 >n co T- 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 TH CO * i- 
 
 H CC CM Ol 
 Ol 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 t- 00 t- 
 
 O CO t- 
 
 * 
 
 O1CO'- 1 '* OOGCCO CO OO5C5 CMCOin>OOi-HO} 
 OlCMTHCO Z-C5t- * 1- TH CO COOCOCMCOrftO 
 
 O * ^f CO O 
 
 TH O TH C TH 
 
 m * o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 W T^TH 
 
 H m 01 co 
 
 
 u 
 
 JC 
 
 U 
 
 * CM * CD cc 
 
 m oo m co co 
 
 t^ OCDCOCOCMCOOO 
 
 cs^ocsto co-*o 01 m co co roco-^THt-oo 
 
 oo in co CD os 
 
 oo 01 TH m co 
 
 o o TH o i- 
 
 CO CO O 
 
 TjH TH 
 
 * 
 
 7-1 co m i- 
 
 ^ CD Ol Ol 
 0) 
 
 
 o 
 rt 
 
 
 
 O5 m -* 
 
 CD *! O) 
 
 OS ^* 
 
 CO 00 
 
 CSQjOJin THGCO5 tO COCDOS Ol Ol Tf CD T ^7 CD 
 
 m o m T-. co 
 -* co r- co o 
 
 O O C C i- 
 
 O CM CO O5 
 
 O TH 1- 
 T^ T I 
 
 H tO TH TH 
 
 
 j 
 
 CO N OS 
 o oo in 
 
 iH OOOoOmcO TJ<O1CO t- OJ>t- THTHC\JTHCOOICO M'T-meMOO 
 Tj< t-Oj>mcO COCOt- OS COOCO i-iOTHTHO>mi> O^OOO 
 
 co TH m i- 
 
 CO CO CD 
 
 O 
 
 m TH i- 
 
 
 .0 
 
 5 
 
 CO 00 O 
 O Cl O5 
 
 CO Ol 
 TH OJ 
 
 tOGCTfoooicco t^ tr. co t- co 
 
 OjTj<O"* GCCOiH Ol COOCO C5 > ^H TH CO 00 OI CDO>C5COCO 
 TH CO GO TH CD t ^ O 1C TH CO i 1 O Ol Ol ^f 00 CO O O O O T- 1 
 
 C5 CO t- 
 
 TH T- 
 
 TH TH CO T 
 
 H CO TH Ol 
 CO 
 
 J 
 
 01 CO 
 O 00 t- 
 
 CO Ol-'fcOTHt- C5COC 
 
 m Tt'THmci'* i>ost 
 
 4 co m co co 01 01 m in o o o CD co 05 -i- t- 
 
 O CO CD 
 
 T- 
 
 TH TH CO T 
 
 H Tt< TH Ol 
 
 co 
 
 I 
 
 t- OOTHO5 00 TH O5 TH O CDOCO CO * CO O O TH 5\J rH CO T l> in O! GO ^t CO 
 O moOCO CMTHCO1OO5 CO O CO CM O CO CMOCMOlrfoCO! OCOOTH 
 
 CO CO 05 
 
 CO T- 
 
 TH rH 01 TH T 
 
 H CO T- O. 
 CO 
 
 
 TT 
 C 
 
 
 
 in -*< oo 01 TH 01 co TH Tti c: os oo co co Tf j> in 01 r~ cc >:; cc * ce * CM co os 
 
 t- OOi-HO Oli-HCOCOCO CO 00 t- J> t>THOO COOCOOJCOCMO5 COi-iOTH 
 
 iH -^ICOCO Ol O1-*CO T 
 O CO CO TH TH 
 
 H CO OJ Ol 
 
 TH _ 
 
 ^ 
 
 g S 
 
 HH en 
 
 01 N OS 
 
 CM CO 
 
 TH COCMOOCMi-H CCOCCO ^h t^i-.CO OlO^-JO^'O-t-O OOr-^OTH 
 
 O CO CO 
 
 TH in t- T 
 
 r-l r-i 
 
 H J> Ol CO 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 tf) 
 
 
 
 Water 
 
 Dry substance 
 Soluble 
 
 Tnc^lllhlf . 
 
 c 
 "5 
 
 4 
 
 I. 
 C 
 
 '5 4 
 
 > 2^ 
 
 ; c,s 
 
 ) Jj ^ f 
 ^ (-, "S (- 
 
 iH-|L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :. ; 
 
 
 Non-coagulable protein 
 Total 
 Insoluble protein 
 Total protein 
 Organic extractives 
 Nitrogenous 
 Non-nitrogenous 
 
 .5 2 : 
 
 <u o< 
 
 VH ^- C 
 
 | .S o 
 
 rt <y C ^^ r^t. ( 
 O O ** O 3 * t 
 
 o ' x "3 o 2'5'B 0*0 o | c 
 
 (j in 
 ^ 'c O 
 
 ffl-s 1 
 
 o ^^ S* 
 
 S- S |-T 
 
 U V t> w^2 O< 
 
 "c.*B 'H "^ *o *2 
 J5 "o *o "o H3 o 
 i go)cnHr5h' 
 
 PH 
 
204 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [My. 
 
 8 
 
 c/i 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 K 
 U 
 
 O ca 
 
 [T, <- 
 
 ift ift TH CO Cs O CS 04 TH TH-rfiift 00 
 CS TH co * T*I TH ift CO C! OOOOO t> 
 
 Ci I- tO TH {> TH 00 
 
 04 TH CO * C ift tO T- T- O4 
 
 04 * CO Z> TH T- 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 CC t- TH TH CO 
 
 04 CO 
 
 <J 
 
 ift OO4O4 o IH TH m to mTHto 04 
 co omin in TH to cs in t- o t- * 
 
 04 J> CS C! 00 T- C: 
 COlftOO *THlftCOOCOO4 
 COTHt- O4CC4O4-<J<O4!> 
 
 Tf Tj< O4 tD TH r- 
 
 CO 1ft TH TH CC 
 TH TH OJ 
 
 04 04 
 
 o 
 U 
 
 CS tO TH t Tj< CO t~* t> ^ 
 
 in cat-to i> TH oo 04 T- 
 
 CS CO CO CO 
 
 ac cs t- oc in tc T- 
 
 OCCOC t-TCVT-T-TftO 
 
 t-THOC OJOO->CCtO-*O 
 
 CO Tj< TH tO TH T- 
 
 to co co 
 
 1ft t- TH 04 O 
 
 04 CO 
 
 U 
 
 U 
 
 oo to cs m t-i_oo4ccooo4O4 m 
 
 t- CO C4 tO CO TH 00 CS 00 CCOOO rH 
 
 t- * TH OS V3 *O 
 
 04 to CO tO O! O ift 1ft CO CC 
 t- T-I 00 C4C04O4inO4t> 
 
 I- rfrl OO 04 TH T- 
 
 m crc Tf 
 
 CO 1ft TH TH Tj< 
 TH TH O-l 
 
 04 04 
 
 OJ 
 
 _rt 
 
 ift O CC 
 -* co c: 
 
 to to cs in Ci Th m to TH oo 
 t- cscotot- int-co o 
 
 CO in 00 -* 04 C 04 
 
 C4 O4 <* 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 r- 
 
 2 
 
 r- 04 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 E 
 
 04 COOCO 00 CS I- t- Tfr 
 
 CO OCCOO tO O t- CS t- 
 
 CO TH -^JH tO 
 
 GC m co to o * co 
 
 04 t- O C T- C! CO in CO C! 
 
 CO O4 rfi CO 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 cc cs in TH TH 
 m 
 
 JS 
 
 3 
 
 r~ ooo cs TH o 00 oo * r- TH 04 
 
 CO COtOCS iHTHCOlftCO tOOOlft CC 
 
 c cc ac >n co 04 m 
 
 Cl O C- CS T-* O O TH ift tO 
 
 m co T- 
 
 ^ T- 
 
 T- 
 
 T- 
 f 
 
 $ 
 
 ^T 
 
 TH CS 
 
 CO 
 
 TH 04 
 
 '5 
 
 CS O40CO tO CO CS Tt 
 
 o cs C4 04 -^ TH m T- 
 
 CV CO CC TtH C5 
 t> Z> O Z> O5 
 
 CO T- Tt< CO t- CO O 
 
 CS CO t- TH TH T- 
 
 O4 CO TH Tj< 
 
 TH TH CO 
 
 T-I 04 
 
 a, 
 
 1 
 
 m co O oo TH o T- 
 
 tO in TH CO CO TH rt 
 
 t- CO CS CO 04 t- 
 
 tO O tO CS tO 04 
 
 c; to n t 04 t o 
 
 in TH J> O-! C M O-l "t CC CO 
 
 tO CO O CO TH TH T- 
 
 CO T-I 00 
 -rH CO 
 
 TH 04 
 
 Round 
 
 CS 04 00 
 
 TH COtOCiOCt- ^ H O4tD rt< 
 
 m co 04 TH co cc TH 
 
 O "*! Tt< O! CO ift CO CC O4 TH 
 
 TH ift C4 OO O4 O4 IT 
 
 CO CO CO T- 
 
 THTH04 t- 
 
 04 CO 
 
 ^6 
 
 c c 
 
 il 
 
 m cocoes tOTHi>ino4 mc4i> co 
 to co^t inTHtoccm GCTHCS ^ 
 
 T-I |> 00 C4 C to tO 
 tO iH 00 04 C OJ 04 1ft C7 CS 
 
 04 Tt^ CO t TH TH H. 
 
 CD CO CO T- 
 
 CO TH TH CC 
 
 04 O4 
 
 Constituents 
 
 Water 
 
 Dry substance 
 - Soluble 
 Tnsnliiblp . 
 
 C 
 
 '5 
 
 4- 
 
 u 
 
 2^ 
 
 O.JI 
 
 -S-X n 
 
 o*B c 
 
 CO 
 
 Non-coagulable protein 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 'C 
 
 C 
 
 ~L 
 f 
 
 C 
 C 
 
 4. 
 
 ~ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 \ 
 
 c 
 "S 
 
 -(-. 
 
