xt7vdn3zv058 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7vdn3zv058/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.  journals kaes_circulars_004_615 English Lexington : The Service, 1913-1958. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 615 text Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 615  2014 true xt7vdn3zv058 section xt7vdn3zv058  
Circular 615 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
ByW.Y.Vamey * COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SERVICE
AGRICULTURE AND
HOME ECONOMICS

 
 BEEF CARCASS EVALUATION
By W. Y. VARNEY
The “ideal” in market cattle has changed tremendously during
the past few years and will continue to change according to
consumer demands. Not only is the wasty, overiinished animal
undesirable, often it is unacceptable until it is discounted in price.
It has been replaced by a much trimmer and more heavily muscled
animal.
Meat from the trimmer cattle compares very favorably in
palatability with that from overfinished cattle. Tenderness, juci-
ness, and flavor are due almost entirely to characteristics of the
’ lean meat; therefore, excessive finish is not needed.
A much higher yield of saleable meat is realized from the trimmer
cattle. It’s a simple matter of percentage or ratio. As the percent
of fat in an animal or carcass goes up, the percent of lean goes
down and vice versa. Excessive finish must be trimmed by the
retailer. This increases the price per pound of retail cuts and
damages the competitive position of beef with other food items.
This can, and often does, decrease the market value of live cattle.
Strains of cattle have been found that produce high quality
meat and thus their carcasses grade well without excessive finish.
Assuming that at least a thin covering of fat is present, outside
finish is not considered in beef carcass grading. Instead, emphasis
is placed on the quality of the lean meat along with muscle develop-
ment.
The poor image that has been created for fat has caused con-
sumers to demand leaner meat. A large percentage of consumers
are diet conscious because of obesity or they are concerned about
the connection between a high-fat diet and health. In many cases,
they are concerned about both problems.
Trimmer and meatier cattle can be produced more economically
than wasty ones. Fat has 2% times the energy value of protein,
so it is logical that more feed is required to produce a pound of
fat than is required to produce a pound of lean meat.
In keeping with the trend for trimmer, more heavily muscled
beef cattle, the following minimum standards or goals seem quite
feasible;
3

 1. A carcass grade of at least low choice.
2. At least 50 percent of the carcass weight in boneless, closely ‘
trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib, and chuck.
3. At least 2 square inches of ribeye per 100 pounds of carcass.
4. No more than 1/10 inch fat thickness over the ribeye per 100
pounds of carcass.
RELATIVE CARCASS VALUES
Two primary factors that affect relative carcass values are the
quality of the meat and the weight of trimmed retail cuts.
Quality—jueiness, tenderness, and flavor-·is judged on the basis
of marbling, firmness, color, and texture of the lean, all of which
are in relation to the maturity of the animal from which the
carcass was derived. These factors together with an assessment i
of conformation are used to determine a USDA grade.
This is the general scheme used.
Color of Meat
Characteristics   Maturity
of Bone Ii;
Marbling
Color Quality Final grade (Prime,
Texture   Choice, Good, etc.)
Firmness
Thickness of
museling $Gonf0r1nation
Relative development
of parts
Grade is one of the primary factors that is considered in determin-
ing the sale price of a given carcass or cut of beef. It is not feasible
to cover grading in detail here but explanation of some of the major
points may be helpful.
Alarbling. This is fat within a muscle. as seen on the cross-cut
surface of a ribeye muscle. Various degrees of marbling are desig-
nated by descriptive terms as indicated in Fig. l.
Color. Bright red is the optimum color in high-quality beef. The
eolor tends to become darker as the animal ages.
Texture. A fine texture is desirable. This is generally associated
with a youthful animal and high-quality meat.
Firnmcss. Generally speaking. the firmer the meat. the higher
the quality is considered to be.
4

