cop. ACR1CUITURE Cli CHECK FOF 1RCUL/ VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES ... IN MEETING CHANGED CONSUMER DEMAND By SLEETER BULL F. C. OLSON G. E. HUNT W. E. CARROLL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Bulletin 415 Foreword A Breeder's Problem AIERICAN breeds of swine have been developed thru gen- erations of breeding and selection to a high degree of efficiency as producers of fat. The marked decline in the value of lard in relation to certain pork products that has taken place during the last few years now penalizes this characteristic of hogs and gives new importance to the question of swine type. None of the types of animals included in this study met ef- fectively the present demands of the pork market. The Inter- mediate type approached the ideal most nearly, with the Chuffy, the Rangy, and the Very Chuffy following in the order named. Present market demands point to a hog with the quality and plumpness of the Intermediate type hogs used in this test, the length of the Rangy, and the early maturity of the Chuffy. Instead of carrying large excess deposits of fat on the back as at present, the ideal hog should carry only sufficient fat in this region to give the desired quality to roasts and chops, whereas the belly should develop to the thickness required for good bacon (about li/2 inches). The carcass must be firm, a requirement that presents a problem as yet unsolved, for the present type of hog that develops only this thickness of back fat is decidedly unfinished, and lack of finish is one of the major causes of soft carcasses. In the past, major changes in the type and quality of hogs have been produced in a remarkably short time by breeding and selection. Whether as a race hogs / are plastic enough in the hands of the breeder to be transformed into animals that will efficiently meet the radically different consumer demands of the present and future is a challenge alike to the scientist and practical breeder. CONTENTS PAGE PAGE INTRODUCTION 259 PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OP CAR- PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS 260 CASSES AND WHOLESALE CUTS. . 286 FEEDING TESTS 261 PERCENTAGE OF LARD FAT 291 SLAUGHTER TESTS 262 SUMMARY 293 CUTTING TESTS 275 CONCLUSIONS 294 GRADES OF FRESH HAMS, BELLIES, AND LOINS 278 Urbana, Illinois July, 1935 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made by or sponsored by the Experiment Station Value of Present-Day Swine Types in Meeting Changed Consumer Demand By SLEETER BULL, F. C. OLSON, G. E. HUNT, and W. E. CARROLL* ITH the decided downward trend in United States exports of cured pork cuts and lard, the American pork producer in recent years has become increasingly dependent upon the demands of the American pork consumer for his market. The con- sumer's desires are reflected thru the retail meat dealer to the packer, with the packer paying the most for the hog that will yield the pro- ducts for which the consumer will pay the most. Tho the bulk of the demand is usually for products of lower than top quality, growers need not aim specifically at the production of lower-quality products, for enough of these are obtained incidentally in the production of cuts of superior quality to supply the demand. Furthermore the hog feeder can producer premium hog at no greater cost than an inferior hog. In the past decade American consumers have shown a decided preference for small, lean, firm, and tender hams, loins, and shoulders ; small, firm, well-fattened bellies; and a minimum amount of lard and fat cuts (fat backs and clear plates). This study was made to deter- mine the value of some of our present-day swine types in meeting pre- sent consumer demand. It is relatively easy to supply tender pork since most butcher hogs are young, but the remainder of the order is difficult to fill for four reasons: (1) most hogs are not fat, or finished, at the weights necessary to supply small cuts; (2) hogs must be finished (fat) in order to supply firm cuts; (3) care must be exercised not to use softening feeds, such as soybeans, peanuts, mast, etc., in the rations of market hogs; and (4) hogs have been bred for many generations to store fat on their backs as well as upon their bellies, thus producing a considerable amount of lard along with a desirable bacon belly. Many hog producers have attempted to supply the demand for smaller cuts and less lard by marketing at light weights hogs of the late-maturing, rangy type. This has resulted in the placing on the market of an increasing amount of soft pork and unfinished ("skippy") bellies from corn-belt hogs. Some packers have attributed this increase in soft pork to the use of soybeans in the rations of fat- 'SLEETER BULL, Associate Chief in Meats; F. C. OLSON, formerly First Assistant in Animal Husbandry; G. E. HUNT, formerly Assistant in Animal Husbandry; and W. E. CARROLL, Chief in Swine Husbandry. 259 260 BULLETIN No. 415 {.July, tening hogs. Presumably this assumption is based upon the facts that soybeans fed in sufficient amounts to balance a corn ration almost always produce soft pork, 1 and that the increase in soft pork has been coincident with an increase in soybean acreage in the corn belt. As a matter of fact, soybeans cannot account for all our soft pork be- cause there are not enough of them fed to fattening hogs to produce all the soft pork reported. Other factors must be involved. Extensive investigations with hogs of Very Chuff y, Chuffy, Inter- mediate, Rangy, and Very Rangy types were carried on at this Sta- tion in 1922-25. 2 Most of the hogs in those experiments were slaugh- tered at 225 pounds live weight because that seemed to be the most desirable market weight at that time. Between weights of 175 to 275 pounds no significant differences occurred in the rate and econ- omy of gains of the types studied. Most of the carcasses from the Very Chuffy and Chuffy types were too fat. The Very Rangy car- casses were distinctly soft and unfinished at 225 pounds. Many of the Rangy carcasses were soft and unfinished, especially when hand- fed. The Intermediate type proved the most desirable from the butch- er's standpoint, primarily because of better finish and firmness. In the present experiments hogs of the Chuffy type were slaugh- tered at 170 pounds and at 200 pounds, and hogs of Rangy, Interme- diate, and Very Chuffy types at 200 pounds, in order to determine how well hogs of these types and weights meet the requirements of the present pork market. PLAN OF EXPERIMENTS In the first experiment, which was to determine the market value of hogs of the Chuffy type when slaughtered at 170 pounds and at 200 pounds, 28 purebred Poland China pigs 3 were used. These pigs were bred on the University farm and came from stock used in pre- vious swine-type studies. 