 
 
 Organic extractives 
 Nitrogenous 
 Non-nitrogenous 
 Total 
 
 Fat 
 
 .s 
 
 C a 
 
 O.-^ -S U* 
 
 "^ O * i C 
 
 n o y c< o S 
 o 5*5 c " "^S,, 
 
 ^"c " o 8'3'3'c'oc gc S* 
 <OK.H*WW^ ^Hg 
 
 o 
 "c. 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
1912} ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 205 
 
 (U.^ 
 
 t- l-H CO CO rH OS O rH 00 OS CO t- 
 i-H COCOtO rHt-GOOOtO COtOOS t- tO CO "* l> rH CO O OS CM CM OS O OS O O 
 rH Tt< CM tO 1-HOrHrHCO tOOtO GO OrHt- i-H O rH CM CO Tf 00 OOOOrH 
 
 OS CO 00 rH . T-H r- 
 O CO <*< 
 
 IO tO rH i 1 CM CM CM 
 
 rH i-H CM 
 
 o 
 
 T-H CM co t~ o o o << o os o as 
 co as o as I s - t -*t< co t~ o o *o ^t< o^ 1 ^ o T-H co o t TT i i cc o oc we Tt< 
 co t-t--* inototocM toosio as to 1-1 i- CM o CM CM * co GO o o o o rH 
 
 OS CO tO O rH i- 
 tfi CO * 
 
 ^ tO rH rH CM CM 
 rH rH CM 
 
 p. 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 OrHi-H^H(McOiO OOCMOt^t- 
 
 t ast-o lOt-cMi-cs ot-cM t^ mcocc OT-HI iTfiococo cowi-'^j-'c 
 
 O CO tO O rH r- 
 
 to co ^ 
 
 * >O rH rH CM CM CM 
 
 rH rH CM 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 OO GO t^ 
 
 o CM a- 
 
 tO GOOOStOin l> OS t- tD tOOl> i 1 O rH CM Tj< O T 
 
 O O rH O rH 
 
 CM CO ^ t- 
 
 CM CO rH rH CM CM 
 
 rH i i CO 
 
 JS 
 
 2 5S ^oSw? 
 
 COOOO O CMrHr}* OOOrHT-H'O.'" 
 
 to o m T*- o 
 o o o o T-H 
 
 O rH CO >O 
 
 00 00 O rH rH 
 "O 
 
 c 
 
 _rt 
 
 rj* CO t- -O CO O 'f GO CN 
 
 CMCOtO 00 CMOCO OOOOrHCMrri OOOOO 
 
 O r-i t- OS 
 
 co to to 
 
 t- OO OS T-H rH 
 
 & 
 
 rH OSTt^CO O t t^- f> T^ OitDlO rH t tO CO Tt<rHlO*OrHOSO tOrHt-^CM 
 O WlOtO OSOasOSCS -*tOrH O Tj>O>0 i 1 O rH i-H CO in C5 OOOOrH 
 
 rH CM tO GO 
 
 OS O rH tD rH rH 
 
 a 
 
 'o 
 
 _4 
 
 tO CSrHO OtOtOrHt COCOtO 00 t-WO5 Tf< O O to CM i 1 fr t^-oOO'OTf 
 i 1 tOCMOS GSOOSt^tO OtCM CO Tj'T-Hio i lOrHi ICOI>O Oo^^rH 
 
 CO CM ^ O 
 Tf 10 >ra 
 
 O r- 
 
 rH rH CM 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 CO COrHT i-Ht-OOCOrH IflO'O tO OCMCM M< rH >n t- CO i 1 Tt" tO^ 
 rH GOCMO OS O OS 1- t- OCOCO CO ICrHO ,-HOrHrHCOt-O Oc 
 
 cr, >c CO 
 
 O O rH 
 
 % W r- 
 
 3 2 3 " . - M 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 
 
 00 O ^ 
 00 tO "~ 
 
 rH OrHt-t-lO OSCMrH tO t^-OOO CMOCM(MOC>'1> rH O i O rH 
 
 GO Tf tO i-l rH r- 
 IC CO t" 
 
 CO >O rH CM CM CM (M 
 
 rH T-L CM 
 
 OJM 
 
 c c 
 
 t- rn^tO i-HOCMOOrH >OOCrO * >Oi-HtO rHOCMrHCOCMtO OOOOrH 
 
 O CO O CO rH r- 
 
 CO C 1 to CM CM 
 rH rH CM 
 
 Constituents 
 
 Water 
 
 Dry substance 
 Soluble 
 Insoluble . 
 
 Total 
 Soluble protein 
 Coagulable protein 
 Non-coagulable protein 
 Total . 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 Insoluble protein 
 Total nrotein . 
 
 Organic extractives 
 Nitrogenous 
 Non-nitrogenous 
 Total 
 
 Fat 
 
 ; ; C 
 
 .5 2 . : 
 
 1> OH 
 
 "o oj _, 
 
 *~ c p 
 p,^ .5 ^ 
 
 <L> "3 -^ .S O 
 
 *5 Q, C "^ c 
 
 "5 "o .2 6P 3 ^ 5 *5 5^5 
 jj= *o " 2*0 *o O-Q o c 
 ;^c^^Hg^ 
 
 Phosphorus 
 Soluble inorganic 
 Soluble organic . 
 
 3S 
 
 "o 4: 
 "o i 
 
 Total phosphorus . 
 
206 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 TABLE 6. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE FORE AND HIND QUARTERS, AND THE ENTIRE SIDES, 
 EXPRESSED IN PERCENT 
 
 Half carcass 
 
 6 
 
 <N O 
 
 CO OC 
 
 t- 
 
 CO O* O 
 
 CilTlOO O^rHO CO OCC 
 
 CO (M 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 TH el TH <r. 
 
 TH 1 CO 
 
 - (M 
 V o 
 
 <N 00 
 
 CO 00 
 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 5 r^ 
 
 cc^c mcOi-H t- ot~-r- 
 
 int-CO t Cit- rH CDr-t- 
 
 rH 00 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 00 TH 
 
 i-i Cl <* rH (M 
 
 r- i O^ 
 
 <u . 
 
 
 
 co !zi 
 
 00 00 
 CO m 
 
 i-H CO 
 
 m 
 
 r: 
 
 t~ 00 CO 
 
 a> co I-H 
 
 H/CCC r-l>00 "^ OCC^t^ 
 
 m ** c t- t> ^ oo m o cc 
 
 5 
 
 00 rH 
 
 r- M * rH CM 
 
 rn T-I CO 
 
 <u 
 
 2 
 
 CT 1 
 
 o 
 
 (-H 
 
 IH OO 
 
 4J O 
 
 00 Cl CO 
 
 O C5 
 O5 O O 
 
 ocot- cot^O to inom 
 rHint- coocira o mrnco 
 
 t> CO 00 
 
 TH T-H 
 
 in 
 
 rH i-l CO 
 
 V- (M 
 
 v 6 
 
 CO r^ 
 
 8 
 
 CO * C< 
 
 oc-i o 1-1 o IH rf oomoc 
 
 COOCTf CCCOO <* CCr-Z> 
 
 "* 
 
 -t 
 
 00 rH 
 
 TH CJ *( T-I 1-1 TH 
 TH TH OO 
 
 <u o 
 CO X 
 
 (M O * CO O <N 
 O 00 * 00 i-O i- 
 
 rH O rH in ^ O CO CC CO O 
 
 i~ m ft t~ oo oo m o co 
 
 1-H OO -<t 
 
 OC rn 
 * 
 
 TH 1 CO 
 
 Fore quarter 
 
 I- CO 
 
 u 6 
 
 1-1 T-I t- 
 
 O CO CO 
 
 00 t- CO 
 
 <y> t- o 
 
 COt-i-H inCOl-l O COrHt- 
 
 oooct- >nt-co oo -^r-in 
 
 in N M rt< 
 
 C rH - TH i-H 
 
 O 
 
 co Z 
 
 t~- 
 
 O CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CC 
 
 CO CO TH 
 
 Tt<COrH t-O!CO 00 inrHt- 
 
 i-l CO 
 
 in 
 
 * 
 
 O rH 
 
 r- I-l CO 
 
 U rH 
 
 *i 6 
 coZ 
 
 iH (MO 
 
 o co o; 
 
 w TH oc o w i i t or- o co i i t- 
 
 n WrHOOTTOC COt-OO CO mrHCO 
 
 O CO CO O rH 
 
 TH OJ 00 T-I CO 
 
 r- TH CO 
 
 Constituents 
 
 
 Water 
 
 Dry substance 
 
 Snlnhlp 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 ^ 
 
 'c 
 
 g 
 
 Total 
 Soluble protein 
 Coagulable 
 
 Nnn-rnasrnlablp 
 
 !/3 
 
 (Li en 
 
 'I c' C 
 
 ^11 1 
 
 o ^^g 
 
 .. CX *; 
 
 ^J_ g=c_ 
 JS*B 5 c - c ^ 
 
 C "7^ C rt C o 
 
 H H H * 
 
 ^0 ^ 
 
 -i-*rt 
 ^c! ^^ 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 2C7 
 
 TABLE 7. WEIGHTS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE BONELESS MEAT OF THE FORE AND HIND QUARTERS, AND THE ENTIRE 
 SIDES, EXPRESSED IN KILOGRAM s 1 
 
 Half carcass 
 
 V- CO 
 
 <u 6 
 co Iz; 
 
 TH O TH c TH CM CM **< CO CO CO * CO C: HHt-i-H 
 rf< TH CO *O CO kO TH CO tO CM O CO CO CD CO TH o 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 o. 
 
 (M 
 CM 
 en 
 *c5 
 
 cr 
 w 
 
 c 
 
 be 
 15 
 
 OJ 
 
 O 
 
 CD t- GC CO 
 
 TH GC O TH Ol HZ TH 
 
 6 
 
 CO CO CM O C 
 
 CD t*- "^ O O! t- CD CM O CM CM 
 
 iiCOCCJ C5CMCM 1C COCMO 
 
 CO tO O CD 
 
 CM CD CO i- CSJ CM TH 
 
 V-. TH 
 
 <u o 
 
 COZ 
 
 tO CM CO TH t^ TJH 
 
 COt-COCO CMGCC C! COOOO 
 
 TH CM CO CD Ci TH TH CM ^ TH CO 
 O O ^f ^ TH ii CO 
 
 Hind quarter 
 
 - CO 
 
 ^ 6 
 
 CO O O C5 O TH 
 
 CDCOOOO t>>nCC! TH THJ^OO 
 
 rf m C^! CD CO 
 t- CO CO CO 
 
 00 O TH t- 
 
 ^ (M 
 
 <u o 
 
 rtn CO COCOO COOO>-OOira T- CM CO CO C^C: CO 
 Tf CM mt-CO CiCOOO iracDrH CD COC^ 
 
 CO CO W CO 
 
 TH CO C5 TH O 
 
 <u 6 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 CM TH CM TH CO ~f 
 CO CO CO CO CO t> 
 
 OCOGCCD COCOt- C5 M O CO 
 
 -* CM CM (M TH 
 
 <u 
 E 
 
 a! 
 