     s tir    ; ;- z»    :;i*=*<`   . iii "‘~.f$   ‘·   `
 gi ;—— ji-   ··.¥E?%F;*‘ ._    wm? V   V xi    
            L,. Iw" I? yk has “f` ,;,T;" L.  I
      ‘   i *· :f N Ny' v:° fh  1 .=`A.   *5 
 z’   ig    ’·¥ ~2‘~· ·' I . gift ed    *9*  '*-  
      qw   s . .!· V ‘·’·Q. . i  S   ·   »
=‘.:;$!» ;  ~· .;~1:.;    { · ‘ s. A Ar ,    _ +;~ ~   
    In ‘.‘· in       ·‘’‘   ¤·‘• M ‘. `  ‘  ;. ~¤»  »  
  »'V   i t     J L2¥i•r·   I ji;     VQ,_‘·";`»,  ¤_ , (5  f <· if
    ;, Q ~»   ya  " · .. . é { »   ur -.‘- A, , » .
Very Abundant Abundant Moderately Abundant
    ;=;   i···*»· i, ’ I I { i ! "  1 . »  { site    
4 A ]_.   ‘ V L · M J l _ ,_     {U _;i$»· _<` 
    ;    · ··   · V' 49*  5 `i ‘#    
 i éi,//~‘,4; A · ‘ .}.»»’ i`    i*· iq}. tv   * ‘ ;»? ·w 
‘   Z }? » A W-  i Y —’—’ ni"'  =‘§    i     ° gg
Mr/ _      r ' ` W ,•· ;__:__ ‘~   {  I  .13; ;% 23  \_;; ;;?¤@·
    J {   ·‘'.    V.== 3   T     g  V·-  >éf“. if   ·  /   -_
A  x   .7  - ?° i    ‘'‘  Ut  'l’   ,,/{li      A ig
  u L '     J     X
Slightly Abundant Moderate Modest
  A ~          ,_,     
., ` , it ,4}   ·/ /_   ‘· yl U  ?.,»¤* '  ` V ., {  
5.;;,,. ,     A yi _ S yl, _; _ V,   / »   ,    r   ,7   ;  {yv~_
      M          ,V-;V       ·‘.i*  
A, ‘ /1 H Q, ,   *i,‘ 7     V     ’    _/Q
    · ~, S  Q,}      4 A   . A   V   t~,  ; M
‘ W, V { · * x  ‘;-wil ‘  » ·  my   V Aw · .   :,·—,’*-yi 
Q   b { yy; _`   ij ,1 _§%v»4g;_t`    —`     I .,    
‘ ° j y xg; M  t  ». i ‘‘nr       ·»»t  
Small Slight Traces
Fig. 'I -— Degrees of marbling
5

 Maturity. This refers to the relative age of the animal from
which the carcass was derived. The designations for stage of
maturity are A, B, C, D, and E, with “A” being the youngest and
  the oldest. Probably 90 percent or more of the block beef A
is within the "A” stage with the remainder being “B.” More
marbling is required for a given grade with advancement in
maturity.
Conformation. This refers to the manner of formation of the
carcass as to the thickness of muscling and to an overall degree
of thickness and fullness of the carcass and its various parts.
Examples of some combinations of maturity, marbling, and the
resulting USDA grades are given here. In each case, it is assumed
that the conformation grade is at least equivalent to the quality
grade.
.\Ia!nri!y Marbfing Grade ‘
A Slight Good
B Slight Standard
A Small Low Choice
B Small Good
A Modest Average Choice
B Modest Low Choice
A Moderate High Choice
B Moderate Average Choice
A Slightly abundant Low Prime
B Slightly abundant High Choice
These examples over-simplify the matter to some degree, but
they should he helpful. As indicated earlier, the final quality grade
of a carcass is based on a composite evaluation of its conformation
and quality. Since relatively few carcasses have an identical
development of conformation and quality, it is obvious that each c
grade will include various combinations of development of these
two characteristics.
\\'ithin the Prime and Choice grades, a development of quality A
superior to that specified as minimum for the grade may com-
pensate. without limit, for a development of conformation inferior
to that specified as minimum for the grade at an equal rate. as
indicated in the following example: A carcass which has mid-
point Choice quality may have conformation equal to the mid-
point of the Cood grade and remain eligible for Choice. However,
regardless of the extent to which the conformation of a carcass
exceeds the minimum of the grade. a carcass must have minimum
6