2 They were self-fed a mixed ration of 28 parts corn, 7 parts shorts, 5 parts tankage, and 2 parts alfalfa meal, on mixed, largely bluegrass, pasture. Fourteen hogs were slaughtered 'See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 366, "Effect of Soybeans and Soybean Oil Meal on Quality of Pork." 1931. *See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 321, "Type in Swine as Related to Rate and Economy of Gain," and Bui. 322, "Type in Swine as Related to Quality of Pork." *These pigs were farrowed in the late spring of 1931. The first hog was slaughtered November 7, 1931. VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 261 at individual weights of approximately 170 pounds and 14 at approxi- mately 200 pounds. In the second experiment, which was to determine how well hogs of the Rangy, Intermediate, and Very Chuffy types meet present mar- ket requirements when slaughtered at 200 pounds, 10 purebred Poland China pigs of the Very Chuffy type, 10 grade Poland China pigs of the Intermediate type, and 10 purebred Poland China pigs of the Rangy type were used. The pigs were carefully selected from the standpoint of type, thrift, and size from three different commercial herds. Each type was self-fed a ration of corn, supplemented with a mixture that contained tankage 2 parts, soybean oil meal 1 part, and alfalfa meal 1 part. All hogs were slaughtered at individual weights of approximately 200 pounds. FEEDING TESTS No record was kept of the feed consumption of the hogs in the first experiment. The record kept of the individual gains from birth until slaughter showed that the average daily gain for the lot of 170- pound hogs was .79 pound, for the lot of 200-pound hogs, .89 pound. TABLE 1. RATE AND ECONOMY OF GAINS AND FEED CONSUMPTION OF TEN RANGY, TEN INTERMEDIATE, AND TEN VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS Rangy Intermediate Very Chuffy Average initial weight Ibs. 98 Ibs. 99 Ibs. 102 Average final weight 207 206 202 Total group gain 1 086 1 073 1 007 Average daily gain per pig 1 40 1.53 1.47 Average daily ration Corn 4.82 5.30 5.54 Supplement* 64 .84 .44 Total 5.46 6.14 5.98 Feed for 100 pounds gain Corn 345 346 377 Supplement* 46 54 30 Total 391 400 407 Supplement consisted of 2 pans tankage, 1 part soybean oil meal, and 1 part alfalfa meal, and was fed free-choice with corn. While these gains may not appear large, it should be remembered that they were the average daily gains from birth. In order that the three types of pigs used in the second experiment might have comparable initial weights, the lots were started on feed at different times. The Rangy lot was started January 15, 1932, the Intermediate lot January 29, and the Very Chuffy lot February 26. 262 BULLETIN No. 415 [July, All lots were fed the experimental ration from the time they were purchased until they were put into the feeding experiment. The gains, feed consumption, and economy of gains are given in Table 1. There were no significant differences between types in the rate and economy of gains. There was considerable variation in the amount of supplement eaten, the Rangy hogs eating 45 percent more and the Intermediate hogs 91 percent more than the Very Chuffy hogs. On the whole, both the rate and economy of gains of all lots were satisfactory. SLAUGHTER TESTS As already noted, 14 of the hogs of the first experiment were slaughtered at individual weights of approximately 170 pounds and 14 at 200 pounds. All the hogs in the second experiment were slaugh- tered at 200 pounds (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). As each hog finished the feeding test, he was taken off feed but given access to water and slaughtered the next day, the empty weight being taken as the basis for all slaughter calculations. The hogs were slaughtered, head on, leaf in, and hams faced. After cooling to an internal ham temperature of 34 to 36 F., the carcasses were weighed and graded for firmness and condition. Samples of back fat were taken for the determination of refractive index and, in certain cases, iodin number. 1 The carcasses were mea- sured as described on page 267. The results of the carcass measurements showed clearly that two hogs, 9b and 99s, which were originally selected as Rangy type pigs, had developed into hogs of Intermediate type and two hogs, 10s and 91s, which were originally selected as Intermediate, were really Rangy type. Since the principal object of this experiment was to compare carcasses and cuts of various types, the carcasses of the above hogs were placed in their proper group and have been so treated in the data and discussion which follow. The carcasses were cut according to a modification of the method recommended by the National Conference of Cooperators in Meat Investigations (page 275). Each wholesale cut from the right side was divided into lean, fat, skin, and bone. Each major cut from the left side was graded, measured, and the ham and belly cured, .smoked, and later graded. *A complete description of the methods used in taking the samples of back fat, in determining the refractive index of the rendered fat, and in determining the iodin number of the back fat, is given in 111. Agr. Exp. Bui. 366, pages 49 and 50. 7935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 263 FIG. 1. TYPICAL RANGY HOGS JUST PREVIOUS TO SLAUGHTER AT 200 POUNDS 264 BULLETIN No. 415 FIG. 2. TYPICAL INTERMEDIATE Hoes JUST PREVIOUS TO SLAUGHTER AT 200 POUNDS 1935} VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 265 FIG. 3. TYPICAL VERY CHUFFY HOGS JUST PREVIOUS TO SLAUGHTER AT 200 POUNDS 266 BULLETIN No. 415 \_July, Dressing Percentages Most of the Chuffy hogs dressed rather high, with no significant difference due to weight (Table 2). The Very Chuffy hogs, slaugh- tered at 200 pounds, dressed higher than the other types (Table 3). The difference between the Rangy and the Intermediate types prob- ably is insignificant. TABLE 2. SLAUGHTER WEIGHTS AND DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF FOURTEEN 170- POUND AND FOURTEEN 200-PouND HOGS OF THE CHUFFY TYPE Hog No. Live weight Dressing percentage 1 Hog No. Live weight Dressing percentage* 170-pound hogs 200-pound hogs 29-3b . . . Ibs. 169 165 172 160 170 175 180 165 169 166 171 171 167 168 169.1 75.7 75.1 78.0 76.4 76.8 76.6 76.7 78.2 76.9 78.9 78.1 77.6 78.1 77.2 77.2 93-9s Ibs. 196 195 208 202 200 191 205 195 187 193 205 188 195 194 196.7 78.8 79.9 74.2 74.1 77.1 77.2 74.4 77.8 80.1 78.4 76.5 79.1 79.5 80.1 77.7 90-30b 10-3s 29-9s 98-9b 39-90s 22-9b 39-9b 39-3b 20-90b 22-30b 10-90s 22-90b 20-3s 92-3s 92-9b 91-3s 10-9s 92-30s 95-9b 62-3s 92-98 29-30s 22-3b 30-9b 22-38 9-9s Average Average Dressing percentage is calculated from the slaughter weight (shrunk over night) and the cold carcass weight. TABLE 3. SLAUGHTER WEIGHTS AND DRESSING PERCENTAGES OF HOGS OF RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY TYPES SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS Hog No. Slaughter weight Dressing percent- age* Hog No. Slaughter weight Dressing percent- age* Hog No. Slaughter weight Dressing percent- age* Rangy Intermediate Very Chuffy 93s. . . Ibs. 195 203 194 205 216 205 205 211 212 206 205.2 76.8 76.6 76.7 78.2 76.4 80.2 78.3 77.2 78.3 77.7 77.6 13s Ibs. 197 205 205 202 200 202 203 200 198 215 202.7 77.9 78.4 77.4 79.0 78.6 78.7 75.7 77.0 80.3 78.1 78.1 99-9b. 6-9s.. 93-9s.. 96-9b . 3-9s.. 19-9b. 90-9s.. 2-9b. 9-9b. 30-9b. Average Ibs. 197 196 202 199 205 196 198 201 200 188 198.2 80.1 78.9 80.8 79.6 78.7 79.2 81.2 79.8 80.6 81.5 80.0 10s 6s 90s . 20s . . 3b Us 91s . 23s 39b 2s 33s 19b.. . 31b 9b 30s 99s 36s 96b Average. . Average. Dressing percentage is calculated from the slaughter weight (shrunk over night) and the cold carcass weight. 1935} VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES Carcass Measurements 267 Upon each carcass as it hung on the rail the following measure- ments were taken with a steel tape, except as otherwise noted (Fig. 4) : 1. From tip of snout to tip of rear toe (length of carcass, a-b). 2. From tip of snout to first thoracic vertebra (length of head and neck, OrC). FIG. 4. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS 3. From first thoracic vertebra to lower point of H-bone (length of body, c-d). 4. From lower point of H-bone to tip of rear toe (length of hind leg, d-b). 5. Depth of chest, distance from top to bottom line measured with calipers just above the elbow (e-f). 6. Circumference of foreleg, taken at smallest part (g). 7. Depth of fat over loin taken over first sacral (h), over thirteenth thor- acic ('), and over first thoracic vertebra (;'). 8. Length of foreleg, from point of elbow to tip of toe (k-l). 