Journal of the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja Voi. 47: 385-444, 1975 ESTIMATION OF CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS IN YOUNG BEEF CATTLE Selostus: Nuoren lihanaudan teurasominaisuuksien arvioimisesta HILKKA RUOHOMÄKI Agricultural Research Centre, Institute of Animal Breeding. 01301 Vantaa 30 SUOMEN MAATALOUSTIETEELLINEN SEURA HELSINKI https://www.c-info.fi/en/info/?token=Ri3YT3ZsitWSLdty.pqOdH76BHOkujpI3okrcdQ.TUEbXtpTqq6cs1oeh7p0nuALRrdiurGd-gsTI73AyMbtTrIxP6miASUq32lszb_XB1w-hAXRzAHzBFRYFdDlGU2kboZ5GtBjrcq2trBLdgF0seRMSMEBUz1EWz19lNUXx0ZbUWc_FhAU0G78t1mpvBxBQQRsCJTYz52Ug7ml9UtufCA 387 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 389 INTRODUCTION 389 PURPOSE OF PRESENT STUDY *. 390 MATERIAL AND METHODS 391 Material 391 Estimated traits and estimators 392 Presentation of the results 393 Statistical analysis 393 ESTIMATED TRAITS 394 Live weight 394 Carcass weight 394 Quantities and percentages of carcass meat, fat and bone 394 Partition of different types of tissue 394 Means of estimated traits by experiment 396 Ist ESTIMATOR: live measurements 398 Measuring technique 398 Means of live measurements by experiment 399 Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion 402 Estimation of live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition with live measurements llnd ESTIMATOR: initial weight and daily gain 409 Initial weight 409 Daily gain during experiment gr./day 409 Means of initial weights and daily gains by experiment 409 Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion 410 Estimation of carcass weight and carcass composition with initial weight and daily gain lllrd ESTIMATOR: carcass quality scores 411 Evaluation technique 411 Means of carcass quality scores by experiment 413 Stepwise regress’on analysis, results and discussion 413 Estimation of carcass composition with carcass quality scores IVth ESTIMATOR: live weight, carcass weight, dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks 419 Dressing-% 419 By-products 420 Dissection of flanks 420 Means of dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks by experiment 420 Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion 420 Estimation of carcass composition with live weight, carcass weight, dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks 388 Vth ESTIMATOR: cutting results of shanks 424 Dissection of shanks 424 Means of cutting results of shanks by experiment 425 Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion 426 Estimation of carcass composition with cutting results of shanks Vlth ESTIMATOR: cutting results of the fore and hind quarters 430 Means of cutting results of the fore and hind quarters by experiment 430 Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion 431 Estimation of carcass composition with carcass weight and cutting results of the fore and hind quarters Vllth ESTIMATOR: detailed cutting results of the carcasses 436 Results and discussion 436 Estimation of carcass composition with detailed cutting results SUMMARY 440 REFERENCES 441 SELOSTUS 444 389 JOURNAL OF THE SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF FINLAND Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja Voi. 47: 385—444, 1975 Ruohomäki, H. 1975. Estimation of carcass characteristics in young beef cattle. J. Scient. Agric. Soc. Finl. 47: 385—444. Abstract. In the present study the main objectives were to determine whether sufficiently accurate estimation oi live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition with live measurements is possible, and whether anaccurate estimation of carcass composi- tion with any other procedure than total carcass dissection is possible. The material consisted of 205 1-year old steers and bulls and 174 bull calves. Within experiment each trait of each animal was corrected for age, breed and feeding with a correction factor obtained with the least squares method. In the stepwise regression analysis the results for both age groups were analysed separately. From live measurements the best estimators in both age groups were width of chest, heart girth and natural length. The most reliable predictor of meat quantity was carcass weight. Revalue was 96 % for both age groups. In estimation of meat percentage the Revalue obtained for the olds with cutting results of fore shanks was 56 %, the respective value for the 1-year olds was considerably lower. With 1-year olds the carcass weight and some by- products gave the highest estimations for the quantity and percentage of fat, R 2 were 62 % and 50 % respectively, and for the 14-year olds the kidney fats and the cutting results of flanks gave the highest estimations, R 2 were 70 % and 59 % respectively. For the quantity and percentage of bone the R 2 for the 1-year olds obtained with cutting results of shanks were 68 % and 55 % respectively, and for the 14-year o'ds 82 % and 70 % respectively. When the cutting results of the fore and hind quarters were used as estimators the R 2 obtained for all the traits were higher in both age groups than with any other estimator, R 2 obtained with carcass quality scores remained lower. Introduction Methods to increase meat production and improve carcass quality have been objects of intensive research since World War 11. This is true especially in the developed countries where meat consumption together with requirements on meat quality have increased by both the consumers and the industry. The main purpose of research is to discover methods for the economical production of carcasses with large deposits of high-quality meat, sufficiently fats and as little as possible uneatable tissues such as bone and tendons. 390 Increase in weight and size, i.e. growth, and feed consumption are the only information available during the growth of beef cattle. On the economic point of view these are the most important factors in beef cattle production. Under the prevailing circumstances, however, it is not always possible to verify the weight and growth by any other means but measuring, because only a few farmers have an animal scale at their disposal. No sufficiently accurate information can be obtained of carcass weight and composition quantities and percentages of meat, fat and bone of an animal during its growth. The quantities of meat, fat and bone can only be determined through dissection of the whole carcass and partition of different types of tissue. The accuracy required by scientific research can only be obtained if the different types of tissue are separated anatomically, where, for example, the intermuscular fasciae and fat can be removed from the muscle. As partition of carcasses into different tissues is very expensive and time- consuming even in research, other methods to determine carcass composition are being examined. Estimation of carcass composition has always been started from visual evaluation and live measurements, continued to carcass measure- ments and quality scores, up to the inspection of different types of tissue in some small parts of a carcass. As fat content strongly affects the rations between different types of tissue in a carcass, several techniques and devices have been developed for measuring fat, of which the ultrasonic measuring device is the most delicate and the most widely used one. In measuring the thickness of back fat in pigs some very prominent results have been obtained. In cattle, however, no equally reliable results have been obtained especially when the fat cover has been thin. The use of different techniques and devices is no further discussed here, but it can be observed that the further the measurement and study technique develope, the more reliable information on live animal and carcass composition is obtained. Purpose of present study Although foreign results on the subject matter are relatively abundantly available, they are in their original form mostly unapplicable for Finnish conditions. Materials consist of foreign breeds, feeding is different, carcass classification methods differ from each other and from ours, etc. The greatest handicaps for comparison are, however, in the different cutting methods and quality requirements which vary between countries and seasons and which production finally has to adapt to. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether adequately accurate estimation of live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition with live measurements on young beef cattle is possible, and whether carcass composition quantities and percentages of meat, fat and bone can be estimated without decreasing the commercial value of the carcass at all or only slightly. 391 Material and methods Material The material comprised results of 10 separate experiments. Eight of them were conducted at the S. W. Finland Agricultural Experiment Station in 1963 70, and two at the North Ostrobothnia Agricultural Experiment Station in 1969 70. In experiments I—VI there were 205 about 1-year old steers and bulls, and in the experiments VII —X 174 bull calves reared till age of 165 days. In the present study the former are called 1-year olds and the latter y 2 -ye a t olds. The experiments were planned and supervised by the Institutes of Animal Breeding and Animal Husbandry of the Agricultural Research Centre. In the experiments for the 1-year olds the initial feeding was roughly taking equal, but thereafter the animals were arranged to several feeding groups, except in experiment I. The differencies in feeding were mainly based on the unequal portions of concentrates, the varying levels of nitrogen content on pasture and in green silage fodder, and on the various methods the silage fodder had been prepared. In experiments VII —IX feeding remained uni- form, in experiment X the effect of different portions of animal protein on the development of an animal was also studied. The calves were delivered for the experiments by the local A. I. Society and co-operative slaughterhouse. The attempt was to obtain the calves at I—2 weeks’ age which, however, did not always succeed especially with the crossbreds. In the experiments I and V the calves were born in spring and slaughtered the following spring. In the other experiments with 1-year olds the calves were born in autumn and slaughtered the following autumn at the end of pasture season, except in experiment IV where half of the animals stayed in the cow stable on indoor feeding over the summer. Calves in the experiments with %-years olds were all born in autumn. The purpose was that all the animals were sent for slaughter at the same age within experiment. Age differencies were levelled by gradating the slaugh- ters. The slaughter age for %-year olds was predetermined to 165 days and that of the others to about one year. Rearing till one year was justifiable especially in experiments IV, V and VI where there were progeny groups of phenotype tested bulls which had been tested at rearing stations at the age of one year. In some experiments also other criteria could have been considered for determining the moment of slaughter. Some of the most noteworthy being slaughter at same weight or at the same fatness degree, like in the study by Lindhe and Henningsson (1968). However, an accurate determination of fatness degree would have been impossible. On the other hand the circumstances favoured slaughter at same age, as the number of stalls available in the cow stable was quite restricted, and the calves for the following experiments could only be taken in after the animals in the previous experiments had been removed. In addition carcass dissection would have spread over a much longer period which would have been quite difficult to arrange in the slaughterhouses. The distribution of material by breed and experiment is presented in Tables 1 and 2. 392 Table 1. Distribution of material by experiment and breed. 1-year olds. S. W. Finland N. Ostrobothnia No. of Experiment Station Experiment Station animals I II 111 IV V VI Breed Ay.Ay 6 12 12 47 - 32 109 Fc.Fc 6 12 12 - 16 - 46 Ch.Ay 6 6 Ch.Fc 6 - 11 - - - 17 Fr.Fc - - 12 - 15 27 Total 24 24 47 47 31 32 205 Initial age, days 11 9 12 11 23 22 14.5 Deviation 4.5 3.3 3.4 4.0 16.7 7.5 Slaughter age, days 340 356 366 357 338 339 351.3 Deviation * 2.4 10.1 3.7 6.2 23.0 10.6 Feeding group 1 2 5 2 6 4 In experiment II the animals were castrated at approx. 8 months and in experiment 111 at approx. 4 months. Breeds: Ay = Ayrshire, Fc = Finncattle, Ch = Charolais, Fr = Friesian. Table 2. Distribution of material by experiment and breed. 1 /2-year olds. S. W. Finland Experiment Station No. of VII VIII IX X animals Breed Ay.Ay 6 14 10 14 44 Fc.Fc 6 14 10 14 44 Ch.Ay 6 14 10 13 43 Ch.Fc 6 14 10 13 43 Total 24 56 40 54 174 Initial age, days 15 11 10 8 10.4 Deviation * 6.6 5.8 8.8 2.2 Slaughter age, days 165 166 166 165 165.6 Deviation » 2,2 2.5 3.1 6.8 Feeding group 1114 Breeds: Ay = Ayrshire, Fc = Finncattle, Ch = Charolais, Fr = Friesian. Estimated traits and estimators Estimated traits: 1. Live weight 2. Carcass weight 3. Quantities and percentages of carcass meat, fat and bone. 393 Estimators: I Live measurements II Initial weight and daily gain during experiment 111 Carcass quality scores IV Live weight, carcass weight, dressing-%, by-products and, only for the %-years olds, cutting results of flanks V Cutting results of shanks VI Cutting results of fore and hind quarters VII Detailed cutting results of the carcasses Presentation of the results Because there are eight estimated traits and seven trait groups act as estimators the results are presented in the following order: 1. Definition and mean results of the estimated traits 2. Results obtained by each estimator (I —VII) are presented separately in the following order: a) Definition and mean results of the traits b) results of the stepwise regression analysis and discussion. Statistical analysis In order to minimize the errors caused by spurious correlations between traits, all the traits of each animal were corrected within experiment for age, feeding and breed. In order to estimate the correction factors and to examine the statistical significance of the variation caused by different factors age, feeding and breed the results of each experiment were first analysed with the least squares method (Harvey 1966). In the analysis the slaughter age is the independent variant and the breeds and feeding groups form the levels. With the regression coefficient each trait was corrected for age thus obtained to correspond the average age in the experiment. In the same way each trait was corrected for breed (or sire) and feeding deviation within experiment. All the corrections were made for each trait irrespective of whether the variation caused by the above mentioned factors was statistically significant or not. Corrections were made according to the following equation: Yo = x„ b(a o —a) —Xj x2. where: y 0 = corrected value of a trait x 0 = original, uncorrected value of a trait b = regression coefficient of age for the trait a 0 = slaughter age a = mean slaughter age in the experiment X! = breed (or sire) deviation for the trait x 2 = feeding deviation for the trait 394 In the stepwise regression analysis corrected values were used with which the best estimators (groups I —VII, page 393) to estimate the traits live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition. The steps were followed till the standard error of estimate started to increase, but only those steps (traits) are retained in the results which had a statistically significant value for the partial regression coefficient (b). With stepwise regression analysis the correlations between different traits (r), multiple correlations (R), partial regression coefficients (b) and standardised partial regression coefficients (beta) could be calculated. In discussion on the results it has to be considered that they were not analysed by breeds