 Prime quality to be eligible for the Prime grade or minimum Choice
quality t0 be eligible for the Choice grade.
, Within the Good grade, a development of quality superior to -
that specified as minimum for the Good grade may compensate,
without limit, for a development of conformation inferior to that
specified as minimum for Good at an equal rate, as indicated in
the following example: A carcass which has mid-point Good grade
quality may have conformation equivalent to the mid-point of
the Standard grade and remain eligible for Good. Also, a carcass
which has at least one-third of a grade superior conformation to
that specified as minimum for the grade may qualify for Good
with a development of quality equivalent to the lower limit of the
upper third of the Standard grade. Compensation of superior
conformation for inferior quality is limited to one-third of a quality
_ grade.
Situation Examples
Quality grade Conformation grade Final grade
Average Choice Average Choice Average Choice
Average Choice Average Prime Average Choice
Average Choice Average Good Low Choice
Average Good Average Good Average Good
High Standard Average Good Low Good
Average Good Average Standard Low Good
Cutability
The term “cutability” is used to define the relative meatiness of
a beef carcass and, hence, its relative value when compared to
another carcass of equal weight and grade.
Research workers have demonstrated that a combination of four
H factors may be used to very closely estimate the percent of the
carcass weight that is represented in boneless and closely trimmed
retail cuts from the round, loin, rib, and chuck. This is referred
to as determining the “cutability grade” or “cutability group.”
Numbers are assigned as follows:
Cutabiiity group Percent cutabilily
l 52.4 and above
2 50.] — 52.3
3 47.8 - 50.0
4 45.5 - 47.7
5 45.4 and below
4

 The cutability group into which a beef carcass is placed is
determined by considering the following characteristics:
1. The amount of external fat.
2. The amount of kidney, pelvic, and heart fat.
3. The area of the ribeye muscle. ‘
4. The warm carcass weight.
The amount of external fat on a carcass is determined by measur-
ing the fat thickness over the ribeye muscle. This measurement
is taken perpendicular to the outside surface at a point three-
fourths of the length of the ribeye from its chine bone end (Fig.
2). The measurement may be adjusted, as necessary, to reflect
unusual amounts of fat on other parts of the carcass. The adjust-
ment may be either upward or downward.
WZ ·{·€. .·  
· [wr"    
I L i
    `“*1" I _ A K j`
{'>·',.`r ». gm T *‘,
      T rt·`   *       · .   
.`   i _ gy_·" . ,»   "
»4; ...—     y ’~'@#<2:a» ‘ ’y x ” Qi Q
j ~  ‘Q£_r_;   if". `iif i r  \ 1;;   .
& _/‘ ‘ ‘·gg__   J1 V _ H: tj -_  
{ M     asa __ ,  .   Q
        T   _.r_ i F `) (
A .  ;..¥,,`   -°  ~` ip   » } i  V __ **,5 V
i i    X F" I ` ‘ 3    _
Fig. 2 —- Fat thickness measurement
The amount of kidney, pelvic, and heart fat considered in de- -
termining the cutability group includes the kidney knob (kidney
and surrounding fat), the lumbar and pelvic fat in the loin and
round. and the heart fat in the chuck and brisket area which are
removed in making closely trimmed retail cuts. The amount of
these fats is evaluated subjectively and expressed as a percent
of the carcass weight. Three percent of the carcass weight is
considered a normal amount. Very meaty carcasses may have as
little as 2 percent while extremely wasty carcasses may have 5 per-
cent or more.
The area of the ribeye is determined where this muscle is ex-
posed by ribbing. A tracing of the single ribeye muscle may be
3 -

