THE. as it i s represented by a choice No. 1 grade as described by t h e Livestock. is meant by these words: Are you including dressing percent?

Transcription

1 180 THE EFFECT OF TYPE CARCASS ON CHARACTERlSTlCS As I attempt t o discuss t h i s topic, I f i n d myself a t r i f l e confused over t h e exact meaning of two words i n t h e t i t l e, F i r s t, what do we mean by "type?" and secondly w h a t are 'Icarcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s? I' When we mention type, what ideas immediately begin t o pass through your minds. Does type mean t h e large, intermediate and Chuffy hogs as many folks used t h e terms previous t o 1935, o r are you thinking of the bacon and lard type of hog and comparing t h e carcass of a Yorkshire say, with t h a t of a Duroc? O r are you thinking of t h e "meat type" of hog, regardless of breed as it i s represented by a choice No. 1 grade as described by t h e Livestock grading branch of P.M.A. The second p a r t refers t o "carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " and j u s t w h a t is meant by these words: 1. Are you r e f e r r i n g t o c u t t i n g y i e l d? 2. Are you including dressing percent? 3. Are you thinking of s i z e of eye i n t h e l o i n and plumpness and thickness of ham and shculder? 4. Are you considering backfat thickness and grade? 5. And does it not overlap i n t o q u a l i t y of t h e carcass a s in- fluenced by several f a c t o r s? Personally, as I t h i n k of carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s, I would l i k e t o combine a11 of these ideas i n t o one. But as I look over the material p e r t a i n ing t o t h i s subject I am unable t o find any reference t o a l l phases of t h i s subject i n one s i n g l e report. By t h a t I mean, someone has reported on dressi n g percent o r cut-out y i e l d and shown c e r t a i n results and painted r a t h e r a r o s y p i c t u r e b u t what was the shape of eye i n t h e pork chop and w h a t w a s t h e percent of l e a n i n a s l i c e of bacon f a c t o r s which d e f i n i t e l y have consumer appeal. - These a r e t h e points which should be covered under carcass characteri s t i c s but a s u b j e c t on which t h e r e seems t o be very l i t t l e p r i n t e d information. Fortunately, t h i s conference is set up so that more t i m e is l e f t f o r discussion khan is t o be taken up i n presenting t h i s report. This i s a s it should be and if properly handled presents a wonderful opportunity f o r a frank, open discussion by everyone on this timely subject.

2 181 Now, I wgiild like to review briefly a little of the work which has been done on this subject and then throw in a few ideas which may be stimulating to a later discussion, One should not attempt to discuss swine type as related to carcass characteristics without referring to the work of the Illinois station which was conducted in 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, and reported on by workers of that station in Bulletins 321, 322, 323. Also, a report in the Illinois Station Bulletin 415 published in July In their summary they reported on five major points as: 1. Dressing percentage. There was no significant difference in the dressing percentage of hogs of the Chuffy, Intermediate and Rangy types when similarly fed and slaughtered at 225 pounds. 2. Carcass measurements. Various carcass measurements showed that length of carcass varied with the type. The very Chuff'y being shortest and the Intermediate being shorter than the Rangy. Type had little effect upon depth of chest. Length of body proper varied more within type than between types. 