id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
afs-71792	Uusisalmi, Unto	Ham quality and its relationship to carcass quality II. Spesific weight and dissection analysis of the ham	1971	8	.pdf	application/pdf	3815	145	70	Ham most valuable part of carcass 0.67 0.62 0.68 Back most valuable part of carcass 0.67 0.76 0.65 Skin + fat of ham skin + fat of the most valuable part 0.72 0.79 0.700.72 0.79 0.70 Skin + fat of back skin + fat of the most valuable part 0.76 0.89 0.72 Meat + bone of ham meat + bone of the most valuable part 0.83 0.48 0.99 Meat + bone of back meat + bone of the most valuable part 0.66 0.52 0.690.52 0.69 Skin + fat of ham meat + bone of ham —0.14 —O.OO —0.23 Skin -f- fat of back meat -| ■ bone of back 0.06 0.04 0.07 Skin + fat component meat + bone component (of carcass) (of carcass) 0.06 0.14 0.11 146 Ham Most valuable part of the carcass skin -f- fat meat + bone skin + fat meat + bone Y, Y, Y, Y 4 Specific weight —0.79 0.33 —0.72 0.55 Puistola of the ham (X) —0.27 0.28 —0.37 0.34 Pohjanmaa —0.50 0.37 —0.46 0.30 Total The Table 1 shows that the accuracy of the scales at Pohjanmaa was not sufficient for the determination of the specific weights. at 0.1 % level H 94 06 25 o = 64 09 26 26 49 27 27 143 1 Live weight 2 Live weight 3 Skin % of ham 4 Fat % of ham 5 Skin ofham+shank, g 6 Fat of ham+shank, g 7 Fat % of ham+shank 8 Skin + fat of shoulder, g 9 Skin + fat of ham, g 10 Skin+ fat of most valuable part, g 11 Skin + fat component, 20 Meat +bone component, % of carcass % ofcarcass 12 Meat % of ham 21 Bone % ofham 13 Specific weight ofham 22 Bone of hind shank, g 14 Meat of hind shank, g 23 Bone of ham+shank, g 15 Meat of ham+ shank, g 24 Bone % of ham +shank 16 Meat % of ham+shank 25 Hind shank, g 17 Meat +bone of shoulder, g 26 Ham+ shank, g 18 Meat + bone of ham, g 27 Most valuable p27 Most valuable part of 19 Meat + bone of most carcass, g valuable part, g 28 Most valuable part, % of carcass genotypical correlation coefficients between the dissection results on the back and the most valuable part of the carcass were slightly greater than the genotypical correlation coefficients between the dissection results on the ham and the most valuable part of the carcass.	cache/afs-71792.pdf	txt/afs-71792.txt