 3 
 cr 1 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 I- CO 
 1> o 
 
 CO H 
 
 CO TH TH O TH ^H 
 
 lOt-COO i-J O TH t- COOCO 
 
 O ^ Tfi o 
 
 CO TH GC 
 
 l-< CM 
 
 CD O 
 
 CO /H 
 
 t^ O 1C CO Tfi C7S 
 
 OCOOOO TftDTH GO TfTHlO 
 
 C5 >O CM iH Tt< 
 CO CO CO CO 
 
 TH QO C5 TH CI 
 O> 
 
 l-l TH 
 
 <y 6 
 co 5 
 
 tn c\f <M TJH co to 
 
 CO Ci CO CO TH CD 
 
 TH!>GCn COCOt- * COOCO 
 
 O CM CM CM 
 
 tO l> GC 
 
 TH 
 
 Constituents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total weight without l)one " 
 
 Water 
 Dry substance 
 Soluble 
 Insoluble 
 Total 
 Soluble protein 
 Coagulable 
 
 <U ( 
 
 J5 o rt 2 &* 
 ^ t; i. s be 
 
 1 " ">< c 
 
 c"^ ^S 
 
208 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 {July, 
 
 TABLE 8. RATIO OF NON-PROTEIN TO PROTEIN NITROGEN IN THE BONELESS MEAT 
 OF THE WHOLESALE CUTS 
 
 
 Steer 
 
 No. 1 
 
 Steer 
 
 No. 2 
 
 Steer 
 
 No. 3 
 
 
 In water 
 extract 
 
 In meats 
 
 In water 
 extract 
 
 In meats 
 
 In water 
 extract 
 
 In meats 
 
 Hind shank 
 
 1 1 09 
 
 1:10.20 
 
 1 99 
 
 1: 9.70 
 
 1 1 12 
 
 1:13.53 
 
 Round 
 
 1 1 30 
 
 1: 9.30 
 
 1 1 06 
 
 1: 8.40 
 
 1 94 
 
 1: 8.55 
 
 Rump 
 
 1 1 05 
 
 1: 9.40 
 
 1 1 04 
 
 1: 9.80 
 
 1 89 
 
 1:10.70 
 
 Loin 
 
 1 99 
 
 1: 8.50 
 
 1 1 04 
 
 1 : 9 . 00 
 
 1 92 
 
 1 -11.11 
 
 Rib 
 
 1 98 
 
 1 9 60 
 
 1 1 01 
 
 1 -10 00 
 
 1 97 
 
 1 -11 07 
 
 Flank 
 
 1 1 15 
 
 1 '15 00 
 
 1 90 
 
 1 9 50 
 
 1 84 
 
 1 -16 08 
 
 Plate 
 
 1 91 
 
 1 '11 60 
 
 1 95 
 
 1 -10 80 
 
 1 83 
 
 1 -14 04 
 
 Chuck 
 
 1 1 08 
 
 1 9 90 
 
 1 1 12 
 
 1 : 9.80 
 
 1 59 
 
 1 8.61 
 
 Clod 
 
 1 1 41 
 
 1 -11 00 
 
 1 94 
 
 1 8 70 
 
 1 88 
 
 1 -10 34 
 
 Neck 
 
 1 1 21 
 
 1 '16 60 
 
 1 1 08 
 
 1 -10.40 
 
 1 1 27 
 
 1 -12 57 
 
 Fore shank 
 
 1 94 
 
 1 '10 60 
 
 1 99 
 
 1 -11.00 
 
 1 93 
 
 1 -14 86 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 1 1 02 
 
 1 '11 10 
 
 1 1 02 
 
 1 9 70 
 
 1 93 
 
 1 -11 95 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE 9. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE VISIBLE FAT FROM STEERS Nos. 1 
 AND 2, EXPRESSED IN PERCENT 
 
 
 Calculated to the fresh 
 substance 
 
 Calculated to water-free 
 substance 
 
 Steer No 1. . . 
 
 Water 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 Ether 
 extract 
 
 Ash 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 Ether 
 extract 
 
 Ash 
 
 Nitro- 
 gen 
 
 12.07 
 13.22 
 
 4.54 
 4.30 
 
 83.39 
 82.71 
 
 
 .726 
 .689 
 
 5.17 
 4.95 
 
 94.83 
 95.32 
 
 
 .826 
 .794 
 
 Steer No. 2 
 
 .20 
 
 .23 
 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 209 
 
 
 rH 
 *rt 
 
 oSo^N S5wS ^^Sol^ 
 
 tc 
 
 rj< 
 
 
 O 
 
 W W ^^^^ COCOfONWCOCO^H 
 
 O 
 1> 
 
 
 u 
 
 e 
 
 w^wSS S5?S ^^?^5^ 
 
 SI 
 to 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 i_ 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 ^t*CDGOOO OOQCGC irtCO^'COrH^'^t 
 
 t- 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 (M 
 
 
 5 
 
 $S8S c3SS S5^S^^S 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 .3 
 
 cocofocoiN <M<M<MT-I i-HTHi-nr-ii-ii-ii-i 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 
 15 
 
 coo^Spo^SS??cSogS5 
 
 m 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 ^COCO^^^^^COCOCOWrOCJNtMNN 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 OJ 
 
 v 
 
 W^*2SS?1W^MS5^N^ 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 id 
 
 Iri 
 
 
 8SSSSSS5i!?2i?2g2Sgg 
 
 
 00 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 rH i-t i-l THi-HrHr-l^rt 
 
 fc. 
 
 
 rt 
 
 g 1? S S S S S * S 8 8 S S S S S T 5 
 
 c 
 
 
 _] 
 
 
 GO 
 CO 
 
 
 *rt 
 
 i-l TH M I> t- (M Ott>CM-*Tf<O t^OOGC 
 
 GO 
 
 *e> 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 OJ CO CO CO Tf CO CO (M N (M <M i-H iH i-l ,-H ,-. 
 
 <N 
 
 * 
 
 
 u 
 
 c 
 
 ^SI^SS^ ^SSS^^^ ^?3S 
 
 CO 
 tti 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1* 
 
 (U 
 
 , 
 
 gg^sso ss^tssss ^s^ 
 
 C5 
 
 
 cS 
 
 l-H i-l 1-1 
 
 CN> 
 
 
 rt 
 
 $gS3 g 8 8 S gj S ^i 
 
 GO ' 
 
 
 U 
 
 nJ 
 
 
 to 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ccccc { 
 
 
 
 
 '^ZjB^Jajz'^' ^ 
 
 
 
 U5 
 
 C<u-T3-aooo:':': rg 
 
 
 
 
 
 V^SB-^-^-7 <" 
 
 4-t ^^ ^ ^ ^ n CL 'L* 
 
 
 : 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 
 <u 
 
 ^ 
 
 ||||li|ss|ggs;s s^^^f 
 
 '5 
 
 
 
 1 -i2.hi:t . ocoooocc ::::: ' ::; ' 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 tftCfl(tWWW(X4ft4fcfW(X t A.PHfcUUUfeH 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 1-5 CM CO ^ >O O t- GO' C5 O i i CI CO* T W to' I> 00 Ci 
 
 W 
 
210 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 OOOOO t~- CC C*I O ^HOOOGOrHt O 
 
 to 
 
 
 O 
 
 OOOOO CCC5OO C!OC5OGCC;C5O 
 OOOOO OCSC5O CSCCiOCSCiC-. O 
 
 c-. 
 o 
 
 
 
 iH ,-< ,-J r T-l i-H ^H ] 
 
 
 
 ID 
 g 
 
 iftro-^oo w ^ i i os toooNccmco 
 
 GOT-(Tt<C5OS OCOi IO TH N rj< to to N iH 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 r^to^foto inosi>GO Gc^^cixx^c^o 
 
 C5 
 
 u 
 
 <L 
 
 
 
 ^SSSS 8^?^ PS^^SP^N 
 
 o 
 o. 
 
 
 t* 
 
 m oo co t- o m to * n co oo m t- i i w co o 
 
 GO 
 CO 
 
 
 
 S^SSS ^P?^ Sgg^SSgg 
 
 ' CO 
 
 to 
 
 
 1U 
 
 OS>ft(M'-IN !>COt-tO t-OCO^<00(MMC5 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 coTj<t-tbiMGOoOi-ifotot-rotoinc^on 
 
 GO 
 GO 
 
 
 o 
 
 SSolololSSSSSg?.S 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 33gc2^o'SSDSgSS6 
 
 * 
 
 GO 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 tototo^.-|^tooiototoint-otoj>oto 
 
 GO 
 
 u 
 
 aj 
 
 
 igo^Sco^SSSSwoSSSSg 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 (MW(M(M<M (MCOfOrOCOCOfOWCOCCCOCO 
 
 GO 
 (TJ 
 
 
 
 i^S^^S^^SSS^SSSo^SS 
 
 O 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 SiSSSS55S>Ms 
 
 O 
 
 to 
 
 
 15 
 
 ooooob obooooo ooo 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 oooooo ooooooo ooo 
 oooooo ooooooo ooo 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 r H 
 
 
 V 
 
 c 
 
 gSi3S SS^S^gg 3 5 
 
 <# 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 i-l i 1 iH i-l r-l 
 
 CO 
 
 t_ 
 
 W 
 
 
 3S.S igoo 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 
 fj 
 
 CQ GO o in ^ to GC in to cj cs r^ cc w ^t 1 ^t* 
 
 GO 
 (M 
 
 
 
 OtOOi>lftGO tO CO * rH in 00 OS GCOtO 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 <U 
 
 J 
 
 C^ T^ Tj< tO C*J C^l GO O5 GO i 1 CO tO CQ O C*l O 
 
 i- i- to >n to to m m m to to to to m to to 
 
 W 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :o^5*^'j 
 
 
 
 
 ccccc 
 
 OOOOO / * N 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 g iJ,^, i i, ^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 u 
 
