t. HlNER I The basic consideration i n cutting pork is t o divide t h e carcase i n t o a s e r i e s of uniform cuts with s p e c i f i c uses.

Transcription

1 123. S T A N D A R D M E T H O D O F C U T T I N G PORK CARCASSES FOR D E T E R M I N I N G THE Y I E t D A N D P E R C E N T A G E OF WHO1 ESAL E CUTS R. t. HlNER UN I TED S T A T E S O E P A R T M E N T OF A G R I C U L T U R E I W A t your f i r s t Reciprocal Meat Conference, held a year ago, t h e quest i o n of w h a t method t o use i n cutting hog carcasses f o r experimental work was raised, and apparently not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered, as your program committee has given me t h a t assignment f o r discussion today. The basic consideration i n cutting pork is t o divide t h e carcase i n t o a s e r i e s of uniform cuts with s p e c i f i c uses. With t h i s i n mind, and the fact t h a t i n research, f o r example, problems dealing with breeding, feeding, management and grade, where y i e l d i s a ma3or consideration, a uniform method for cutting hog carcasses i s imperative. Thus i n 1929, t h e Conference of Representative6 of I n s t i t u t i o n s engaged i n Cooperative Quality i n Meat Investigation8 adopted a atandard procedure f o r cutt i n g hog carcasse8. There i s l i t t l e guess work i n this procedure a8 it r e l a t e s t o untrimmed cuts, which a r e made a t d e f i n i t e anatomical points. This method i s not perfect, but it does have t h e advantage o f being a8 near a uniform procedure a8 can be followed by those of us engaged i n c u t t i n g hog carcasses fpr research purposes. My belief i e t h a t t h e procedure a s adopted w a s one generally practiced by packers a t t b t t i m e. Before proceeding f u r t h e r I would l i k e t o o u t l i n e b r i e f l y the cutting procedure we follow a t the laboratory a t B e l t s v i l l e. FYrst, the warm dressed carcass i s center s p l i t, the l e a f f a t i s loosened by l e f t hanging, t h e head i s dropped a t t h e atlas j o i n t and the hams a r e not faced. I n other words, before c h i l l i n g we remove only t h e contents of t h e thoracic and abdominal c a v i t i e s, After the carcass i s c h i l l e d approximately 72 hours it i s cut i n t o various p a r t s, This i s done by continuing t h e cut through the atlas j o i n t, removing t h e full cut head. The ham i s removed by cutting a t r i g h t angles eo t h e shank between t h e 2d and 3d sacral vertebrae. It is trimmed by removing t h e t a i l bone and cutting away t h e surplus f a t from t h e face, cushion side, flank side, and p e l v i s and rounding t h e corners of t h e b u t t s l i g h t l y. The shank 3.0 removed a t t h e upper point of t h e hock. The shoulder i e removed a t r i g h t angles t o t h e s i d e a t a point midway between t h e attachment of the 2d and 3d ribs. The shoulder ribs and neck bones a r e removed. The shoulder i s then eeparated i n t o picnic and b u t t, beginning a t the point where the neck bone was removed and c u t t i n g a t r i g h t angles t o the shoulder. The shoulder b u t t i s separated i n t o c l e a r p l a t e and Boston butt, leaving not over 1/2 inch of f a t on t h e b u t t. The picnic shoulder i s trimmed by removing t h e minimum amount of meat necessary t o make a smooth, well shaped shoulder. The foot i s removed a t right angles t o t h e hind shank and about one inch above the lmee j o i n t. The middle piece i s dividedinto rough back and rough belly on a l i n e connecting the ventral Bide of the tenderloin muscle a t a point j u s t below the chine bone of t h e t h i r d r i b. The cut i s made a t r i g h t angle6 t o t h e t a b l e

2 124. while t h e middle piece i s l y i n g normally. The backfat i s removed from t h e l o i n allowing about 1/4 inch of f a t t o remain on the loin. The bacon i s trimmed by removing t h e spareribs, keeping the knife close t o the bone and leaving t h e white cartilagenous ends of t h e r i b i n t h e bacon. "he ends are square and t h e belly side trimmed on a l i n e j u s t above t h e teats. The kidneys and t a i l bones a r e weighed as one. The l e a f i s weighed separately. The trimmings *om the ham, shoulders and bacon a r e divided i n t o lean and f a t trimmings and skin, then weighed. Undoubtedly you w i l l ask, o r a t l e a s t be thinkinawhy do we not change our c u t t i n g