268 BULLETIN No. 415 With the exception of depth of chest and length of foreleg, the above measurements may be made quite accurately. The number of ribs was counted. As would be expected, the average measurements of the carcasses of the 200-pound Chuffy hogs were greater than those of the 170- pound hogs (Table 4). Of the three types killed at 200 pounds, the Rangy type had the greatest average carcass length, it being 3.1 inches greater than that of the Intermediate (Table 5 and Figs. 5, 6, and 7). This difference was due largely to the longer bodies and longer legs of the Rangy type, there being little difference in length of head and neck. In depth of chest and circumference of foreleg there were no significant dif- TABLE 4. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS OF CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 170 AND 200 POUNDS (Expressed in inches) Hog No. Snout to rear toe Snout to 1st thoracic vert. H-bone to 1st thoracic vert. H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest Circum- ference of fore- leg Length of fore- leg Fat over loin Num- ber of ribs Sacral 13th thoracic vert. 1st thoracic vert. Chuffy (170 pounds) 29-3b. . 65.2 16.2 26.7 22.1 12.5 5.4 12.5 1.2 .7 1.6 14 90-30b. 64.5 16.5 27.0 21.5 12.0 5.5 12.7 1.0 .7 1.4 15 29-9s.. 66.2 16.7 27.7 21.5 12.5 5.5 12.7 1.2 .7 1.4 15 39-908. 63.7 16.2 26.5 21.0 12.2 5.4 11.5 .9 .9 1.5 14 39-9b . 64.0 16.5 26.2 21.2 12.2 5.4 12.2 .0 .7 1.4 14 20-90b 66.2 16.7 27.6 22.0 12.2 5.6 13.5 .1 .9 1.4 15 10-908. 65.2 17.0 27.2 21.5 12.7 5.6 12.7 .9 .7 1.4 14 20-38.. 65.5 16.7 27.2 22.5 12.1 5.2 13.2 .1 1.0 1.6 14 92-9b . 62.2 16.2 26.5 20.0 12.5 5.2 11.5 .2 1.0 1.5 14 10-98.. 64.2 16.2 27.0 21.0 12.1 5.2 12.5 .0 .9 1.5 14 95-9b . 63.2 16.7 26.0 20.7 12.5 5.5 12.0 .2 1.1 1.5 14 92-9s.. 64.4 17.1 26.7 20.7 12.0 5.6 12.5 .0 .6 1.1 IS 22-3b. 64.0 17.0 26.5 20.7 12.7 5.4 11.7 .0 .9 1.4 15 22-3s. . 65.6 16.9 27.5 21.1 12.5 5.7 12.9 .0 .9 1.2 15 Average 64.6 16.6 26.9 21.3 12.4 5.4 12.4 .1 .8 1.4 Chuffy (200 pounds) 93-98.. 66.1 17.0 28.5 21.5 13.2 5.9 12.5 1.1 .9 1.6 15 10-38.. 66.5 17.0 27.0 21.5 13.1 5.9 12.7 .6 1.1 2.2 14 98-9b. 69.2 17.4 29.0 23.2 13.5 5.6 13.7 .1 .9 2.0 15 22-9b. 67.0 17.4 28.0 22.4 13.1 5.7 13.0 .9 .9 1.5 39-3b . 66.7 17.2 27.0 22.5 13.0 5.7 13.0 .0 .9 1.6 14 22-30b 68.5 17.5 28.2 22.6 13.2 5.6 13.5 .4 1.1 1.6 15 22-90b 69.7 18.2 29.0 22.7 13.2 5.7 14.0 .1 .9 1.6 15 92-38.. 66.5 17.2 27.5 22.0 13.0 5.6 12.7 .4 1.1 .7 15 91-38.. 67.5 17.7 28.5 21.7 12.7 5.6 13.0 .1 .9 .2 15 92-308. 64.7 16.5 26.5 21.2 13.0 5.5 12.5 .4 1.0 .5 14 62-38. . 68.5 17.0 28.5 22.7 13.5 5.6 12.5 .0 .9 .6 15 29-308. 66.4 17.2 27.5 22.0 13.5 5.5 12.5 .5 1.0 .2 14 30-9b. 68.5 17.5 29.0 22.2 13.5 5.5 12.5 .4 1.0 .6 15 9-98.. 67.5 17.2 28.0 22.2 13.5 5.7 13.5 .2 .9 .5 16 Average 67.4 17.3 28.0 22.2 13.2 5.7 13.0 .2 1.0 .6 1935} VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 269 TABLE 5. CARCASS MEASUREMENTS OF RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Expressed in inches) Hog No. Snout to rear toe Snout to 1st tho- racic vert. H-bone to 1st tho- racic vert. H-bone to rear toe Depth of chest Circum- ference of fore- leg Length of fore- leg Fat over loin Number of ribs Sacral 13th tho- racic vert. 1st tho- racic vert. Right Left Rangy 93s 71.2 17.5 30.7 23.7 12.7 5.7 14.5 .2 .9 1.6 15 14 108 70.5 17.7 30.0 23.4 13.4 5.6 14.5 .0 1.0 1.7 16 16 90s 72.2 18.4 30.5 23.6 13.7 5.5 14.9 .1 .7 1.6 15 15 3b 71.7 17.7 30.5 24.2 13.2 5.5 14.6 .5 .9 1.6 15 15 91s 71.5 18.0 30.0 24.0 13.1 5.7 14.2 .1 1.0 1.7 15 15 39b 73.9 18.4 30.7 25.5 13.7 5.7 15.4 .2 1.0 .6 14 33s 74.5 18.7 31.7 24.9 13.9 5.5 16.0 .5 .9 .9 15 15 31b 72.4 18.4 29.7 24.7 13.4 5.7 15.0 .0 1.5 .0 15 15 30s 71.2 17.5 30.5 24.0 14.1 5.5 14.2 .4 .9 .9 15 15 36s 72.5 18.0 30.0 25.1 13.7 5.4 15.2 .0 .9 .5 14 14 Average 72.2 18.0 30.4 24.3 13.5 5.6 14.9 1.3 1.0 .7 Intermediate 13s... 69.5 17.7 29.0 23.5 13.2 5.6 14.2 1.5 1.0 1.6 15 15 6s 69.7 18.0 29.5 23.1 13 2 5.7 13 6 1.6 1.1 1.6 15 20s 67.5 17.2 28.2 22.5 13.2 5.5 13.4 1.5 1.0 2.0 15 15 Us 67.0 17.2 28.2 22 1 13 2 5 2 13 4 1.7 1.4 2.1 15 15 23s 69.9 17.7 29.7 23.0 13.2 5 6 14.5 1.1 1.0 1.5 15 15 28 70.0 17.9 29.9 23.0 13.1 5.6 13.7 1.5 1.0 1.7 15 15 19b 69.5 18.0 28.7 23.4 13 2 5.7 14.5 1.4 1.0 1.9 15 15 9b 69.0 17.5 29.0 22.9 13.6 5.9 13.7 1.6 1.2 1.7 15 15 998 68.7 17.2 29.0 23 13 5 5 4 14 5 1.5 1.0 1.7 14 14 96b 70.2 18.0 29.0 23.5 13.9 5.6 14.0 1.7 1.4 1.9 15 15 Average 69.1 17.7 29.0 23.0 13.4 5.6 14.0 1.5 1.1 1.8 Very C huffy 99-9b. 63.0 16.0 27.0 20.0 12.6 5.4 11.5 2.1 .7 2.5 15 6-9s. 60.5 15.2 26.2 20.0 12.5 5.2 11.2 2.1 .7 2.2 14 14 93-98. 60.0 15.1 26.1 19.2 12.5 5.0 11.2 2.2 .0 2.5 15 15 96-9b. 59.5 15.0 25.5 19.1 12.5 5.2 11.2 2.4 .9 2.5 14 14 3-9s. 63.5 16.5 27.0 20.5 12.7 5.5 11.4 2.0 .5 2.0 14 15 19-9b. 60.7 15.5 25.5 19.5 12.7 5.2 11.0 2.2 .7 2.2 14 14 90-98. 62.2 16.0 27.0 20.5 13.0 5.5 11.5 1.9 .6 2.2 14 15 2-9b. 60.5 15.0 26.2 19.9 12.7 5.2 11.1 2.0 .5 2.5 15 15 9-9b. 63.0 16.4 27.0 20.1 13.0 5.5 11.7 2.2 .7 2.2 15 15 30-9b. 62.1 15.9 27.1 19.5 12.6 5.2 11.2 2.0 .5 2.1 15 15 Average 61.4 15.7 26.5 19.8 12.7 5.3 11.3 2.1 .7 2.3 ferences. The depth of fat over the loin was slightly less in the Rangy carcasses. It is surprising to note that there were more Rangy than Intermediate carcasses with 14 pairs of ribs and that several hogs in the experiment had 14 ribs on one side and 15 ribs on the other. The average over-all length of the Very Chuffy carcasses was 7.7 inches less than for the Intermediate carcasses (Table 5). The differences were apparent in the head and neck as well as in the body and legs. The depth of chest was likewise somewhat less in the Very 270 BULLETIN No. 415 [July, 1935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 271 3 - 1 a a c C/3 O z o a ** S w H rt S E o '3 (? O < O V & 272 BULLETIN No. 415 1935-] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 273 Chuff y carcasses, altho the depth of fat was considerably greater because of higher condition. The greatest numbers of 14-rib hogs were in the Very Chuffy and Chuffy types. The number of ribs in the hogs of the Rangy and Intermediate types varied from 14 to 16 (one hog), most of them having 15 ribs. Market Grades of Carcasses The carcasses were graded as "meat type" carcasses. A detailed description of this class and the grades included therein (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and Cull) is given in U. S. Department of Agriculture Cir- cular 288, "Market Classes and Grades of Pork Carcasses and Fresh Pork Cuts." The symbols plus (-f) and minus ( ) are used to designate the top and bottom of the grade. In determining market grades of the TABLE 6. MARKET GRADES OF CARCASSES OF CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 1 70 AND 200 POUNDS Firmness Hog No. Firmness of carcass from refractive Final firmness* Market grade of carcass Finish of carcass index Chuffy (170 pounds) 29-3b H MH MH No. 3- 90-30b MS S MS No. 2- Medium 29-9s MS MS MS No. 3 Medium 39-90s MH MH MH No. 3 Medium 39-9b S MH MH No. 3 Medium 20-90b S MS S No. 2 + Good 10-90s S S S No. 2- Medium 20-3s S S S No. 2 Medium 92-9b S MH MH No. 2 + Good 10-9s S MS S No. 3 Medium 9S-9b MH MH MS No. 1 Good + 92-9s S S S No. 3 Medium 22-3b MH MH MS No. 2 Good- 22-33 MS MS MS No. 2 Good- Chuffy (200 pounds) 93-9s. . . MS S MS No. 1 Good 10-3s H MH MH No. 1 Choice 98-9b S MS MS No. 2 Good 22-9b S MS S No. 2 Good 39-3b MS MH MH No. 2 + Medium + 22-30b MH H MH No. 1- Good + 22-90b S MS S No. 2 Medium 92-3s MS MH MS No. 1 - Good-)- 91-38 S MS S No. 2 Medium 92-308 MS MH MS No. 1- Good 62-38 S MH MS No. 2 Good- 29-30s MS MH MH No. 2 Good 30-9b MH MH MH No. 3- Good + 9-9s MS MS MS No. 2 Good Determined from the judgment of the graders and the refractive index, medium; S = soft. H = hard; M = 274 BULLETIN No. 415 {.July, carcasses and cuts, firmness was disregarded as many of the carcasses were soft. In other words, they