 Illllllll^lllll 1 
 
 
 
 _o 
 
 c3 
 t5 
 
 ^rcj^-'^OUQJ^^^^^ 1 ' 3 ^^ J^ ^ ^ ^ 
 -^mtQUjtolnl^oOOOOOOCoSSn 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 Tit:T;T;i:T:*z:g^g g^g^^'5*s-= 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 tfliHiflwwtflwa^fcfcfcfcfcfcOGOH 
 
 l 
 
 
 
 ^^s^co^mtot-GOCvo^^(Mc v ;Ttii.-tot-coc3 
 
 W 
 
i<)i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 211 
 
 
 03 
 
 O t-^ CO 00 
 
 s 
 
 
 O 
 
 CS O CM t- 
 
 d 
 
 
 H 
 
 rH rH 
 
 "* 
 
 
 
 CO OS ^* CO 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 O to 00 rH 
 rH rH rH rH 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 cq 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 f 1 
 
 
 O5 00 tO rH 
 
 Zu 
 
 o 
 
 ,,_, 
 
 rH t- O CO 
 
 CO 
 
 u 
 
 oJ 
 
 ^ co' T)H CM* 
 
 *' 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 C 
 
 * OO l> O 
 
 OS 
 
 
 U 
 
 T)< 1C to' * 
 
 C 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 "o 
 
 -* O Z> l~ 
 
 rH CO rH rH 
 
 00 OS O 00 
 
 00 
 
 r- 
 
 
 H 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 u 
 
 C 
 
 !> CM OS 
 
 00 rH -* 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 ' rH rH * 
 
 M^ 
 
 d 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM CM CO OS 
 
 CO 
 
 IM 
 
 
 OS CD 00 00 
 
 CM 
 
 U 
 V 
 
 t/) 
 
 03 
 EC, 
 
 CM CM CM rH 
 
 O 
 
 ' 
 
 CB 
 
 CM rH O 1C 
 CM -* 00 CM 
 
 OO 
 
 O 
 
 
 <U 
 
 ^4 1C 1C 1C 
 
 o' 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 00 t- 1- rH 
 J> CO t- CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 s 
 
 OS rH Tfl rH 
 00 CS * rH 
 
 1C 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 rH rH 
 
 ^44 
 
 d 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 las 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tfl tO t- Ir- 
 
 zz 
 
 QI 
 
 
 CS O t- rH 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 cS 
 fe 
 
 rH CM rH rH 
 
 to 
 
 
 3 
 
 1C O tO CO 
 OS t> 1C O 
 
 * 
 
 CM 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CM CO ^J* ^ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 "2 r2 r2 I 
 
 
 
 -i 
 
 CM O 00 
 rH rH 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 o3 cd o3 *~* 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 sff^S 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 1-1 ^_^, 
 
 
 f 
 
 si 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO V. 
 
 *? 
 
 
 
 03 o3 rt rj 
 
 
 
 
 O O C C 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 rH CM' CO" *' 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 
 3 
 
 00 = 
 
 O O 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o c o d 
 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 O O 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 00 O O * 
 Z> t~ CS CO 
 
 ' O 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 1C "^ ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 d 
 
 pq 
 
 rH rH rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 u 
 
 V 
 
 -M 
 
 00 I- CO 00 
 t- rH 00 -* 
 
 CS 
 CO 
 
 V 
 
 en 
 
 Ed 
 
 CO 1C CM OS 
 ^< CO CO CM 
 
 1C 
 
 CO 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO CO t~ 00 
 Tj< rH CM rH 
 
 1C 
 
 
 <u 
 
 1C OS CM tO 
 
 o' 
 
 
 J 
 
 ** 
 
 1C 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 l> W CM CO 
 t- O! 00 CM 
 
 00 CC 00 00 
 
 00 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 
 H 
 
 Os os cs os 
 
 OS 
 
 CM 
 
 <U 
 
 c 
 
 to oo to cs 
 
 O 1C CS 00 
 
 rH 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 rH CM CO O 
 
 CM' 
 
 d 
 
 PQ 
 
 rH rH rH rH 
 
 rH 
 
 s? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !> t> CO CO 
 
 . 
 
 IM 
 
 
 00 rH 00 rH 
 
 to 
 
 U 
 U 
 
 
 
 ic" oo' t-^ co 
 
 oo' 
 
 tfi 
 
 
 CO CM CM CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 c 
 
 *< t- CO tO 
 
 00 rH O CM 
 
 O 
 00 
 
 
 o3 
 
 
 
 
 cU 
 
 rH 00 t- rj< 
 
 ^J 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1C 1C 1C CO 
 
 1C 
 
 
 "o 
 
 O C O O 
 
 O O O O 
 
 o' d d d 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 
 H 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CU 
 
 c 
 
 O Tf CO OS 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 1C CO 00 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 PQ 
 
 rH rH rH rH 
 
 ^ 
 
 cy 
 
 _,_, 
 
 CO OS 00 Tt< 
 1C 00 I- 1C 
 
 CO 
 
 i! 
 
 r^ 
 
 T 
 
 co o' CM oo' 
 
 to 
 
 W 
 
 
 CO CO CM -l 
 
 CM 
 
 
 c 
 
 O Tfi tO 00 
 
 3 
 
 
 CU 
 
 rH 1C OO CO 
 
 jj 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 ic ic n to 
 
 1C 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 
 
 
 'C 'C 'C 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -w 
 
 CM O 00 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 rH rH 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 _ ^ 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 C C " 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 rt rt o3 '- 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ~ cs jt! S 
 
 
 
 CU 
 
 X 
 
 C^-^^- 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO C/) 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 o3 o3 o3 03 
 
 
 
 
 O O O O 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 P(i04j3E$P^ 
 
 IM 
 
 
 
 rH CM* Co' Tj<' 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
212 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July 
 
 U 
 
 > 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 OTCMOOUS'-iffO rj< OOtOOOWiH 
 t-OOOOONOOO CO J>lfflTtiOt-O 
 
 TH 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 TH 
 
 N 
 
 C5 
 
 
 u 
 
 t-<Ot-mO5OOO >O COTtiC5C5IM(M 
 
 t-in-^NT-iT-ii-ii-i w >nrt"Oot-TH 
 
 O5 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 IM CQ TH CO 
 
 CO 
 
 TH 
 
 u 
 
 W 
 
 _,_, 
 
 ocoTHWOoocoo co mmiNOcoeo 
 O5coo5ooocon>o n ot-oo2OTH 
 
 TH 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ,rt 
 
 fc 
 
 "* TH TH TH TH ,-, rH 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 ooo5nOOnfOT-i co r-^csiHt-co 
 
 OCOtOOSOJ'fflOCO O rHTj<I>Tt<COCO 
 
 M9 
 
 t- 
 
 
 1 
 
 t>coco-*-*on^ TJ< co OTHN 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 THOOOC-O5>niTH TH O^THCOCCO 
 THWnOTHl-00 CO OOOiNOTHt- 
 
 <M 
 TH 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 TH 
 
 t- 
 Ej 
 
 
 a 
 
 OdOOW-^NlH-* -^1 t-(MTHOTHO5 
 LOOCOdTHiHTHTH TH THTfrlTHCSCeO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 6 
 JZ; 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 N CO TH CO 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 V 
 
 *-> 
 
 rj<wcooknTtHooo TH Tt<oo-j<j>co 
 -*-<tico'*>nooot- oo tococx>T-^(Mc<! 
 
 C5 
 
 n 
 
 .W 
 
 53 
 
 jt 
 
 h 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 TH 
 
 
 
 S*8o S S S ?. g g 
 
 CO 
 
 
 3 
 
 O *** CO WTHZ>THIM 
 
 iH 
 
 o 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 ^S?^cogocot3SSwoocSSScS 
 
 >n 
 
 TH 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 TH 
 
 o 
 
 (0 
 
 
 <u 
 
 g ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 Tt< 
 
 o 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 (M (M O TH (M 
 
 o 
 
 TH 
 
 Ll 
 <u 
 
 
 SwJS.5l5?$w5S3SS?e;8 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 d> 
 
 (2 
 
 CO 
 
 TH 
 
 
 03 
 
 gg^SSSSS^^SSSSSTtSSg 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 C3 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a : :'::!'; o 
 
 
 
 *-* 
 
 : g ::::::::::::.:: 15 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 >-..>* 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 rt 
 U 
 
 
 
 ^ tn ^j rt "5 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 l^^^^^^^^^^^^^tSfg^^^ 
 
 <u 
 u 
 
 
 
 THNCOTjtOt.XO>OT-iNf5Tt<mOt-OCC; 
 
 W 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 213 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 o <H o i-i o w oo ^ t~ c-*cooo 
 ot-omoi-ioo * co co o c o o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 OOOOC5OOC5C5 O C^OOOCO 
 OC5OC2OCVC2O O C5 Ci O O O O 
 ~H ~- i > 1-H i-H i I -^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 5DrHNt-OODmO5 00 O5int-OCOC2 
 
 t-ocoTHOi-nt-io w ccooiNroto 
 
 >n 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 1-1 1-1 TH IO TJH 1-1 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 <u 
 
 -M 
 
 tOOrHr-i-Hl>OOOO O t- C5 t- O l-H t- 
 
 lMiHO5D-*C5rt<00 (M O>"n-*OOOn 
 
 * 
 
 (M 
 
 
 rt 
 
 roi>oorO5DooiMo o -r-it-oweoco 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 OOOt-l--i-l(M>.'5O O t^OOnD'* 1 
 
 C5O5O5OOOOOO o coTf<Mwaoi> 
 
 to 
 
 
 a 
 
 r-Odi-iooocoi-i oo <o o oo tn m ct 
 3<t~t-cc<x>t~t~t- (O fS t~ ro o 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 OOO^COOOCOrt C2 t- 00 t- TH T-I 
 tOfMSO^i-ICOt-OO CO nOOCO'^'OS 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 oooot~aooor-t-C5 oo t-ooo3i>oot-- 
 
 OC5OC5OOiOC5 O OC5O5C5OO 
 
 00 
 
 en 
 
 
 V 
 
 OTj<TtiOO(MOt-O O W5W5Tti-lO-)< 
 tO-*CQCOt>tO(NO TH -*t>rOt-CO>-O 
 
 1 1 
 
 t- 
 
 o" 
 [z; 
 
 o 
 pq 
 
 O iH 00 ^ C^l W CQ CO CO ^ O^ il O C^ CO 
 
 <M I-H co tn TH oo 
 
 t> 
 
 TH 
 
 u 
 
 OJ 
 
 4-> 
 
 ooocotoj>ooi-* TJ< o>noora(Nn 
 
 COI>O5OO-^-*C5 5 5CO-*OOCO 
 
 CO 
 
 ( 
 
 co 
 
 
 QOOl-OOi-HOt- C5 <O<OOCOOO<O 
 WrH 1-ll-Hl-HlH 1-1 1-H 1 1 
 
 CO 
 1 1 
 
 
 o3 
 
 too^ooocooco oo >ow(Mt-no 
 
 >n 
 
 *: 
 
 
 
 ?i2ooooaooo?t l> ^Nooco? 00 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 oooocooooooooocococ 
 oooooocoocoooooooco 
 
 o 
 
 <=> 
 
 
 
 
 OOOOOOOC5OOOOOOOOCOO 
 
 oooooooooooocccocoo 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 r 
 
 SSS^SSS8STi:sg5S SSJ? 
 