3. Cutting percentages. There was little difference in cutting percentages between the Chuffy, Intermediate and Rangy types when self-fed in dry lot. 4. Physical Composition of carcasses. When hogs are hand-fed or self-fed, the percentages of lean on the Chuffy, Intermediate and R a n g y types were practically the same When hogs were self-fed differences in skin content were very small between types. When self-fed or hand-fed the very Chuffy carcasses contained less bone than the Chuffy or Intermediate types while the Rangy contained a higher percentage of bone. 5. Grade of Carcasses. When hand-fed, the very C k u f f y type finished before reaching a market weight of' 225 pounds. Host of the Chuffy and Intermediate were not too fat at this welght as judged by standards at that time, The Rangy were not finished at 225 pounds. The btermediate Type from the butcher's standpoint either hand-fed or self-fed proved the most desirable of the types studied. The Rangy however was quite acceptable if self-fed,

3 182 A later reference to, "Value of present-day Swine Types," was reported on i n B u l l e t i n 415, (1935) and I quote, "The current demand f o r pork is f o r a carcass t h a t w i l l c u t out small, lean, firm cuts, a f i n i s h e d b e l l y, and a minimum amount of lard. None of t h e types of animals included i n t h i s study meets effect i v e l y the present pork market demands. The Intermediate type approaches t h e ideal most nearly with t h e Chuffy, t h e Rangy, and t h e very Chuffy f o l lowing i n order named. The i d e a l hog would have t h e q u a l i t y and plumpness of the Intermediate type, t h e length of t h e Rangy type, and t h e e a r l y maturi.ty of t h e Chuffy." W t h e r reference m u s t be made t o Purdue B u l l e t i n 340, (1930) on t h e "Influence of t h e growth and f a t t e n i n g processes on the quantity and q u a l i t y of meat yielded by swine." A range of 75.3 t o 82% i n dressing percentage was reported i n these s t u d i e s and they stated t h a t t h e f a t t e r a hog the higher is h i s y i e l d, b u t that the depth of fat i s not t h e only determining f a c t o r on dressing percentage. There is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between maturity and q u a l i t y of meat i n swine. Each length type of hog w i l l y i e l d f i r s t q u a l i t y pork, but only when the proper stage of development o r f i n i s h i s reached. The medium type hog weighing 191 t o 219 pounds produced a firm more desirable carcass. No r e p o r t of t h i s kind would be complete without reference t o t h e "A Study of Carcass Characteriswork of 0. G. Hankins and others i n B.A.I. t i c s i n Relation t o Type of Hog." 33rd An. Proc. ASAP 1940 (p ) - "Relationship between c e r t a i n body measurements and carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n Swine." J. A. Sc. Vol. 9, No. 1, Feb (p.37-47). F e r r i n (1939) reported t h a t hogs measuring 29 t o 31 inches i n carcass length produced a higher proportion of d e s i r a b l e carcasses when slaughtered a t 225 pounds l i v e w e i g h t than hogs over o r under t h i s length. The B.A.1; workers r e p o r t t h a t extensive s t u d i e s have been reported on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of such f a c t o r s as type, conformation, and degree of f i n i s h t o carcass q u a l i t y i n swine. Few attempts, however, have been made t o determine t h e value of individually recorded body measurements f o r predicting the q m l i t y and quantity of a. hog carcass. Their work i n t h e f a l l of 1947 was used t o determine t h e r e l a t i v e value of c e r t a i n body measurements f o r p r e d i c t i n g (a) t h e combined y i e l d of ham, l o i n, bacon, p i c n i c shoulder, and shoulder b u t t, and (b) the y i e l d of l e a n meat i n t h e hams. The eight l i v e hog measurements studied were: length from ear t o t a i l, height a t shoulders, width a t shoulders, width of middle, width a t hams, depth of chest, depth of middle, and circumference a t chest. For both barrows and g i l t s, depth of middle was t h e most important item i n determining the y i e l d of the f i v e cuts. From t h e analysis of t h e y i e l d of l e a n meat i n the hems, it was found that width a t hams was t h e most important of the measurements f o r barrows and g i l t s.