were graded just as tho they were firm and a separate grading was then made for firmness. The firm- ness of the carcasses was determined by examination when the in- ternal ham temperature was 34 to 36 F., by the refractive index of TABLE 7. MARKET GRADES OF CARCASSES OF RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS Hog No. Firmness of carcass Firmness from re- fractive index Firmness from iodin No. Final firmness* Market grade of carcass Finish of carcass Rangy 93s MS MS 10s MS S 90s S S 3b S MS 91s S S 39b S S 33s S S 31b H MS MH 30s MS S 36s MS S Intermediate 13s... MH S MS 6s H S MS 20s MH MS MH lls H MH 23s MH MS MS 2s MH MS MS 19b H S S 9b MH MH 99s MS MS 96b H MH Very Chuffy 99-9b... H MH 6-9s H MH 93-9s MH MH 96-9b MS MH 3-9s MS MS 19-9b MH MS 90-9s MS MS 2-9b MS MH 9-9b MS MS 30-9b... S MS MS S S MS S S S MH S S No. 2 No. 1- No. 2 No. 1- No. 2 No. 2 No. 2 No. 1-f No. 1- No. 2 Good Good-|- Good- Good Good + Good- Medium Choice-l- Good + Medium-r- MS MS MH MH MS MS S MH MS MH No. 2 No. 1 + No. 1 + No. 1-H No. 2 + No. 1- No. 1- No. 1 + No. 2 + No. 1 Good Choice -f Choice-r- Choice + Medium Good Good-t- Choice + Good Choice + MH H MH MH MS MH MS MH MS S No. 2 + No. 2 + No. 2 + No. 2 + No. 2 + No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1- Good-H> Good+b Good+ b Good+b Good+b Choice + Good+b Choiceb Choice + M Determined from the judgment of the graders, refractive index, and iodin number. ' medium; S = soft. tOverfinished. H = hard; a sample of the back fat, and, in doubtful cases, by the iodin number of the back fat. The carcasses were also graded separately for finish. The results of the carcass grading are given in Tables 6 and 7. A summary of the carcass grades follows: VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 275 Firmness Market grade Finish Me- Me- Soft 5 3 7 1 1 Choice 1 1 5 2 5 10 7 4 8" Me- dium 9 3 2 1 , dium dium Hard hard soft 045 056 1 2 045 1 5 3 Type Chuffy, 170-pound... Chuffy, 200-pound... Rangy, 200-pound. . . Intermediate, 200- pound No.l . 1 . 5 . 4 7 No. 2 7 8 6 3 5 No. 3 6 1 Very Chuffy, 200- pound 5 (Overfinished.) In general, the 170-pound Chuffy hogs dressed soft, unfinished carcasses. Those from the 200-pound Chuffy hogs were better but still somewhat lacking in firmness and finish. The Rangy carcasses graded lowest of the 200-pound hogs ; they were particularly lacking in firmness and finish. The Intermediate carcasses graded highest. Altho most of them were well or fairly well finished, six were too soft. The Very Chuffy carcasses were short and thick and eight were overfinished. In spite of their high degree of finish, four were defi- cient in firmness. CUTTING TESTS Both sides of each carcass were cut into regular wholesale cuts. Cutting Technic. The head was removed by cutting thru the atlas joint at a right angle to the body. The front foot was sawed off at the ridge just above the knee joint and the hind foot at the center of the hock. The leaf fat was pulled from the inside of the belly and the kidney taken out. The shoulder was cut off at a right angle to the body at the junc- tion of the second and third thoracic vertebrae. The neck bone was removed in the usual manner. The picnic was cut off y^ to 24 inch below the shoulder blade and parallel with the brisket. The brisket and neck were trimmed off the picnic following the seam around to the neck seam and then cutting straight across. The loose lean on the inside of the picnic was trimmed off down to the fat layer. The clear plate was removed from the boston, leaving as little fat on the boston and as little lean on the clear plate as possible. Neither cut was trimmed further. The ham was removed by cutting on a line starting between the fourth and fifth sacral vertebrae (counting from the lumbar junction) 276 BULLETIN No. 415 I g 5 2 W 60 B'i o * > o> j rt c/o a 8 o " o *3 ac 2 8? is o U I 5 os pe S U a & W a a > H -j ca ^ Trim- mings ii U'S. -, .--O^Or^cC^ ^ooooaao^-o^o^oo S33SS29S9SSS!S *5oooact~_oo-.jN>eoo M ^^0>^^^tOWlO0 1-00-005 00>0 aOvOl/>0.- 0<-">0.~N0 aor~oooot~ooooooo.'0oot-oooooo ooMooaoeor.wt.ooww to~-iiW!W o-^^^^-o-oo^o i~00~fsO5irtON-*r~'* 0500 t00ri>00'Oi--oOOwjr~<*>.-*><5 Otoooot.otao.OQOMaoaoaor.t.00 Xl^XXt-XXr^XXXXXXX oo ,* voodoo or>oo>0--r-. u>>00>^>0^ro0>0^^ N S3 m m w 10 -o m m 3 w ^.-.c^-* _.,_-__,__-_--.-_ ^0-^sO^NS.^.OOO^^O ooOO.s.N^-^^^rsOWW^ NMN--o oo o -4"^ r>oo>o NO>OOO>O OOvO ooooo^oooooooooooooooo ^< M^H tM tM(S^T-fMoo 0>OMS>OOOOOOOO OO>OO 278 BULLETIN No. 415 {.July, and continuing to a point ll/i inches in front of the H-bone. The ham was trimmed by cutting off the tail bone and cutting the fat from along the upper side of the ham following the general contour of the lean tissue and keeping the knife perpendicular. The flank was cut off, following the natural seam. The bed fat was removed from the butt of the ham. The belly was separated from the back by cutting across the ribs from a point just below the chine bone at the third rib to a point just below the tenderloin muscle. The spareribs were removed. The clear belly was then trimmed by cutting 2 inches from the brisket end and 3j/^ inches from the flank end (measured at the middle line of the belly). The underline was cut off just above the teats and the top line was trimmed just enough to square the belly. In separating the loin and fat back, the membrane between the fat and lean was fol- lowed as closely as possible. Trimmings included the lean, fat, etc., cut from the wholesale cuts. They did not include any part of the head. Cutting Percentages. The cutting percentages were calculated on the basis of the cold carcass weights and the average weights of the cuts from both sides. The only difference between the Chuffy hogs killed at 170 pounds and those killed at 200 pounds, due to slaughter weights, were the larger percentages of fat cuts leaf, fat back, and belly in the heavier hogs (Table 8). A number of apparently significant differences oc- curred between the cutting percentages of the Rangy, Intermediate, and Very Chuffy hogs slaughtered at 200 pounds (Table 9). The very Chuffy carcasses cut out a higher percentage of head, apparently be- cause of their excessive jowls. The fat cuts leaf, clear plate, and fat back were highest in the Very Chuffy and, with the exception of fat back, lowest in the Rangy carcasses. The bony cuts feet, neck bones, and spareribs were lowest in the Very Chuffy carcasses ; there were no significant differences between the Intermediate and Chuffy carcas- ses in this respect. The lean cuts boston, picnic, loin, and ham were much lower in the Very Chuffy carcasses ; there was little or no differ- ence in lean cuts between the Rangy and Intermediate types. The Very Chuffy carcasses cut out a higher percentage of belly and of trimmings than the other types. GRADES OF FRESH HAMS, BELLIES, AND LOINS In addition to the percentages of the various cuts which a carcass produces, the market grade of the cuts is also of importance. This is particularly true of the more expensive cuts hams, bellies, and 79J5] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 279 loins. In general, pork cuts are graded as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, with a cull grade for hams and bellies. A detailed description of these grades is given in U. S. Department of Agriculture Circular 288. Hams Each ham was carefully graded when cut. Again the firmness of the ham was disregarded in determining the market grade. One ham from each hog was cured, smoked, and then graded for firmness, three grades of firmness being recorded: hard, medium, and soft. The measurements having to do with conformation were made on the TABLE 10. CONFORMATION, FIRMNESS, AND GRADE OF HAMS FROM CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 170 AND 200 POUNDS (Measurements