 CM 
 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 005^CONWNWCOCO^5NC^^O 
 
 t- 
 
 TH 
 
 u 
 
 (U 
 
 
 ^'SS^SgggSgggg^wSPS 
 
 (M 
 
 T I 
 
 
 rs 
 fc 
 
 ^H(MCOOlH(MCO>0>OC5l-HOT)-i-HTH01t-l-HrH 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 ?15SSS2^?2S2^^^g5^ 
 
 CD 
 
 * 
 
 
 a 
 
 y^SS8g^g8S58 
 
 tt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ::::::::::::::::: :^ 
 
 
 01 
 
 -*- 
 
 i 
 
 :? ::::::::::::::: :o 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 (U ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 "Sn fli 
 
 
 
 
 js .a ccc 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ooo 
 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 
 silllimtllllll 111 
 
 *o 
 
 A 
 
 +- 
 I 
 
 PC 
 
 ' 
 
 u "i < "^j rt tn< <n 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 
 
 hnsn^^^nn^^^SS^^jrtairS 
 
 3OOOOOOOOQQQOOCor-r-r- 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 TH 04 CO *' > t-' CO d TH CQ CO Tt< W t^ 00 05 
 
 rl 
 
 c 
 
 rt 
 
214 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 (Ju.y. 
 
 o 
 
 pq 
 
 co Tf o to n to in o 
 
 u 
 
 m 
 
 H 
 
 fe 
 O 
 
 tn 
 H 
 
 U 
 
 O 
 
 X 
 
i<)i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 215 
 
 
 "w 
 
 OOOTHMOOOOOtOOOOO 
 
 00 
 
 
 o 
 h 
 
 cSocic:coccccicccc 
 
 o 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 | T 1 ^-t t r r 
 
 
 
 4> 
 
 gS8g?. $$ 
 
 to 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 pq 
 
 r-HT-(T-HT-4iH y-t T * T-H CQ 
 
 o 
 
 1-1 
 
 L, 
 
 U 
 
 
 CO CO Ci O *^ O ^ O i~^ O CD CC *O CO 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 rt 
 
 WN^WwS WW^W^!*WW 
 
 (N 
 
 w 
 
 
 e 
 
 5SSSSS5SS?:SSSgiN 
 
 -f 
 
 c 
 
 
 3 
 
 SS^SSSSSSSSSg^S 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 St2^t2gSi^S5wMc-w 
 
 C-l 
 
 N 
 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 --"--------** 
 
 oc 
 
 C5 
 
 
 g 
 
 S??iS5:SiciS5 
 
 CS 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 SSSS 00 0000 ^ 00 ^^^ 00 
 
 o 
 
 II 
 
 u 
 U 
 
 
 i?SPS^^^g^SS?: 
 
 o 
 
 
 rt 
 
 MOOOMMO'Hi iO-1^t < ftOCO<N 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^SS5?:g*iSSS 
 
 <M 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 iHCQ'*Ml>GO*OCi;t-OTj.l.'5 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 oocococccoocco 
 oooooccccoccco 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 coooccooccccccc 
 
 COOCCOOQOCCCCCO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 *"* 
 
 
 c 
 
 Tf^OO^C^Jr-io^JC^OCCOOCDOlCC 
 
 CO 
 U) 
 
 
 o 
 
 O^O^OCSLT^Cl-OCl OCO 
 
 (M 
 
 6 
 
 
 cq 
 
 <M 
 
 
 L< 
 
 dl 
 
 
 ^SS^Ss^cliSiSSow 
 
 1 1 
 <f 
 
 * 
 
 cn 
 
 M 
 
 I-IT-H ~^^-: r-iw MI-ICQ 
 
 
 J-t 
 
 
 g 
 
 W^OO^oSS^Sgi^g^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 OW05CCC-:t-00"CHTH^-!CO 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 CJ 
 
 P^ rtr3rtc3rtrtrtrt 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 - 
 (U 
 
 1^ 
 
 r||||||||lii^^ 
 
 u 
 
 JS 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 6uuuuouoo,a,ft.inug 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 Tt OJ CO Tf O O t~ QC O O i~ ' ^1 CO ^" O 
 
 w 
 
216 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 X 
 
 w 
 
 PL, 
 
 b 
 U 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 rH tO O t- O 
 
 CS fl i-l CO O 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 t-- O tO 00 * 
 (M CM 
 
 N 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 CQ 
 
 oo o >o *> 
 
 (M O t- 00 
 
 N rH o 
 
 CO 
 
 n 
 
 LO 
 
 i_ 
 
 <u 
 
 
 CM * t~ iH O 
 t- QO O CO O 
 
 ^1 
 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 to 
 
 i-l rH (M -* T}< 
 rH rH 
 
 kfl 
 
 . OT 
 
 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 rH tO Tt< CM 
 
 CS O -* (M 
 CO (M <M CO O 
 
 >o 
 to 
 
 rH 
 CO 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 o o eo d o 
 
 O O rH -* 00 
 
 O 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 (M O m O rH 
 (M rH 
 
 rH 
 O 
 
 N 
 
 6 
 
 
 <u 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 (M co -* >n 
 
 J> rH CO t~ 
 
 T-H rH ' ' O 
 
 -.' 
 * 
 
 in 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 00 rH C> >O 3 
 !> O CO O O 
 
 00 
 
 gs 
 
 35 
 
 r rt 
 
 to 
 
 00 >rt rH (M rH 
 
 a 
 
 
 nj 
 
 Tt< rH C5 O >O 
 Tf CO C5 5D D- 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 rH O (M CO 
 
 i 1 rH 
 
 
 <M 
 
 
 3 
 
 rH 00 O TT O 
 
 CO t- CO O5 00 
 
 CO 
 rH 
 
 
 E2 
 
 Tt< rH 40 W (N 
 
 O 
 
 Tf 
 
 rH 
 
 d 
 g 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 IO C5 O (M 
 
 O rn tO O5 
 
 T-H rH O 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 IH 
 
 w 
 
 
 -* (M O O O 
 
 C5 rH O> >O 00 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 C/) 
 
 . 
 
 to 
 
 * -^ rH rH (M 
 
 ra 
 
 rH 
 
 
 OS 
 
 3 
 
 (M t~ O t- 
 
 CO * tO * 
 
 OO tD (M CO O 
 
 U) 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 
 4 
 
 c 
 
 *C 
 
 i 
 
 "1 
 P 
 
 a * 
 
 i 
 
 j 
 ) 
 1 
 
 3, 
 
 3 
 
 ; 
 
 i! 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 _0> 
 
 'H, : 
 
 bo 
 
 's 5 
 
 O rt 
 
 8 g 
 
 o 2 
 c 5 
 
 SLI 
 
 Jr o*o-s 
 
 o - - C P 
 
 ^ QJ <U g 
 
 l^isl 
 
 pq2;p^(^H 
 
 1) 
 _rt 
 "Si 
 
 OJ 
 |M 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 rH OJ co' * C 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 
 *rt 
 
 C O C O 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 g 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 C O C 
 C O C C 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 t- OO 00 * 
 
 rH * rH O 
 
 oo to w o o 
 
 rH rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 tn 
 (U 
 
 , 
 
 Ci CO rH C5 O 
 O M W * O 
 
 <*< 
 
 ^ 
 
 cn 
 
 to 
 
 rH (0 00 TH O 
 
 * -t -* n o 
 
 rH 
 
 oc. 
 ^ 
 
 
 rt 
 ^ 
 
 -* OS r- l> 
 00 T-H O Tf 
 
 CS t- 00 O 
 * Tt< CO CO 
 
 CO 
 
 S 
 
 * 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 CO O C5 (M O 
 t> O (M 3 O 
 
 Tf 
 
 * 
 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O5 O t- 00 O 
 
 05 O C5 O 
 r^ rH 
 
 
 
 
 IM 
 
 d 
 ^; 
 
 '<L> 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 w >n o co 
 
 00 rH Tf 
 t> t> W rH O 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 IH 
 
 HI 
 
 , 
 
 rH CO <*" O> CO 
 
 ci co o >n co 
 
 OS 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 OT 
 
 cS 
 fe 
 
 C5 O O rH CO 
 CO CO W CO O 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 O 00 t- t- 
 O Tf 05 Tt< tO 
 
 OS 
 OS 
 
 
 ia 
 
 N (M 1- >0 rH 
 
 n to o w t 1 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 * 
 
 o o o c o 
 o o c; o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 O O O O 
 O C C O 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 <u 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 Tt< O CS 
 
 CO rH -<J< M< 
 
 i> e> ci ,o o 
 
 rH rH rH 
 
 <M 
 
 . 
 
 o 
 
 Li 
 
 <U 
 
 
 N 00 0! CS 
 
 n cs t- o o 
 
 r~ 
 
 CM 
 
 " 
 
 V) 
 
 CB 
 
 to 
 
 TJI rf CO tO O 
 
 CO CO CO OJ O 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 
 rt 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 0} O CM 
 rH OS t- Tt< 
 