but the difference between breeds and also feedings are eliminated as carefully as possible with the correction factors obtained with the least squares method. It is impossible to check whether all the corrections are correct. Expecially the effect of age on different traits within a certain time period can not be determined because the deviation of age has been relatively large as in experiment V. Estimated traits Live weight In most experiments the live weight has been registered at the experiment station on the previous evening or the morning of transport to slaughterhouse. If the animals had been weighed on two or three consequent days before slaughter, mean of these has been used in the results. In all experiments the animals were transported to the slaughterhouse in the morning and slaugh- tered the same day. The animals were not on fast before slaughter. Carcass weight At the slaughterhouse the carcasses are weighed immediately after slaughter. An automatic scale reduces from this so called warm carcass weight 3 % to compensate for possible evaporation and drying losses. The weight thus obtained is carcass weight (= cold carcass weight) according to which the producer price is determined. All by-products, including kidney fats which in some countries remain in the carcass, are removed. Quantities and percentages of carcass meat, fat and hone Partition of different types of tissue Carcass weight is registered before dissection. In average, the registered weight lies between warm and cold carcass weight, the first ones dissected closer to the warm carcass weight. The percentages for the cutting results were calculated from this so called actual weight. If calculated from carcass weight the first ones would have received cutting gain, and the latter ones cutting loss. In the results, however, only cold carcass weight is presented because presenting several weights for one carcass would disturb further treatment of the results, especially as the percentage for by-products and the dressing-% are calculated from carcass weight according to present practice. Dissection was performed according to the routine, the so called commercial cutting scheme, practised by the co-operative slaughterhouses. Carcasses from the S.W. Finland Experiment Station were dissected at the S.W. Finland Co-operative Slaughterhouse (LSO) in Turku and the ones from N. Ostrobothn- ian Experiment Station in slaughterhouse Lihakunta in Oulu. Carcass cutting scheme is presented in Figure 1. Carcasses in experiment VII and VIII were not dissected. In experiments I, IX and X the carcasses were dissected according to Figure 1., where the carcasses were cut into fore and hind quarters between the seventh and the eighth rib. Hereafter the fore quarters was partitioned into briskets, fore back, shoulders, neck and fore shanks, and the hind quarters into the rounds with hind shanks, back, flanks and short plates. All parts were cut into meat, fat, bone and tendon selections. The outer and inner fillets1) and steaks separately including and excluding bones were weighed. Carcasses in experiments II —VI were also cut into fore and hind quarters as shown in Figure 1, but the quarters were partitioned no further but cut separately into tissue selections. However, in the hind quarters the outer fillets and the steaks including and excluding bones were weighed separately. In experiments II —VI the fore and hind shank on the right hand side, and in experi- ments I, IX and X both fore shanks but neither hind shank were removed from the carcass. (An accurate description of shank dissection is presented in Chapter V.) Although the cutting scheme is the same within the Co-operative Slaughter- house Organisation, some differencies appear in dissection technique. Except for shanks, dissection of the main cuts from the carcasses was the same in both slaughterhouses. In LSO meat was classified into Ist and Ilnd grades where the Ist one consisted almost entirely of meat and the Ilnd one included also some fats and fasciae. In Lihakunta, however, Ist, Ilnd and Illrd grades were dissected. In the present results all meat selections are combined making no distinction between grades. *1 outer fillet = Musculus longissimus dorsi MLD Fig. 1. CUTTING SCHEME OF A NEAT CARCASS 395 396 Means of estimated traits by experiment The means and standard deviations of live weight, carcass weight and carcass cutting results are presented by experiment in Tables 3, 4 and 5. In case all the animals represent the same breed or have a similar diet, no remark about the statistical significance of breed or feeding is made. Only in those experiments where sons of several sires are tested and the difference between sires has been statistically significant, a remark is made. In tables 37, 11, 14, 19, 23, 26 and 27 the means and standard deviations are calculated from corrected values. The statistical significance of variation caused by breed, feeding and age are calculated from original values. With 1-year olds (Table 3) the differencies between live weight and carcass weight between breeds were significant in all experiments. Instead, with y2 -year olds (Table 3) in experiments VIII and IX no statistically significant differencies in live weight appeared between breeds, therefore the differencies in carcass weights are due to the higher dressing-% of the crossbreds. In quantities of meat and bone the differencies between breeds (Table 4) were statistically significant with 1-year olds, whereas differencies in percent- ages were significant only in a few cases. Also differencies caused by age affected more clearly the quantities than the percentages. In experiment IV (Tables 3 and 4) the difference caused by feeding was statistically significant with almost all the traits. During the indoor feeding season half of the animals were on abundant concentrate diet and the other half on silage fodder diet. During summertime one half were continuously Table 3. Means and standard deviations of live and carcass weights by experiment. Statistical Statistical EJP ‘ Mean SD significance Mean gD significance No. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age X-year olds, n = 205 Live weight kg Carcass weight kg I 328 23.1 * - 168 12.3 - II 298 17.8 *** - 140 10.5 *** - 111 336 23.9 ** *** »* 158 12.2 ** **• ** IV 346 33.9 sires • *•* - 158 18.0 ••• - V 289 28.0 * - *• 134 14.2 * - * VI 273 18.1 - • 123 8.5 - - 1/ a-year olds, n = 174 Live weight kg Carcass weight kg VII 203 16.4 •» - 100 8.1 - VIII 200 16.2 - * 98 9.1 • * IX 188 17.1 - •• 93 9.5 * * X 216 14.3 •** *** *• 109 7.9 ••• *** ** Statistical significance: *P< 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. 397 indoor receiving abundantly concentrates and the other half were on mere pasture. During that period the growth rate of the two groups remained the same, difference in live weight had been gained already during indoor feeding period. However, animals in the first half carried about twice as much fats as in the second one. With t/2"Year °lds (Table 5) the diflerencies were statistically significant in quantities and percentages of meat and bone. In these experiments there were in addition to the purebred Ay- and Fc-calves also Charolais crossbreds which in earlier experiments usually were thicker fleshed and less bony than the purebreds (Ruohomäki and Varo 1967). Table 4. Cutting results of whole carcass. Means and standard deviations by experiment. 1-year olds n=2os Statistical Statistical XP ' Mean SD si gnificance Mean SD significance No. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age Meat-kg Meat-% I 129.7 10.3 ••• - 76.3 1.2 - - II 104.8 8.5 ••• - - 73.8 0.9 - - - 111 118.2 10.1 •• ••• •» 73.7 1.5 - - - IV 114.2 14.1 ••• - 71.5 1.4 *»* V 91.8 10.4 » - » 68.0 1.0 ** * - VI 93.2 6.9 - - 75.4 1.0 - - Fat-kg Fat-% I 6.3 1.4 - - 3.7 0.8 - - II 3.7 1.1 - - - 2.6 0.7 - - - 111 5.4 2.0 - • - 3.4 1.3 - - - IV 9.6 2.8 •** - 5.6 1.2 •»» - V 13.6 2.1 • » 10.1 1.3 * • - VI 0.5 0.3 - » 0.4 0.2 - • Bone-kg Bone-% I 30.9 2.3 * - 18.2 0.8 •• II 32.6 3.3 - - 21.1 0.8 - - - 111 32.5 2.9 - - •* 20.3 1,4 - - - IV 31.8 2.7 sires •* - - 20.2 1.6 **� - V 27.9 2.9 - • 20.7 0.9 - ** VI 28.7 1.9 - » 23.2 1.1 - - Tendons % Meat/Bone-ratio I 1.3 0.3 - - 4.20 0.18 » - II 2.4 0.7 - - - 3.49 0.15 - - - 111 2.4 0.4 * - - 3.64 0.29 - - - IV 2.5 0.3 - - 3.57 0.31 »»* - V 1.0 0.1 - * - 3.25 0.22 * ** - VI 0.8 0.1 - - 3.26 0.22 - - In all the tables the quantities are indicated: meat-kg, fat-kg, bone-kg and the percentages: meat-%, fat-% and bone-%. 398 Table 5. Cutting results of whole carcass. Means and standard deviations by experiment. 1/ a -year olds n = 94 Statistical Statistical E *p - Mean sn significance Mean sn significance No. f. ~ Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age Meat-kg Meat-% IX 68.6 7.6 * * 72.7 1.3 •• - X 82.6 6.4 *** *** ** 74.8 1.2 *** * Fat-kg Fat-% IX 3.4 0.8 - - 3.6 0.6 •* - X 3.4 1.0 - - - 3.1 0.8 - - - Bone-kg Bone-% IX 20.0 1.8 • - 21.3 1.2 •»* X 22.1 1.5 »** »** - 20.2 1.1 *** - * Tendons % Meat/Bone-ratio IX 2.3 0.4 - - 3.43 0.30 »• X 1.7 0.4 - - - 3.74 0.23 ••• - - Ist estimator: live measurements Measuring technique Before the measuring technique and results are presented some observations on the technique and errors by other researchers are explained. According to Weber (1957) the basic requirement for the measurements is that they are biologically reasonable. Regardless this were true, also the following sources of error were possible by Weber; 1) differencies between animals, 2) differencies between persons who perform the measuring, 3) differencies between animals and persons and 4) errors in the measurements by one person. It was observed that no errors occur provided the head and feet remain in one position. The greatest difficulties and inaccuracies under the practical circumstances are caused by the movements of the animal. In a study by Mather et al. (1959) 99 heifers and 52 cows were measured twice and the differencies in the measurements were compared. The difference was lowest in hip width, 0.5 % and the highest in the paunch girth, 5.8 %, except the body length of the heifers, 8.2 %. In a study by Touchberry and Lush (1950) the greatest errors occurred in the measurements of length and the smallest in the depth of chest. In the present study the measurements were taken of all the animals except the ones in experiments V and VI. Measurements were normally taken on 399 the day of live weight determination, or, if the animal was weighed on several consequent days, on one of these occasions. All the measurements were performed by the same person who also during the growth of the animals had measured them several times. Thus it can be supposed that there appears a minimum of measurement errors in this material. Live animal measurements are presented in Figure 2. Measurements 1— 5 are taken with a measuring stick and 6,7, 8, 10 and 13 with a measuring tape. Width of chest (3) has been measured on the back as the distance between the tips of the humerii and the width of back (4) as the distance between the hooks. Depth of chest (5) has been measured quite behind the front legs at the same point as the heart girth (6). Natural length (7) has been measured along the spine from withers till tail head, in the same way the oblique length (8) from the tip of humerus till tail head. The circum- ferencies of front and hind cannon (10 and 13) are taken with a measuring tape at the narrowest part of the cannon (metacarpus and metatarsus). The widths of the cannons (11 and 14) are taken at the same point with a sliding gauge with which also the widths of knee (9) and hock (12) are measured. Means of live measurements by experiment In Tables 6 and 7 means and standard deviations of live measurements are presented by experiment. The differencies in the widths of chest and back between breeds were statis- tically significant with both the 1-year olds (Table 6) and the y2-yea.r olds (Table 7). On the other hand no equally distinct differencies in measurements of length and height appeared between breeds. Almost all differencies between breeds on measurements of legs were statistically significant, some of them even between sires. Fig. 2. Diagram of the measurements Table 6. Means and standard deviations of live measurements by experiment. 1-year olds n = 142 Statistical Statistical Epx. Mean SD significance Mean SD significance No. cm cm cm cm Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1. Height at withers 2. Height of back I 111.1 3.4 - - 116.0 3.8 - - II 114.5 3.0 - - - 118.4 3.1 - - - HI 118.0 2.9 _ * ». 1.23.8 2.9 - • » IV 115.0 3.2 * - 119.2 3.5 sires •• - - 3. Width of chest 4. Width of back I 45.7 3.3 * - 42.0 2.0 *»* - II 38.3 2.8 *•• - 38.0 2.4 *** - HI 40.5 2.7 * * 38.9 2.0 *** »* ** IV 42.2 3.2 *** 40.5 2.4 - 5. Depth of chest 6. Heart girth I 59.5 1.7 - - 162.8 5.5 * - II 59.3 1.5 - - - 155.7 4.1 • _ _ 111 60.5 1.1 - *• »» 161.9 3.5 * •** •• IV 60.6 2.6 sires * ** 162.5 6.6 •** 7. Natural length 8. Oblique length I 114.6 5.0 - - 129.7 4.7 - - II 117.4 3.9 - - - 130.9 3.1 •• - HI 117.9 4.0 * ** 131.4 4.1 - ** IV 116.6 3.1 sires ** *** 130.7 4.8 ••• 9. Width of knee 12. Width of hock I 9.4 0.4 * 8.7 0.3 ** II 9.3 0.5 * - - 8.5 0.3 »»• - - HI 9.7 0.4 * *** *** 8.9 0.3 *** * IV 9.6 0.4 sires *** *** 8.8 0.4 sires 10. Circumf. of front cannon 11. Width of front cannon I 17.2 0.9 • - 6.0 0.2 *•* II 17.3 0.6 *•* ** • 5.9 0.2 *** 111 18.4 0.8 ** * 6.1 0.2 ** * ** IV 18.1 0.8 sires »» » « 6.1 0,3 sires **• ** 13. Circumf. of hind cannon 14. Width of hind cannon I 19.3 0.8 * - 7.3 0.3 ** - II 19.3 0.6 *** - 7.3 0.3 *** 111 20.3 0.9 *** •* * 7.5 0.3 *•* ** •* IV 19.9 0.8 sires ** 7.4 0.3 sires **� 400 Table 7. Means and standard deviations of live measurements by experiment. 1/ 2 -year olds n = 174 Statistical Statistical Exp. Mean SD significance Mean SD significance No cm cm cm cm Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1. Height at withers 2. Height of back VII 101.6 2.5 105.1 3.3 VIII 98.9 2.8 102.0 2.9 ** IX 98.2 3.2 - - 103.0 3.5 - - X 100.9 2.8 * * » 106.0 3.2 * »* _ 3. Width of chest 4. Width of back VII 33,0 1.8 •• - 30.8 0,9 *�» _ VIII 31.7 1.9 **• 31.0 1.6 *•* IX 31.9 2.8 • - 31.3 2.5 *• - X 36.0 2.5 *•* *** - 33.6 2.1 •* *** * 5. Depth of chest 6. Heart girth VII 47.7 1.6 - - 131.6 4.6 - - VIII 48.1 1.6 131.4 4.3 »* » IX 49,0 1.9 131.5 4.4 * X 50.1 2.1 �** * 137.5 4.7 * * 7. Natural length 8. Oblique length VII 101.5 3.0 115.1 2.6 VIII 100.6 4.1 »»» - 112.2 4.3 **• - IX 98.2 3.8 110.2 4.3 X 102.9 4.6 »** * 115.0 3.7 »»» *» 9. Width of knee 12. Width of hock VIII 8.5 0.3 *** 8.5 0.3 »•» VIII 8.4 0.3 *** 8.3 0.3 *»* ** IX 8.4 0.4 ** 8.2 0.3 *** X 8.8 0.4 * 8.3 0.4 ••• •» 10, Circumf. of front cannon 11. Width of front cannon VII 15.5 0.7 •• - 5.2 0.2 •* - VIII 15.4 0.7 5.1 0.2 IX 15.4 0.8 *•* - 5.1 0.3 * - X 15.7 0.8 •** ** 5.3 0.3 _ 13. Circumf. of hind cannon 14. Width of hind cannon VII 16.8 0.5 *�» � 6.3 0.2 •** VIII 16.6 0.5 ••• 6.1 0.2 •** IX 17.1 0.9 ••• 6.2 0.3 X 17.6 0,8 6.5 0.3 •** •• e 401 402 According to a study by Lindström and Maijala (1970) the following means of live measurements are presented of animals in a young bull rearing station: Age 365 days Ay Fc 395 animals 179 animals Heart girth 178 cm 173 cm Natural length 133 » 128 » Height at withers 119 » 118 » As these figures are compared with the ones of the 1-year olds presented in Table 6 it can be seen that the mean of the heart girth is here about 15 cm and the length about 14 cm larger than in the present study. Difference in height was only 3 cm. Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition with live measurements. In Tables 8, 9 and 10 also live weight has been one of the estimating factors (part b.). Where no additional information is obtained with live measurements, the results are omitted from the tables. Live weight. The R 2 x) obtained for live weight with live meas- urements was 87 % for the 1-year olds and 82 % for the x/2-year olds (Table 8, a). The most reliable estimators of live measurements for both age groups were the width of chest and the heart girth. With 1-year olds the second step was natural length but the value of its standardized regression coefficient was, however, lower than that of the heart girth and width of chest. With %-year olds the natural length was replaced by the oblique length, and the height of back with height at withers. The correlation of natural length on live weight was 0.659, and that of the oblique length 0.619 with the 1-year olds, with the 1/2-year olds the correla- tions were 0.510 and 0.546 respectively. The correlations of the height at withers and the height of back on live weight with 1-year olds were 0.542 and 0.598 and with x/2-year olds 0.548 and 0.562 respectively. As the correla- tions of these measurements on live weight are almost equal, the reliability of the estimation would hardly decrease if the natural length was used instead of the oblique length and the height at withers instead of height of back. Appli cation of fewer measurements would simplify the work and reduce errors. Interrelationships between live weight and live measurements have been investigated in several studies. The most common measurements taken have been heart girth, width of chest, depth of chest, height at withers, height of back and natural length. In the more accurate definition of the measurement points, however, differencies exist between different studies, which sometimes makes them incomparable. As materials consist of animals of different breeds and ages this naturally also reduces the possibilities of comparison. *) R 2 = Coefficient of Determination, (%) 403 The R 2 obtained for live weight with heart girth and natural length was 79 % which is very close to the one obtained in the study by Lindström and Maijala (1970) where the average Revalue obtained with the same traits was 81 % for both Ayrshire and Finncattle. Table 8. Result of stepwise regression analysis. a) Live measurements live weight and carcass weight. b) Live measurements and live weight carcass weight. Step x r R R 2 b ft 1-year olds, n = 142 y = Live weight, y = 331 kg a) 1. Heart girth 823 .823 67,7 1.928*** 0.370 2. Natural length 659 .889 79.0 1.720*** 0.250 3. Width of chest 790 .923 85.2 2.925*** 0.325 4. Width of hind cannon 665 .929 86.3 12.066** 0.131 5. Height of back 598 .932 86.9 0.748* 0.091 y = Carcass weight, y = 156 kg a) 1. Heart girth 806 .806 65.0 0.999*** 0.360 2. Width of chest 797 .871 75.9 1.729*** 0.361 3. Natural length 638 .910 82.8 0.933*** 0.255 4, Width of hind cannon 660 .918 84.3 7.448*** 0.152 b) 1. Live weight 938 .938 88.0 0.390*** 0.734 2. Width of back 742 .943 88.9 0.823** 0.127 3. Width of hock 380 .947 89,7 3.661** 0.092 4. Heart girth 806 .948 89.9 0.280* 0.101 1/ 2 -year olds, n = 174 y = Live weight, y = 203 kg a) 1. Heart girth 778 .778 60.5 0.973*** 0,275 2. Width of chest 752 .849 72.1 2.157*** 0.317 3. Height at withers 548 .884 78.1 I.oll*** 0.181 4. Width of hind cannon 621 .895 80.1 9.402*** 0.160 5. Oblique length 546 .903 81.5 0.585*** 0.145 6. Width of back 681 .908 82.4 1.112** 0.135 y = Carcass weight, y = 100 kg a) 1. Heart girth 779 .779 60.7 0.614*** 0.318 2. Width of chest 764 .856 73.3 1.431*** 0.385 3. Natural length 486 .878 77.1 0.305*** 0.143 4. Height at withers 492 .885 78.3 0.349** 0.114 5. Width of back 687 .890 79.2 0.557* 0.123 6. Width of knee 514 .893 79.7 2.039* 0.086 b) 1. Live weight 922 .922 85.0 0.383*** 0.700 2. Width of chest 764 .928 86.1 0.556*** 0.149 3. Heart girth 779 .932 86.9 0.270** 0.140 Statistical significance: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Table 9. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds a) Live measurements carcass composition. n = 142 b) Live measurements and live weight carcass composition. Step x r R R 2 b fi y = Meat-kg, y = 116.6 kg a) 1. Width of chest 796 .796 63.4 1.655»*» 0.431 2. Heart girth 783 .858 73.6 0.832»»* 0.374 3. Natural length 593 .886 78.5 0.732»** 0.250 b) 1. Live weight 906 .906 82.1 0.345»*» 0.809 2. Width of chest 796 .915 83.7 0.687*• 0.179 3. Height of back 459 .919 84.5 —0.394»* -0.113 4. Width of hock 357 .921 84.8 2.259» 0.070 y = Fat-kg, y = 6.6 kg b) 1. Depth of chest 506 .506 25.6 0.288»* 0.260 2. Width of hock -.182 .555 30.8 —1.999»»» —0.338 3. Live weight 478 .625 39.1 0.032»»* 0.414 y = Bone-kg, y = 32.0 kg a) 1. Width of hind cannon .643 .643 41.3 2.154*» 0.220 2. Natural length 626 .735 54,0 0.183»»» 0.252 3. Width of hock 562 .768 59.0 2.044»** 0.257 4. Height of back 574 .792 62.7 0.189*»» 0.219 5. Heart girth 518 .799 63.8 0.126» 0.132 b) 1. Live weight 671 .671 45.0 0.027»* 0.262 2. Width of hock 562 .764 58.4 2.260»»* 0.284 3. Height at withers 560 .788 62.1 0.164»* 0.179 4. Width of hind cannon .643 .797 63.5 1.665» 0.170 5. Natural length 626 .804 64.6 0.117* 0.161 y = Meat-%, y = 73.4 % a) 1. Width of chest 337 .337 11.4 0.136»* 0.302 2. Height of back -.117 .432 18.7 -0.139»** -0.340 3. Heart girth 319 .489 23.9 0.102»*» 0.394 4. Width of hind cannon 008 .515 26.5 —0.949* —0.205 y = Fat-%, y = 4.0 % a) 1. Width of hock -.294 .294 8.6 -0.965»** —0.319 2. Depth of chest 253 .406 16.5 0.159*»* 0.280 y = Bone-%, y = 20.1 % a) 1. Heart girth -.455 .455 20.7 -0.108**» -0.430 2. Width of hock 273 .587 34.5 1.423*** 0.394 3. Width of chest -.410 .631 39.8 -0.145*** -0.336 4. Height of back 014 .668 44.6 0.101»»» 0.258 404 Table 10. Result of stepwise regression analysis. Vg-year olds a) Live measurements carcass composition. n= 94 b) Live measurements and live weight carcass composition. Step X r R R 2 b p y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg a) 1. Width of chest 795 .795 63.2 1,057*** 0.406 2. Heart girth 740 .843 71.1 0.439*** 0.288 3. Natural length 401 .871 75.9 0.288** 0.177 4. Width of back 748 .885 78.3 0.724** 0.236 b) 1. Live weight 882 .882 77.8 0.269*** 0.602 2. Width of chest 795 .898 80.6 0.442* 0.170 3. Width of hock 333 .905 81.9 —2.736** —0.140 4. Heart girth 740 .912 83.2 0.226* 0.148 5. Width of back 748 .917 84.1 0.461* 0.150 y = Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg a) 1. Heart girth 507 .507 25.7 0.064** 0.319 2. Width of chest 501 .556 30.9 o.loB** 0.313 3. Height at withers 263 .572 32.7 0.102** 0.330 4. Height of back 128 .607 36.8 —o.oBo* —0.289 y ' Bone-kg, y = 21.2 kg a) 1. Width of knee 730 .730 53.3 1.015** 0.249 2. Depth of chest 614 .801 64.2 0.169** 0.206 3. Circumf. of hind cannon 605 .832 69.2 0.389** 0.200 4. Width of back 581 .857 73.4 0.142** 0.196 5. Width of hock 692 .875 76.6 1.074** 0.233 6. Oblique length 508 .885 78.3 0.063** 0.153 b) 1. Live weight 796 .796 63.4 0.046*** 0.440 2. Width of knee 730 .867 75.2 0.819** 0.201 3. Width of hock 692 .881 77.6 0.993** 0.216 4. Height of back 568 .892 79.6 0.068* 0.137 5. Circumf. of hind cannon 605 .898 80.6 0.263** 0.135 y = Meat-%, y = 73.9 % a) 1. Width of chest 284 .284 8.1 o.lBB*** 0.399 2. Width of hock -.232 .444 19.7 —l.27o*** —0.360 y = Fat-%, y = 3.3 % a) 1. Heart girth 305 .305 9.3 0.049** 0.305 y = Bone-%, y = 20.6 % b) 1. Width of chest —.449 .449 20.2 —o.lBs*** —0.442 2. Width of hock 280 .635 40.3 1.482*** 0.474 3. Circumf. of hind cannon 153 .668 44.6 0.397** 0.299 4. Live weight —.298 .694 48,2 —0.025* —0.347 405 406 Gravir (1967) obtained an R 2 of 69 % for live weight with seven live measurements on 360-days old bulls, 57 % of this value was determined by heart girth alone. In the study be Skjervold (1958) several live measurements were taken. The correlations between six live measurements and live weight varied within 0.70-0.75. In the last two studies the R 2 and the correlations remained somewhat lower than in the present study. On the other hand, the results obtained in this study were on the same level as in the study by Huth (1965), where the material consisted of 211 1-year old bulls. The following correlations were obtained: Live weight height of back and withers, mean r = 0.631 depth of chest r = 0.751 heart girth r = 0.859 width of back r = 0.836 Correlations on the measurements of width are higher than on those of height. In the study by Johansson and Hildeman (1953) the heart girth, width of hips, height at withers, natural length and hind girth were measured on 10 000 animals. For 1175 1/2-year olds and 171 young steers the correlations heart girth by live weight were 0.892 0.951. No additional information was obtained with other measurements. The values varied even within one breed depending on the material, for the big animals the values were higher than for the small. In estimation of weight by heart girth the standard error was ±6 % in live weight and % in carcass weight. In weighing of live animals the standard error varied between i 1 and ± 2 %• For carcass weight (Table 8, a) the R 2 remained nearly 3 % lower for both age groups than for live weight. In both age groups the highest estimates were provided by width of chest, heart girth and natural length. In the earlier mentioned study by Gravir an R 2 of 65 % for carcass weight was obtained with several live measurements. In the study by Johansson and Hildeman the correlation between heart girth and carcass weight varied between 0.857 0.945. In a study by Buss (1968) the correlations of heart girth and carcass weight laid between 0.661 and 0.325. In a study by Lindhe (1968) the material consisted of 218 animals, steers of six different breeds and crossbreds. The regression between heart girth and carcass weight varied by breed between 2.67 and 3.36 (SE 9.3—16.1 kg), and between heart girth and live weight from 4.83 to 6.46 (SE 19.5—29.3 kg). In several studies the correlations between live weight and carcass weight have been estimated. The correlations obtained by Johansson and Hildeman were from 0.880 to 0.968 with 1/2-year olds and with young steers. Buss obtained correlations of 0.783, 0.664 and 0.636 for the three breeds respectively. Seebeck and Tulloh (1966) also observed in their study that carcass weight was directly dependent on live weight, and that dressing-% increases with the live weight. In the present study the correlations between live weight and carcass weight were with the measured 1-year olds 0.938 (with all the 1-year olds 0.940) and with 1/2-year olds 0.922 (with the dissected 1/2-year olds 0.924). If it is possible to determine live weight through weighing, this alone provides a higher R 2 for carcass weight than live measurements. An R 2 of 88 % was obtained for 1-year olds and 85 % for olds (Table 8, b). In both age groups the live measurements increased the R 2 obtained with live weight only by about 2 %-units. When carcass weight was estimated with mere live weight, the value of the regression coefficient (b) for both age groups was 0.50, thus if the live weight increases by one kilo, the carcass weight increases by 500 grams. Like in the estimation of carcass weight the first three estimators for meat-kg were heart girth, width of chest and natural length for the 1-year olds (Table 9, a). The same value for R 2 for the 1/2-year olds. 78 %, was obtained with the above mentioned measurements and with the width of back (Table 10, a). If the live weight is known in the estimation of meat-kg this alone provides an R 2 of 82 % for the 1-year olds (Table 9, b) and 78 % for the 1/2-year olds (Table 10, b). If the measurements are also included this gives additional information from 3 to 6 %-units. In the study by Varo (1969) the material consisted of purebred Ayrshire and Finncattle of varying ages together with Charolais crosses. Among young animals the carcass meat quantity was best estimated by the ratio of carcass weight and size (= total of 10 measurements), the R was 0.949. When the older animals were concerned the best estimator of meat quantity was carcass weight, r = 0.97. Foreign results are seldom comparable to the present ones because cutting practices in different countries differ from each other. Differencies are apparent in comparison of the Finnish (Fig. 1) and the American (Fig. 3) carcass cutting schemes (Laine 1971). Also other cutting schemes from other countries could be included as all of them differ from each other, and from the one used in Finland, to an extent which makes comparison almost impossible. In several studies the quantities and percentages of the primal cuts in the whole carcass are investigated. In comparison of the results the differencies in partitioning are of no significance when the quantities Fig. 3. WHOLESALE CUTS IN THE 407 408 and percentages of meat, fat and bone of the whole carcass are compared. Of the other results should also be mentioned those by Skjervold (1958). With height over hips and width of rounds a correlation of R = 0.68 was obtained for the hind quarter, which was separated from the right hand side half between the 13th rib and the Ist lumbar vertebra. In addition to this when six measurements were included the correlation rose to R = 0.71. On the weight of the fore quarter the correlations were lower than the ones mentioned above. The material by Busch et al. (1969) consisted of 181 steers. The mean yield of edible meat from one half of a carcass was 85.6 kg. The correlations of girth measurements on the quantity of edible meat remained between 0.41 and 0.81, and on the measurements of width 0.42—0.70, and on the measure- ments of length, 0.62 respectively. The correlation on carcass weight was 0.94. In the whole material (745 animals) carcass weight estimated the quantity of edible meat till 75 —BB %, the measurements increased the coefficient by 24 %-units. In the present study the R 2 for fat-kg of 39% was obtained for the 1-year olds (Table 9, b) and of 37 % for the 1/2-year olds (Table 10, a). In estimation of bone-kg the R 2 of 78 % was obtained for the 1/2-year olds (Table 10, a) and 64 % for the 1-year olds (Table 9, a). For both the age groups several measurements were required to obtain the above mentioned values for R 2. An accurate determination of the measuring sites cause difficulties in practice. In both age groups rather low values were obtained for R 2 on mea t - % and fat-% (Tables 9 and 10). For bone-% an R 2 of 45 % was obtained for both age groups. In the study by Neiman—Sorensen et al. (1965) eight live measurements were taken. The results are presented together with those by Nielsen (1962) obtained with 243 calves of the same breed. Neiman —Sorensen: Meat-% Fat-% Bone-% R 2 (%) 6 2.5 13 Nielsen; Width ot back, r = -0.038 0.081 -0.041 Width ot rounds r = 0.046 —O.Oll —0.050 The correlations above are considerably lower than the ones obtained in the present study. In the study by Tallis et al. (1959) the obtained correlations for edible meat-% were: weight/height r = 0.45 and weight/width r = —0.43. In the study by Orme et al. (1959 c) the correlations between carcass girths and the percentages of the primal cuts varied between —0.42 —0.53. Ilnd estimator: initial weight and daily gain Initial weight (weight at the beginning of the experiment) The calves were weighed the day they were brought to the experiment station. Weights at birth are not known. Initial weights have been correc- ted by experiment for initial age unlike the other traits which were corrected for slaughter age. Daily gain during experiment gr.jday. Daily gain was calculated according to the following model: Live weight at the end of exp. Initial weight Slaughter age Initial age In calculations, no other figures for growth have been employed but the one for growth during experiment, because some calves were born in spring and the others in autumn. In the experiments the calves were of different ages at the first indoor feeding and pasture period. The calves born in spring started pasturing at about 3 months and the ones born in autumn at about 8 months. Means of initial weights and daily gains by experiment Table 11 presents the means and standard deviations of initial weights and daily gains by experiment. Daily gain of the 1/2-year olds was 200 gr. higher than that of the 1-year olds. In the experiments for the 1/2-year olds all the calves were born in autumn Table 11. Means and standard deviations of initial weight and daily gain by experiment. Statistical Statistical Mean SD significance Mean gD significance Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 205 Initial weight kg. Daily gain during experiment gr./day I 42.1 4.7 - - 873 69 - II 38.1 2.8 •* - 749 47 *•* 111 39.7 3.9 ••• 840 62 * • IV 42.1 4.4 sires *»* - ** 877 96 »** V 43.3 8.7 - - • 779 83 * - - VI 43.2 4.6 - • 728 60 - - */ 2-year olds, n =94 Initial weight kg. Daily gain during experiment gr./day IX 40.1 4.0 *•* ••• 940 96 X 41.7 4.5 *•* - - 1104 95 * *•* 409 410 and received ample portions of fodder under almost uniform circumstances at the S.W. Finland Experiment Station. The experiments for the 1-year olds consisted of both steers and bulls. In several of them growth during the pasture period was low. Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of carcass weight and carcass composition with initial weight and daily gain. For carcass weight the R 2 obtained was 86 % for the 1-year olds and 77 % for the x/2-year olds. The respective values for meat-kg were 79 % and 71 % (Table 12). The R 2 obtained for fat- k g was 24 % for the 1-year olds and 29 % for the x/2-year olds. The R 2 for bone-kg were 52 % and 56 % respectively. (Table 12). Table. 12. Result of stepwise regression analysis. Initial weight and daily gain during experiment carcass weight and carcass composition. Step x r R R 2 b /? 1-year olds, n = 205 y = Carcass weight1), y = 156 kg. 1. Daily gain, gr./day 907 .907 82.3 0.163*** 0.857 2. Initial weight, kg 410 .929 86,3 0.735*** 0.208 y = Meat-kg, y = 109 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 884 .884 78.1 0.125*** 0.864 2. Initial weight, kg 277 .889 79.0 0.206** 0.098 y = Fat-kg, y = 6.7 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 492 .492 24.1 o.ol2*** 0.492 y = Bone-kg, y = 30.9 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 667 .667 44.5 0.022*** 0.610 2. Initial weight, kg 401 .719 51.7 0.146*** 0.275 1/ 2-year olds, n = 94 y = Carcass weight, y = 102 kg. 1. Daily gain, gr./day 840 .840 70.6 o.o7l*** 0.786 2. Initial weight, kg 428 .880 77.4 0.537*** 0.263 y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 802 .802 64.3 0.055*** 0.749 2. Initial weight, kg 417 .843 71.1 0.429*** 0.263 y = Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 542 .542 29.4 o.oos*** 0.542 y = Bone-kg, y = 21.2 kg 1. Daily gain, gr./day 707 .707 50.0 o.ol2*** 0.656 2. Initial weight, kg 383 .748 56.0 0.096*** 0.249 !) n = 142 411 The correlations and regressions on the percentages of meat, fat and bone were quite low and therefore excluded from the calculations. Daily gain was the first step in the estimation of all the traits. The correla- tions of initial age on all the traits was low and negative. The different stages of growth have been abundantly studied in studies on both breeding and management. Determination of optimal growth is in key position considering the profitability of rearing beef cattle, as differencies between breeds and management and the genetic variation have a decisive effect on the final result. Only a few results of interrelations between the traits in question are presented here, as in the present study no other measurements for growth have been used but daily gain during experiment. In the study by Lindström and Maijala (1970) the following correlations were obtained between the weight at birth, at 180 days and at 365 days. Ay Fc 335 animals 200 animals Weight at birth r r 2 r r 2 180 days 0.608 37 % 0.588 34 % - 365 days 0.537 29 % 0.413 17 %/O 301 animals 142 animals The relation between birth weight and 180-day weight is considerably stronger than between birth weight and 365-day weight. The correlation between growth from 60-days to 180-days, and from 180-days to 365-days is nonsignificant. In the present study the correlations between initial weights and live weights are considerably lower than the ones obtained by Lindström and Maijala between weight at birth and live weight. With initial weight an R 2 of only 16 %on 165-day age, and of 11 %on 1-year were obtained. The mean initial age for the 1-year olds was 11 days and for the 1/2-year olds 9 days. In Table 13 some results on the interrelation between growth and various carcass traits found in the literature are presented with the results of present study. When the correlations between growth and the other traits from present study are compared to the ones presented in other studies it can be noticed that the correlations for growth found in this study especially on quantities are higher than the ones found in literature. Illrd estimator: carcass quality scores Evaluation technique The carcasses were evaluated after ca. 24 hours from slaughter. One person, who was uninformed of the breed or feeding group of the carcass, evaluated all the carcasses. The estimation was performed according to the practice in the slaughterhouse organisation. [The procedure has been applied since 1960, and the Meat Industrial Research Centre takes care of its further Table 13. The correlations of daily gain on live and carcass weight and carcass composition found in the literature. Blackwell et ai. 1962 du Bose et ai. 1967 Brackelsberg & Willham 1968 Dietert 1969 Hinks & Bech Ander- sen 1968 Martin & Starken- burg 1965 Nielsen 1962 Swiger et ai. 1965 Wismer-Pedersen 1969 Present study I—* I Live weight 76 .35 75 .976 .925 Carcass weight 72 .44 .907 .840 Boneless steak and roast kg .45 ___ Boneless steak and roast % .11 Primal yield % - .15 Boneless retail cut kg - .65 Boneless retail cut % —.35 Meat-kg - - - .884 .802 Meat-% - - -.21 - .0 -.04 .136 - .0- .287 .182 .23 Fat-kg - - - - - -- .36 - .492 .542 Fat-% - - .23 - .06 - .058 - -.37 .127 .321 -.10 Bone-kg .667 .707 Bone-% - - -.21 - -.05 - -.252 - - -.395 -.305 development. The last slight changes were made in 1969. Since 1972 a new evaluation technique has been employed which partly differs from the one described here. In evaluation of carcass fleshiness attention is paid to the following parts: outer, inner and overall steak lines, rump, sirloin, fore back, neck, shoulders, brisket + flanks and hind shanks. The mean of the points given to these ten parts is presented as fleshiness scores graded from 1 to 15, like each individual score of fleshiness given to an evaluated part in a carcass. The scale for fat content and distribution was from 7 till + 4, where points below one indicated a too high fat content. The colours of meat and fat are estimated both separately from 3 to +5. Colour points are means of colour points for fat and meat. Fleshiness scores + fat content colour points build up the total score according to which the carcass quality class is determined. The total scores correspond to the carcass quality classes as follows: 22 points class 20 * * 18 * * 16 * � 14 * * 12 * » 10 » » E (10) I + ( 9) I (8) I - ( 7) II + ( 6) II (5) II - ( 4) 412 413 In brakets is given the numerical value used in punch cards, which are also used in tables to indicate carcass quality class. Steers, young bulls and y2 -year olds are evaluated according to the same scale. Some carcasses, however, were so scarce in fat that fat colour could not be evaluated, thus it was excluded from all results. Still, it is included in colour points as the mean of fat and meat colour. Means of carcass quality scores by experiment Table 14 presents the means and standard deviations of carcass quality scores by experiment. The carcass evaluation system has been especially critisized as it follows the shape of the carcass but provides no information of the quantities and percentages of different types of tissue. Also in the present material, dif- ferencies between breeds are largely caused by differencies in shape as carcasses of crossbred animals differ from the purebreds to an extent which affects especially the evaluation of the hind quarters. On the other hand crossbred carcasses contained more meat than purebreds, but the Finncattle carcasses generally obtained the lowest scores because of the narrow shape of their hind quarters, although their meat content usually was as high as that of the Ayrshires (Ruohomäki 1967, Ruohomäki and Varo 1967). Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of carcass composition with carcass quality scores. In addition to quality scores also carcass weight has acted as one estimator of other carcass traits (Tables 15 and 16). With carcass quality scores for meat-kg the R 2 obtained was 47 % for the 1-year olds (Table 15, a) and 59 % for the x/2 -year olds (Table 16, a). When carcass weight was taken as an estimator of meat-kg in addition to the carcass quality scores this alone improved the value of R 2 up to 96 % in both age groups. Quality scores increased the R 2 by only 0.6 %-units for the 1-year olds (Table 15, b), and 1% -unit for the %-year olds (Table 16, b). The standardized regression coefficient was for the 1-year olds about 20 times and for the y2 -year olds about 10 times as high as that of the scores. When carcass weight alone estimated the meat-kg, the value of the regression coefficient (b) was 0.7757*** for the 1-year olds, and 0.7960*** for the Yz-year olds. It can be seen that if carcass weight increases by one kilo the meat-kg increases by about 800 grams. Carcass quality scores have no significance in esti- mation of meat-kg if carcass weight is known. Table 17 presents the results of the stepwise regression analysis for the 1-year olds by steps when meat-kg has been estimated with carcass weight and carcass quality scores. The R 2 increases only by 0.6 % with the scores of shoulders and not at all with the fleshiness scores. The standard error of the estimates (SE i 2.053) 414 Table 14. Means and standard deviations of carcass quality scores by experiment. Statistical Statistical E M XP' Mean SD significance Mean SD significance No. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 205 Fleshiness scores Fat content and distribution I 13.4 0.5 *»* - 3.8 0.4 - - II 9.9 1.2 •• - - 2.8 0.6 • _ _ 111 10.6 1.0 »* - 3.4 0.5 - - - IV 11.6 1.0 - 3.0 0.7 - - V 10.0 1.1 »» * _ 3.5 0.4 - - - VI 10.2 1.1 - - 2.9 0.3 - - Colour of meat Colour points total I 4.0 0.8 * - 4.4 0.7 - - II 3.3 0.7 • - - 3.3 0.7 • - - 111 4.0 0.8 - - - 4.1 0.8 - - - IV 3.7 0.6 *»» - 3.8 0.5 - V 3.9 0.6 - - - 4.5 0.3 - - - VI 3.0 0.3 - - 3.1 0.3 - - Points total l) Carcass class I 21.6 1.0 ••• - 9.5 0.4 **• - II 16.0 2.2 •» - - 7.0 1.1 »» - - 111 18.1 1.8 • 8.1 0.9 ••• - - IV 18.3 1.7 - 8.3 0.8 - V 18.0 1.2 **• •* - 7.9 0.7 »* * - VI 16.1 1.4 - - 7.4 0.8 - - 1/2-year olds, n = 94 Fleshiness scores Fat content and distribution IX 10.9 1.2 - 3.7 0.5 - - X 12.2 1.1 *»* - - 3.7 0.5 - - - Colour of meat Colour points total IX 4.7 0.5 - - 4.8 0.5 - - X 4.7 0.7 - - - 4.8 0.4 - - * Points total *) Carcass class IX 19.3 1.7 »»* - 8.5 0.9 *»* - X 20.8 1.5 »»* - » 9.1 0.8 - • J) Value 7 corresponds to carcass class I—, value Bto carcass class I and value 9to carcass class I+ . Table 15. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds a) Carcass quality scores carcass composition. n = 205 b) Carcass quality scores and carcass weight carcass composition. Step x r li R 2 b 0 y = Meat-kg, y = 109 kg a) 1. Fleshiness scores 686 .686 47.1 7.158**» 0.686 b) 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.738*** 0.933 2. Shoulders 430 .983 96.6 0.312* 0.045 3. Fleshiness scores 686 .983 96.6 0.474* 0.045 y = Fat-kg, y = 6.7 kg a) 1. Colour of meat 290 .290 8.4 0.742*** 0.259 2. Fleshiness scores 266 .370 13.7 1.029*** 0.542 3. Hind shanks 116 .391 15.3 —0.307* —0.234 4. Shoulders 103 .415 17.2 -0.240* -0.193 b) 1. Carcass weight 484 .484 23.4 o.oB4*** 0.586 2. Colour of meat 290 .556 30.9 o.B3l*** 0.290 3. Hind shanks 116 .585 34.2 —0.283** —0.215 y = Bone-kg, y = 30.9 kg a) 1. Hind shanks 342 .342 11.7 0.490»** 0.267 2. Outer steak line 341 .386 14.9 0.553*•• 0.298 3. Colour of meat —.141 .430 18.5 —0.735»* —0.183 4. Shoulders 083 .432 18.7 —0.294* —0.168 b) 1. Carcass weight 731 .731 53.4 0.177*** 0.884 2. Fleshiness scores 314 .762 58.1 —l.4s3*** —0.548 3. Colour of meat —.141 .774 59.9 —0.562** —0.140 4. Hind shanks 342 .784 61.5 0.373** 0.203 5. Outer steak line 341 .793 62.9 0.360** 0.193 y = Meat-%, y = 72.9 % a) 1. Fleshiness scores 499 .499 24.9 0.455*** 0.374 2. Shoulders 451 .520 27.0 0.167* 0.210 3. Colour points total —.075 .541 29.3 —0.313* —0.150 y = Fat-%, y = 4.4 % b) 1. Colour points total 332 .332 11.0 0.604*** 0.350 2. Hind shanks —.085 .352 12.4 —0.154** —0.222 3. Carcass weight 088 .390 15.2 0.014* 0.196 y = Bone-%, y = 20.7 % b) 1. Fleshiness scores —.555 .555 30.8 —l.oB4*** —0.916 2. Colour of meat —.300 .599 35.9 —o.4l4*** —0.232 3. Hind shanks —.319 .619 38.3 0.232*** 0.283 4. Outer steak line —.342 .637 40.6 0.245*** 0.296 5. Carcass weight —.446 .654 42.8 —o.olB** —0.204 6. Brisket and flank —.261 .663 44.0 0.122* 0.140 415 416 Table 16. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1/ 2 -year olds a) Carcass quality scores carcass composition. n= 94 b) Carcass quality scores and carcass weight carcass composition. Step x r R R a b /? y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg a) 1, Fleshiness scores 718 .718 51.6 4.714*** 0.763 2. Overall steak line 635 .738 54.5 0.989* 0.208 3. Sirloin 222 .753 56.7 -1.055* -0.178 4. Rump 314 .765 58.5 -0.862* -0.177 b) 1. Carcass weight 982 .982 96.4 0.734*** 0.917 2. Fleshiness scores .718 .985 97.0 0.649** 0.105 3. Neck 528 .986 97.2 0.239* 0.055 4. Carcass quality class .585 .987 97.4 —0.466* —0.055 y = Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg a) 1. Points total 435 .435 18.9 0.559*** 0.945 2. Carcass quality class .308 .490 24.0 —0.621* —0.556 y = Bone-kg, y = 21.2 kg a) 1. Hind shanks 337 .337 11.4 0.415** 0.337 b) 1. Carcass weight 773 .773 59.8 0.199*** 1.041 2. Fore back 089 .844 71.2 -0.326*** -0.283 3. Shoulders 199 .858 73.6 -0.197** -0.218 y = Meat-%, y = 73.9 % a) 1. Fleshiness scores 560 .560 31.4 0.431** 0.385 2. Overall steak line 519 .585 34.2 0.210* 0.243 y = Fat-%. y = 3.3 % a) 1. Points total 274 .274 7.5 0.352** 0,748 2. Carcass quality class 167 .344 11.8 —0.460* —0.518 y = Bone-%, y = 20.6 % a) 1. Fleshiness scores —.676 .676 45.7 —0.277* —0.279 2. Fore back -.675 .720 51.8 -0.243** -0.310 3. Neck -.636 .735 54,0 -0.154* -0.222 is in the first step (3 x SE) 12.318 kg and in the third step correspondingly 11.562 kg. The remaining difference is only about 0.750 kg, therefore no signif- icant improvement appears in carcass evaluation when carcass quality scores are included (Table 17). In estimation of fat-kg the significance of the scores was quite low (Tables 15 and 16). The correlation of fat content scores on fat-kg was 0.065 for the 1-year olds and 0.308 for the year olds. With carcass quality scores an R 2 of 11—l9 % was obtained on bone- kg (Tables 15, a and 16, a). When the carcass weight was included the value Table 17. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds Carcass quality scores and carcass weight meat-kg. n = 205 Step x r R R 2 b 0 y = Meat-kg, y = 109 kg 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.7757**» 0.9809 standard error of estimation ± 2.053 kg 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.7750*** 0.9547 2. Shoulders 430 .983 96.6 0.4741**» 0.0961 standard error of estimation ± 1.943 kg 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.7385*** 0.9339 2. Shoulders 430 .983 96.6 0.3125** 0.0455 3. Fleshiness scores 686 .983 96.6 0.4740* 0.0455 standard error of estimation ± 1.927 kg increased to 63 % with the 1-year olds (Table 15, b) and to 74 % with the olds (Table 16, b). In estimation of mea t - % an R 2 of 19 % was obtained with 1-year olds and 34 % with %-year olds (Tables 15 and 16). In estimation of fat - % Revalues of 12 % and 15 % were obtained respectively (Tables 15 and 16). For bon e % an R 2 of 44 % for the 1-year olds and 54 % for the 34~y ear olds were obtained (Tables 15 and 16). Carcass quality scores are particularly developed to serve commercial purposes. The price for meat is in each country determined by consumption habits which are different from country to country and in different times. For this reason the evaluation methods differ to such a great extent from each other. The common factor among them is, however, that they take into consideration carcass weight, the age and sex of the animal, meat and fat content and often also the colour of meat and fat. As several weaknesses have been found in the evaluation methods they are being developed to meet their purpose better. Evaluation is sense-dependent and therefore also the possibility of misevaluation is greater than in methods based on measurements and weights. During the last few years in the newly applied methods also some measurements are included together with the scores. For example, measurement of the thickness of fat cover area of the MLD and weight of the intestinal fats. It is found in several investigations that carcass evaluation based on mere sense-dependent evaluation meets the requirements of scientific study no better than live animal evaluation. Correlations collected from the literature between carcass quality scores and different carcass traits are presented in Table 18. Also correlations obtained in present study are included. 3 417 418 Table 18. Correlations between carcass quality scores and carcass weight and composition found in the literature. Fleshiness Fat content and Points scores distribution total *) 8) Carcass weight Brännäng 1966 .42 .45 .42 Cundiff et al. 1964 .16 Wilson et al. 1964 .15 Present study 1-yr. .652 .141 .478 i/j-yr. .628 .289 .593 Fat-kg Gottsch et al. 1961 .75 Swiger et al. 1965 .31 Varo 1969 R = .518 Present study 1-yr. .266 .065 .284 V,-yr. .360 .308 .435 Boneless steak and roast % du Bose et al. 1967 —.16 Primal yield % Dietert 1969 .15 Retail cut % Cundiff et al. 1964 —.34 Swiger at al. 1965 —.44 Meat-% Hinks & Bech Andersen 1968 .28 .44 —.24 .35 Martin & Starkenburg 1965 . —.26 Neiman-Sorensen et al. 1965 ... .36 .34 —.13 .29 Nielsen 1962 .359 .341 .291 Present study 1-yr. .499 .062 .318 V a-yr. .560 .123 .467 Fat-% Martin & Starkenburg 1965 ... —.16 Neiman-Sorensen et al. 1965 ... .07 —.09 .35 .002 Nielsen 1962 —.069 —.094 .014 Present study 1-yr. .036 .070 .158 Va-yr. .176 .262 .274 Bone-% Neiman-Sorensen et al. 1965 ... —.41 —.36 —.23 —.37 Nielsen 1962 -.408 -.360 -.414 Present study 1-yr. —.555 —.145 —.499 Va-yr. -.676 -.225 -.622 V for the fore quarter, 2 ) for the hind quarter except in present study for both quarters 419 When the correlations in Table 18 are compared with each other it can be found that they largely vary between studies and even within present study. Especially correlations on fat content with 1-year olds are dissimilar to the ones with %-year olds. Generally taking interrelations are weak, according to some studies even nonsignificant, as the most accurate information on meat-kg is provided by carcass weight and in estimation of other traits the scores provide only low accuracies. As already stated one of the weakest points in evaluation is that it follows the shape of the carcass. The shape is also affected by the dimensions of skeleton as Skjervold (1958) mentions in his study. According to a study by Hammond (1958) the short and plump animals have thicker muscles than the long and narrow ones. Thickly fleshed car- casses endure keeping better and processed meat is also tastier than meat obtained from thinly fleshed carcasses. Also Witt (1965) in his study presents that the smaller surface area com- pared to the volume of the muscle the more economical and tastier the meat is after processing. Also de Boer et al. (1969) and Pirchner (1965) have expressed similar opinions. Meat-kg is not only a quantitative but also a qualitative trait as with the increase in meat content the bone content decreases and larger muscles are more valuable than the small ones. Also results of the present study and earlier ones with Charolais crossbreds have shown that they comprise more meat and less bone than purebreds. They obtain higher quality scores, too, which proves that at least in these breed comparisons the plump shape of the carcass has indicated higher meat content (Ruohomäki 1967, Ruohomäki and Varo 1967). As a conclusion it can be stated that information of carcass traits obtained with carcass quality scores is inadequate and that beside sense-dependent evaluation or instead of that an evaluation method which is entirely based on measurements and weights should be developed. The evaluation method applied since the beginning of 1972 can not be compared to the present one as no carcass dissection was performed in the last experiments. IVth estimator: live weight, carcass weight, dressing-%, by-products and, only for the 1/2-year olds, cutting results of flanks Determination of live weight and carcass weight has already been ex- plained with the estimated traits. In the present chapter they act as estimators with dressing-%, by-products and flank cutting results. Dressing-% Dressing-% (carcass yield) is calculated as the ratio of carcass weight to live weight. In several studies the dressing-% has been calculated of the warm carcass weight which often makes it higher in foreign studies. Kidney fats which remain in the carcass for their part also increase the dressing-%. 420 By-products In connection with slaughter the head, tongue, lungs, liver, heart, dia- phragm, bowel and kidney fats, kidneys, spleen, skin and thyroid gland were weighed in most experiments. In calculations, however, only the head, liver, heart and kidney fats were included. In experiments I —IV, IX and X also bowel fats were weighed. The percentage of by-products was calculated from carcass weight. Dissection of flanks The flanks were dissected from the carcasses of the %-year olds and parti- tioned into meat and fat flanks comprise no bones. The flanks were dissected according to the scheme in Figure 1. Means of dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks by experiment Table 19 presents the means and standard deviations of dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks. Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of carcass composition with live weight, dressing-%, by-products and cutting results of flanks. The R 2 for meat - k g increased only by 0.4 %-units in both age groups from the value obtained with mere carcass weight (Tables 20 and 21). The R 2 for fat-kg for 1-year olds (n = 142) was 62 % (Table 20) and for 1/2-year olds 48 % (Table 21), when the traits in a) acted as estimators. When in the estimation of fat-kg the traits mentioned in b) were estimators an R 2 of 60 % was obtained for the 1-year olds (Table 20). The standardized regression coefficient for kidney fat (kg) was when calculated in both ways about twice as high as that of the other estimators. When fat-kg was estimated for the 1/2-year olds with carcass weight, kidney and bowel fats plus cutting results of flanks, an R 2 of 70 % was obtained (Table 21, b). With mere fat-kg in flanks alO % higher value for R 2 was obtained than the one obtained with all the traits in a). Bowel fats would have been the fourth step in the stepwise regression analysis but the value of the regression coefficient was nonsignificant. The correlation of bowel fat (kg) on carcass fat-kg was 0.630 for the 1-year olds and only 0.181 for the 1/2-year olds. inclusion of bowel fats increases the R 2 of fat-kg for 1-year olds approxima- tely by 3 %-units and, as the regression coefficient for the 1/2-year olds was nonsignificant, it seems useless to weigh carcass bowel fats for this purpose. Removal and weighing of bowel fats requires quite much extra work as the intestines are removed immediately after slaughter and taken to another room to be cleaned and washed. Instead, the R 2 for fat-kg obtained with flank fats is considerably higher than those obtained with any other trait, and removal of one flank and partition- Table 19. Means and standard deviations of dressing-%, percentages of carcass by-products and cutting results of flanks by experiment. Statistical Statistical F'*P' Mean SD significance Mean SD significance No. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 205 Dressing-% Head, % I 51.0 2.2 * - 6.0 0.3 »• II 47.0 1.2 - - - 6,6 0.5 111 46.8 1.6 - - - 6.3 0.5 * - IV 45.4 1.3 - 6.2 0.5 - V 46.2 1.7 - - 7.3 0.6 VI 44.9 1.5 - - 7.0 0.3 - - Liver, % Heart, % I 2.5 0.2 - - 0.8 0.1 - II 3.3 0.2 *» - - 1.1 0.2 HI 3.1 0.3 • •** - 1.0 0.1 * IV 2.9 0.2 •• - 0.9 0.1 V 3.1 0.2 - ** 0.8 0.1 VI 3,1 0.2 - - 0.8 0.1 Kidney fat, % Bowel fat, % (n = 142) I 2.4 0.8 - - 2.2 0.6 II 2.2 0.8 - - - 1.9 0.6 111 2.1 0.7 - - - 2.2 0.6 IV 2.3 0.6 3.4 0.9 - V 1.8 0.3 • • - VI 0.3 0.1 - - I li-year olds, n = 94 Dressing-% Head, % IX 49.6 1.4 * - 6.9 0.5 - X 50.2 1.7 *•* - - 6.6 0.5 **• * - Liver, % Heart, % IX 3.5 0.4 »* - 0.9 0.1 • - X 3.4 0.3 *•* - 0.9 0.2 - Kidney fat, % Bowel fat, % IX 2.0 0.4 ••• 2.0 0.4 X 2,4 0.5 »»* - - 2.4 0.7 * - Flanks, kg Flanks, % IX 4.9 0.8 * - 5.2 0.5 ** X 6.4 0.7 ••• - 5.7 0.5 * - - Meat-% in flanks Fat-% in flanks IX 82.2 2.3 - - 18.1 2.2 - - X 84.2 4.1 - - - 15.6 4.2 - - - 421 Table 20. Result of stepwise regression analysis. a) Live and carcass weight, dressing-% and carcass by-products 1-year olds carcass composition. b) Carcass weight, bowel and kidney fat carcass fat-kg and -%. Step x r R R 2 b /? y = Meat-kg, y = 109 kg a) 1. Carcass weight .980 .980 96.0 0.762*** 0.963 2. Kidney fat, % -.084 .981 96.2 -0.569* -0.031 3. Dressing-% 476 .982 96.4 0.247** 0.034 y = Fat-kg, y = 6.6 kg a) 1. Kidney fat, kg 700 .700 49.0 2.152*** 1.171 2. Kidney fat, % 535 .752 56.6 -1.724*»* -0.556 3. Liver, % -.327 .763 58.2 -1.631** -0.185 4. Heart, % -.102 .777 60.4 5.970» 0.363 5. Head, % -.430 .786 61.8 -o.BoB* -0.172 b) 1. Kidney fat, kg 700 .700 49.0 1.931*** 1.051 2. Kidney fat, % 535 .752 56.6 -1.661*** -0.536 3. Bowel fat, kg 630 .772 59.6 0.373** 0.232 y = Bone-kg, y = 30.9 kg a) 1. Carcass weight 731 .731 53.4 0.097**» 0.485 2. Kidney fat, kg Oil .759 57.6 -0.655*** -0.234 3. Live weight 713 .767 58.8 0.035* 0.332 y = Meat-%, y = 72.9 % a) 1. Carcass weight 367 .367 13.5 o.o7B*** 0.852 2. Kidney fat, % -.248 .434 18,8 -0.463*»* -0.217 3. Live weight 279 .463 21.4 -0.022* -0.459 4. Heart, kg 047 .482 23.2 -1.034» -0.147 y = Fat-%, y = 4.0 % a) 1. Kidney fat, kg .645 .645 41.6 o.6lo*** 0.648 2. Liver, kg —.114 .670 44.9 -o.6BB*** -0.277 3. Heart, % 009 .688 47.3 1.652** 0.209 4. Head, % -.253 .710 50.4 -0.503** -0.209 b) 1. Kidney fat, kg .645 .645 41.6 0.468*** 0.497 2. Bowel fat, % 543 .689 47.5 0.421*** 0.283 y = Bone-%, y = 20.7 % a) 1. Carcass weight —.446 .446 19.9 —o.o77*** —0.865 2. Kidney fat, % -.279 .539 29.1 -0.648*** -0.313 3. Live weight —.393 .555 30.8 0.017* 0.369 4. Heart, kg -.055 .567 32.1 0.885* 0.129 In estimation of meat-kg and -%, and bone-kg and -% the no. of animals is 205, and in that of fat-kg and -% 142. 422 423 Table 21. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1/ 2 -year olds a) Live and carcass weight, dressing-% and carcass by-products carcass n = 94 composition. b) Carcass weight, bowel and kidney fat. and cutting results of flanks carcass fat-kg and -%. Step x r R Rs b /? y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg a) 1. Carcass weight .982 .982 96.4 0.928*** 1.146 2. Live weight 882 .984 96.8 -0.079»»* -0.176 y =Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg a) 1. Live weight 553 .553 30.6 0.143* 0.241 2. Kidney fat, kg 548 .654 42.8 0.709*** 0.375 3. Liver, kg 508 .691 47.7 0.609** 0.271 b) 1. Fat-kg in flanks 759 .759 57.6 3.605*** 1.056 2. Kidney fat, kg 548 .808 65.3 o.4BB*** 0.258 3. Fat-% in flanks 529 .838 70.2 -o.l2o*** -0.455 y = Bone-kg, y = 21.2 kg a) 1. Live weight 796 .796 63,4 0.069*** 0.658 2. Head, kg 620 .819 67.1 0.753** 0.237 y = Meat-%, y = 73.9 % a) 1. Dressing-% 421 .421 17.7 0.242** 0.306 2. Head, % -.359 .482 23.2 -0.725** -0.276 3. Kidney fat, % -.210 .519 26.9 -.0.551* -0.195 y = Fat-%. y = 3.3 % a) 1. Kidney fat, kg 518 .518 26.8 0.783*** 0.520 2. Liver, % 282 .592 35.0 0.613*** 0.286 b) 1. Fat-kg in flanks 689 .689 47,5 1.431*** 0.526 2. Kidney fat, % 452 .748 56.0 0.465*** 0.283 3. Flanks, % 508 .765 58.5 0.297** 0.187 y = Bone-%, y = 20.6 % a) 1. Carcass weight -.435 .435 18.9 -0.154*** -1.187 2. Live weight -.298 .514 26.4 0.046** 0.650 3. Head, kg -.067 .553 30.6 0.552* 0.255 ing it into meat and fat is a simple and fast procedure. If only one flank is removed per carcass this should not decrease its commercial value too much. With 1-year olds the R 2 for fat-% obtained with traits in a) was 50 % (Table 20) and with traits in b) 47.5 % (Table 20), the best estimating trait in both a) and b) being kidney fat-kg. Correspondingly with 1/2-year olds the R 2 obtained with traits in a) on fat-% was 35 % and with those in b) 58.5 % (Table 21). 424 The Revalues obtained, 50 % and 58.5 %, can be considered quite satis- factory as estimation of the percentages has been fairly unreliable in general. Estimation of bone-kg was less certain with the 1-year olds than with the 1/2-year olds, Revalues were 59 % and 67 % (Tables 20 and 21). The correlation of head (kg) on bone-kg was 0.553 for 1-year olds and 0.630 for x/2-year olds. Estimation of meat and bone percentages was unreliable in both age groups. Carcass weight and live weight were the best estimators of bone-%, their correlations on bone-% were negative (Tables 20 and 21). In quite a few studies carcass characteristics have been estimated with the same traits as here. In several studies, however, in the estimation of a trait thickness of fat cover, the area of the MLD and other carcass measurements have been used in additition (Epley et al. 1970, Henderson et al. 1966 a, b. Levy et al. 1968, du Bose et al. 1967, Dumont et al. 1961, et al. 1967 and Brännäng and Nilsson 1969). Through combination of several traits high multiple correlations and R - values have been obtained for percentages, too. Especially estimation of fat has been more reliable in several other studies than in the present one, although the Revalues for fat-kg and fat-% in the present study can be regarded fairly satisfactory. Table 22 presents the interrelations literature provides between live weight, carcass weight, dressing-%, and by-products on carcass traits. Also some correlations obtained in the present study are included. In several respects the results differ largely from each other. For example the correlations between carcass weight and carcass fat obtained by Allen et al. (1968), Field et al. (1966) and Butterfield (1965) were much higher than the ones obtained in the present study. Vth estimator: cutting results of shanks Dissection of shanks Dissection of the shanks, like that of the flanks described in Chapter IV, require a partial destruction of a carcass. Removal of the shanks from the carcass and cutting them into selections is quite a simple and fast procedure. It is, however, difficult to estimate how much the removal of the shanks reduces the commercial value of a carcass. Only the fore shanks were removed from the carcasses in experiments IX and X. They were cut into meat, bone and tendon selections, no fat was found. From the other carcasses of the 1-year olds, except in experiment I, the fore and hind shank on the right hand side of the carcasses were removed and dissected boneless, tendons were not removed from the musclar tissue. In experiments V and VI there were differencies in dissection and cutting techniques of the shanks if compared to those in 11, 111 and IV. In all of them, however, tibia fibula has been separated in one piece. In experi- ments V and VI part of the meat in the fore shank remained with the Table 22. Correlations between carcass composition and live weight, carcass weight, dressing-% and by- products found in the literature. Meat Fat Bone Meat Fat Bone kg kg kg % % % Live weight du Bose et al. 1967 .851 ) - - ,02 2) - - Brackelsberg & Willham 1968 . —.28 .18 —.33 Schmitten 1968 .27 Varo 1969 .90 .36 - - - - Present study 1-yr. .911 .496 .713 .279 .120 -.393 Vj-yr. .882 .553 .796 .186 .305 -.298 Carcass weight Allen et al. 1968 .86 .80 .77 —.03 .04 .0 du Bose et al. 1967 .94 1 ) - - -,032) - - Brackelsberg et al. 1968 .41 .08 .10 —.12 Brackelsberg & Willham 1968 . —.30 .35 —.40 Butterfield 1965 .97 .84 .80 Dinkel et al. 1965 —.49 Field et al. 1966 R 2 = 97 % 82 % 92 % 31 % 48 % 54 % Present study 1-yr. .980 .484 .731 .367 .088 —.446 V 2 -yr. .982 .504 .773 .324 .264 -.435 Dressing-% Nielsen 1962 - - - .25 -.07 -.26 Wismer-Pedersen 1969 bulls .32 —.o6 -.17 calves .42 —.o9 .39 -.15 Present study 1-yr. .476 .103 .289 .340 -.073 -.254 1/ 2 -yr. .491 .101 .167 .421 -.043 -.431 Kidney and bowel fat, kg Butterfield 1965 .91 Varo 1969 .46 Kidney fat kg du Bose et al. 1967 .301) ,53 2) Hinks & Bech Andersen 1968 .... —.40 Present study 1-yr. .700 .645 1/ 2-yr. - .548 - - .518 - *) Boneless roast and steak, kg. a) » * » * % shoulders, and part of the hind shanks with the rounds. In comparison of the mean results (Table 23) the difference in dissection can be observed. Means of cutting results of shanks by experiment Table 23 presents the means and standard deviations of the cutting results of shanks by experiment. Differencies in dissection techniques are most apparent in bone-% and meat-% where differencies between experiments 11, 111 and IV on one hand and V and VI on the other hand are distinct (Table 23). 