method t o conform t o that o f t h e packer method?" A f a i r question f o r me t o ask i s, "Do t h e packers have a method?" I n my observation, a f t e r working i n several packing houses i n widely separated areas of the country and i n one packing house a t frequent i n t e r v a l s over a period of a year and a half, they do not have a uniform standard of cutting. They use baeically the same principle we do but many o f them vary cuts t o s u i t the market. A s an example, last year I was working i n a packing plant where t h e c u t t e r s would leave a t l e a s t an inch and a h a l f of back f a t on t h e bacon and threefourths of an inch of f a t on t h e l o i n i f one did not watch them all the time. A t t h i s plant we were studying the e f f e c t of t h e introduction of the meat type hog i n commercial d i s t r i b u t i o n. The c u t t i n g method that was t o be followed i n our study was d i f f e r e n t from the one i n general use a t t h i s plant. Therefore, i t was necessary f o r close supervision on our p a r t, i f we were t o get r e l i a b l e and the c u t t e r s follow comparable data. Thie year the story i s quite d i f f e r e n t t h e scribe l i n e i n separating backfat and bacon and I even noticed t h a t they retrimmed the lower side of t h e bacon after our p a r t of t h e work was finished. The l o i n s were a l s o trimmed very closely. The reason f o r t h i s change i n procedure i s that t h i s packer has too much green uncured bacon i n t h e freezer. A n example of m o t h e r procedure might be i n order. A t a certain plant, instead of separating t h e picnic shoulder and b u t t a t the point where t h e neck bone was removed and c u t t i n g a t r i g h t angles t o t h e shoulder, the procedure w a s t o cut across t h e humerus bone and make a small "picnic ham" and a l a r g e shoulder b u t t. I n t h e case of t h e bacon, this packer was following t h e scribe l i n e. Why w a s the packer c u t t i n g a l a r g e shoulder b u t t? Because it was a money maker. I have no quarrel with the packer f o r these changes. But such changes cannot be made when one i s g e t t i n g comparable research data. During the p a s t 15 years t h e r e ha8 'been a d e f i n i t e trend by packers t o skin t h e i r hams and now it i s nearly a universdl practice. A ham without t h e thick l a y e r of f a t has a strong appeal t o one who i s purchasing it, and with keen competition among meat packers, it soon became a universal practice, except f o r c e r t a i n specialsy hama, such as t h e Smithfields. Another packer p r a c t i c e i s t h a t of cutting t h e jowls loose and r e moving t h e head. Fromthe packer standpoint, t h i s i s good practice, but we as research men need t o know what t h e head weighs. I t i s p a r t of the carcass and must be accounted for. The removal o f t h e l e a f fat on t h e k i l l i n g f l o o r f a c i l i t a t e s c h i l l i n g, but it i s a p a r t of our o r i g i n a l animal. Some day we may find that l e a f f a t i s a good index f o r some q u a l i t y f a c t o r,

3 125. The procedure we use a t B e l t s v i l l e f o r c u t t i n g hog carcasses i s not perfect but it has been consistent. It i s an e r r o r when we leave from 1/4 to 1/2 inch of fat on t h e trimmed l o i n. If the untrimmed l o i n had only 5/8 inch of backfat, p r a c t i c a l l y all of it remains on t h e l o i n, whereas i n a carcass with 2 inches of backfat, near& 75 percent of it i s removed. We a t B e l t s v i l l e are very reluctant t o make any change i n the method of hog c u t t i n g t h a t was recommended by the Cooperative Meat Investigations Committee. If any change were t o be made a t t h i s time, t h e data obtained i n our breeding experiments involving Danish Landrace hogs and certain American breeds and crosses would be o f no value unless we made c e r t a i n corrections. For example, i n an analysis of 1700 hogs, a l l cut as previously outlined representing 1 7 breeds and crosses, we found t h a t t h e y i e l d of t h e f i v e cuts based on l i v e weight at slaughter of approximately 210 pounds varied from 36 t o 51 percent. This represent8 a variation of about 30 pounds i n weights of preferred cuts. Without a uniform cutting procedure t h i s would not have been possible. It i s of i n t e r e s t t g note t h a t of these 1700 hogs, about 