 made on transparent paper (Fig. 3) and the area measured by
use 0f a compensating p0]ar planimeter (Fig. 4). Another method
is t0 nlace a Jlastic rid direct] r over the ribe re muscle and c0unt
1 1 }· >
the squares (Fig. 5). Each square 0n the grid represents O.1 square
inch
· . . »  `“    
V. _ ` .   M Fkn, l` I ` s,_';  ;  
' f   » ` ~ ., I q ,{_··*’ A .f   ( ‘ g   »
  'V’—   I ,. °?i.·)}*`}’?§,     vi   r V    
    I _:,;`  I ·   ,·a*_#§"   `~ ` ` \    
.·    i ¤»?·   -»·"\~‘   ">`  .  
  .._.‘   ‘   *     V .··’ G ‘ ‘     .’*‘  
      ‘ ( .   ’.¢-‘ & F  
       *·r,.,§¢§§`?*.   Y ,,`·*~·~‘ " ‘ V ‘ ’   '  *€{L,_;g.»,
  ·>"§»~   4 ·     ··.V‘
V; VV , `  *- ··  I- -*7 . 4: < I, v,. Mgt .. {z‘ ‘     V4,  
Al ,   ..’* L ».  __ I‘____ wv;-     {... .4  
, {   V. ie   ,  jp},. . ‘ * · ,» .   _'   
’*‘?» » r “* . ·    ~‘
  F . . . F %**4"~¤`**»·»,  " ”  ~`~s  
{   ( . ”`”“»·d    .  (Ti 
Fig. 3 —— Ribeye tracing
/ ~®
g   ` Q)
  » 
,’ * \
sw.,  
Fig. 4 — Planimefer
_ 9

 1
  ?' '“?“"‘f“‘?   ''', •}   :3)). f" ‘   ·
  · : 5 . . Q' "  mr.;    
Jr;) . ( fVf%*~ 7 U *””"  '.  N MM é A > V A / ,   ` ig?    [V V    
2i·zr ; . ·»   . ·  
, f     { V     V R   N v — [N5:  
? ‘ · ·     K.   ·”‘~·mi # T ·`¤. ‘·'  3   W
‘ _ I I · { 7 K   uk   5·,'%
  ··   2*   *   “``‘ V     V=``2   ‘ 
_ VS: 2 ( »_,;_   Z `%_{.·_,5    .  _
  Q '~ ·,_, M S ·" {      
2 [   ~··~ ..,.... . ‘ *  
  » VZ ‘ " 1 ~— i ’ »_   
Y I A hrvfavh ‘· A ¤.  ·_*w,.__;'   I f   ( O '?}  
_   ___I .__    "·*=·-w     L_ £‘,` Z ‘
Fig. 5 -— Grid over ribcye
'[`he percentage of cutability of a beef carcass may be determined by use
of this formula;
Percent cutability 1 51.34 — (inches of fat thickness x 5.78) — (percentage
kidney, pelvic and heart fat x .462) + (sq. in. of ribeye area x .740) —
(warm carcass weight x .0093).
A beef carcass exhibiting the following characteristics would be considered _
quite desirable from the standpoint of cutahility:
Pat thicknes over ribeye — 0.6 in.
Kidney, pelvic and heart fat — 2.5%
llibeye area — 12.0 sq. in.
\\’arm carcass weight — 600 lbs.
Substituting the data from this carcass into the above formula, the percent
eutability is determined, as follows:
Percent cutability Z 51.34 — (.6 x 5.78) — (2.5 x .462) —l— (12 x .740) —
(600 x .0093) Z 50.92 percent.
(Note that the hypothetical carcass has one—tenth of an inch fat thickness
per hundred pounds of carcass weight and 2 square inches of ribeye area
per hundred pounds of carcass weight).
Percent cutability may also be estimated by use of a “Beef Careass Yield Grade
Finder" (Pig. 6). This instrument was developed by the USDA and can be
simply and rapidly operated. It was developed from the formula and is close
enough for practical purposes.
° BEEF cARcAss YIEI..D :;.12,;;:::1;: Fnsrnmn °   .
UVIHDCI BIVHIDN (IIC \I1¤A HINILIVA1 lz J3): I H;
‘ ’ `"` ii"` v  
p ’ · ···* =2w··"‘ Vw N   .. . . ( · A ’  
.  
· ' . __   .. l-»~~;¤ —   _._\_‘r_.... . )_ »_J;)r`  
Fig. 6 — Beef Carcass Yield Grade Finder
10