4 425 426 Table 23. Means and standard deviations of cutting results of fore and hind shanks by experi- ment. Statistical Statistical *^o P ' Mean SD significance Mean SD significance Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 181 Hind shank, kg Hind shank, % II 3.8 0.3 *** - 2.6 0.2 - - - 111 4.4 0.5 * 2.7 0.3 IV 4.0 0.3 sires *** ** - 2.5 0.2 *** V 3.5 0.4 * - - 2.6 0.2 - - - VI 3.6 0.3 - - 2.9 0.2 - - Meat-% in hind shank Bone-% in hind shank II 55.2 1.8 - - - 44.8 1.8 - 111 59.1 2.4 - - - 40.9 2.3 - - IV 57.9 2.8 »* - 42.4 2.8 •• V 51.6 1.7 - - * 48.4 1.7 - - • VI 53.5 1.9 * - 46.7 1.9 • - Fore shank, kg Fore shank % II 3.2 0.5 ** - ** 2.3 0.3 - - *• II 3.9 0.4 ** * ** 2.4 0.1 - IV 3.7 0.4 sires * ** - 2.6 0.2 ** V 2.5 0.2 •» - •* 1.9 0.1 - VI 2.3 0.2 - 1.9 0.1 sires *» - - Meat-% in fore shank Bone-% in fore shank II 56.4 2.7 - - - 43,6 2.7 - - - 111 55.3 2.1 - - - 44.8 2.0 - - IV 57.4 2.6 ** - 43.0 2.3 ** - V 52.0 1.1 *** 48.0 1.1 *•* VI 52.1 2.5 - - 47.7 2.2 - - Vj-year olds, n = 94 Fore shanks, kg Fore shanks, % IX 4.9 0.9 ** - 5.1 0.2 ** ** X 5.4 0.4 *** *** 4.9 0.3 * Meat-% in fore shanks Bone-% in fore shanks IX 47.2 2.8 - - 45.8 1.9 * X 51.9 3.6 - - - 44.4 2.6 •• - With i/ 2-year olds bone-% and meat-% did not total 100 % because tendons are dissected into another selection. The share of tendons is 4—6 %, which is not, however, included in the calculations. Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of carcass composition with cutting results of shanks. In addition to the cutting results of the shanks, carcass weight has acted as one estimator (Tables 24 and 25). Where carcass weight has produced no additional information the results have been omitted from the tables. 427 Table 24. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds a) Cuttingresults of fore and hind shank carcass meat-kg, bone-kg and bone-%. n = 181 b) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore and hind shank carcass meat-kg, bone-kg and bone-%. c) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore shank carcass bone-kg and bone-%. d) Carcass weight and cutting results of hind shank carcass bone-kg and bone-%. Step R R 2 b pX r y = Meat-kg, y = 106 kg a) 1. Fore shank, kg 690 .690 47.6 7.657*** 0.257 2. Fore shank, % -.224 .916 83.9 -11.582*** -0.202 3. Hind shank, % -.422 .929 86.3 -34.950*** -0.623 4. Hind shank, kg ■ 642 .975 95.1 21.312*** 0.724 b) 1. Carcass weight 984 .984 96.8 0.827*** 1.052 2. Hind shank, kg 642 .985 97.0 -2.956*** -0.100 3. Bone-% in hind shank -.040 .986 97.2 -0.139* -0.029 y = Bone-kg, y = 30.9 kg a) 1. Bone-kg in hind shank .768 .768 59.0 7.461*** 0.420 2. Fore shank, kg 664 .798 63.7 6.547*** 0.853 3. Fore shank, % 008 .818 66.9 -3.760*** -0.255 4. Meat-kg in fore shank .562 .825 68.1 —4.508* —0.368 c) 1. Carcass weight 716 .716 51.3 o.o7l*** 0.352 2. Bone-kg in fore shank 685 .780 60,8 9,071*** 0.538 3. Fore shank, % 008 .787 61.9 -2.298* -0.156 d) 1. Bone-kg in hind shank 768 .768 59.0 9.275*** 0.523 2. Carcass weight 716 .810 65.6 0.072*** 0.355 y = Bone-%, y = 21.0 % a) 1. Hind shank, % 564 .564 31.8 5.454*** 0.828 2. Bone-% in hind shank 166 .687 47.2 0.298*** 0.534 3. Bone-kg in hind shank .051 .715 51.1 —3.s2o*** —0.435 4. Bone-kg in fore shank 061 .743 55.2 2.245*** 0.292 c) 1. Carcass weight -.464 .464 21.5 -0.066*** -0.723 2. Bone-kg in fore shank .061 .641 41,1 3.578*** 0.465 3. Bone-% in fore shank .412 .654 42.8 0.092*** 0.153 d) 1. Hind shank, % 564 .564 31.8 4.058*** 0.616 2. Bone-% in hind shank 166 .687 47.2 o.2lo*** 0.376 3. Carcass weight -.464 .716 51.3 -0.020*»* -0.218 With mere weight and percentage of the shanks the meat-kg could be estimated with R 2 of 95 % to 96 %. When carcass weight was included as one estimator of meat-kg this alone gave a higher R2-value than the cutting results of the shanks. The shanks increased the R 2 with 0.4 —l.B %-units (Tables 24 and 25). 428 Table 25. Result of stepwise regression analysis. l/2-year olds a) Cutting results of fore shanks carcass composition. n= 94 b) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore shanks carcass composition. Step x r R R 2 b f} y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg a) 1. Meat-kg in fore shanks .656 .656 43.0 30.182*** 1.242 2. Fore shanks, % -.340 .867 75.2 -17.459*** -0.692 3. Meat-% in fore shanks 154 .979 95.8 -1.259*** -0.598 b) 1. Carcass weight 982 .982 96.4 0.772*** 0.953 2. Meat-% in fore shanks .154 .987 97.4 0.146*** 0.069 3. Fore shanks, % -.340 .990 98.0 -2.075*** -0.082 4. Bone-% in fore shanks —.158 .991 98.2 —0.142* —0.048 y = Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg b) 1. Carcass weight 544 .544 29.6 o.osB*** 0.544 y = Bone-kg, y =21.2 kg a) 1. Bone-kg in fore shanks .742 .742 55.1 20.945*** 3.511 2. Fore shanks, kg 544 .780 60.8 -6.257*** -2.538 3. Bone-% in fore shanks 337 .864 74.6 -0.794*** -1.136 4. Fore shanks, % 062 .907 82.1 -1.783*** -0.299 y = Meat-%. y = 73.9 % a) 1. Meat-% in fore shanks .543 .543 29.5 0.099* 0.227 2. Fore shanks, % -.437 .713 50.8 -2.372*** -0.518 3. Meat-kg in fore shanks .339 .735 53.7 1.003* 0.227 4. Bone-% in fore shanks -.518 .749 56.1 -0.121* -0.225 y = Fat-%. y = 3.3 % b) 1. Carcass weight 264 .264 7.0 0.022* 0.264 y = Bone-%, y = 20.6 % a) 1. Bone-% in fore shanks .603 .603 36.4 0.213*** 0.449 2. Fore shanks, % 507 .788 62.1 2.468*** 0.608 3. Meat-kg in fore shanks -.357 .836 69.9 -1.298*** -0.332 In the estimation of f at - k g and fa t - % the results obtained with shank cutting results were unreliable in both age groups. For the 1-year olds an R 2 of 68 % was obtained for bone - k g with the cutting results of shanks (Table 24, a), carcass weight gave no additional in- formation to this value. The value of R 2 did not increase in the experiments (II—IV) where the shanks had been dissected uniformly. When the estimation was performed separately with the fore shanks and again with the hind shanks and carcass weight, the result remained less reli able than the one obtained with mere cutting results of the fore and hind shanks (Table 24, c, d). With cutting results of the fore shanks an R 2 of 82 % was obtained with the olds (Table 25, a). With carcass weight and cutting results of fore shanks the R 2 was 83 %. Estimation of meat-% was rather unreliable with the 1-year olds, but for the y2 -year olds an R 2 of 56 % was obtained with the mere cutting of the fore shanks (Table 25, a). The R 2 for bon e % was 55 % for the 1-year olds (Table 24, a). In the experiments where the shanks were dissected in the same way (experiments II —IV), the R 2 obtained was about 10 %-units higher than the one for the whole material. For the %-year olds the R 2 for bone-% was 70 % (Table 25, a). According to personal impression it seems probable that with the cutting results of mere fore or hind shank the same degree of reliability can be achieved as with dissection of both the fore and the hind shanks. In earlier studies at the S.W. Finland Experiment Station in experiments on Charolais cross- breds similar values for R 2 for bone-kg and bone-% were obtained with cutting results of the fore shanks as in the present study with the %-year olds. In all the experiments the fore shanks were removed and cut into selections in the same manner as in the present study in the experiments for the y2 -year olds. In several studies attention has been paid to the information of carcass composition obtained with dissection and cutting of the shanks. This is quite natural considering that removal of the shanks requires no high expenses and no entire destruction of the carcass. In the study by Callow (1962) the following correlations were obtained with shank cutting results: Fore shank meat-kg Hind 9 9 carcass meat-kg r = 0.90 » » r = 0.62 » fat-kg r = 0.53Fore » fat-kg Hind » » * r = 0.58 Fore » bone-kg (radius + ulna) * bone-kg r = 0.98 Hind » * (tibia fibula) » » r = 0.97 In a study by Butterfield (1965) one half of 29 carcasses were dissected into muscles and bones and these were compared to the meat and bone quantities in the other half. Between separate bones and the bone quantity correlations of 0.92—0.99 were obtained. Radius and ulna gave the highest estimations. The correlations between separate muscles and meat quantity varied between 0.87 and 0.99. The correlation between fore shank meat and the total meat quantity was 0.95. Correlations for the percentages were low. The material in a study by Orme et al. (1959 b) comprised 8 A. Angus and 23 Hereford steers, of which the left half was dissected. The results follow; Fore shank bone-kg carcass meat-kg r = 0.66 »* » % Hind » bone-kg » meat-% r = 0 » meat-% r = 0.69 » meat-% r = —O.Ol»» * % In a study by Brackelsberg et al. (1968) the correlation obtained between fore shank meat-% and carcass meat-% was 0.61, the correlation between the corresponding bone-% was 0.43, and between fat-% 0.23. 5 429 430 Cole et al. (1960) obtained a correlation of 0.81 between fore shank meat- kg and carcass meat-kg and through addition of carcass weight the R-value rose up to 0.89. Materials in these studies have been quite different from the one in the present study, therefore there remains only little ground for comparison. In estimation of fat the present results with shank dissection provided virtually no information. Instead in some foreign studies relatively high correlations have been obtained even in estimation of fat, which evidently is due to the abundancy of fat even in the shanks of the breeds studied. In the present study no fat is cut off the shanks as it is very scarce in young animals of our breeds. In several studies the cutting results of the shanks have been estimators of other carcass traits in addition to other estimating characteristics. But because the thickness of fat cover and the area of the MLD have often been included, there is no reason to do any comparisons here. (Some results are presented in Chapter IV). Vlth estimator: cutting results of the fore and hind quarters As the fore quarters of a carcass, excluding the shoulders, are regarded as the cheaper part, and the shoulders with the hind quarters the rounds and the back as the more valuable parts of a carcass, a principle was established that if the carcass traits can not be properly estimated with any other method, the cheaper part i.e. the fore quarters could be dissected. In all experiments the rounds were dissected of the hind quarters behind the last lumbar vertebra. The bones were removed of the steaks in the rounds, different muscles were not, however, separated but the flesh was weighed in one piece. The MLD was removed of the back. The other muscles of the back were not weighed separately. The dissection of the inner fillets differed between experiments, therefore they are excluded from the calculations. In all the carcasses the fore and hind quarters were separately partitioned into meat, fat, bone and tendons. Means of cutting results of the fore and hind quarters by experiment Tables 26 and 27 present the means and standard deviations of the cut- ting results of the fore and hind quarters by experiment. The proportions of the fore and hind quarters to the total carcass weight remained rather constant from one experiment to another. The differencies in percentages between breeds were, however, statistically significant in all experiments. Differencies in percentages of meat, fat and bone were only in a few cases statistically significant for the 1-year olds. For the %-year olds the differencies of most traits were statistically significant between breeds. 431 Table 26. Means and standard deviations of cutting results of the fore quarters by experiment. Statistical Statistical Mean SD significance Mean SD significance No. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 205 Fore quarters, kg Fore quarters, % I 73.0 5.8 • 43.0 0.9 II 60.9 4.3 43.0 1.0 111 68.4 5.3 » •** ** 42.7 0.7 *** • IV 68.2 8.2 **� 42.6 0.8 - V 58.7 6.4 - *• 43.6 1.0 ** - VI 55.2 4.2 - - 44.7 1.4 - - Meat-kg Meat-% I 54.3 4.5 • - 74.4 1.3 - - II 43,4 3.4 ** - - 71.3 1.5 - - - 111 48.7 4.2 * *•* »* 71.2 1.7 IV 47.2 6.3 *«* 69.1 1.9 * V 38.5 4.6 - - • 65,4 1.3 - - - VI 40.2 3.4 - - 72.7 1.3 - - Fat-% Bone-% I 3.3 0.8 - - 20.1 0.8 * II 3.0 0.9 - - - 23.4 1.0 - - - 111 3.4 1.3 - 22.9 1.4 • - IV 5.3 1.1 *** - 22.7 1.8 *** V 10.0 1.2 • - - 22.7 1.2 - * VI 0.4 0.2 - * 25.3 0.4 */ 2-year olds, n = 94 Fore quarters, kg Fore quarters, % IX 39.1 3.9 - • 41.5 0.8 *• X 45.5 3.2 *»• �»» ** 41.3 0.6 •«* Meat-kg Meat-% IX 27.3 3.0 - * 69.9 1.4 * X 33.1 2.6 •** *** *• 72.5 1.9 ** Fat-% Bone-% IX 3.1 0.6 »• - 23.7 1.3 X 2.5 1,0 - - - 22.8 1.6 - - Stepwise regression analysis, results and discussion Estimation of carcass composition with carcass weight and cutting results of the fore and hind quarters. Carcass weight estimated the meat-kg with an R 2 of 96 % as already mentioned. With the addition of the cutting results of the fore and hind 432 Table 27. Means and standard deviations of cutting results of hind quarters by experiment Statistical Statistical P ' Mean SD significance Mean SD significance Mo. Breed Feed. Age Breed Feed. Age 1-year olds, n = 205 Hind quarters, kg Hind quarters, % I 97.0 7.3 *•* - 57.0 0.9 •** II 81.1 6.6 *** 57.0 1.0 *** *** 111 92.3 7.2 ** **» »* 57.3 0.7 »** » IV 91.6 10.5 ••• - 57.4 0.8 - - V 76.2 8.2 * - • 56.4 1.0 »• - - VI 68.4 4.8 - - 55.3 1.4 - - Meat-kg Meat-% I 75.4 5.9 *•* - 77.7 1.2 - - II 61.4 5.4 ••• - - 75.5 1.0 - - - 111 69.5 6.1 •» ** 75.5 1.6 IV 67.0 8.1 ••• - 73.2 1.3 - V 53.3 6.0 • 69.9 1.1 VI 53.1 4.0 - - 77.6 1.0 - - Fat-% Bone-% I 3.9 0.9 16.9 0.5 •»» II 2.3 0.7 - - - 19.5 0.8 - - - 111 3.3 1.3 - - 18.4 1.5 - - - IV 6.0 1.4 *** - 18.6 1.5 »»» V 10.1 1.5 * ** 19.2 0.8 ** VI 0.4 0.2 - » 21.6 1.1 - - 1/ 2-year olds, n = 94 Hind quarters, kg Hind quarters, % IX 55.2 5.9 * • 58.7 0.8 •* - X 64.8 4.9 *** *** * 58.7 0.6 Meat-kg Meat-% IX 41.3 4.7 »* • 74.7 1.4 •» - X 49.5 3.9 **» �»* * 76.4 1.1 *** ** Fat-% Bone-% IX 4.0 0.7 * - 19.6 1.2 •• - X 3.5 0.9 - - - 18.3 1.0 *** - • quarters the coefficient increased by 2—3 %-units in both age groups (Tables 28 and 30). It is, however, questionable whether for such a modest, less than 3 %-units, increase in the coefficient it is reasonable to perform a costly dissec- tion. In the estimation of fat - k g considerably higher values of R 2, 86 %- 87 %, were obtained with cutting results of the fore and hind quarters with the I-year olds than with any earlier estimator (Table 28, a, b). 