2 percent m e t t h e proposed i d e a l o f 50 percent or b e t t e r. Applying this principle t o our studies of breeding t o e s t a b l i s h superior s t r a i n s of swine, we found t h a t t h e e a r l i e r Danish LandracePoland China cross had a y i e l d of preferred cuts of approximately 47 percent. The l a t e s t average f o r this l i n e i e nearly 50 percent. T h i s represents an increase of approximately 7 pounds of preferred cuts. With the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the meat type hogs among t h e breeders t o study the e f f e c t on improving our market hogs, i t i s necessary t h a t w e cut the carcasses of hogs r e s u l t i n g from these mating8 i n t h e same manner a s t h a t used i n developing them, Leaving that inch of backfat on t h e bacon, a s practiced by many packere, which incidentally you and I do not l i k e t o buy a t bacon prices, would i n d i c a t e such breeding procedures result i n a marked increase i n y i e l d of preferred cuts. A l l of us would l i k e t o know which breed or s t r a i n o r cross of hogs i s superior. But we cannot compare the r e s u l t s of t h e work o f one s t a t i o n with t h a t of another unless both use t h e same cutting procedure, not only t h i s year, but also i n t h e years t o come. True enough, c e r t a i n correction f a c t o r s can be calculated and applied. We have worked out some and have found occasion t o uae them, but they a r e only estimates and are not recommended except as a last r e s o r t. A s previously stated, it i s now a universal p r a c t i c e t o skin hams. But do we, as research workers, w a n t t o do that? Are we not a s much i n t e r ested i n how much f a t t h e ham hae, as i n how much backfat t h e carcam has? The f a t on t h e ham i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e hog. Fatness i s one of t h e i m portant considerations i n plumpness, As we reported several years ago, the correlation coefficient between index of plumpness and separable f a t i n t h e ham of Poland China hogs w a s.58. A closer and highly significant r e l a t i o n ship w a s t h a t of r a t i o of edible t o inedible meat w i t h plumpness, o r j.79. The skinning of hams i s not a uniform procedure, and i f it i s done another e r r o r i s introduced, I have observed t h a t i n one packing p l a n t akinning was started about twothirds of t h e distance from t h e b u t t t o t h e hock of t h e ham. Moreover, some c u t t e r s take o f f only t h e skin u n t i l they a r e within a couple of inches of the b u t t, then make a rather deep cut, ending up with l i t t l e or no fat. Others end up with a quarter t o a h a l f inch.

4 126. However, i f it i s necessary t o have skinned hams, by Bu means record t h e weight of t h e ham before skinning as wall as a f t e r. We a r e following t h i s procedure i n work at one packing company. Another question t h a t i s troubling several research workers is whether t o cut t h e e n t i r e carcass and record weights of t h e cuts, o r f o r econoxqyvs sake cut only one side, I have had only limited experience w i t h t h i s procedure. But t h a t limited experience has l e d me t o believe it i s not a part i c u l a r l y desirable procedure. It i s more by accident than by good s p l i t t i n g or c u t t i n g procedures t h a t one get8 both sides s p l i t evenly o r a pair of ham8 trimmed t o the same weight. A s an example, 1 took a t random 50 hog carcasses t h a t had been cut this past winter a t the laboratory. A l l these hogs were of approximately t h e same l i v e weight when slaughtered and were slaughtered under uniform conditions. The erne man s p l i t all t h e carcasses and t h e same 2 men cut and trimmed a l l the cuts. The right ham weighed more than the l e f t 15 times, t h e l e f t ham was t h e heavier 30.times. I n only 5 case^, or 1 0 percent, were they the same. The variation, using the riat ham as a base, was plus 1.1t o minus.6 pounde. I n On t h e average t h e t h e majority of cases the variation was.3 o r.4 pound. l e f t hams weighed.23 pound more than the r i g h t. With t h e bacon the analysis was quite d i f f e r e n t. The l e f t bacons average.71 pound l e s s than t h e right, O f t h e 50 carcasses, 38 had the heavier r i g h t bacon, 8 had heavier l e f t bacon, and i n 4 the right and l e f t bacon weighed the same. The v a r i a t i o n was plus 1.0 t o minus 2.4 pounds much l a r g e r than f o r t h e hams. With the picnic shoulders, i n 22 cases t h e right side cut wa8 heavier and i n 38, the l e f t. The variations between right and l e f t were more i n favor of the l e f t picnic shoulder, as the average f o r the 50 c a ~ e swas plus.15 pound. The variation was plus 1. 