4 183 Predictive value of measurements studied was low but it offers possibilities of being a valuable tool in estimating carcass yields fromthe live animal. - - In the National Provisioner March 14, 1953, pages appears an article by Hankins, Hiner and Sloane on "A New Look at the Significance of Fat and Hog Dressing Yields." The yield of the dressed carcass in relation to t h e live weight of meat animals is a factor of obvious importance. Results of their study show that it is entirely possible through breeding and selection to reduce the fatness of hogs without sacrifice in dressing percentage. The latest item in print to come to q y attention pertaining to this report is Olrlahoma Bulletin No. B-398, May 1953 "Meat Qpe Hog Production" by Whatley, Gard, Whiteman and Hilleer. It deals with the influence of breeding and energy content of the ration on pork carcasses. A brief sumnaary of this report indicates that the identification of meat-type strains of hogs and the selection of individuals of desirable meat type is the best procedure for improving meatiness of pork carcasses. Reducing the energy content on a self-fed ration during the latter pert of the fattening period reduced this rate of gain and resulted in a leaner carcass. However, the reduction in dressing percentage of pigs on restricted energy rations offset the advantage of a leaner carcass; consequently, the carcass value of the live hogs were not improved. Comparisons of the breeding lines showed there were considerable hereditary differences in the ability to produce lean, well-muscled carcasses. Differences in carcass quality were not associated with differences in dressing percentages. The lines which produced the best carcasses also had high dressing percentages. In the May issue of the Home1 Farmer, Hazel of Iowa State refers to three types of hogs as found by his colleagues Kastelio and Kline, that is the Meaty, Intermediate and Fat type and he states that the carcasses of these three types showed 30, 45 and 55 percent fat respectively. Dr. Hazel makes one statement in this article that might be questioned. Quote "The percentage of lean cuts increases as the length of the body increases.i ' What do these workers m e a n by a Meaty type hog as compared to an Intermediate type hog? Is it just a question of degree of fatness or not? Now to come back to the topic assigned me, "The effect of type on carcass characteristics." After calling attention t o some of the various references which I have given, you may well realize why there is so much confusion regarding type. How many of you as you look at a live hog feel that you can select the hog with the most desirable carcass? By desirable carcass, I mean the one that is going to meet with consumer desirability. One that has a high proportion of lean to fat in the bacon. One with a large circumference of eye muscle in the chop and one with a well muscled ham that is plump withobt meh exterior padding of fat.

5 184. Which, of two l i v e hogs, having t h e same outward dimentions and contour i s t h e hog with t h e heavy muscling and a minimum of padding, and which i s narrow framed with under-develcpei nuscling and y e t i s a well padded animal? How many of our l i v e s t o c k judges, or we as individuals, have judged a c l a s s of four barrows and with a close p a i r may have made t h e following comment t o j u s t i f y our placing: No. 1 t r i l l hang up a more d.esirable carcass and will y i e l d a higher proportion of t h e preferred cuts i n tha% it has more spring of f o r e r i b, is f u l l e r i n the l o i n and i s deeper i n t h e body with a plumper ham showing mare muscling? Have we s p e c i a l i n s i g h t t h a t j u s t i f i e s our making such a statement? Is t h e r e any one measurement o r group of measurements t h a t can be taken on t h e l i v e animal which w i l l give us a r e l i a b l e index as t o the muscling t h a t w i l l be found i n t h e carcass of t h e hog. So f a r as I know a t present, t h e r e i s not. One cannot t e l l what i s muscling ami vhat i s f a t. The measurement of backfat m y give us a y i e l d of preferred cuts but it doesn't t e l l us t h e whole story. What i s t h e s i z e of type of muscling i n t h e l o i n and ham, and t h e proportion of l e a n t o f a t i n t h e bacon? All of t h e carcass contests o r type conferences I have attended have given out information on t h e yield of preferred