are expressed in inches) Hog No. Length* Widthb Thick- ness 1 " Cir- cu in- fer- ence" Length of shank d Width at stifle d Thick- ness at stifle* 1 Fat at butt" Per- cent- age of shank' Firm- ness of cured ham Market grade of fresh ham Chuffy (170 pounds) 29-3b 14.7 8.2 5.4 22.4 6.0 5.5 4.5 1.1 16.9 M 1 90-30b 14.6 9.0 5.5 22.4 6.1 6.1 4.6 .9 18.1 M 1 29-9s 14.6 8.7 5.4 22.8 5.8 6.1 4.2 1.0 16.7 S 1 39-90s 14.0 8.5 5.1 22.4 5.5 6.0 4.5 .9 16.9 M 1 39-9b 14.5 8.6 5.6 22.6 6.0 6.2 4.5 .9 18.6 M 1 20-90b 15.2 8.4 5.1 22.2 6.5 5.8 4.5 .9 18.7 S 1 10-90s 14.1 8.6 5.4 23.1 5.5 6.0 4.8 .9 17.1 S 1 20-38 15.3 8.1 5.3 22.1 6.1 5.8 4.2 .9 17.2 S 2 92-9b 13.4 8.1 5.3 22.4 5.5 6.0 4.2 1.1 15.8 M 1 10-98 14.6 8.4 5.6 23.1 5.9 5.9 4.2 .8 15.6 S 2 95-9b 13.9 8.8 5.5 22.9 5.6 6.0 4.4 1.0 17.5 S 1 92-98 14.4 8.7 5.5 23.2 5.5 6.0 4.2 .8 15.3 S 2 22-3b 14.0 8.0 5.4 22.1 5.6 6.1 4.6 .9 17.9 S 1 22-3s 14.4 8.4 5.3 22.5 5.5 5.6 4.4 .8 15.8 S 2 Average 14.4 8.5 5.4 22.6 5.8 5.9 4.4 .9 17.0 Chuffy (200 pounds) 93-9s... 14.4 8.9 5.8 23.9 6.0 6.4 4.7 1.3 18.9 S 1 10-3s 14.6 8.8 5.9 24.4 6.0 6.5 4.7 1.3 15.8 M 1 98-9b 15.2 8.9 5.4 23.2 6.2 6.1 4.5 .9 18.0 S 1 22-9b 14.6 8.8 5.4 23.4 5.9 6.0 4.7 .9 18.1 S 1 39-3b 15.1 8.7 5.6 23.4 6.0 6.5 5.0 1.1 17.6 M 1 22-30b 15.2 8.6 5.6 23.1 6.2 6.0 4.5 1.1 16.2 S 1 22-90b 15.6 8.9 5.7 24.1 6.8 6.2 4.5 .9 18.4 S 1 92-38 14.8 9.2 5.9 24.8 6.1 6.8 4.8 1. 16.8 S 1 91-3s 14.7 8.9 5.6 24.0 6.0 6.8 4.5 1. 17.7 S 1 92-30s 14.4 9.1 6.0 24.8 5.5 6.5 5.0 1. 14.8 S 1 62-3s 15.1 9.5 6.0 25.4 6.0 6.5 5.0 .8 16.8 S 1 29-30s 14.6 8.8 5.6 23.8 5.9 6.5 4.8 1. 17.0 M 1 30-9b 15.0 9.3 5.7 24.2 6.0 7.0 4.8 1. 16.9 H 1 9-9s 14.8 8.9 5.7 24.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 .9 16.1 S 1 Average 14.9 9.0 5.7 24.0 6.0 6.4 4.7 1.0 17.1 Length was measured by placing the ham lengthwise between the jaws of a caliper. b Width and thickness were measured with a caliper just below the H-bone. "Circumference of ham was measured just below the H-bone with a steel tape. d The shank of the right ham was cut off square at the stifle joint, cutting thru the joint and the length of shank, and the greatest width and thickness of the stifle end of the shank measured with a steel tape. Thickness of fat was measured at the butt just above the pelvic bone. 'The shank was weighed after removal and the percentage of shank in the ham calculated. 280 BULLETIN No. 415 TABLE 11. CONFORMATION, FIRMNESS, AND GRADE OF HAMS FROM RANGY, INTER- MEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Measurements are expressed in inches) Hog No. Length Width Thick- ness Cir- cum- fer- ence Length of shank Width at stifle Thick- ness at stifle Fatal butt Per- cent- age of shank Firm- ness of cured ham Market grade of fresh ham Rangy 93s , 15.6 8.8 5.6 22.9 6.5 6.4 4.7 1.1 18.3 s 1 10s 15.6 8.4 5.8 23.1 6.6 6.0 4.6 .8 17.1 s 1 90s 16.2 8.6 5.7 22.6 6.7 6.2 4.5 1.1 17 4 s 1 3b 16.3 8.8 5.7 24.2 6.6 5.7 4.7 1.1 16.3 s 1 91s 15.5 8.7 6.2 23.9 6.2 6.0 4.7 1.0 15.4 s 2 39b 16.3 8.7 5.9 23.2 6.7 6.1 4.7 .9 17.6 M 2 33s 16.8 8.4 5.5 22.9 6.5 5.5 4.6 .9 15.7 s 2 31b 16.1 8.6 5.7 23.0 6.7 6.0 4.5 1.2 17.6 M 1 30s 15.9 8.6 5.8 23.3 6.6 6.2 4.7 1.1 17.2 S 1 36s 16.7 8.8 5.8 24.0 7.0 6.1 5.0 .9 16.1 s 2 Average 16.1 8.6 5.8 23.3 6.6 6.0 4.7 1.0 16.9 Intermediate 13s 15.6 8.7 5.9 23.1 6.1 5.5 4.5 .9 14.9 M 6s 15.5 8.7 6.3 23.8 6.7 6.5 5.1 .9 16.8 s 20s 15.1 8.5 6.0 23.3 6.0 6.0 4.7 1.2 16.3 M Us 14.9 8.3 5.7 23.6 6.2 6.0 4.6 1.2 15.9 H 23s 15.9 8.7 6.0 23.7 6.5 5.5 4.7 1.0 15.6 s 2s 15.3 8.5 5.7 22.9 6.5 6.0 4.9 .9 17.1 S 19b 15.7 8.6 5.6 22.5 6.6 6.0 4.7 1.0 19.1 s 9b 15.0 8.5 5.7 23.1 6.2 6.1 5.6 1.2 17.0 s 99s 15.9 9.0 6.1 24.0 6.2 6.0 4.7 1.3 15.2 s 96b 15.7 8.4 5.9 23.2 6.5 6.5 5.0 1.2 18.3 s 1 Average 15.5 8.6 5.9 23.3 6.3 6.0 4.8 1.1 16.6 Very Chuffy 99-9b 13.2 7.7 5.9 22.6 5.5 6.0 4.7 1.7 17.6 s 2 6-9s 13.2 8.4 6.1 24.0 5.2 6.0 4.9 1.9 15.7 H 2 93-9s 13.7 8.0 6.4 23.2 5.7 6.0 5.0 2.0 15.3 H 2 96-9b 13.0 7.7 6.2 23.3 5.1 5.7 4.7 1.7 15.4 H 2 3-9s 13.7 9.1 6.1 24.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 1.2 17.5 M 1 19-9b 13.1 8.2 5.8 22.9 5.6 6.7 5.0 1.7 19.2 H 1 90-9s 13.4 8.2 6.1 23.2 6.0 6.7 5.2 1.4 20.2 M 1 2-9b 13.0 8.1 6.3 23.7 5.4 6.5 4.9 1.7 16.6 M 2* 9-9b 13.7 8.1 6.0 22.5 5.7 6.2 4.6 1.7 17.0 s 2 30-9b 12.9 7.9 5.8 22.7 5.2 6.5 4.9 1.6 17.2 S 1 Average 13.3 8.1 6.1 23.2 5.5 6.3 4.9 1.7 17.2 NOTE. For description of measurements see footnotes to Table 10. Overfinished, would have made a No. 1 skinned ham. fresh hams of both sides of the hogs. A summary of the detailed data on grades and conformation given in Tables 10 and 11 follows. Type Market grade of fresh hams No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Chuffy, 170-pound 10 4 Chuffy, 200-pound 14 Rangy, 200-pound 6 4 Intermediate, 200-pound 10 Very Chuffy, 200-pound 4 6" (Overfinished.) Firmness of cured hams Hard Medium Soft 9 10 8 7 3 VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 281 B"*l 19-9b *-" ' 9, -*"' 90-9* FIG. 8. RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HAMS These are the hams from the hogs shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3, and the car- casses in Figs. 5, 6, and 7. 282 BULLETIN No. 415 All the hams were good enough to grade No. 1 or No. 2, altho most of them were too soft. Practically all the Chuff y hams had good conformation and good quality except for their softness. None was too fat. The four No. 2 hams from the 170-pound hogs were unfinished. Hams from the different types are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. FIG. 9. END- VIEW OF RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HAMS Note the excess fat on the Very Chuffy hams. Only one Rangy ham was criticized on conformation and none on quality except for softness. The four No. 2 hams were soft and un- finished, two of the six No. 1 hams were slightly unfinished and five were soft. The Intermediate hams all graded No. 1, altho five were slightly unfinished and seven lacked firmness. There was no criticism of their conformation and none of their quality except for softness. The six No. 2 Very Chuffy hams were overfinished but would have made No. 1 skinned hams; three were soft. The conformation was good. The quality was good, except for the three soft ones. The hams from the Chuffy hogs slaughtered at 200 pounds and those from the Intermediate hogs killed at the same weight most nearly met market requirements, with those from the Very Chuffy, 1935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 283 the 170-pound Chuffy, and the Rangy following in the order named. The ham measurements of the three types of hogs offer interesting comparisons. The Rangy hogs yielded hams that were slightly longer than those from the Intermediate hogs. This difference was due only in part to the slightly longer shanks of the Rangy hams. The other measurements were practically the same for the two types. The Very Chuffy hams were decidedly shorter, especially in the shank, than those of the other types; their percentage of shank, however, was as great or greater, and thickness of fat was much greater than for the other types. Altho the Very Chuffy hams were shorter, their circum- ference was as great as for the other types. The measurements and percentage of shanks in the hams of the 200-pound Chuffy hogs were quite similar to those of the Intermediate and Rangy hogs of the same weight. Bellies Each belly was graded when cut and again firmness was disre- garded. One belly from each hog was cured, smoked, and graded for firmness, using the grades hard, medium, and soft. The length, width, thickness at the top, and thickness at the bot- tom were measured thru the center of the bellies from both sides and the averages taken of both bellies. The measurements and grades of the bellies are given in Tables 12 and 13. A