2 pounds t o minus.6 pound. This analysis would indicate that the c u t t i n g of only one side i s not a recommended procedure. However, if' it i e absolutely impossible t o get t h e two sides cut, a b e t t e r procedure mathematically would be t o calculate t h e y i e l d of t h e individual cut6 based on t h e h a l f carcase weight, Then apply theae percentage figures t o t h e w e i g h t of the other half carcass, thus obtaining a calculated weight for t h e corresponding cuts. Thus the new weights w i l l be more representative than that of doubling t h e weights from the one aide. A s a f i n a l point with respect t o results t h a t can be shown by a uniform c u t t i n g procedure, t h e following analysis was made o f hog carcasses varying i n average thicknese of backfat from 1.2 t o 2.2 inches a t.2 inch intervals. Each group of hogs had an average slaughter weight of approximately 212 pounds, The six groups of carcas8es w i t h approximately 1. 2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2 inches of backfat had 11.0, 13.0, 13.9, 16.7, , and 19.4 pounds o f skinned backfat. T h i s i s a8 consistent an increase as would be expected, The same i n crease was noted for cutting fat, it Increased from 5.2 t o 8.2 pounds. Leaffat, which I have already mentioned, increased from 5.0 t o 7.6 pounde. Weight of ham changed l i t t l e as backfat thickness increased. However, weight of bacon increased with increase i n t h i c h e s s of backfat u n t i l t h e l a t t e r reached approximately 2.0 inchea, then t h e weight of bacon decreased. I n t h e case of p i c n i c shoulders and l o i n s, there was a gradual decrease i n weight,

5 127. whereas t h e shoulder b u t t remained about t h e same weight u n t i l t h e backfat, thmrriess of 2.0 inches had been reached, a f t e r which there w a s a sharp dewetlee. These results a r e of i n t e r e s t from several points of view. But I have used them only t o i l l u s t r a t e what can be determined by a uniform method of cutting, as practiced i n our laboratory. I n addition t o c u t t i n g y i e l d s as an index of hog carcass merit, we have developed and used other procedures t h a t can be e a s i l y duplicated. I n certain studies we a r e desirous of knowing t h e amount of l e a n and f a t i n t h e croas section bacon. T h i s i s obtained by making a croes sect i o n cut o f the bacon a t the s i x t h r i b and photographing it. A standard d i s tance i s used i n s e t t i n g the camera as well a s s i z e of negative. The p i c t u r e is Uown up t o a workable size, or about 3 times. The area of lean, as well as t h a t of the e n t i r e area, i s determined by a planimeter. The area o f the lean is then subtracted from t h a t of the whole and the difference is t h a t o f t h e f a t. These area figures a r e then expressed a s a percentage. From t h i s study we f i n d that area of lean i n bacon v a r i e s f'rom apprczximately percent t o 37.8 percent. The ideal seems t o be about m i d way ur about 26 percent. From a study involving 47 Danish Landrace, 53 Poland C h i n a and 48 Duroc hogs produced a t B e l t s v i l l e under uniform feed and management conditions, t h e same average type and individually slaughtered a t approximately 225 pounds, we found t h a t t h e average percentage area of lean i n Landrace hogs was approximately 26.7 percent; Poland China, 24.0 percent, and Duroc 21.3 percent. Average thickness of backfat and percentage of f a t, including back, l e a f, p l a t e and cutting f a t were intermediate f o r t h e h n d r a c e,. l e a s t for the Poland China and highest f o r the Duroc. These r e s u l t s indicate thicker muscling o f t h e Landrace than of t h e two American breeds. Another valuable observation we made f o r evaluating muscling i n hogs i s the area of "eye" muscle. This i s made by t r a c i n g t h e "eye" muscle at the l a s t r i b which i s then measured by a planimeter. For example, the following areasof "eye" muscle were found i n hogs representing