cuts and t h e dressing percentage of the hogs b u t very few of them have broken a l o i n so t h a t you could see t h e shape of eye muscling. w e muscling i s what influences consumer preference. Packers put a l l l o i n s i n the trade channels without breaking them so t h a t they never see t h e shape of muscle i n a loin. llzey s e l l on weight, and use firmness as an i n d i c a t i o n of quality. I hope t h a t i n t h e discussion which follows we can devise methods by which we can a t t a c k t h i s problem i n a constructive way. I n closing, I would l i k e t o show you a few s l i d e s which i l l u s t r a t e some of t h e points I have r e f e r r e d t o. MR. COLE: I brought a chart t o show you what an ideal hog looked l i k e i n That was maqe bj an i n s t i t u t i o n represented here today. I %-ant p a r t i c u l a r l y t o c a l l your a t t e n t i o n t o t h e squareness of a very compact square animal. I doubt t h i s hog, t h e short legs, e t c. i f the people from t h e i n s t i t u t i o n knew that t h i s was i n existence and I am p r e t t y sure they did not help t o design t h i s hog, p r i n t and copyright it, e t c. -- I b r i n g it up from t h i s standpoint: we h e m q u i t e o f t e n i n type demonstrations throughout t h e country, "Oh, we are going t o go back t o t h a t old razor-back t n e, " o r that rangy type, or "We are going t o go too far one way or t h e other," I t h i n k they are expressing t h a t opinion without much basis, Meats research i s a p r e t t y new science. Grading was established i n t h e '20s and ve haven't r e a l l y c o r r e l a t e d our types o r our feeding versus carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r a very long time. OUT

6 185 A lot of us still use the terms chuffy, intermediate and rangy. Now Iowa has proposed the tern meaty, intermediate or lardy. MR. KASTELIC: I should like to clarify our definitions a bit. We have Dr. Craft, Dr. Hazel, Ed Kline, myself and others, and we sometimes have arguments a8 to what we mean when we talk to one another about type. It occurred to us, at least to Kline, myself and others, that in order to establish the validity of saying that a certain kind of pig had so much fat we had to start some place. Our meat type hog is not choice No. 1. It is a three star special and it has every evidence of heavy muscling. We have evidence that we can pick these hogs because up to date they have given u8 data which indicates a 53 per cent yield of lean cuts and that is high. The intermediate, according t o the measurements we have taken --tail,a dinwethe are taking every measurement in the book except the link of the hopes of being able to get all this information on these kinds of hogs. I don't know what we are going to do with all the information when we finally finish getting it. But this intermediate type hog carries none of the connotation the term usually has. It is really choice No. 1 pig. According to the measurements we have obtained on the carcass, this so-called fat type ia not an extreme type. It is an animal that could probably best be described as fitting somewhere between a choice 2 and 3. We are getting the fat content of the trimmed carcass and of the carcass itself; we have the measurements of the eye and all the regular carcass measurements.. MR, KL,INE: Just a few comments on the measurements of these As far as body measurements are concerned, our fat pig is about pip 2& inches long; just a little over 2 inches 011 backfat; about 2.1, as I recall on those in this group. Our intermediate is somewhere between 29 and 30 inches long. It has an average backfat thickness of 1.6. Our three star special or meat t y p e pig is about the same length, just a little under 30 inches, and is Just a little short of 1.5 inches of backfat MR. COLE: Does he have sufficient qwlity? MR. KLINE: I think so. Here again we may be criticized for using this term quality rather loosely, but he is firm, with a lot of balance. fresh. MR. COLE: Then you can broil his pork chops? MR. KLINE: MR. ZIEGLER: I don't recommend broiling any pork cuts that You don't know what good pork tastes like. are