 1
The scheme given below shows the effect of varying each of the
factors of fat thickness over the ribeye; kidney, pelvic, and heart fat;
ribeye area; and carcass weight. Hypothetical carcass “A” is held
constant in each comparison while B, C, D, E, and F are varied
as indicated. All carcasses are assumed to grade USDA Choice.
Value
Kidney, differences
` Fat pelvic, and Ribeye Carcass per hundred l
thickness heart fat area weight Cutability weight of
(in.) ( % ) (sq. in.) (lhs.) (%) carcass
A — 0.6 3.0 12.0 600 50.0  $2 :,5
B — °0.9 3.0 12.0 600 48.2 li
A - 0.6 3.0 12.0 600 50.0   $0 88
C — 0.6 °4.5 12.0 600 49.3 l
A — 0.6 3.0 12.0 600 50.0  $2 88
D — 0.6 3.0 °9.0 600 47.7 `
A — 0.6 3.0 12.0 600 50.0 . .
E — 0.6 3.0 12.() °750 48.7 S1`63
‘ A — 0.6 3.0 12.0 600 50.0
F — ’°0.9 **4.5 °9.0 °750 45.3  $588
° Factor varied
Difference in the value per hundred weight of two USDA Choice
carcasses is estimated by multiplying the difference in estimated
cutability by the factor of $1.25. For example, the estimated dif-
ferences in value per hundred weight of carcasses A and B was
obtained as follows:
50.0 — 48.2 : 1.8
1.8 x $1.25 : $2.25
Some differences between two carcasses in each of the three
grades of Prime. Choice, and Cood are shown in Figs. 7, 8, and 9.
11

 \!      /’·’   ’  
. .,..,]~   __——i_ —  i '
, I L4, __”__’   . ’ [ /l .j  
|!.I ,    wa ’   g,    
W-»~··     ~—»J—-   43}.. S,  VF ,  
V"` —·      " —·—- 1 ir  * ` ji r—·
f .·   s  ¤       **5  Y a
5; »  `&.'“*V=y   ry gi l  (   ~·»  ,    ·
Q. ,»`  gw  '{ ,_'  ‘•·    _ _      ·f•~,.,x \`(   A   
); ·, ,    2,* ·  .’4°·l_," M jr, Jlrg l ll ;_ hg ” g `\,    ,' Q, .
  J  »—¤=•F  ,»» ·  W ww    *  
A ·· ‘  ·».;        · a`  P . A *  . $’%i*;:·#~ ‘*~¤=
. e     :··· .    f b   2 fg.; .   j
‘ ig} `   ii · 'l ·’ _   “ ·  ,  fé ;j`§~ if
  i` ll; ' 2“ "   :,;   -.  ». ; ; ;   .
.1 n · ’i"' e  gi;  ;,     A    
  { _ M v_   iv   _   
•c~.·—-** 2·"“"'   ie    Q .-:-»  
‘ i r     ..;.   `° in  
__ ,‘ .  F · in   5 ,  a.
1*** 1       ; 1..]--- i,   I  
'_. . ix, __   , S.}     fl, A S  
p { L.     —  · . Y1 `V,V 3
,  A f  ,_          } ‘   _
`   .I $3;  ":{`— M " ’_. ig V i ~  
fe   a     iii     F 5   —
.l · ' ` .` `  ’ ·' I V   V
,2 " ·  l. l i £?" "  A . ·  _ ·
A J   'li      I  “   ._  . ,,» 
Fig. 7
Carcass number .....,............,.................,..................................................... 6
Warm carcass weight ..,.................................,............,..,..................... S20 lb
Stage ot maturity .......,....................................,..., . .................................... A- _
Conformation ....,..........,........,........................4...........................,.. Low prime
Degree of marbling .........................,........................A........... Slightly abundant
USDA grade ........,...........................,............................................. Low prime
Area of ribeye ...,...........,.. , ...............,.........................,................. `l2.5 sq. in.
Kidney, pelvic, and heart tat ....,....,.......,............,.............,................... 2.5%
Thickness of fat over ribeye .,...............,.....................,...,.................... 0.6 in.
Cutability ......,.......,.......,.,.................,..................,.,....,..................,.... 5l.2%
12 '