certain breeds and crosses: Landrace X Chester White, 4.50 sq, i n, ; Landrace X Poland China, 4.26 sq. i n., whereas the fourway cross of Duroc X York X Landrace X Hampshire was o n l y 3.60 sq. i n, The Landrace X Chester White hogs a l s o had the highest y i e l d of preferred cuts. CHAIRMAN BUTLER: Thank you very much, M r. Hiner. Discussion f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r paper w i l l be l e d by Mr. R. L. Henrickson of Kansas State, please. PROF. HENRICKSON: I a m sure t h a t you w i l l a l l agree with me that t M s has been a very i n t e r e s t i n g and timely topic f o r discuseion, mainly because I think we all have an eye on t h e work that i s being done up a t Austin, Minn., a t t h e Hormel Packing Company, as well as perhaps some of the other work being done throughout the s t a t e s. I am sure that t h i s paper has brought up some qubstions, and i f any of you have questions t o d i r e c t t o M r. Hiner a t t h i s time, l e t us have them.

6 128. CHAIRMAN BUTLER: I have a queetioni W h a t about t h i s hypothetical percentage for top quality bacon, half f a t and half lean? Did you ever reach that? MR. HINER: You mean on that area of lean that I was speaking o f? Well, when you get an area of 50 per cent lean and 50 per cent f a t and get t h a t cooked you have a r a t h e r hard piece of bacon t h a t i s a l l drawn up. We f i n d t h a t t h e average i s amund twentysix per cent. That seems t o be deeirable. I n f a c t, I think we have never quite reached 55 per cent. I think some of our higheet figures run close t o 40. CHAIRMAN BUTLER: I have heard t h a t Wm. Reneker had s t a t e d that t h e Minnesota breed of hogs, as developed by t h e U.S.D.A. i n conjunction with the Minnesota group, d i d not have t h e quality of lean t h a t some of t h e other hogs have. Do you have something on t h a t? MR. HINW: No, I am not acquainted with t h a t at all. PROF. BRATZZER: We have had more Minnesota No. 1 brought i n t o Michigan than perhaps exlsted i n t h e S t a t e of Minnesota, due t o t h e f a c t t h a t a cooperative packing company i n Detroit brought in these boars and gave them t o the farmers free. We have j u s t recently been working on t h e second year, o r t h e t h i r d i n f a c t, t e s t i n g some of these crossbred hogs. We d i d not have any of the s t r a i g h t bred Minnesotas t o t e s t, because t h e farmers were not s e l l i n g any g i l t s o r boars, They neaded them all t o keep ahead of t h e demand. A s far as quality goes, as t o t h e lean, I do not think M r. Reneker ha8 a l e g t o stand on. A year ago we took tracings of the belly and a l s o of t h e ham, of about 700 hogs and there was not any p a r t i c u l a r difference i n t h e Minnesota No. 1 hogs; that i s i n t h e crosebred carcaeses. 1: would l i k e t o strengthen Dick's assertion there. I would not l i k e t o e a t bacon that had 50 percent lean and 50 per cent f a t. I thought I sensed something yesterday when we were t a l k i n g about t h i s fat problem. I think w e should keep i n mind t h a t w h i l e we would l i k e, perhaps, t o have a pork l o i n a l l lean, o r with very l i t t l e f a t, we s t i l l need, as Dick said, maybe about 60 t o 70 per cent fat i n our bacon. I do not l i k e t o think o f the livestock growers going t o t h e other extreme and g e t t i n g them too long and stringy. PROF. BULL: M r. Chairman, I would l i k e t o that you men a r e t a l k i n g about percentage of surface weight. A l o t of bacon b e l l i e s ell t r i m out 50 per l y good, wellfinished bacon. There i s a difference weight and the percentage by surface area, which M r. PROF. WILFORD: changes from end t o end, PROF. cut out j u s t an i n f e r i o r. Some d i d improve t h e c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o the fact area, not percentage by cent lean and be perfectbetween percentage by Hiner i s t a l k i n g about. Remember, he took t h e s i x t h r i b, too. Everybody knows t h a t. The bacon BRATZIER: I might say, aleo, that the Minnesota crossbreds average hog. They were not the most superior and not the most They of the s t r a i g h t breeds cut higher than the crossbreeds. Durocs, I W i l l say that. PROF. COLE: Bob, I would l i k e t o have Mr, Hiner amplify a l i t t l e more on this matter of leaving t h e head on or taking it o f f, aa t h e packers do.