summary of the market grades of fresh bellies and the firmness grades of the bacon follows: Market grade Firmness of fresh bellies of cured bacon Type No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Hard Medium Soft Chuffy, 170-pound 8 5 1 6 8 Chuffy, 200-pound 10 4 635 Rangy, 200-pound 4 6 3 7 Intermediate, 200-pound 7 3 4 6 Very Chuffy, 200-pound 262 190 Most of the No. 1 bellies from the 170-pound Chuffy hogs were finished, uniform in thickness, and firm. Most of the No. 2 and No. 3 bellies were unfinished and soft. The No. 1 bellies from the 200-pound Chuffy hogs, as a rule, were well finished, uniform, and of good qual- ity. Four of them were soft. Three of the No. 2 bellies were graded down because of wastiness in the flank, the other because of wrinkles and softness. On the whole these bellies were excellent except for softness. They were unusually good in uniformity of thickness, with the exception of Hogs 22-3s and 9-9s. Only three of the Rangy bellies graded as high as medium in firm- ness, the other seven being soft. Only three were finished. Several 284 BULLETIN No. 415 [July, lacked uniformity. In general, they were longer but narrower than the Chuffy and Very Chuffy bellies. The No. 1 Intermediate bellies were finished, uniform in thick- ness, but most of them lacked firmness. The No. 2 bellies all lacked uniformity of thickness and two were unfinished. Except from the standpoint of firmness, this was a good lot of bellies, being much better than the Rangy bellies but not so good as the Chuffy bellies from hogs of the same weight. One Very Chuffy bacon was hard and the others were medium in firmness. The principal objections to these bellies were overfinish FIG. 10. RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY BACON Note the poor streak and the lack of uniformity in the Very Chuffy bacon. and lack of uniformity of thickness. Four of the No. 2 and 3 bellies were overdone and all eight were decidedly lacking in uniformity. A peculiarity of these bellies was that eight of them were much thicker at the top than at the bottom. In the other lots most of the bellies were as thick at the bottom as at the top or thicker at the bottom than at the top. The Very Chuffy bellies were easily the least desir- able of any of the types studied, except from the standpoint of firm- ness (Fig. 10). Loins All the loins graded No. 1, except those from Hog 20-3s, which was graded No. 2 because the lean was dark. Six of the loins from the 170-pound Chuffy hogs, three from the 200-pound Chuffy hogs, nine from the Rangy hogs, three from the Intermediate hogs, and six from the Very Chuffy hogs were too soft. The length of the loins is given in Tables 12 and 13. 1935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 285 The Rangy loins were distinctly longer than those of the other types. Their average length was .9 inch greater than the Intermediate, 2.2 inches greater than the Chuffy, and 3.4 inches greater than the loins from the Very Chuffy hogs slaughtered at the same weight. Since a long, slender loin is preferable to a short, thick loin, because TABLE 12. MEASUREMENTS, FIRMNESS, AND GRADE OF BELLIES AND LENGTH OF LOINS FROM CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 170 AND 200 POUNDS (Measurements are expressed in inches) Hog No. Belly length Belly width Belly thickness at top Belly thickness at bottom Firmness of cured bacon Grade of fresh belly Loin length Chuffy (170 pounds) 29-3b 15.5 7.7 1.4 1.3 H 1 23.2 90-30b 15.2 7.6 1.4 1.4 H 1 22.8 29-9s 17.2 7.6 1.4 1.4 H 1 24.0 39-90s 15.4 7.0 1.4 1.4 H 1 23.2 39-9b 14.6 7.8 1.4 1.2 H 1 22.5 20-90b 16.2 7.6 1.4 1.5 S 2 23.6 10-90s 15.8 7.5 .4 1.5 s 1 23.3 20-3s 14.5 7.9 .3 1.6 S 2 23.2 92-9b 15.2 7.5 .7 1.6 H 1 21.4 10-9s 15.2 7.2 .2 1.2 S 2 22.9 95-9b 14.7 7.6 .5 1.4 S 1 22.3 92-9s 14.2 8.1 .0 1.1 s 2 22.3 22-3b 14.8 7.9 .4 1.4 s 2 22.9 22-3s 16.6 7.2 .0 1.4 s 3 23.5 15.4 7.6 .4 1.4 22.9 Chuffy (200 pounds) 93-9s. . . 17.2 8.0 .6 1.8 H 1 24.4 10-3s 16.8 7.8 .7 1.5 H 1 23.5 98-9b 18.6 8.0 .4 1.5 M 1 25.5 22-9b 16.7 8.0 .4 1.3 S 1 24.6 39-3b 15.4 8.5 .7 1.6 H 1 23.5 22-30b 16.0 8.0 .6 1.6 M 2 24.8 22-90b 17.2 8.1 .5 1.6 S 1 25.3 92-3s 15.6 8.2 .5 1.6 M 1 24.0 91-3s 16.8 7.8 .5 1.6 S 1 24.2 92-30s 15.8 7.6 .5 1.6 S 1 22.8 62-3s 16.9 7.8 1.4 1.4 S 2 25.0 29-30s 16.9 7.8 1.4 1.6 H 2 23.8 30-9b 17.8 7.5 1.8 1.8 H 1 24.7 9-9s 16.5 7.6 1.4 1.8 H 2 24.6 Average 16.7 7.9 1.5 1.6 24.3 it cuts out a greater number of chops to the pound., the length of loin must be considered as well as the percentage of loin. No appreciable differences in the percentage of loin in the Rangy, Intermediate, and Chuffy types are shown in the data in Tables 8 and 9, pages 276 and 277. The percentage of loin from the Very Chuffy hogs was, however, materially lower than for the other types. 286 BULLETIN No. 415 [July, TABLE 13. MEASUREMENTS, FIRMNESS, AND GRADE OF BELLIES AND LENGTH OF LOINS FROM RANGY, INTERMEDIATE, AND VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Measurements are expressed in inches) Hog No. Belly length Belly width Belly thickness at top Belly thickness at bottom Firmness of cured bacon Grade of fresh belly Loin length Rangy 93s 19 2 7 3 1 5 1 8 M 2 26 7 10s 17.6 7.3 1.4 1.4 s 1 26.1 90s 19.0 7.5 1.2 .6 s 2 26.3 3b 19.0 7.0 1.5 .4 M 1 26.6 91s 17 7 6 1 4 .6 s 2 26.4 39b 18.0 7.2 1.5 .4 s 2 26.6 33s 19.2 7.4 1.2 .8 s 2 26.7 31b 18 7 6 1 8 .4 M 1 26.6 30s 18.5 7.4 1.4 .7 s 1 26.7 36s 18.0 7.3 1.2 .5 s 2 26.3 18 3 7 4 1 4 1 6 26.5 Intermediate 13s... 18.0 7 3 1 6 1.6 S 2 25.7 6s 18.8 8.2 1.6 1.6 S 1 25.9 20s 17 8 7 4 1 6 1.6 M 1 25.2 Us 16.9 7 6 1 6 1.7 M 1 24.7 23s 17.6 7.0 1.4 1.8 S 2 26.1 2s 18.0 6.6 1.2 1.9 S 2 26.3 19b 17 6 6 9 1 5 1.5 S 1 25.3 9b 18.8 7.5 1.8 1.5 M 1 25.6 99s 18.1 7.4 1.5 1.6 S 1 25.4 96b 18 7 4 1 7 1.5 M 1 25.8 Average 18.0 7 3 1 5 1.6 25.6 Very Chuffy 99-9b... 16 4 7 8 2 4 1.7 M 2 23.3 6-9s 15.8 8 2.1 1.6 H 2 23.1 93-9s 16.6 8.3 3.0 2.0 M 3 23.1 96-9b 16 7 8 2 3 1.8 M 3 22.5 3-9s 18.0 7.2 1.6 1.8 M 1 23.3 19-9b 15 9 7 9 2 3 1.7 M 2 22.3 90-9s 16.6 7 5 1 9 1.8 M 1 23.3 2-9b 16.9 7 8 2.8 1.9 M 2 23.0 9-9b 16.9 7.6 2.2 1.5 M 2 23.1 30-9b 17.0 7 5 2.4 1.4 M 2 23.9 Average 16.7 7.8 2.4 1.7 23.1 PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CARCASSES AND WHOLESALE CUTS As previously stated, the right side of each carcass was cut into the wholesale cuts and each cut divided into lean, fat, skin, and bone as accurately as possible with a knife. The physical composition of the carcasses is shown in Table 14. The differences between the Chuffy, Rangy, and Intermediate carcasses were small and probably insignificant; all carcasses would VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 287 OTOW50 0) MjOvOf^ > 5 "" 5 - J S3S5| -555 rs TfO) H *W5 .a SSSg f oOt-Ots CN OIOIOIO 6 1-tlOO N CO S5S5: S t IO C^ fS S lOWlvOtN '.' ^ooo ts fN g'i rs Ss-s 1 sp| (S 2*2* .0 ssss rS tO-HttS s 5. IOO 5! 5%"2 2 C-J H 00 00 00 "O is 2*22 3 I (SI--^ M a 8 (S o a 2222 *"* >> (N J3 S OOt-OtS Sg^^i jO -tr,^ S 5I " VO " oV rt t^O CS a CN OOOvOO O> us 0- *t?^ % TfO -H s ""> " S ? \OI-N $ dd^- s O-t OOO .,. t-t-rcvo IB i 3S2 6 ro t"" 3SfSO to too , ONiOV9 R S"2 S So^ 10 " C B g S ^3-^ 2 S cs-^ 2 X = 11 2 M _o 5555 O O O O HHHH ^ t~00-t LI ooot-oo ^ TftSONt- S^ 10 ^ > 55-= ss T o 2"^2 i S3 2 - 1 "252 jp oo^oo^ J3 tts^ts CN ^* to ^^ " ON "** - rf,lO - 5 OOCStO (S 3sP= f, ssrss .0 r^ooo; X) *-"> f "!