 00 Tt< O OC C 
 O iO O O 
 
 CM 
 CM 
 
 ta 
 
 c 
 
 H 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 4 
 
 ' 
 -4 
 
 C 
 
 n 
 
 j 
 
 j 
 J 
 
 5. 
 i 
 
 5 
 ^ 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 j; * 
 
 '5. I 
 
 M 
 
 c ^^ 
 
 '5 4) 
 
 S "3 
 
 3 s 
 
 o 1 
 bo 
 
 "3 "> 
 
 S^-s-s-i 
 
 _j C C P 
 
 .is 13 S 
 
 82l 
 
 pz^p^^H 
 
 HJ 
 
 5 
 a 
 
 <u 
 
 IM 
 
 
 
 rH ci co' *" in 
 
 M 
 
 -c 
 c 
 rt 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 217 
 
 
 ^3 
 
 to "^r 1 o 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 Tf 
 
 
 o 
 
 00 TH O 
 
 o 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 ' o o 
 
 
 d 
 55 
 
 PQ 
 
 
 
 IH 
 
 
 x i> o 
 
 X CO O 
 
 o 
 
 OJ 
 
 1 
 
 03 
 PH 
 
 CO O 
 
 TH 
 
 TH 1 
 
 
 C 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 ^ TH O 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 O X <N 
 CO OS O 
 
 X TH O 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o' 
 
 TH 
 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 to 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 ' o o 
 
 
 d 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 i* 
 
 u 
 
 ^ 
 
 1-1 O (N 
 
 CO CO OS 
 
 a 
 
 2^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 d OP 
 
 TH 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 OS 
 
 co >n o 
 
 X tD TH 
 
 X 
 
 in 
 
 
 3 
 
 n TH 
 
 t~ 
 
 
 o 
 
 t- 05 t- 
 
 tO T- t tO 
 
 >n 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 <u 
 
 O 
 
 (M 
 
 O 
 
 TH 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 d 
 
 C3 
 
 
 
 1* 
 
 I 
 
 
 N M t> 
 
 O (M Tj< 
 
 e- 
 
 CO 
 
 rt 
 
 UH 
 
 N O 
 
 X 
 
 
 OS 
 
 ro t- 
 
 Tf< CO - 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 
 
 Tj< TH O 
 
 H9 
 
 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 > I 
 
 c 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 o3 ? 
 
 
 
 
 qj CJD 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 -*-* _ 
 
 4d 
 
 
 u 
 
 W3 . ^- 
 
 
 f 
 
 * 
 
 >"^ P 
 
 rt 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 COH 
 
 
 
 
 
 TH ei co' 
 
 W 
 
 P 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 PC 
 
 
 'a 
 
 >^ o o 
 to o o 
 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 C5 C O 
 
 91 
 
 
 H 
 
 O C 
 
 C5 
 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 
 d 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 CO ** O 
 
 CO CO O 
 
 >o 
 
 X 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 m o o 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 -* N 
 
 to 
 
 
 05 
 
 d to 
 
 to o 
 
 t- 
 
 
 5 
 
 co c: O 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 "o 
 
 o x o 
 t- * o 
 
 X X O 
 
 (M 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 
 H 
 
 C5 Ci O 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 PQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 co tn os 
 
 Tt< 
 
 Sj 
 
 t t 
 
 X TH X 
 
 1^. 
 
 J 
 
 03 
 
 t- o x' 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 PH 
 
 (M TH c> 
 
 ta 
 
 
 oJ 
 
 ^ CO iH 
 (M CO i-l 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 3 
 
 O CO TH 
 l> X 
 
 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 1 
 
 O C 
 
 o o o 
 
 C O 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 o o o 
 
 o 
 
 
 u 
 
 TH 
 
 CO 
 
 "(1 
 
 iH 
 
 TH 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ' 
 
 
 d 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 01 CO O 
 (M X O 
 
 >* 
 
 o 
 
 (U 
 
 rS 
 fe 
 
 TH CO O 
 CO TH O 
 
 o 
 
 
 05 
 
 S 
 
 IM 
 
 o 
 
 
 <U 
 K-3 
 
 x to o 
 to x 
 
 CO 
 
 
 /) 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 ^J 
 
 "o 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 Jj 
 
 
 
 C3 
 
 !> 
 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 _^^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 S So 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 OT.S 
 
 a 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 ill 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 TH c\i co' 
 
 w 
 
218 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 X 
 
 W 
 
 p 
 U 
 
 H 
 fc 
 O 
 
 W 
 
 
 la 
 
 O t- tO T-I -rt< 00 
 
 O CO O 00 00 CO 
 
 cS 
 
 
 b 
 
 H 
 
 tO * TH CO Ol CO 
 
 53 
 
 
 i 
 
 Tf O t- W <M 
 CO O C5 t- <N 
 
 >c 
 
 (M 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 O (M TH TH <N 
 
 00 
 
 , 
 
 In 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 o ^ o to oo co 
 
 O X W tO N tO 
 
 to 
 
 i/5 
 
 
 
 TH <M 
 
 t 
 
 
 rt 
 
 O O5 T- 00 * CO 
 
 ft TH CO rH 00 O 
 
 o 
 
 >o 
 
 
 3 
 
 * ^- 
 
 o 
 
 
 13 
 
 C<J ^ tO *rj* OC tO 
 
 TH to to tO CO O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 CO CO (M (M W (M 
 
 to 
 
 TH 
 
 
 <u 
 c 
 
 (M ^r o to oo 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 C (M rH T-I 
 
 I- 
 
 I* 
 
 
 ro M co co O 
 
 ci 
 
 $3 
 
 
 D 
 
 * 
 
 
 c3 
 
 n to x to o <M 
 
 t> O 00 CO tO rH 
 
 to 
 
 GO 
 
 
 
 CJ TH TH TH 
 
 *" 
 
 
 3 
 
 Tf ~ O T-I tO l~ 
 Tt CO O tO r- (M 
 
 CO 
 
 9 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 CO (M rH OJ C\J CJ 
 
 CO 
 
 TH 
 
 
 
 
 t~ r- t^- CQ c 
 
 Tf tO CO 5 >O 
 
 GO 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 O TH T-I TH 
 
 ta 
 
 b 
 
 
 CO tO O t~ TH ft 
 ta TH O (M TH O 
 
 rH 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 C 
 
 rH tO CO t- CO O 
 Ci t~ CO C^ O !> 
 
 O 
 (M 
 
 
 J 
 
 0} TH 
 
 *" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 i 
 
 P 
 
 75 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 J 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 /i 
 
 ? 
 
 _> 
 ^ 
 
 U 
 (J 
 c 
 
 C c C = C 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 ^ _^ ^ ^ _o 
 
 ^ ex ex ex ex ex 
 
 w O O O O O 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 -IH 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 rH 0} CO TJ. 10 tO 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 > 
 
 
 *rt 
 
 c c o o c-c 
 
 o c c o c o 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 o c c o c o 
 o c o c o c 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 <u 
 
 c 
 
 O TH TH Tf OC 
 
 5 T-I t- re CO 
 
 t- 
 to 
 
 6 
 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 P3 
 
 o co -* T- m 
 
 LO tO ft !M O 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 t-i 
 
 <u 
 
 t 
 
 O N W <M t~ * 
 
 O M O CO GC !O 
 
 ^r 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 PH 
 
 H5 G5 tO t- Ci 00 
 N i i rH rH i t 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 O re t^ t^ ei oc 
 
 O N OC Oi t> O 
 
 9 
 -* 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 t- CS O Tf ft 
 l> (M 1-1 CO SO 1-1 
 
 CO 
 
 * 
 
 
 "c3 
 
 co ro * j> (O * 
 
 O t- 00 T- O 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 C5 t- t- 00 O CO 
 
 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 O 
 
 00 
 C5 
 
 
 j 
 o 
 
 cj oo i-i n t- 
 
 C5 CO O O 00 
 
 t- 
 
 C5 
 
 d 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o o co c to o 
 o >n co <M o 
 
 (M 
 
 >f 
 
 u 
 ly 
 
 ! 
 
 C! (M 00 * O 
 00 -* IN t> T-I 
 
 a 
 to 
 
 OT 
 
 r* 
 
 fXl 
 
 O t- T-I TH N 
 
 t- 
 
 
 rt 
 
 Tf IN 00 OJ TH t- 
 
 TH T-I o >n o t> 
 
 -* 
 
 to 
 
 
 a 
 
 OC OS CO TH T-* 1O 
 00 OJ CO 1 t> 
 
 t^ 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 o o o c o o 
 
 c c c c c o 
 
 8 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 o c o o c o 
 c c c c c o 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 
 ti 
 
 O TH O 00 CO 
 >O (M C (M 
 
 to 
 o 
 
 6 
 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 O TH CO <M ri CO 
 
 no co m <M o 
 
 o 
 ^ 
 
 L 
 
 <u 
 
 , 
 
 TH o o * o oo 
 
 Tj< t- to CO C 00 
 
 W5 
 (M 
 
 35 
 
 E* 
 
 to > c w 
 
 00 
 
 
 c 
 
 O O CO tO CO rt< 
 
 U) 00 TH TH CO 00 
 
 C5 
 
 te 
 
 
 5 
 
 Tt" rH T-I t- O O 
 
 00 CO CO CO t- CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 . 
 
 ; 
 
 4 
 
 C 
 
 /> 
 
 .j 
 
 j 
 * 
 i 
 
 n 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 i 
 
 <u 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 ^i 
 
 V <u O <U <L> ' 
 
 5 - c - c 
 o o c o o 
 _c _: ^; j: 
 
 O, C. C. C. O, 
 
 i! o o c o o 
 ininminmin 
 
 ^: 
 c 
 rt 
 
 "o3 
 
 o 
 |> 
 
 o 
 
 M-. 
 