7 129. MR. HTNER: Well, t h e head i s p a r t of a hog, and i f you a r e s e l l i n g a hog carcass, you should keep t h e head on, because there a r e differences i n t h e weight of t h e head. Some of them a r e heavy jowled. That influences t h e y i e l d of the animal, and I think it i s something we know i n our research work. Tha packers generally drop the bony portion of t h e head and take t h a t out. It does not make m y difference whether you get t h e weight of a jowl o r the weight of a bony portion, as long as we get the weight of the head. PROF, COLE: How do you figure the weight of t h e head? What value do you give t h e bony p a r t i n evaluating t h e carcass? MR. KCNER: We use t h e weight of the barn, the l o i n, bacon, picnic shoulder, and the shoulder b u t t, and base t h e i r y i e l d on the slaughter weight on the hog. O f course, we are aiming f o r hogs t h a t would y i e l d a t l e a s t 50 per cent i n these f i v e cuts. After a l l, what you a r e a f t e r i s t h e y i e l d you have when you take it i n the yard. The other 50 per cent i s made up o f f a t, head, e t c. PROF. COLE: You mean you leave f a t i n that? MR. EINER: Yes. Of course, we do not put too much stress on dressing, because i f you a r e figuring dressing weight of t h e head, that would cause considerable variation. PROF. WILFORD: MR. HINER: Did the weight of the head include the jowl? Yes. PROF. WILFORD: You cut r i g h t s t r a i g h t around i t? MFl. HINER: Yee, r i g h t s t r a i g h t over. I believe t h e Conference recommendation on t h a t was t o cut t h e jowls loose, but we cut t h e e n t i r e head off. PROF. HENRICKSON: Is that p a r t of the y i e l d? How do you account f o r the stomach and i n t e s t i n e s? MR. HINER: No. But it would make up p a r t of t h a t other 50 per cent. We take primal cuts and base t h e i r y i e l d on l i v e weight. PROF. FARWELL: Dick, along t h e same l i n e, there i s a l i t t l e controversy over how long a n animal should be kept off feed before slaughter. What do you recommend as f a r a8 your work a t B e l t s v i l l e i s concerned? How long do you shrink hogs? MR. HINEB: but f r e s h water. We shrink a l l o u r hogs 24 hours, and give them nothing PROF. WELLINGTON: What does t h e shrink amount t o? MR. HI"?: I do not know exactly. We a i m t o take our hogs off the t e s t at 225 pounds, and I think t h e average slaughter weight i s around 212 t o 215, which would be about an eight t o t e n pound shrink.