7 MR. BRATZLER: Joe, how reliable i s t h e f a t content or how do you p i n it dovn? You say t h i s type has so much f a t. Our chemists t e l l us after g e t t i n g a composite s m p l e it i s j u s t doing work f o r nothing. e have spent a l o t of time on t h a t. You are MR. KASTELIC: W using a chemical procedure, the regular fat fraction, and we think w e have t h a t solved. We take t h e half carcass f o r t h e f a t i n the carcass, bone it out and run it through a s i l e n t c u t t e r u n t i l we have a r e a l l y w e l l mixed sample. Then we make three two-pound samples. We render t h e f a t out i n a hot a i r oven a t 270' and press the cracklings out i n a Carver press a t i t s mximum pressure, about 20,000 pounds. We a r e l e f t with a cake of cracklings which contains a rather constant arr-ount of fat, 1 t o 2 per cent. Then these data are checked and whereas we had d i f f i c u l t y. i n g e t t i n g checks within plus o r minus 10 per cent by ether extraction, because our sample f o r extraction is too small and we have t o dry it, by t h i s procedure our e r r o r among t h e t r i p l i c a t e samples runs from 1 t o 2 per cent. W e have done enough of them now so we are using only duplicate samples. Similarly with t h e other cuts, t h e ham is boned after close trimming, cut i n a s i l e n t cutter, and two samples are taken of about one and a half pounds rendered out and then pressed out i n t h e Carver press. The f a t i s obtained, and we have checked the e r r o r within 1 and 2 per cent, It i s improved because we are using a l a r g e amount. However, I think you probably w i l l have trouble financing t h e experiment because every time you use a p i g there i s no recovery, j u s t chopped up fat. It costs you t h e p r i c e of the hog. MR. COLE: What do you think about the difference i n terminology used, such as l a r g e type, small type, intermediate type, chuffy type, rangy type? Do we a l l understaad what those types are o r can we go back and use t h e USDA grades and grade them as a standard reference point? Speaking f o r t h e southeast, we d e f i n i t e l y have chuffy, r w and i n t e r mediate hogs. The hogs t h a t w e saw here as mill-ran looked l i k e p r e t t y chuffy hogs t o us. I t h i n k we d e f i n i t e l y s t i l l have a very serious problem as t o type. We have people who like those s h o r t ones because they a r e born fat and they s t a y fat and it doesn't take any feed t o f a t t e n them, MR. HANKINS: I would suggcst t h a t you give thought t o t h e term "fat type" as contrasted with "meat type." W e used t o use t h e three terms large, intermediate and s n s l l. We t r i e d t o prepare ourselves f o r future improvement by saying t h a t further improvement would come about i n hog types through refinement within t h e intermediate type. In our group we s t i l l hold t h e opinion that t h e refinercent going t o w h a t we now c a l l t h e neat type hog has a c t u a l l y been brought about through refinement within the intermediate type. This thing has been confusing f o r years. Years ago, when we were showing a t the International Livestock Exposition exhibits of carcasses and cuts from various state experiment s t a t i o n s, on one occasion we had i n t h e cases six d i f f e r e n t types of hog carcasses and cuts a t one time. It was hardly defensible a t that time, I would suggest that we think about t h i s thing in terms now of meat type and fat type. Within this group we ought t o t r y t o come t o a c m o n terminology.

8 187 Mh. COLE: I agree with ycu, Mr, Hankins. That is why I brought t h e point up. Do you suggest t h a t we abandon some of the terms we are using o r j u s t t r y t o define the terms t h a t a r e i n use? MR. HANKINS: If we could agree upon t h e terminology t h a t we would use I think t h a t would help greatly t o clarify t h i s thing. Your d e f i n i t i o n of the terms we a r e using would not accomplish t h a t. MR. KASTELIC: per se? Your suggestion has nothing t o do with breeds MR. RANKINS: Not a t a l l. I am not g e t t i n g i n t o breed categories f o r t h e moment. I am tryi% t o leave with you the thought t h a t perhags t h i s present day meat type hog i s simply a refinement of what we formerly called the intermediate type. Since we f i n d t h i s term "meat type" being used t o a g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r extent, l e t ' s use it. W e need mmekhing t o take care of t h e rest of the p i g a t t h e same time and I am proposing "fat type.i1 ~ MR. COLE: Where would you f i t i n t h e ones t h a t d o n ' t f i t i n t o t h e meat type, those that are too rangy? MR, HANKINS:!Type