 T ‘ `l"     ‘   z·
4   l V W ` ~ / - S"      
Q   A V} ,UV‘   .   ' J`? L, I ‘    [Q » V%
r  ij  »   = Z W" `*  F e=-
  ¤ · A ., ` ·‘“ _ \
 e"C V   . €‘ ’ `*·V»F¢» V. 8- . f.
. - A _ . gp: e _` .. —··* ~
¤ . r V6'? °._`*};;_ A     .\: M
y '· g;   S Y {8** *,5 `·   M_ " * ·l•, -
V { ai   v ° ‘“T  . i :_jE " ` n· 4
~<¤¤—i A   ‘i·°     ‘    Ay 
" ` V £’ · l V .f•`r"* J   JY? ' ~‘ I
K '   2 {M U ' 4
  by , V z·,7‘  Va V
, _ g a V { V I  V` ‘ . [ng H.   .* V
—      A A     V ll" I
  ~;\    .2  =   =  ‘ fE"l’      *   3 ~=·
l    ~``»; 2  Y' ;  to if     V   ’ Qi  5* . V :_
'.é .   ·‘< f , "` =·. V, g' .¥ ‘ ..
{ J    V  . ‘— ~;  r ;   `I ` ,VVI  V _ ‘
A ·`  '  ,-\   l¥’        .·.     Dia l"  F
.;i_.• [_ V "* . V v 9*- ;·» ~ _ .V ( _` \,.  ,'
  ‘»`‘‘    · .i"V.·    .,  i t  *° 
i   ‘ ..4**;}   $:1     A ‘ ·»’‘’   V
r   A   ·. .   .V S  »»   “ i,~ .  
V ‘ \ W . ~ * Q5?
·   ·   *’ "*  .              
`     l   e     %%‘    
{X q Q V   ,, K  V ._     VV ;.»,. ,·   V
`·     lll, V `       ` _V     ,,»’, Tr
V V, V, V R A   ‘ ,g;,V?’  “ S V
V · “€QL7‘?  “ V     A lf?
  . 2 “ *   ~  V ` ·· {V/?; VZ »
  H  » - V  ·, mV~ = V = w; if   Z? 
?¢ rr ;  l v   ‘ E   ;· i~* " — V *‘L`Z"
  I ;; V · -- .·, V.  V ’V -_ A V * U, ` , "T-
  .·= r ‘’’. '     V - , *9   Q »
D A V  Y ` ‘ J;       ll!  V    
V J·~·’ ;—   Vw ll   A   **5 »
I A ` vm gr   V/l i "n , lll 0 { I _   ll
  *§V€;,;4' , V V V V   ’ **;V7 ,  JV V  
fi .·VV.    ~za??“$?iZFT~. · ” J.   A “‘  .     iq
Fig. 8
Carcass number ....,...........,..,.....,..,...........................4...,......,.................,4. 'I4
Warm carcass weight ...............,............ . .....,...........................,....,...... 612 lb
Stage of maturity ...............................................,. . .,...,...,........,............,.... A-
. Conformation .........................,.............................................4...,.. High choice
Degree of marbling .,.....,........,........,.........................,...,.,.r.. Slightly abundant
USDA grade ...,........,...........,..,.................,..................,4..........,..4.. Low prime
Area of ribeye .....................,.................................4.r.............r.... `l2.3 sq. in.
Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat .......,.................,......,.........,,.....,...,......,... 3.5%
Thickness of fat over ribeye ........................,,.....................,.....,...,...,.. 0.9 in.
Cutability ......,..........,..,.....,........................,......,...............,........,....,. 48.1%
Estimated difference in value per hundredweight of carcasses 6 and `I4 ,. $3.88
' 13