8 130. PROF. CHRISTIAN: I was wondering if t h e r e was any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference in the economy of gain of these crossbreeds and socalled fattype hogs, e8peciajly these Landrace cro8ses. MR. EINER: I do not know. I am not in too much on t h e production end of t h i s, but j u s t as a casual observation t h a t I made, the crossbreds usually come i n t o slaughtering p r e t t y early, which would indicate some of them are p r e t t y f a s t gainers. I think the variation within a breed i s probably a8 much as between crossbreeds and pure breede. PROF. HECK: I would not venture t o s t i c k my neck out on t h a t r i g h t now but we, a t the University o f Arkansas, have a cro6s of a Minnesota No. 2 boar on Poland China sows. We have some of the pigs on feeding trials now t o test with inbred Poland8 t o see what the efficiency of production is. This i s t h e i r first year with the crossbreed. I might j u s t say this i n observation of the crossbred pigs. I am t e l l i n g a l l t h e boys t h e crossbreds are a p i g and a h a l f long and a half a p i g high, which a r e p r e t t y nice type pigs. They look very n i c e as compared with t h e other pigs. We a r e going t o run some meat t e s t s and cutout values on them t h i s f a l l and t h i s winter. PROF. HE34RZCLZSON: Are there any f urther comments? DR. BRAIIY: I d i d not get that, Dick. If you got 2 6 per cent lean area, d i d you have a figure t h a t r e l a t e d t h a t t o what Professor Bull was t a l k i n g about, and how much lean that i s on t h e side? MR. HINER: No, w e have not figured t h e physical separation of the fat and lean a8 compared with the prelimeter reading. PROF. WEWI1NGrlK)N: sirable t h i c h e s s. I j u s t wondered w h a t you considered the most de MR. HINER: Desirable thickness PROF. WELLINGTON: MR. HINER: you mean back f a t? The thickness of t h e bacon. Oh, thickness of bacon. PROF. WELLTNGTON: l i k e t o have i t? You said 26 per cent l e a n area. How thick do you MR. BINW: I do not imagine the thickness would make very much d i f ference, but offhand I would say a thickness of about an inch and a quarter t o &TI inch and a half would give you a p r e t t y nice piece o f bacon. MR. WARNER: I wish t o r a i s e a question. These f i v e principal cuts t h a t a r e used f o r evaluating t h e efficiency of a hog contain t h e bacon which i n my understanding, i n my experience, is not a lean cut, but a fat c u t, Ham and l o a percentage of the carcass increases with t h e thinner hogs with t h e meattype hogs; the percentage of bacon increases with the fattype hogs. Now, all f i v e of them a r e important, b u t do we cloud t h e issue o r do we confuae ourselves when we measure o r evaluate a pig on t h e basis of h i s comparative y i e l d

9 131. of r e a l l y four lean cuts and one f a t c u t? Would t h e ham and t h e l o i n and the skinned b u t t and the picnic alone be a b e t t e r measure of the meattype pig than those four cuts plus t h e fat bacon? MR. HINER: I might give you an idea of our thinking on that l i n e, The f i v e cuts we coneidered are t h e cuts t h a t we are looking f o r i n a hog. We f u l l y r e a l i z e that t h e bacon i s a fat c u t and does increase with f a t. However, i f I remember correctly, on 8ome of t h e e a r l y work that we did w i t h t h e Danish Landrace hog, we found that, that animal had a higher y i e l d i n r e l a t i o n t o the American breed hog of the same weight, 225 pounds. T h i s bacon question i s one t h a t w i l l probably be thrown around f o r quite a w h i l e, because bacon i s a fat cut and does have a tendency t o cloud t h e p i c t u r e some. I do not know what t o do with it. We all want bacon. PROF. FARWELL: Perhape using t h e f a t cut i n connection w i t h t h e lean cuts keep us from basing our judgment on w h a t a lean hog should be from going too high. For instance, we can get a hog cutting very high i n percentage of lean cuts, but it would not be desirable from t h e matter of f i n i s h, so maybe having the fat cut in there helps to balance t h a t out. I n order t o get a high percentage of cuts, we need a l i t t l e f a t along with lean. One other question I would l i k e t o ask Professor B u l l : On t h e basis of t h e t o t a l amount of lean and f a t i n t h e belly, w h a t do you mean that we might approach a 5050 r a t i o there on the basis of weight? I t seem8 t o me, t h a t when we take a prellmeter reading on t h a t bacon s l i c e, we a r e including q u i t e a b i t o f f a t in t h e reading of t h e lean. I t seems as though it m i g h t even be higher than it would be if we had a division there. What basis do you mean, the separable difference, o r w h h t, S l e e t e r? PROF. BULL: I mean simply dividing t h e f r e s h b e l l y Into lean, f a t, and skin with a knife. PROF. REITRICKSON: I imagine we could go on for some time discussing this p a r t i c u l a r subject, but we w i l l have t o move along t o 8ome of these other topice, 8 0 a t t h i s t i m e I will t u r n t h e meeting back t o M r. Butler. CHAIRMAN BUTUR: Thank you. I hereby relinquish t h e powers and p r i v i l e g e s of the Section Chairman t o M r. Tomhave.... Mr. Tomhave resumed the C h a i r ###...