433 Table 28. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds a) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore quarters quantities of carcass n = 205 meat, fat and bone. b) Carcass weight and cutting results of hind quarters quantities of carcass meat, fat and bone. Step x r R R 2 b ft y = Meat-kg, y = 109 kg a) 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.793*** 1.002 2. Meat-% in fore quarters 433 .989 97.8 0.939*** 0.138 3. Fat-kg » » * 397 .990 98.0 -2.084*** -0.158 4. Fat-% * » » 009 .991 98.2 1,239*** 0.119 b) 1. Carcass weight 980 .980 96.0 0.737*** 0.932 2. Meat-% in hind quarters 440 .992 98.4 1,227*** 0.147 3. Boneless steaks of round, % 246 .992 98.4 0.120* 0.021 y =Fat-kg, y = 6.7 kg a) 1. Fat-kg in fore quarters 918 .918 84.3 2.oBB*** 0.871 2. Bone-% » » * -.474 .922 85.1 -o.lso*** -0.108 3. Fore quarters. % -.044 .925 85.6 -0.135* -0.060 b) 1. Fat-% in hind quarters 830 .830 68.9 1.197*** 0.714 2. Carcass weight 484 .928 86.1 0.048* 0.336 3. Fat-kg in hind quarters 579 .930 86.5 0.059* 0.062 4. Meat-kg » * * 396 .931 86.7 -0.142** -0.459 5. Hind quarters, kg 496 .933 87.0 0.128** 0.525 y = Bone-kg, y = 30.9 kg a) 1. Bone-kg in fore quarters 902 .902 81.4 1.983*** 0.924 2. Fore quarters, % 039 .910 82.8 -0.341*** -0.122 b) 1. Bone-kg in hind quarters 904 .904 81.7 1.473*** 0.765 2. Hind quarters, % -.030 .913 83.4 -0.360*** -0.128 3. Rounds with hind shanks, kg ... .761 .919 84.5 o.lo6*** 0.188 4. Boneless steaks of round, % .... —.131 .920 84.6 —0.089* —0.062 With the y2-year olds the R 2 was 73 % with the cutting results of the fore quarters and 86 % with those of the hind quarters. (Table 30, a, b). With kidney fats and cutting results of the flanks the R 2 obtained was 70%(Chapter IV). For this reason the purpose of cutting the fore quarters becomes ques- tionable considering cutting of large materials. Almost uniform Revalues were obtained for bone - k g with cutting results of both the fore and hind quarters, Revalues were from 83 % to 85 % and 95 % (Tables 28 and 30). The R 2 for mea t - % was 76 % with cutting results of fore quarters and 82 % with cutting results of hind quarters for both age groups. (Tables 29 and 30). The R 2 obtained for fa t - % was 12—14 %-units higher with the cutting results of hind quarters than with those of the fore quarters (Tables 29 and 30). In estimation of bone-% a higher result was obtained here than with any other earlier presented estimator: the R 2 for the 1-year olds was 88 % (Table 29, a, b) with cutting results of both the fore and hind quarters and for the %-year olds 81 % and 91 % respectively (Table 30, a, b). In the literature no studies were found in which the carcass traits were estimated with the cutting results of the fore or hind quarters alone. However, results obtained in other countries are seldom comparable to the ones presented here because even the dissection of a carcass into fore and hind quarters may be done between the 6th and the 7th rib till the 13th rib and the Ist lumbar vertebra. The weight of the fore and hind quarters separately and their proportion of carcass weight thus varies according to the separation of the quarters. Table 29. Result of stepwise regression analysis. 1-year olds a) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore quarters percentages of carcass n = 205 meat, fat and bone. b) Carcass weight and cutting results of hind quarters percentages of carcass meat, fat and bone. Step R R 2 b Px r y = Meat-%, y = 72.9 % a) 1. Meat-% in fore quarters .840 .840 70.6 0.440*** 0.558 2. Carcass weight 367 .847 71.7 0.057*** 0.625 3. Fat-kg in fore quarters —.183 .855 73.3 —o.46l*** —0,300 4. Bone-kg » » » -.011 .871 75.9 -0.371*** -0.377 b) 1. Meat-% in hind quarters .892 .892 79.6 0.791*** 0.812 2. Hind quarters, % -.115 .899 80.8 -o.l6o*** -0.124 3. Bone-% in hind quarters —.516 .905 81.9 —0.094* —0.090 4. Boneless steaks, kg .461 .908 82.4 0.035* 0.084 y = Fat-%, y = 4.4 % a) 1. Fat-% in fore quarters 870 .870 75.7 o.B4o*** 0.838 2. Bone-%» » » -.349 .876 76.7 -0.082** -0.112 b) 1. Fat-% in hind quarters 944 .944 89.1 o.B3B*** 0.944 y =Bone-%, y = 20,7 % a) 1. Bone-% in fore quarters .918 .918 84.3 0.757*** 0.879 2. Fore quarters, % -.017 .931 86.7 0.194»** 0.156 3. Fat-% in fore quarters -.355 .934 87.2 -o.llo*** -0.093 4. Meat-kg * » » -.512 .936 87.6 -o.ool* -0.076 b) 1. Bone-% in hind quarters .913 .913 83.4 0.513*** 0.506 2. Boneless steaks of round, % —.494 .921 84.8 —o.o7o*** —O.llO 3. Rounds with hind shanks, % ... .352 .926 85.7 0.093* 0.070 4. Carcass weight —.446 .930 86,5 —o.o36*** —0.401 5. Bone-kg in hind quarters 202 .935 87.4 0.267*** 0.311 6. Fat-% » » » -.388 .937 87.8 -0.149* -0.143 7. Meat-% » » » -.463 .938 88.0 -o.oBB* -0.093 434 Table 30. Result of stepwise regression analysis. Vj-year olds a) Carcass weight and cutting results of fore quarters carcass composition. n = 94 b) Carcass weight and cutting results of hind quarters carcass composition. Step x r R R 2 b ft y = Meat-kg, y = 76.6 kg a) 1. Carcass weight 982 .982 96.4 o.Bl3*** 1.004 2. Meat-% in fore quarters .468 .994 98.8 o.4BB*** 0.117 3. Bone-kg * » * 617 .994 98.8 -0.722*** -0.084 b) 1. Meat-kg in hind quarters 987 .987 97.4 1.155*** 0.708 2. Hind quarters, % 159 ,995 99.0 -0.786*** -0.081 3. Carcass weight 982 .996 99.2 0.231*»* 0.285 4. Bone-% in hind quarters —.543 .996 99.2 —o.3l2*** —0.047 y - Fat-kg, y = 3.4 kg a) 1. Fat-kg in fore quarters 823 .823 67.7 1.490*** 0,721 2. Carcass weight 544 .852 72.6 0.026*** 0.243 b) 1. Fat-kg in hind quarters .925 .925 85.6 1.426*** 0.925 y = Bone-kg. y - 21.2 kg a) 1. Bone-kg in fore quarters .965 .965 93.1 1.872*** 0.921 2. Fore quarters, % -.024 .974 94.9 -0.297*** -0.131 3. Meat-kg in fore quarters .653 .977 95.5 0.056** 0.096 b) 1. Bone-kg in hind quarters 970 .970 94.1 1.825*** 0.988 2. Hind quarters, % 024 .977 95.5 -0.275*** -0.121 y - Meat-%. y = 73.9 % a) 1. Meat-% in fore quarters .865 .865 74.8 0.693*** 0.920 2. Fat-% * » » -.247 .973 76.2 0.194* 0.134 b) 1. Meat-% in hind quarters .883 .883 78.0 0.706*** 0.709 2. Bone-% » * » -.718 .904 81.7 -0.242*» -0.201 3. Boneless steaks, kg 513 .908 82.4 0.050(*) 0.105 y = Fat-%. y = 3.3 % a) 1. Fat-% in fore quarters .809 .809 65.4 0.422*» 0.499 2. Fat-kg * » * 795 .821 67.4 0.558* 0.339 b) 1. Fat-% in hind quarters 902 .902 81.4 o.B2l*** 0.902 y = Bone-%, y = 20.6 % a) 1. Bone-% in fore quarters .856 .856 73.3 0.365*** 0.487 2. Meat-% » * » -.699 .874 76.4 -0.335**» -0.502 3. Fat-% » . » -.151 .902 81.4 -0.383*** -0.298 b) 1. Bone-% in hind quarters 956 .956 91.4 I.o2o*** 0.956 435 436 Vllth estimator: detailed cutting results of the carcasses In all experiments the outer fillets and rounds including and excluding bones were weighed separately. The detailed cutting method applied to the carcasses in experiments IX and Xis presented on page 395. The cutting results of flanks and shank have already been explained in Chapters IV and V. The correlations between other carcass parts and carcass composition will be discussed below. Results and discussion Estimation of carcass composition with detailed cutting results. With the %-year olds the R 2 obtained for meat-kg with the weights of the hind quarter cuts and carcass weight was 97 %. In addition to the car- cass weight the only statistically significant factor was the weight of the back. With carcass weight the cuts of the fore quarters were nonsignificant. The carcass weight was the first estimator for bone-kg, 60 %. Of the other cuts the weight of the back increased the value by 3 %-units. For fat-kg the R 2 obtained with mere weight of flanks was 45 %. The results of the esti- mation of meat-%, fat% and bone-% remained low. Only in few studies the quantities of meat, fat and bone in some cuts of a carcass are compared to the respective traits in the whole carcass. Instead, in most of the studies the percentages of meat, fat and bone in different cuts of a carcass are compared to the respective percentages in the carcass. However, in a study by Cole et al. (1960) the correlations of the meat- kg in the rounds, shoulders and back on the meat-kg of the whole carcass have been calculated. The following correlations were obtained: 0.95, 0.93 and 0.80 respectively. In the present study the corresponding correlations were 0.969, 0.881 and 0.894 which are very close to those obtained by Cole et al. In the same study the following values for R were obtained with the step- wise regression analysis on the meat-kg in the cuts: Carcass weight + round meat, kg carcass meat-kg R = 0.97 » » + shoulder * » » » R = 0.94 » » + back » » » » R = 0.90 0.85 Below are presented the correlations by Thorton and Hiner (1965) and the correlations obtained in the present study between the weight of rounds and the weights of carcass meat, fat and bone. In the study in question the material comprised 43 A. Angus and 80 Hereford calves, age 6 months, thus the results obtained are well comparable to the ones obtained in this study for the 1/2-year olds. Meat kg Fat-kg Bone-kg Thorton & Miner: AA H AA H AA H weight of the rounds 0.93 0.96 0.24 0.84 0.80 0.95 Present study 1/ 2-yr 0.963 0.476 0.786 1-yr 0.943 0.394 0.761 In the study by Varo (1969) the weight of the rounds was the first estimator of carcass meat-kg, fat-kg and bone -kg in the younger part of the material. When the rounds were omitted, the R-value obtained with the ratio of carcass weight and size for the meat-kg was 0.949, the percentage of the rounds increased the R-value till 0.962. In the estimation of bone-kg the first estimator was the weight of head, the R-value obtained was 0.691, and the second one the percentage of the rounds, R-value obtained was 0.779. The highest estimate for the percentage of meat and bone was also obtained with the rounds. It can be observed that the correlations obtained for the meat-kg and bone-kg in the present study are uniform with those obtained in the other studies. Table 31 presents correlations found in the literature of the percentages of meat, fat and bone of some cuts of a carcass on the respective percentages in the whole carcass. Beside them the corresponding correlations found in the present study are presented. The correlations for the meat-% and fat-% found in the other studies (Table 31) are in several of them higher than the ones obtained here. The correlation of the bone-% in the rounds on the carcass bone-% was considerably lower in the other studies than in the present study. Table 31. Correlations between percentages of meat, fat and bone in carcass cuts and respective percentages of the whole carcass found in the literature. Round Back Flanks Short Brisket Fore Shoulder Neck plate back Meat-% Brackelsberg .81— .89 .87 .90 .91 .96 .97 1) et al. 1968 .89 Hertkampf ref. Weniger 1965 .813 - .710 .712 .753 .741 .872 .649 Hinks & Bech Andersen 1968 .28 .52 Present study Vj-yr. -738 .668 .186 .454 .539 .617 Fat-% Brackelsberg .82— .92 .89 .92 .88 .96 .96 1) et al. 1968 .87 Buss 1968 - .751- ______ .852 Herkampf ref. Weniger 1965 .923 - .717 .771 .764 .780 .832 .604 Present study 1/2-yr. .761 .566 Bone-% Brackelsberg .28— .64 .38 J) .66 .58 .60 .70 1) et al. 1968 .61 Hertkampf ref. Weniger 1965 .696 - - .445 .554 .587 .629 .428 Present study 1/ 2-yr. .908 .785 *) shoulder + neck, a ) flanks comprise ends of ribs. 437 438 The carcass meat quantity has been estimated by some separate muscles. In the study by Liljedahl (1965) the weights of Musculus pectoralis profundus and M.p. superficialis were compared to the meat quantity in the carcass. The correlations obtained varied between 0.73—0.98. In the present study the correlations obtained in the experiments 111 and V (material in all 78 1-year olds) between the muscles in question and the carcass meat-kg was 0.774. In the study by Jensen (1967) the relations between separate muscles and the meat quantities of a carcass of three different weight categories were compared. The highest correlation, r = 0.94, was obtained with the two muscles of the rounds. Of the 20 muscles studied the muscles in the rounds and the shanks were the best estimators of meat-kg. Orme et al. (1959 a) obtained correlations of 0.795 to 0.957 with separate muscles and the meat quantity with a material comprising 43 animals of 9x/2 —ll years of age. The correlation between the weight of the MLD and the meat quantity was 0.843. In the present study the corresponding correla- tions were 0.817 for the 1-year olds and 0.835 for the 1/2-year olds. There are several studies on the relation between the weight and area of the MLD and the different traits of a carcass. In earlier experiments the inter- relations between area of the MLD on the other traits in a carcass have been studied (Ruohomäki and Varo 1967) but, like in the present one, the correla- tions obtained have been low. As in several studies the correlations between the different carcass com- ponents meat, fat and bone are calculated. Table 32 presents the correla- tions found in the literature with the corresponding correlations obtained in the present study. In several studies it has been observed that no adequately reliable and accurate information of a carcass for scientific purpose can be obtained with dissection of only some parts or with mere partial dissection of a carcass. For example Allen et al. (1969) dissected only one half of the carcasses into salable boneless retail cuts but the R 2 obtained corresponded only 71 % of the result obtained by the complete cutting of the other half. Estimation of all the traits in Chapters VI and VII requires destruction of the whole carcass. With the bigger parts, like hind quarters, the fore quarters or the rounds, higher R 2 values are obtained than with the small parts. Large parts represent quite a large portion of the quantities of meat, fat and bone which makes it self-evident that these parts are more accurate estimators of the named traits than the smaller parts. According to a personal opinion there is no great difference whether a larger or a smaller part of a carcass is sep- arated for research if the effect of both of them is destructive for the carcass. However, if the quantities and percentages of the whole carcass could be estimated with cutting only a small part of the carcass it would save labour. When separation of even a small part, for instance separate muscles or bones, requires dissection of the carcass into two parts and destruction of one of them, this also reduces the value of the carcass. The same applies to the partition and study of the three rib joint, which is quite abudantly used in foreign studies. Dissection of one part and destruction Table 32. Correlations between quantities and percentages of carcass meat, fat and bone found in the literature. Fat-kg Bone-kg Meat-% Fat-% Bone-% Meat-kg Allen et ai. 1968 .40 .90 Thorton & Hiner 1965 —.o6 .45 -.20 .63 Cole et ai. 1960 .75 Present study 1-yr. .399 .666 .513 .006 ,502 Vii-yr. .478 .676 .480 .195 -.548 Fat-kg Allen et ai. 1968 .28 Thorton & Hiner 1965 .10— -.31 Present study 1-yr. .166 —.197 .867 —.515 '/a-yr- - -345 -.169 .942 -.324 Bone-kg Present study 1-yr. —.OlB —.154 .186 Va-yr. - - -.166 .130 .219 Meat-% Allen et ai. 1968 —.98 .74 Gottsch et ai. 1961 —.91 Henderson et ai. 1966 b —.95 —.77 Hinks & Bech Andersen 1968 —.72 —.64 Schön 1969 —.936 —.445 Wismer-Pedersen 1969 —.B4 .72 -.92 -.83 Present study 1-yr. -- —.406 —.583 Va-yr. - - - -.303 -.762 Fat-% Allen et ai. 1968 —.84 Schön 1969 —.686 Present study 1-yr. —.400 Va-yr. - -.206 of the most expensive area of the carcass reduces its value when it is sold again. If it is in any case dissected into parts for retail or processing pourpses even a larger part could be studied. Considering material comprising large numbers of animals it seems unlikely that this could be performed in Finland under the present circumstances. 