- PO 44 - x w " ooOfSO r-OvOoo oeo^ SS^SJ tN SSS^S o> SK^ 3 * o o a a ,r ! - -! -r * -^'OO (S a Tf Tf O> O i **ir>( "222 1 M O ac o o o'o HHHH Hog No g- c 3333 O O O O HHHH 2 I Total lean Total fat Total skin Total bone 288 BULLETIN No. 415 [.July, O WCS W OO> OOOt tOO O O OvOv IOOOIO OO> W 10 tio-i WWO WCSW CSOvt- tio CSI^tiO WOt W OW WiO OWfSO O>WO\(N W CSCS o'cso OMO t>O CSO O rt Oi CS O Ov owt^cs CSWO OW t- OW WttW to\t t~ t cs csf~ cscswt^ t^ W O W W tlO CS t CS CSIO OvOO t O CM w w tio ow c^t cs tt 10*- CS >cs wio r w iocs w ; to Otto cswcscs tlO OW CSt tN CS OCS O O OOtNW O(N W CS CSOO OW IOO* 00 to ooo 10 tO OCS csw 00 O Ot^t^ CS tlO lOt CSOMOW t^ W WIO lOt t CS (s w wioio w WO iow r>. ov > w 10 t^. ov wo ow cst csio t~. lot t^r^OOt^ 00 IO ^IOt OCS ^O Oi W (NI r**^ w^ wo ow t cs oott^ O tests OO t O Wio wcst^ SiOW wt old - - x oo : - r ww OOIO OO Ot W O CSIO W IOCS Ov tlO OW CSt O O -! O >O >O O 'J 1 t O\ H'H 00-H 00 >O-H t^ 00 IO(S f~ oo oo i > VO 1/lTf "HO t~ 00 IO(S 00 O invo OOO NO OOO ?. -t C 1~ TflOO ^" >O ts '"*' t- 00 10 ' oo ** S2 O"> "5 "} CS - s >OCS ">IO O tS' 10 cs 00 00 f 10 IO"1 O N cs "1 C t \OO OO O'OOx'O t^tSOOTl" odov *>O ") cs es IOCS WJIO 00 lOtS 00 00 "HO -O"> o oo 10 IOO OOtS 00 IO(S t I-- 00 IOO -O 00 IOCS 00 O> "IO 10* S"5 tS CSO u.cn < 290 BULLETIN No. 415 [.July, TABLE 17. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS OF RANGY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Expressed as percentage of weight of cut) Hog No 10-8 93-s 30-8 91-8 90-s 3-b 39-b 33-8 31-b 36-8 Ham Lean 63.4 59.2 58.4 63.4 61.1 60.6 59.3 60.5 58.8 63.0 60.8 Fat 22.2 24.8 26.3 23.2 23.7 23.2 26.2 24.5 25.3 25.0 24.4 Skin 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.4 2.7 3.0 3.6 2.2 3.2 Bone 10.5 12.4 11.8 9.9 11.8 11.5 10.8 11.6 12.3 9.5 11.2 Belly Lean 39.3 36.3 32.6 39.2 35.1 34.9 38.7 27.7 36.7 38.2 35.9 Fat 54 1 57.0 60.3 52.4 58 8 60 7 55.7 65 5 56 7 57 1 57 8 Skin 6.7 6.6 6.3 8.0 6.1 4.4 5.1 6.3 7.5 4.4 6.1 Loin Lean 68.9 68.4 69.7 69.6 69.2 69.1 67.7 66.2 70.2 71.3 69.0 Fat 13.9 12.9 12.8 13.4 12.6 13.0 15.1 15.2 12.0 10.8 13.2 Bone 16 4 18.1 16.9 16.0 17.5 17.0 16.4 17 8 17.1 17.2 17 Fat back Fat 91 9 90 89.4 89.6 89 7 93 89 8 89 1 90.1 92.1 90.5 Skin 8.1 9.6 10.7 10.4 10.0 7.0 9.7 10.9 10.0 7.8 9.4 Picnic Lean 61.3 53.6 56.7 57.0 58.4 53.7 53.9 57.2 55.4 59.8 56.7 Fat 16.8 26.2 21.4 21.5 20.6 25.0 25.0 19.4 22.5 21.0 21.9 Skin 6.2 4.0 3.4 5.3 5.4 4.1 4.3 4.0 5.7 3.0 4.5 Bone 15.0 16.2 17.6 16.1 15.9 17.0 16.9 19.0 16.8 15.9 16.6 Boston Lean. . . 79 8 80 74.8 76.3 79.2 76 9 80 8 75.4 77.1 79.2 78.0 Fat 14.6 14.0 20.0 18.6 14.6 16.7 14.0 19.6 18.2 15.1 16.5 Bone 5.2 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.7 5.0 4.1 4.9 5.1 5.2 Clear plate Fat 91.8 90.0 92.3 92.6 90.0 85.8 91.2 90.6 92.5 92.9 91.0 Skin 8.2 10.0 7.3 7.4 9.1 13.7 8.7 8.9 7.5 7.1 8.8 Neck bones Lean 47.6 37.7 50.5 42.0 47.9 40.0 45.4 44.1 43.5 40.8 44.0 Bone 52.4 62 3 47.7 58.0 51.2 60.0 53.2 54.9 56.5 57.8 55.4 Spareribs Lean 68.4 61.2 69.7 68.4 66.8 69.9 67.6 65.2 71.1 72.6 68.1 Bone 31.2 38.8 30.3 31.6 34.8 29.3 32.4 34.2 28.9 27.4 31.9 Head Lean 20.9 22.7 19.9 18.1 18.2 18.7 17.0 19.0 18.1 19.4 19.2 Fat 40.2 39.6 45.6 39.5 41.6 47.6 43.3 49.8 42.8 41.5 43.2 Skin 12.2 11.5 10.8 13.6 11.8 10.8 13.0 11.4 13.4 11.7 12.0 Bone 26.9 25.7 23.9 28.9 27.6 23.0 27.2 19.0 26.3 28.0 25.6 Trimmings Lean 22.7 22.6 19.8 23.0 25.6 20.9 25.4 20.7 19.8 25.2 22.6 Fat 69.3 69.2 71.8 68.3 66.0 68.2 68.1 69.6 68.2 66.1 68.5 Skin 7.0 7.4 6.0 8.6 8.2 10.2 6.3 6.6 9.3 6.0 7.6 Bone 1.4 .8 2.7 .3 .4 .6 .3 2.6 .3 1.9 1.1 meet equally well the trade demand for lean meat with a minimum amount of fat. The Very Chuffy carcasses, however, contained con- siderably more fat and considerably less lean, skin, and bone than the other types; they were too fat to meet the requirements of the trade. Excluding the Very Chuffy cuts, no significant differences were found in the physical composition of the major cuts from the differ- ent types of carcasses studied in these tests (Tables 15 to 19). The Very Chuffy hams, bellies, loins, picnics, bostons, heads, and trimmings contained considerably more fat and less lean, skin, 1 and bone 2 than the same cuts from the other types. 'In cuts containing skin. *In cuts containing bone. 1935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 291 TABLE 18. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS OF INTERMEDIATE HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Expressed as percentage of weight of cut) Hog No 13-s 6-s 20-8 11-8 23-8 2-8 19-b 99-s 9-b 96-b Ham Lean 59.7 61.9 61.9 62.3 62.0 63.0 62 60 6 57 4 59 9 61 1 Fat 23.8 24.3 24.0 25 1 23 1 22 8 22 8 25 5 27 4 26 6 24 5 Skin 3.5 2.5 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 2 7 3 6 3 1 2 4 3 Bone 11 4 10 7 10 1 9 2 11 2 10 8 12 () 9 7 11 5 10 5 10 7 BtUy Lean 34.3 42 6 38 3 38 2 38 8 37 8 33 1 39 6 29 34 5 36 6 Fat 61.1 51.4 56.5 55.6 53 9 56 60 4 53 8 64 8 60 8 57 4 Skin 4.3 5.2 4 6 5 9 6 9 5 6 6 3 6 6 5 5 5 6 Loin Lean 67.6 68 8 68 4 69 7 68 5 68 5 69 4 72 2 66 69 6 68 9 Fat 15.9 14.9 15 6 15 14 4 14 6 12 7 9 8 16 16 3 14 5 Bone 15 7 15 5 15 1 14 6 16 5 15 6 17 3 17 3 17 6 13 5 15 9 Fat back Fat 91 4 93 2 90 9 92 5 87 6 92 3 91 91 4 93 8 93 5 91 8 Skin 8.4 6.8 8 9 7 4 12 2 7 7 9 8 1 6 2 6 5 8 1 Picnic Lean 59.4 58.3 58 5 63 6 57 8 60 9 57 56 8 53 3 54 3 58 Fat 19 4 22 5 23 8 18 5 18 9 18 5 20 5 24 4 25 2 26 21 8 Skin 3.3 2 9 4 1 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 5 3 2 4 4 4 2 3 8 Bone 16 9 15 7 13 8 14 8 18 9 16 1 17 7 15 17 6 15 16 2 Boston Lean 79 75 1 71 8 78 77 3 79 2 79 2 79 2 77 5 72 8 76 9 Fat 13 8 19 6 23 7 17 5 16 6 15 13 g 15 17 1 21 7 17 4 Bone 5.8 5.5 4 5 4 5 5 7 5 1 6 2 5 4 9 4 8 5 2 Clear plate Fat 90.2 92 8 93 2 94 1 90 7 91 4 91 4 90 7 92 6 93 6 92 1 Skin 9 2 6 7 6 4 5 1 9 3 8 6 7 2 8 7 4 6 1 7 4 Neck bones Lean 45.7 39.8 43.6 47.3 48 8 45.1 50.0 39.2 49.0 45.3 45.4 Bone 54.3 56 5 55 51 8 51 2 52 9 50 57 5 50 54 7 53 4 Spareribs Lean 67.0 63.1 69 4 71 9 65 6 63 5 67 4 64 9 70 1 68 4 67 1 Bone 32 35 5 30 1 27 5 33 8 35 2 31 4 33 7 29 9 31 1 32 Head Lean 20 1 23 6 18 5 23 4 19 6 20 5 19 7 21 4 19 9 17 5 20 4 Fat 42.4 46 6 48 45 3 50 4 40 2 46 33 5 46 5 44 8 44 4 Skin 11 1 10 1 10 10 1 12 1 12 2 13 2 18 7 118 12 12 1 Bone 25.8 19 3 23 2 21 1 18 27 4 20 9 24 8 22 25 8 22 8 Trimmings Lean 23.7 25 3 22 7 23 1 25 1 24 8 23 5 21 9 21 7 20 5 23 2 Pat . . . 64 2 65 7 70 67 6 64 5 65 8 67 5 70 7 68 4 72 1 67 6 Skin 8.7 8 1 7 7 i 7 7 7 8 5 7 2 6 8 6 6 7 5 Bone 1.9 .3 5 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 3 1.2 1.4 PERCENTAGE OF LARD FAT Owing to the low price of lard and the difficulty involved in merchandising it, the packer usually desires a minimum amount of lard stock. The leaf fat and a considerable portion of the fat trimmings always go into lard. When the prices of clear plates and fat backs are lower than that of lard, these cuts also go into the lard tank. Even when it is not economical to put these cuts into lard, they seldom sell for enough to return a profit to the packer, the resulting loss being borne by the more desired cuts. Hence, regardless of whether clear plates and fat backs go into lard or cured meat, they may be regarded as a liability. 