 U 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 T^ (M co * '.t o 
 
 W 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 219 
 
 fc 
 I 
 
 U 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 6 
 
 U 
 
 OJ 
 
 "3 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 GO 
 CO 
 
 S 
 
 S3 
 
 O 
 KJ 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 to o 
 
 o 
 
 tO CM 10 ?- C3 C5 CO O 
 
 N 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 ta 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 "* 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO CM W N CM ^ CM CM 
 
 o 
 D 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 - 
 
 -T 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 tO Tt< 
 
 - 
 
 "^ CO CO C5 tO (M GC GO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 rt 
 fe 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 >o 
 
 5 
 
 x 
 
 00 l> 
 
 C5O5 C5O5GOtO'OGCI> 
 
 o 
 
 ".O 
 
 r-l !H ^H iH 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^* 
 
 O) 
 
 a 
 
 at 
 
 o 
 
 %% 
 
 i 
 
 ** (MCOOGOGOTft-- 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 C4 
 
 n 
 
 01 
 
 
 CM 
 O 
 
 <U 
 
 c/5 
 
 -l-> 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 toocMSMcMCMOt?Co2S3S 
 
 to 
 
 ^COCO^^COCOCOCOCOCOWCMCMrHCMCMCM 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 8588SSI385SI3583I3585 
 
 "O 
 
 
 1 
 
 g S SSSSSSg^SwSS 
 
 CO 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 Mgoo^5hoo!355 
 
 s 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 COCMWCMCOCOCMCMNCMT-tTHrti-lTHi-I^HT 
 
 rH 
 JD 
 
 U 
 
 <L> 
 
 "o 
 H 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 OS <O 
 
 i~ 
 
 IO CM i 1 CO GO *^Ot> 
 
 CO 
 
 N CO 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 m 
 
 
 o 
 CQ 
 
 X) 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^> 
 
 o 
 
 7> 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 t- CO 
 CXI CO 
 
 -f 
 
 ^^^^^ _^o 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 'rt 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 GO C5 O 
 
 CM GO 
 
 *o vo 
 
 e- 
 
 O^^CCO OOGCCM 
 GOtOO^O ^fCOrP 
 
 00 
 
 d 
 
 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 C". 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 iO tO 
 
 ws 
 
 OGCtOCOOS GOCOCO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 CM 
 
 
 M 
 
 CM CM 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 _C 
 j5 
 
 W 
 
 
 Entire trimmed loin 
 
 -o 
 B 
 
 o 
 
 g 
 M 
 
 (LI 
 
 
 _c 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 ,= 
 
 r 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 d 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 -z 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 |j 
 
 c 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 j: 
 
 ^H 
 
 c 
 , 
 
 ^ . : 
 
 
 
 x- 
 
 
 
 <L> O 
 
 
 
 U2 
 
 ^rt <u 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 !/3 
 
 CO CO CA c/5 00 c 
 
 C|] 
 
 y) 
 
 LT; 
 
 r y) 
 
 in 
 
 C/2 COPtH 
 
 O 
 
 PH 
 
 t; -t: ti t; u "C -s -s 
 
 oooooo^^^i 
 
 ^CMcoTtixntot-cooOr-jwco^into^oo 
 
220 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 --lTf<O(MlM COi-INCO in O 5O N M t- 00 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 221 
 
 TABLE 26. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE 
 TRIMMED RETAIL CUTS OF THE THREE LOINS 
 
 Retail loin cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Sirloin steak (butt-end) 
 
 78 90 
 
 17 77 
 
 2 93 
 
 99 60 
 
 2. Sirloin steak (wedge-bone) 
 
 75 18 
 
 18 63 
 
 5 63 
 
 99 44 
 
 3 Sirloin steak (round-bone) 
 
 70 61 
 
 24 09 
 
 4 95 
 
 99 65 
 
 4. Sirloin steak (round-bone) 
 
 67 46 
 
 25 40 
 
 6 88 
 
 99 74 
 
 5. Sirloin steak (double-bone) 
 
 69.77 
 
 20.23 
 
 9.53 
 
 99.53 
 
 G. Sirloin steak (double-bone) 1 
 
 78.98 
 
 8.85 
 
 11.19 
 
 99.02 
 
 7. Sirloin steak (hip-bone)"' 
 
 61.88 
 
 20.63 
 
 15.87 
 
 98.38 
 
 8. Porterhouse steak 
 
 64.76 
 
 21.76 
 
 12.64 
 
 99.16 
 
 9. Porterhouse steak 
 
 64.05 
 
 29.44 
 
 5.58 
 
 99.07 
 
 10. Porterhouse steak 
 
 62. 17 
 
 30.42 
 
 6.78 
 
 99.37 
 
 ] i. Porterhouse steak 
 
 63.83 
 
 28.25 
 
 6.61 
 
 98.69 
 
 12 Porterhouse steak 
 
 61.90 
 
 31.12 
 
 6.24 
 
 99.26 
 
 13 Porterhouse steak 
 
 61.96 
 
 29.02 
 
 8.09 
 
 99.07 
 
 14 Porterhouse steak 
 
 61.17 
 
 28.27 
 
 9.32 
 
 98.76 
 
 15 Porterhouse steak . . 
 
 60.20 
 
 31.52 
 
 7.50 
 
 99.22 
 
 16 Club steak 
 
 61.71 
 
 31.15 
 
 7.14 
 
 100.00 
 
 17 Club steak 
 
 59.66 
 
 27.45 
 
 12.20 
 
 99.31 
 
 18 Club steak 
 
 62.69 
 
 26.15 
 
 10.24 
 
 99.08 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire trimmed loin . 
 
 66 89 
 
 24 51 
 
 7 94 
 
 99 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'This cut was made from the loins of Steers Nos. 1 and 2 only. 
 2 This cut was made from the loins of Steers Nos. 2 and 3 only. 
 
222 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 OH 
 
 X 
 
 W 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 O 
 
 m 
 
 *c3 
 
 o to co o moi 
 
 O'OOt>COCO(N!> 
 
 in t- O O IN rH 
 
 W I> Tf C5 O t- O 
 
 OO 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 t-cow>noo 
 
 iO CO "^ O Tt< CO ^ 
 
 
 t~ 
 
 c 
 
 >o r- n o <o ci co 
 
 G3 & <M rH iH rH rH 
 
 >O O5 -* 1 C5 C5 (M IM 
 (M rH Tt* O tO t~ rH 
 
 t> 
 
 rH 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 N T-H CO 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 U 
 
 <y j_i 
 
 *t-rHCO(MCOCOlO 
 GO-*O5tDt-COO(M 
 
 rH rH O If} O CO 5O 
 
 co oo n (M 05 o TH 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 - r2 
 CO **< 
 
 W rH rH 
 
 rH TH rH rH 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 e 
 
 OO5>OOO>nCOrH 
 
 OO^CIO^JOCO 
 
 O 1T3 -* 5O T-H I> CO 
 O t- -* >C rt< CO O 
 
 O5 
 (M 
 
 J 
 
 TfCOCOTt<Tj<olO^ 
 
 Tt< (M >O rH (M 
 
 CO 
 O 
 
 "a 
 
 OOJN'-HIMCVJ OO5 
 (MQOCO>C35D O * 
 
 CO O r- 1 r- O tO C 
 
 O 00 C5 N >O rH l- 
 
 ^ 
 CO 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 WCO^^^rhTtH^ 
 
 ^ CO ^J 1 GO CO CO CO 
 
 <M 
 t- 
 
 <M 
 
 t- rH CO IN Tf <M rH.Tjt 
 
 tO-rHCOOlr-TT-l rHrH 
 
 f t>- Ot rH O5 l-i C5 
 
 rH rH ^ rH O5 CO O 
 
 (M 
 -* 
 
 1 
 
 
 CO rH CO 
 
 rH 
 rH 
 
 <LI ^_i 
 
 CO5DCOtOOt-rH?O 
 1OCOCOCOCOCO (O (O 
 
 O Tt< O CO -* t- CO 
 
 t> O CO GO TH (M N 
 
 5O 
 
 fi 
 
 _W 03 
 CO r*l 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 SS^g^SS SS 
 
 M O O rH CO N CO 
 
 OJ 
 
 3 
 
 ococo-<t | -*-*coco 
 
 CO (M rH t- rH (M 
 
 rH 
 
 m 
 
 13 
 
 <M * o co ro o >ra w 
 
 rH 1O rH O} W O l~- <P tM >O (X 
 
 C5 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 OrHWWWNWW 
 
 WWWCJrHWCO^COWW 
 
 >o 
 
 IO 
 
 e 
 
 s sssg 
 
 ggggg^g -g 
 
 o 
 
 (M 
 
 1 
 
 'o 
 
 (M O rH IM 
 
 oo 
 
 fc 
 
 ^S^g^S^g 
 
 cSs?^s^gs^^s; 
 
 * 
 
 CO 
 
 ~ r2 
 CO * 
 
 CO 
 
 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 OGOCOCOOW t- O 
 
 53 S S 8 8 3 B 8 
 
 fc 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :::::::::- 
 
 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 
 <j 
 
 
 (LI ^-' 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 (A 
 
 c w 
 
 C 
 
 B 
 
 
 43 E C C 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 slsgg-Stg 
 
 ^^^^^^g^ jj.'l* 
 
 V-. 
 (U 
 
 <u 
 
 pc/3V)t/3t/)C/D </5 t/3 
 
 llslllll 
 
 Q^ C^ c/5 C/5 t/3 
 
 "C *O "7J "U "O *C ^ P v v _>i 
 
 ccncc B- o B n c 
 
 .a 
 
 'C 
 
 
 wOOOOO OO 
 
 OOOOO O C O r- r^ ^g 
 
 <u 
 
 
 T-twco^mtfit^oo 
 
 OO^^CvlCO Tfi^COI^CCC5 
 
 w 
 
I9i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 223 
 
 o 
 x 
 
 a 
 M 
 
224 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 TABLE 29. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONJ 
 TRIMMED RETAIL CUTS OF THE THREE ROUNDS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 Retail round cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Rump roast 
 