and grade are two d i f f e r e n t things from my point of view. Let's not confuse type and grade. I am t r y i n g t o get a f e w ideas as I go along here. I am wondering i f we are going t o f i n d ourselves needing a break down of meat type and perhaps even a break down of t h e subdivision, if you w i l l, of the fat type. I don't know the answer t o t h a t, B i l l. MR. COLE: I t h i n k we have posed a d e f i n i t e problem here and one t h a t we need t o do something about. M R. EANKINS: I would agree that i n a l l probability we cannot settle t h i s question here t h i s afternoon. If it were not f o r the fact that t h i s 'heat type" terminology has come i n t o the p i c t u r e i n recent years and is so acceptable, so expressive of what we a r e seeking, I would be inclined t o urge t h a t we s t a y with t h e old terminology of lard, i n t e r mediate and small. That is c l e a r and it p r e t t y w e l l covers the f u l l range of the types t h a t we find, but I want t o hang on t o t h i s "meat type" expression because I t h i n k it i s good. MR. KLINE: I wonder, D r. Craft, would you l i k e t o say anything about yours? You have done quite a b i t of thinking about types, and maybe you can take a minute o r two t o explain your thinking on categorizing these d i f f e r e n t types. DR. CRIIFT: The suggestion you and I were t a l k i n g about, Ed, was w h a t Mr. Hankins has proposed here, except I believe the terminology we were considering was l e a n and f a t types. It may have been lean type and f a t type. That would c a l l f o r a division of your hogs f i r s t of a l l i n t o a f a t group and a l e a n group. Then we were proposing three grades under each group. MR. RANKINS: That f i t s in with what I just said.

9 186 we had. DR, CRAFT: No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. That i s e s s e n t i a l l y what What worries me a l i t t l e about defining types i s say we have one breed i n t h e l i t t e r and t h e e take two barrows and we feed one, genetics are p r e t t y much the same. W one way and one the other. Do they come out two d i f f e r e n t types when we are ready t o market them? Is it more feeding than breeding? MR, BUTLER: i f you take a meat type -- MR. COLE: I remernber that t h e animal breeder whom we had twa o r three years ago said that half the breeding i s through t h e mouth. MR. KASTELIC: To c l a r i f y a point i n your thinking, the Jersey cow produces beef and so does the Shorthorn, and y e t no amount of feeding w i l l ever make the Jersey cow i n t o a Shorthorn steer. I am thinking about t h e same thing i n terms of these meat type hogs and that animal t h a t looks as though it were crossed with a weasel, I object t o t h e idea of associatine the meat m e hog with a rangy one something l i k e what we saw on the slide, I t h i n k it is an animal with a large, w e l l developed ham, trim shoulders, strong loins. We l i k e t o see a b i g eye i n t h e l o i n and you don't get it i n those rangy, long pigs. MR. ENGLAND: Am I r i g h t i n presuming t h a t these types would be based on carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s rather than l i v e animals? MR. KASTELIC: Yes, MR. ENGLAND: Then these types would be set up on t h e basis of measurements of c e r t a i n carcass t r a i t s? he3, KASTELIC: We haven't gotten t h a t far. MR. ICERR: I s n ' t it possible t h a t some of t h e poor doers might be just t h e weasel type of hog Kastelic i s t a l k i n g about? I can visua l i z e it with no b e l l y on it or anything else. I don't think you can put it 1, 2, 3. You ere g e t t i n g into grades, how are you going t o separate the grades from each other? MR. KASTELIC: I think t h a t t h a t is the point t h a t M r. Hankins made, t h a t we ohould not confuse t h i s type with a grade, because within a type we do have grades. MR. KLINE: I don't believe our next speaker needs a great deal of introduction t o t h i s group. Wherever there is anything doing with swine breeding o r even with hog carcassesi D r. Craft i s on hand t o help out and o f f e r suggestions, and I am sure h i s suggestions have been very well worth while t o qyself' and others a t our i n s t i t u t i o n. We have asked D r. Craft, who i s Direction of t h e Federal Regional Swine Breeding Laboratory, t o discuss with us "Systems of Breeding as They Influence Pork Carcasses, #######