292 BULLETIN No. 415 TABLE 19. PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF CUTS OF VERY CHUFFY HOGS SLAUGHTERED AT 200 POUNDS (Expressed as percentage of weight of cut) Hog No 99-9b 6-9s 93-9s 96-9b 3-9s 19-9b 90-9s 2-9b 9-9b 30-9b Ham Lean 52 6 50 5 51.1 51.8 58 2 51.1 53 9 52 9 53 2 57 7 53 3 Fat 36.5 39.0 39.2 38.1 30.2 38.2 35.6 36 5 34 7 31 3 35 9 Skin 2.2 2 6 2.2 2.1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 Bone 8.1 7.6 7.4 7.5 9.3 8 2 8 8 1 9 6 8 8 8 3 Belly Lean 24.9 26.1 21.8 25.9 33.4 23 30 6 26 8 24 4 25 2 26 2 Fat 71.2 68.8 75.0 70.7 62.0 73.6 65.5 69.5 70.7 70.9 69.8 Skin 4.1 4.8 3.8 3.7 4.6 3 6 4 1 3 2 5 3 8 4 i Loin Lean 62.8 63.9 66 3 66 8 68 63 5 67 7 64 9 64 4 64 9 65 3 Fat 22.9 20.7 18.3 18.8 16.7 21 .6 17.8 20 18 8 20.0 19.6 Bone 13.9 14.9 15.5 14.2 15.1 15.2 14.5 14.3 16.7 14.6 14.9 Fat back Fat 94.2 93.7 96.2 95.0 94.1 95.5 94.6 95.2 93.7 95.3 94.7 Skin 5.6 6.5 4.2 4.8 6 4 7 5 3 4 5 6 4.7 5 2 Picnic Lean 50 9 47.4 47.3 47.8 54 8 47 6 49 8 50 6 49 7 52 7 49 9 Fat 33.6 35.3 36.6 37.5 27.5 36.5 33.8 34.8 33.3 31.2 34.0 Skin 3 6 4 2 4 2 3 7 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 6 3 8 Bone 11.6 12.6 12.5 10.8 13.8 12 4 12 1 11.4 12 8 12.1 12.2 Boston Lean 67.1 70.0 69.5 67.8 68 65 5 68 8 65 2 68 7 66.1 67.7 Fat 28.1 24.0 24.8 28.5 27.2 29.2 26.2 29.6 25.3 28.4 27.1 Bone 5.1 5.8 5.7 5.1 5.1 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.8 4.6 5.4 Clear plate Fat 96.5 96.1 95.8 96.0 94.6 95.7 96.4 95.6 94.1 95.4 95.6 Skin 3.2 3.9 4.2 4.0 5.4 4.3 3 6 4 4 5 2 4.6 4.3 Neck bone Lean 47 8 48 6 46 7 52.2 49 4 41 8 44 9 43 8 42.9 50.0 46.8 Bone 52.2 50.0 53.3 50.7 49.4 56.4 55.1 54.3 57.1 50.0 52.8 Spareribs Lean 73.6 66.7 74.1 72.9 71.9 73.5 70.5 77.2 72.7 72.4 72.5 Bone 26.4 32.6 25.9 27.1 28.1 25.9 29.5 22.8 26.3 27.6 27.2 Head Lean 16.8 13.7 14.5 13.4 16.0 14.1 15.0 16.5 14.4 15.4 15.0 Fat 57.2 60 5 55.3 56.6 52 1 62 59 1 57.1 50.5 55.2 56.6 Skin 10.7 9.5 10.1 10.0 9.4 8.5 8.8 9.8 11.8 9.9 9.8 Bone 15.1 14.2 19.8 17.8 22.3 15.7 17.4 16.9 23.1 19.3 18.2 Trimmings Lean 16.1 17.0 13.6 13.9 17.6 13.9 16.0 18.2 15.7 16.9 15.9 Fat 76.9 77.3 80.4 80.8 76.9 81.5 78.3 75 5 77.9 78.5 78.4 Skin 7.0 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.5 4.2 4.6 6.1 5.1 4.8 5.4 Bone .4 .3 .3 .2 1.2 .2 1.0 .4 The comparisons of types of hogs studied as potential sources of lard are based on the assumption that the leaf fat, the fat of the fat backs, clear plates, heads, and trimmings are used for lard. While some of the fat of the head and trimmings are usually sold in the form of bacon squares (jowl bacon), sausage, and trimmings, the amount is variable and the price is so low that the error in this as- sumption is not serious. The Very Chuffy hogs produced, as an average, approximately 40 percent more lard stock in proportion to their carcass weights than did the other types (Table 20). The differences in lard production between the other types butchered at 200 pounds are too small to be significant. Contrary to what might be expected, the Chuffy hogs 19351 VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 293 slaughtered at 170 pounds carried almost as much lard as those slaugh- tered at 200. TABLE 20. YIELDS OF HOGS OF DIFFERENT TYPES AND WEIGHTS (Expressed as percentage of carcass weight) Part Very Chuffy Chuffy Inter- mediate Rangy Chuffy (170 pounds) Slaughtered at 200 pounds Fat back 12.6 3.6 3.2 5.9 9.9 35.2 7.5 2.4 2.2 4.5 7.4 24.0 9.1 2.7 2.8 4.2 7.6 26.4 9.0 2.5 2.5 4.1 7.3 25.4 7.1 2.3 2.0 4.6 6.9 22.9 Clear plate Leaf fat Head Trimmings Total SUMMARY The current demand for pork is for a carcass that will cut out small, lean, firm cuts, a finished belly, and a minimum amount of lard. In an attempt to determine how well our present-day types of hogs meet these requirements, 14 Chuffy hogs were fed out and slaughtered at 170 pounds, 14 similar Chuffy hogs, 10 Rangy, 10 Intermediate, and 10 Very Chuffy hogs were fed out to 200 pounds. No significant differences occurred in the rate and economy of gains between the Rangy, Intermediate, and Very Chuffy types. No significant differences in dressing percentage occurred that were due to type, altho the Very Chuffy hogs dressed somewhat higher. The longer carcasses of the Rangy type were due largely to longer bodies and longer legs. Their depth of fat was less. The shorter carcasses of the Very Chuffy type were due to shorter bodies, legs, necks, and heads. Their depth of fat was considerably greater. The Very Chuffy carcasses cut out a higher percentage of heads, leaf, clear plates, bellies, trimmings, and fat backs and a lower per- centage of feet, neck bones, spareribs, bostons, picnics, loins, and hams than the other types. The Rangy carcasses cut out lower per- centages of leaf and clear plates than the Intermediate and Chuffy carcasses. Otherwise no significant differences in cutting percentages occurred that could be attributed to type. The hams from the Chuffy hogs slaughtered at 200 pounds and those from the Intermediate hogs killed at the same weight most nearly met market requirements, with those from the Very Chuffy, 294 BULLETIN No. 415 {.July, the 170-pound Chuffy, and the Rangy following in the order named. Most of the hams were too soft. The Rangy hams were decidedly un- finished and even those from the Chuffy hogs slaughtered at 170 pounds lacked finish. A majority of the Very Chuffy hams were too fat. Many of the bacons were too soft. A few bellies of the 170-pound Chuffy hogs and the 200-pound Intermediate hogs were unfinished and most of the Rangy bellies were unfinished. Most of the Very Chuffy bellies were too fat and were too thick at the top edge. In order of their value in meeting market requirements for bacon, the types ranked as follows: 1. 200-pound Chuffy 2. 200-pound Intermediate 3. 170-pound Chuffy 4. 200-pound Rangy 5. 200-pound Very Chuffy The loins, with the exception of one dark cutter, all graded No. 1. The Rangy loins were distinctly longer than the Chuffy and Very Chuffy loins and slightly longer than the Intermediate loins. Six loins from the 170-pound Chuffy hogs, three from the 200-pound Chuffy hogs, nine from the Rangy hogs, three from the Intermediate hogs, and six from the Very Chuffy hogs were too soft. There were no significant differences in the percentages of lean, fat, skin, and bone in the Rangy, Intermediate, and Chuffy types. The Very Chuffy carcasses contained considerably more fat and less lean, skin, and bone than the others. The Very Chuffy hams, bellies, loins, picnics, bostons, heads, and trimmings contained considerably more fat and less lean, skin, and bone than those from the other types. There were no significant dif- ferences in the physical composition of the wholesale cuts of the other types. The Very Chuffy carcasses produced 40 percent more lard stock in proportion to their carcass weights than did the other carcasses. There were no significant differences between the other types. CONCLUSIONS None of the types of animals included in this study meets effec- tively the present pork market demands. The Intermediate type ap- proaches the ideal most nearly, with the Chuffy, the Rangy, and the Very Chuffy following in the order named. The ideal hog would have the quality and plumpness of the Intermediate type, the length of the Rangy, and the early maturity of the Chuffy. 1935] VALUE OF PRESENT-DAY SWINE TYPES 295 The following compilation indicates in what particular details the authors consider the different types to have met or failed to meet present market requirements: Chuffy 170-lb. Gains and dressing percentage Rate of gain Yes Economy of gains Yes Dressing percentage Yes Carcasses Market grade No* Finish No Firmness No Wholesale cuts Cutting percentages Yes Size of cuts Yes Hams Market grade. No* Finish No Firmness No Conformation Yes Quality Yes Bellies Market grade No Finish No Firmness No Loins Market grade Yes Firmness No Conformation.. Yes Lard Amount of lard stock. Yes Chuffy 200-lb. Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Almost Yes Almost Yes Almost Yes Yes Rangy 200-lb. Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No" No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Inter- Very mediate Chuffy 200-lb. 200-lb. Yes Yes Yes Almost 6 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No" No Almost No d Yes Yes No f Almost No No Almost Yes Yes Yes Yes Almost No h Almost No No No Yes Yes Almost No Yes No 1 Yes No* (Many lacked finish and firmness. b Many were deficient in firmness. "Most of them were overfinished. d Too high a percentage of cheap and too low a percentage of expensive cuts. e Some were soft and unfinished. 'Some were unfinished. "Many were unfinished and soft. h Several were overfinished and most of them lacked uniformity of thickness. 'Too short. J Too much.) 6000 7-35 7926-S