 61.78 
 
 32 24 
 
 5 50 
 
 99 52 
 
 2 Round steak (first cut) 
 
 88.31 
 
 10 23 
 
 94 
 
 99 48 
 
 3 Round steak 
 
 79 . 79 
 
 11.81 
 
 7 59 
 
 99 19 
 
 4 Round steak 
 
 86.79 
 
 7.39 
 
 5 27 
 
 99 45 
 
 5 Round steak 
 
 86.84 
 
 9 06 
 
 3 49 
 
 99 39 
 
 6 Round steak 
 
 86.58 
 
 9.70 
 
 2 82 
 
 99 10 
 
 7 Round steak 
 
 83.41 
 
 13.12 
 
 2 69 
 
 99 22 
 
 8 Round steak 
 
 80.67 
 
 16.00 
 
 2.74 
 
 99 41 
 
 9 Round steak 1 
 
 84.67 
 
 13.03 
 
 2 30 
 
 100 00 
 
 10 Round steak 1 
 
 82.67 
 
 14.67 
 
 2.66 
 
 100 00 
 
 1 1 Round steak 1 
 
 76.10 
 
 20.72 
 
 3.18 
 
 100 00 
 
 12 Round steak 
 
 76.37 
 
 19 . 30 
 
 3.91 
 
 99 58 
 
 13 Round steak 1 
 
 82.29 
 
 13.02 
 
 4.69 
 
 100.00 
 
 14 Round steak 
 
 77.75 
 
 16.06 
 
 5.32 
 
 99.13 
 
 15 Knuckle soup bone 
 
 19.12 
 
 21.13 
 
 59.07 
 
 99.32 
 
 16 Pot roast 
 
 86.19 
 
 12.60 
 
 .88 
 
 99.67 
 
 17 Shank soup bone 
 
 40.11 
 
 11.37 
 
 47.68 
 
 99.16 
 
 18 Shank soup bone 
 
 66.92 
 
 12.35 
 
 20.19 
 
 99.46 
 
 19 Shank soup bone (hock) 
 
 8.14 
 
 10.34 
 
 79.90 
 
 98.38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire trimmed round 
 
 69 23 
 
 15 79 
 
 14 37 
 
 99 39 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ] This cut was made from the round of Steer No. 1 only. 
 
i<)i2\ ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 225 
 
 
 *c3 
 
 Sgos33wooo;go 
 
 ee 
 $ 
 
 
 o 
 
 CSCCNCOM^Tt.MTfOCCO-. OOM 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 OJ 
 
 c 
 
 SSSS8858SI2g5lS 
 
 Tf 
 
 6 
 
 
 O 
 
 PQ 
 
 rH iH iH 
 
 00 
 
 i* 
 
 
 i^SSo? SS^NS3S2 
 
 t- 
 
 E- 
 
 _o 
 tfi 
 
 a 
 
 01 ^ o ^ rt ^^ rt 
 
 00 
 
 
 3 
 
 S ^ 8 S S8 J2 5 s g s 
 
 00 
 rf 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 OS 
 
 in 
 
 
 3 
 
 SSS3ooS"S^ 
 
 Tf 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 OMCO^^rfMCO^WOWOWeo 
 
 o 
 I> 
 
 <N 
 
 r 
 
 g 5 g 5 55 ^ 3 8 s S 5 8 
 
 >o 
 
 iH 
 
 O 
 
 fc 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 
 oSSLoo^^^^^owSSo 
 
 >n 
 
 >n 
 
 c/5 
 
 rt 
 
 1-1 T-l 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 SSSSSSiS55SSS 
 
 (M 
 
 oc 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^OlWCOMCOCrSCOCO^COrhrfTtlM 
 
 (M 
 <p 
 
 
 
 <2 
 
 ^f o '--: ?!?-* o >-! O! c^ 't cv c; c> i 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 0<MNNM(NNNNTt<OTtHWT.Tp 
 
 CO 
 
 >n 
 
 1 1 
 
 r 
 
 S^^SS^WNWM^ScclS 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 55 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 >o 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 
 i^i^^c^^^wS^^s^S 
 
 1 i 
 
 CO 
 
 i/3 
 
 R) 
 
 ' rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 '885S8!c1"?3S!*8 
 
 CM 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 ,3 
 
 TJ.^ rHW--l(MlMNCC"*CC(MCCCO 
 
 7H 
 
 <* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 U 
 
 ^^ 
 
 3, 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 jj< 
 
 o o o 
 
 TT 
 I 
 
 1_ 
 
 
 
 P^ (^) (^ ) (_) ^) (^ ) C^) (_} (^ ) P i PH PH C/} O f*^i 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 r4 * o< -^ o t> eo o> o ^' e jij w 
 
 w 
 
226 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 227 
 
 TABLE 32. AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF LEAN, VISIBLE FAT, AND BONE IN THE 
 TRIMMED RETAIL CUTS OF THE THREE CHUCKS 
 
 Retail chuck cuts 
 
 Lean 
 
 Fat 
 
 Bone 
 
 Total 
 
 1 Roast (5th rib) 
 
 65 77 
 
 21 13 
 
 12 66 
 
 99 56 
 
 2 Chuck steak 
 
 65 57 
 
 19 22 
 
 14 44 
 
 99 07 
 
 3 Chuck steak . . 
 
 68 58 
 
 22 61 
 
 8 10 
 
 99 14 
 
 4. Chuck steak 
 
 73.97 
 
 15.87 
 
 9.76 
 
 99 . 60 
 
 5. Chuck steak 
 
 73.27 
 
 17.42 
 
 8.64 
 
 99.33 
 
 6. Chuck steak 
 
 77.58 
 
 14.46 
 
 7.52 
 
 99.56 
 
 7. Chuck steak 
 
 84.41 
 
 6.58 
 
 8.33 
 
 99.32 
 
 8. Chuck steak 
 
 77.67 
 
 13.84 
 
 7.81 
 
 99.32 
 
 9. Chuck steak 
 
 76.56 
 
 14.74 
 
 8.06 
 
 99.36 
 
 10. Pot roast 
 
 77.45 
 
 15.03 
 
 6.94 
 
 99.42 
 
 11. Pot roast 
 
 69.68 
 
 16.60 
 
 12.68 
 
 98.96 
 
 12 Pot roast 
 
 78.05 
 
 9.11 
 
 12.65 
 
 99.81 
 
 13 Stew 
 
 70.63 
 
 23.83 
 
 5.24 
 
 99.70 
 
 14 Clod 
 
 81.11 
 
 13.83 
 
 4.80 
 
 99.74 
 
 15 Neck . . 
 
 70.33 
 
 15.84 
 
 13.45 
 
 99.67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Entire trimmed chuck 
 
 73 70 
 
 16.17 
 
 9.65 
 
 99.52 
 
 
 
 
 
 
228 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 p 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 ft, 
 
 1 
 
 ooo ooooo o 
 
 CMOOiHCMT-li-lOO O 
 
 o ooooooo 
 
 CM CM 00 CJ CO <M 
 
 o ooooo 
 
 oococcocoo 
 
 ooooooo 
 
 CM W N CO PS P5 CM CM rH T-I 
 
 oooooo ooooooo coo 
 
 oj 4J ~O -o <" WO 
 
 ooooooo^oi; 
 
 ooooooo 
 
 o ooooooo .^* .^ ^ 
 
 TH CM CO * O O b- 00 C5 O rH CM CO Tj l/ O t- CO 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 229 
 
 a 
 "o 
 H 
 
 o o o o o e o o o 
 o e o e o o o o c 
 
 00 O OOO 
 
 SOl-OOOO 
 
 OO 
 
 X 
 
 OOi-l<N>SOOCSOSOOOOOOOOOO 
 OO OOC5O5O5C5O5C5OO OOOOO OO 
 
 c 
 
 O pq CO <N i-H <M CO CQ lH 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 00 
 
 SO CO >O O 
 t~ ^ X 
 
 3 
 
 ooosoo ooc>o> oo 
 
 oo<oooo oooo oo 
 
 b o'o'oooo oo'o'dooo ooo 
 
 ooooco oooo co o 
 
 t- Tj< O O O IO CO O 
 
 c ...... ". . 
 
 O sot-oroooo LOOOOOOO ocom 
 
 IM N rt< rH i I CC t- 
 
 lOCOOSOSOOl OOOOO SCO 
 
 t-O5O!>>OOO OOOOO r^(M 
 
 o o o o o o 
 
 o o o o o c o 
 
 CO C5 O r- 
 
230 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 [July, 
 
 X 
 
 w 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 < 
 
 r-l OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOCCOCOOOOO 
 
ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 
 
 231 
 
 C COCOCC 
 
 OOOCOCOO 
 
 iftOOOCOOO 
 
 C1C5OOCCCO 
 
 ICTJ-OOOOOO 
 
 (M O O O O O O 
 
 ocsoopoooo 
 
 <MI>OOOOC 
 
 NOO OOOOOO 
 
 -^OOOOOOO 
 
 OOOOOOO 
 
 oooocoocococcco^ooo 
 
 cooccooccccccc 
 
 oetoooooo 
 
 o-'tcNiooooooo 
 
 CCOCCCCCCCO 
 
 Ci U2XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
 
 <NM-*OOOCCOCOOCO 
 
 OOOOPOPOOOOOOPOOOOO 
 
 c/]rfrtr3 ccrtrtcCrtrtrtcJrtrt 
 
 SOOO OOOOOCCOO O ~ C J~ JZJZ 
 
232 
 
 BULLETIN No. 158 
 
 a 
 fc 
 
 D 
 o 
 
 PL, 
 
 s 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 gj 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
1912] ECONOMY, COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE OF BEEF CUTS 233 
 
 ooooors o o o 
 
 <f O O O O O O O O 
 
 b >o o' o' o o o o o o o o' o o o' o 
 o o o o o o 
 
 iH 1-1 1 ! i '. l-H 
 
 Ui O O CO -i ^ 
 C 
 
 O 
 
 6 >o t- co t- oo J> <M 
 
 COOOOCCi 5O GO W 
 
 CO O >O <O Z> GO * V5 
 
 rl- OCOO"-OO5>-'5Ot-OOt-OO'^ l O 
 
 fe co <N >n 
 
 c TH t- O ' 
 
 OS 
 
 5 
 
 O >OOOlMOOO(MOi-HCOCOOOOO5 
 
 C5OOOOOOOOOC50S 
 
 rt<a5i-Hi-li-HOOTH<DGOOS 
 
 o 
 
 ^ : 
 
 i-l i-( N iHiH 00~ ~C1 
 
 lO>OO5GOO(MGOCOCOC3i-IOOOt- 
 
 ooooooooo o o o 
 ooooooooo o o o 
 
 o ooooooooooooo'oo 
 ooooooooo 
 
 (MiHOt-lNOOiOO 
 
 o 
 
 (/I 
 
 COOCOOOOMOOOOOOOO-* 
 

 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
Iff 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 !*0fl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 Q.630.7IL6B C001 
 
 BULLETIN. URBANA 
 153-1651912-13 
 
 30112019528428 
 
 
 
 
 p^ 
 
 JP ^^9 
 
 ^j. 
 
 !