439 440 Table 33. Coefficients of determination obtained with live measurements on live and carcass weight and with live weight and live measurements on carcass weight and with initial weight and daily gain on live and carcass weight. Live weight Carcass weight 1-yr. Itfyr. 1-yr. Ik-yT - la. Live measurements 87 82 84 80 Ib. and live weight 90 87 11. Initial weight and daily gain 96 93 86 77 Table 34. Coefficients of determination obtained with different trait groups on carcass composition. 1-year olds %-year olds Meat Fat Bone Meat Fat Bone kg % kg % kg % kg % kg % kg % la. Live measurements 78 26 37 16 64 45 78 20 37 9 78 45 Ib. and live weight 85 26 39 16 65 45 84 20 36 9 81 48 11. Initial weight and daily gain 79 24 52 71 29 56 Ilia. Carcass quality scores 47 29 17 11 19 41 59 34 24 12 11 54 111 b. and carcass weight 97 29 34 15 63 44 97 34 24 12 74 54 IV a. Live and carcass weight, dressing-% and by-products 96 23 62 50 59 32 97 27 48 35 67 31 IV b. Carcass weight, bowel and kidney fats and cutting results of flanks 1) - - 60 47 - - - - 70 59 - Va. Cutting results of fore and hind shanks 95 22 29 15 68 55 ______ Vb. and carcass weight 97 24 35 15 68 56 65») Va. Cutting results of fore shanks 96 56 30 7 82 70 Vc. and carcass weight 97 21 35 62 43 98 56 30 7 83 70 Vd. Cutting results of hind shanks and carcass weight 97 24 41 65 51 VI. Carcass weight and cutting results of fore quarters 98 76 86 77 83 88 99 76 73 67 95 81 VI. Carcass weight and cutting results of hind quarters 98 82 87 89 85 88 99 82 86 81 95 91 x ) cutting results of flanks only for x/2-year olds. 3 ) Revalue for the experiments where the shanks were dissected in a similar manner. Summary Tables 33 and 34 present the coefficients of determination for live weight, carcass weight and carcass composition obtained with different trait groups. Procedure with which the estimates mentioned in the Tables 33 and 34 can be obtained (excluding those obtained with cutting results of fore and hind quarters): 441 1. Determination of live weight with weighing. 2. Measuring of heart girth, width of chest, height at withers natural length and width of hind cannon on a live animal to estimate live and carcass weight. 3. Determination of carcass weight with weighing. 4. Giving carcass quality scores paying special attention to fleshiness. 5. Weighing the head, heart, liver and kidney fats and eventual bowel fats to estimate the quantity and percentage of carcass fat. 6. Dissection of one flank into meat anf fat selection to estimate the quantity and percentage of carcass fat. 7. Dissection of one fore or hind shank into meat and bone selection to estimate the quantity and percentage of bone and percentage of meat. REFERENCES Allen, D. M.. Merkel R. A., Magee, W. T. & Nelson, R. H. 1968. Variation in some beef carcass compositional characteristics within and between selected weight and fat thickness ranges. J. An. Sci., 27: 1239 1246. Ref. ABA 37: 1251. —» Merkel, R. A., Magee, W. T. & Nelson, R. H. 1969, Relationship of physically separable muscle, fat and bone from the left side of steer carcasses to yields of retail cuts, fat trim and bone of the right side. J. An. Sci., 28: 311 315. Blackwell, R. L., Knox, J. H., Shelby. C. E. & Clark, R. T. 1962. Genetic analysis of economic characteristics of young Hereford cattle. J. An. Sci., 21: 101 107. de Boer, H. Bergström, P. L. &de Rooy, H. 1969. Methods of evaluating carcass quality in cattle. EAAP Congr. Helsinki 1969. du Bose, L. E., Cartwright, T. C. & Cooper, R. J. 1967. Predicting steak and roast meat from production and carcass traits. J. An. Sci., 26' 688 693. Brackelsberg, P. 0., Hale, N. S., Cowan, W. A. & Kinsman, D. M. 1968. Relationship of sectional characteristics to beef carcass composition. J. An. Sci., 27: 39 44, —» & Willham, R. L. 1968. Relationship among some common live and carcass measure- ments and beef carcass composition. J. An. Sci., 27: 53 57. Brännäng, E. 1966. En studie i avkommebedömningsteknik för tillväxt- och slaktegenskaper hos kombinerande mjöikköttraser. Lantbrukshögk. meddel. 101/1968. —» & Nilsson, K. 1969. Principles of cattle and sheep carcass evaluation. EAAP Congr. Helsinki 1969. Busch, D. A., Dinkel, C. A. & Minyard, J A. 1969. Body measurements, subjective scores and estimates of certain carcass traits as predictors of edible portion in beef cattle. J. An. Sci., 29:557-566. Ref. ABA 38:1097. Buss, G. 1968. Comparison of the slaughter results for young fatteningbulls of Germain Black Pied. Spotted Mountain and Germain Yellow breeds in Thuringen. Arch. Tierz. 11: 53-72. Ref. ABA 37: 2262. Butterfield, R. M. 1965. The relationship of carcass measurements and dissection data to beef carcass composition. Res. vet. Sci., 6: 24 32. Ref. ABA 34: 73. Callow, E. H. 1962. The relationship between the weight of a tissue in a single joint and the total weight of the tissue in a side of beef. Anim. Prod. 4: 37 46. 442 Cole, J. W.. Orme, L. E. & Kincaid, C. M. 1960. Relationship of loin eye area, separable lean of various beef cuts and carcass measurements to total carcass lean in beef. J. An. Sci., 19:89-99. Cundiff, L. V., Chambers, D., Stephens, D. F. & Willham. R. L. 1964. Genetic analysis of some growth and carcass traits in beef cattle. J. An. Sci., 23: 1133 1138. » , Moody, W. G., Little, J. E. (Jr), Jones, B. M. (Jr) & Bradley, N. W. 1967. Predicting beef carcass cutability with live animal measurements. J. An. Sci., 26: 210, Abstr. 42. Dietert, W. 1969. Untersuchungen iiber verschiedene Priifungsverfahren auf Mastleistung und Schlachtkorperwert beim Rind. Georg-August-Univ. Gottingen 1969. Dinkel, C. A., Wilson, L. L., Tuma, H. J. & Minyard, J. A. 1965. Rations and percents as measures of carcass traits. J. An. Sci., 24:425—429. Dumont, B. L., Quelte, Le. P. & Arnoux, J. 1961. A biometrical study of beef cattle. I. Variability in the anatomical composition of the carcass of Charolais cattle. 11. Estima- tion of the weight of the musculature in Charolais cattle. Ann. Zootech. 10: 149 154, 321-326. Ref. ABA 30: 2387. Epley, R. J.. Hedrick, H. 8,, Stringer, W. C. & Hutcheson, D. P. 1970. Prediction of weight and percent retail cuts of beef using five carcass measurements. J. An. Sci., 30: 872-879. Field, R. A., Schoonover, C. O. & Nelms, G. E. 1966. Relationship between carcass weight and muscle, fat and bone in bull carcasses. J. An. Sci., 25: 588. Abstr. 22. Gottsch, H. A., Merkel, R. A. & Mackintosh, D. L. 1961. Relationship of muscle, tat, bone and some physical measurements to beef carcass cutability. J, An. Sci., 20: 917. Abstr. 66. Gravir, K. 1967. Studies on Different Body Measurements as Estimators of Live and Carcass Weight in Young NRF Bulls. Acta Agric. Skand. 17:217 227. Hammond, J. 1958. Zuwachs und Fleischproduktion. Handbuch der Tierzilchtung I. pp. 197-235. Harvey, W. R. 1966. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. ARS 20 —B. Agric. Res. Service, U. S. Dept, of Agric. 157 p. Henderson, D. W., Goll, D. E. & Kline, E. A. 1966 a. Relationships of muscling and finish measurements from three different groups of beef carcasses with carcass yield. J. An. Sci., 25. 323-328. * , Goll, D. E. & Kline, E A. 1966 b. Measures of carcass yield and tenderness of two muscles in four groups of beef carcasses. J. An. Sci., 25: 329 333. Hinks, C. J. M. & Bech Andersen, B. 1968. Phenotypic aspects of growth and carcass quality in veal calves. Anim. Prod. 10: 331 340. Huth, F. W. 1965. Typfragen und Mastmethoden beim Rind. Z. Biol. 82: 122 138. Jensen, B. 1967. Effect of age on muscle development in cattle. Beretn. NJF. 13 kongr. No. 4, II; 370. Johanson, I & Hildeman, S. E. 1953. The relationship between certain body measurements and live and slaughter weight in cattle. ABA 22: 1 17. Laine, J. J. 1971. Amerikkalaisen kauppiaan näkemys edullisesta naudanlihan hankinnasta. Suomen Liha- ja Karjatalous 1971, 1: 4 6. Levy, D.. Holzer, Z. & Volgani, R. 1968. The effect of age and live weight of feed conversion and yield of saleable meat of intact Israeli Friesian male calves. Anim. Prod, 10: 325 -330. Liljedahl, L-E. 1965. Estimation of the Weight of Total Muscle Tissue in Beef Carcasses. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 31:231 236. Lindh£, B. 1968. Crossbreeding for Beef with Swedish Red and White Cattle. I. Performance under varying field conditions. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 34: 1—465. —» & Henningsson, T. 1968. Crossbreeding for Beef with Swedish Red and White Cattle. 11. Growth and feed efficiency under standardized conditions together with detailed carcass evaluation. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 34:517 550. Lindström, U & Maijala, K. 1970. Evaluation of performance test results for A. I. Bulls. Acta Agric. Skand. 20:207 218. 443 Martin, T. G. & Starkenburg, R. T. 1965. Genetic correlations between beef and dairy traits in dual-purpose cattle. World Rev. An. Prod. Special Issue 1965 1:45 52. Mather, R. E., Randel, P. F. & Rimm, A. A. 1959. Relative errors in some body measure- ments of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 43: 1890 1891. Neiman-Sorensen, A.. Nielsen, E. O. & Legates, J. E. 1965. The interrelations between growth, body measurements, and carcass quality and meat characteristics in the pro- duction. World Rev. An. Prod. Special Issue 1965, 1.41—44. Nielsen,E. 0.1962. Undersogelser over kodproduktionsegenskaber ved de danske afkomsprover med tyre. Mimeogr. Orme, L. E., Cole, J. W. & Kincaid, C. M. 1959 a. Predicting total carcass lean in mature beef using weights of certain entire muscles. J. An. Sci., 18; 1479. Abstr. 50. Orme, L. E., Pearson, A. M., Bratzler, L. J., Magee, W. T. & Wheeler, A. C. 1959 b. The muscle-bone relationship in beef. J. An. Sci., 18: 1271 1281. » , Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T. & Bratzler, L. J. 1959 c. Relationship of live animal measurements to various carcass measurements in beef. J. An. Sci., 18:991—999. Pirchner, F. 1965. Ziichtungsfragen in der Fleischerzeugung. Z.Biol. 82: 139 153. Ruohomäki, H. 1967. Charolaisristeytyskokeiden tuloksia. Ref. Results of Charolais trials in Finland. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 6: 115 126. » & Varo, M. 1967. Effect of Crossing with charolais on the beef yield of slaughter animals based on results gained in the cutting of carcasses. Acta Agr. Fenn. 109, 1: 155 163. Schmitten, F. 1968. Über die Einfliisse von Endgewicht und Haltungsform auf die Schlacht- Körperzusammensetzung und Fleischqualität von Mastkälbern. Mitt. Tierhalt., No. 114. Ref. ABA 37:2293. Schön, L. 1969. Examination of the gross tissue composition of slaughter cattle. Bayer, landw. Jb., 46:771-827' Seebeck, R. M. & Tulloh, N. M. 1966. The representation of yield of dressed carcass. Anira. Prod. 8:281-288. Skjervold, H. 1958. Registrering av kjottproduksjonsegenskapene hos storfe. Norges Land- brukshogsk. Melding nr. 123. Swiger, L. A., Gregory, K. E., Sumption, L. J,, Breidenstein, B. C. & Arthaud, V. H. 1965. Selection indexes for efficiency of beef production. J. An. Sci,, 24: 418 424. Tallis, G. M,, Klosterman, E. W. & Cahill, V. R. 1959. Body measurements in relation to beef type and to certain carcass characteristics. J. An. Sci., 18; 108 115. Thorton, J. W. & Hiner, R. L. 1965. Volume of beef round related to carcass composition. J. An. Sci., 24: 301-304. Touchberry, R. W. & Lush, J. L, 1950. The accuracy of linear body measurement of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 33: 72 80. Varo, M. 1969. Über Methoden zur Bewertung der Schlachtkörperqualität bei lebenden und geschlachteten Rindern. EAAP Congr. Helsinki 1969. Weber, F. 1957. Die statistischen und genetischen Grundlagen von Körpermessungen am Rind. Z. Biol. 69:225-260. Weniger, J. H. 1965. Zusammensetzung und Bewertung des Schlachtkörpers. Z. Biol. 82: 199-217. Wilson, L. L., Dinkel, C. A., Tuma, H. J* & Minyard, J. A. 1964. Live-animal prediction of cutability and other beef carcass characteristics by several judges. J. An. Sci. 23: 1102 1107. Wismer-Pedersen, J. 1969. Undersogelser a£ kodkonsistens og muskelfibre. Afkorasprover for kodproduktion 11. 372. beretn. fra farsogslab. s. 72 103. Witt, M. 1965. Rind und Schwein als Fleischproduzenten. Z. Biol. 82; 103 l2l. 444 Selostus Nuoren lihanaudan teurasominaisuuksien arvioimisesta Hilkka Ruohomäki Maatalouden tutkimuskeskus, Kotieläin]älostuslaitos, 01301 Vantaa 30 Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli selvittää, voidaanko elävän eläimen mitoilla arvioida riit- tävällä luotettavuudella elopainoa, teuraspainoa ja ruohon koostumusta lihan, rasvan ja luiden kilo- ja prosenttimääriä ja voidaanko ruhon koostumusta arvioida riittävällä luo- tettavuudella muilla keinoin kuin paloitelemalla koko ruho. Aineiston muodosti yht. 205 n. vuoden vanhaksi kasvatettua härkää ja sonnia sekä 174 n. kasvatettua sonni- vasikkaa. Pienimmän neliösumman menetelmällä lasketuilla korjaustermeillä korjattiin kukin ominaisuus yksilöittäin kokeiden sisällä iän, ruokinnan ja rodun suhteen. Korjatuista arvoista laskettiin askeltavalla regressioanalyysilla ne ominaisuudet tai ominaisuusyhdistelmät, jotka parhaiten selittivät edellä mainittuja arvioitavia ominaisuuksia. Elopainoille saatiin elävän eläimen mitoilla 1-vuotiailla 87 %:n ja 82 %:n sekä teuraspainoille vastaavasti 84 %:n ja 80 %:n selitysasteet. Parhaat elävän eläimen mitat näiden ominaisuuksien sekä lihan kilomäärän arvioimisessa olivat rinnan ympärys, rinnan leveys ja pituus. Lihan kilomäärää arvioi parhaiten teuraspaino, selitysaste molemmissa ikäryhmissä 96 %. Muut ominaisuudet lisäsivät teuraspainolla saatua selitys- astetta 1— 2 %-yksikköä. Lihan prosenttimäärän selitysaste jäi pieneksi 1-vuoti- ailla, mutta l / 2-vuotiailla saatiin etupotkien paloittelutuloksilla 56 %;n selitysaste. Rasvan kilo- ja prosenttimäärää arvioivat 1-vuotiailla parhaiten teuraspaino ja elimet, selitysasteet 62 % ja 50 %, kun taas vastaavat selitysasteet olivat 70 % ja 59 %. jotka saatiin munuaisrasvoilla ja kupeiden paloittelutuloksilla. Luiden kilo- ja pro- senttimäärälle saatiin 1-vuotiailla potkien paloittelutuloksilla 68 %:n ja 55 %:n selitysasteet sekä 1/2-vuotiailla etupotkien paloittelutuloksilla vastaavasti 82 %:n ja 70 %:n selitysasteet. Etu- ja takapään paloittelutuloksilla saadut selitysasteet olivat suurempia kuin muilla ominaisuusryhmillä saadut. Tenrasarvostelupisteillä saadut selitysasteet jäivät edellä selostettuja pienemmiksi. Taulukoissa 33 ja 34 esitettyjen eri ominaisuusryhmillä saatujen selitysasteiden lukuun- ottamatta etu- ja takapään paloittelulla saatuja selitysasteita saavuttaminen edellyttää seuraavia toimenpiteitä; 1. Elopainon toteaminen punnitsemalla. 2. Elävän eläimen rinnan ympäryksen, rinnan leveyden, pituuden, säkäkorkeuden ja takasäären leveyden mittaaminen elopainon ja teuraspainon arvioimiseksi. 3. Teuraspainon toteaminen punnitsemalla. 4. Teurasarvostelussa lihakkuuden arvioiminen. 5. Pään, sydämen, maksan ja munuaisrasvojen punnitseminen rasvan kilo- ja prosentti- määrän arvioimiseksi. 6. Toisen kuvekappaleen leikkaaminen liha- ja rasvalajitelraiin rasvan kilo -ja prosentti- määrän arvioimiseksi. 7. Toisen etu- tai takapotkan leikkaaminen liha- ja luulajitelmiin lihan prosenttimäärän sekä luiden kilo- ja prosenttimäärän arvioimiseksi.