 V *1 V : l   .7 ;·
it #1*,  :4   M  ,
< , ·   V · ,. 4_.  
un   ~   T. a ‘ @@4331 $4-. . A .
.·-··“ ’   f ·~~··   >  a.-~i { ·~·~»~ A:
»»~-»- &* · 5 ‘ ‘· 2 .
at ’¢4""6¤»,.] ·. c, , ‘K;·» _..i
’¤ .,.’° ~[" 'V. _, ,___ Ekw   VV-
  » . 1. J ’ , " * ’  K;   ._ ’   ·
) ii } .?  y W V  · f —?   Qi {J? 5   Y   wv   ,   ‘_ ‘
· · #.., § »-·’ W ·;j ` ` ;,>._ff.  , {A *’ ¤,·,  Vkr » j·· ( I   W »   w¤- .   t
W _  _ Qui` ,_   .   » M  V. A   ,,*1    vg *16*
r V - ` W?  { ‘   "l}`    VV*f"  .,,‘i `· ¤ VVi}' , -
V ,;   [ g ,,,     .;, 4 . ·   V r_`{`;_  _  ·_`    A { 
f' "   3‘¥'»/V,     *5 Zi;         .  0     .
' ’   .=~  ·‘‘*  Q? is s Y` ‘~  &w:¢;¤a4i   at   > 4. 
1, M ’, ‘ ..m¤¤. <·~.~.\ 1 »’AV     in _ I   <».
X     ·. . I I - U I ,`;,L_ _ .,,_ ,
  .»·;s» ·»·»·· , ·w»<>.s;  _»·· . ’ *i`f’*‘$`;i?r1:;é  -·V_ .
\ . z rl   ,;..i,l  ,,, i H I M M5 \_ » ~ Tg?.
V .w¤¥&@g;,; _ [ é       41  
`Q   ,   .V.,   X   ` By
-——· • ei   ‘»   ‘~= ‘¤~  , *
EEE ` `V i ? { #"D`V "· ·:·     . _ 5
.;-—-“"VV" ——~ { ·.`   ‘VVA   =;; ° ; ’  1,,‘ z ` A
‘· rn- i`  ·-, _¢-tf?  ; U
` ~ 4 » ·  g g   fg; *
Qu Q  , .i_»p_  _   · · Ze
FV ·   U,. :=·  > ,· _   .
§` Vmtii " ‘Y       E » V   x  V   ¤ J
  L'   T »?  i F ‘ Yi? · ~,     M ._   S2!
*,_ ~ _ ' ·   ~ ` __ 2 I   , .i5·.V·· Q.  
C    ’V·         _ < { 3   * "T`1;;§L“ 7 A 5  
Vwalguk  VV ` *`V* L- V ·Vv.   `V `, _ V.» _ . ;» [
Fig. 9
Carcass number .......,...................,....,........................................................... 9
Warm carcass weight .....,.........,.......................,,..,.............................. 622 Ib
Stage ot maturity ., .4............4.4.,.............,............., . 4.... , ........44,...........,.....,. A-
Conformation .,....,,.......................,.................,....,.......i..,..,......... High choice V
Degree of marbling .....,..,...................,....,...............,............,............. Modest
USDA grade .r..........,..........,...................................A.,........,................. Choice
Area ot ribeye .....>............,....,...........4.........,.........,.............,......., TZ.7 sq. in.
Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat ..,r.r.....r.....,r........,...........,.........,....,...4..... 3.0%
Thickness of tat over ribeye ..,......4..,.4.4,.......,4..........,.................,........ 0.5 in.
/
Cutability ..............,...,..............................,..,..................................... S`|.0 %
1-1

 »-4    Ei Eé ~· gf   »    
V J, ’ T #j~ ., } `   s fl 4  _ - . _ * A  ‘ ) (l
+L ¢  · A';  ··A ·· Rv ~     ;>r·.;
· » —:_   AA}.,   · r l  xx
I I  ll   { if 4 ·, _ I, q R `/`
,   ;· · ts, _/ ,  ‘  "  _   —+ ·
·, 9 §:· . E- -+ H   _   \.  Y ;_ ·· ?4· { "'
S .   { .A ; " 7 ’t    2 ·,»,3i = ·~ . *,
, · ,  'IA E > /_   A A 7 1  rx.   I li ‘ `JE;   ‘»
I A  i il {57     l*_‘ ‘ *‘l`   ' ·¤ » m ‘
4 D ;. l ‘ " I ' ’ I { L l A _, ~ `
      ) · _ §     g U   i V
- ` L5}   g, A   »·   4 gj  ..  5 "%‘j{ +;_   v;-
iii   ‘ ,   ,   P  . "  »  *1   · `
A if A ri   `¤ . Q  P ` i °" ‘;·4·   " i l “ ". “  "
fg Ft       17 "  "> 4   V)   U   4 J ni?) if
4   g,,`$_A  Eg  ·        A if  .  f
,, A ,4 ! Q 4 . 1 Q   _ . _,    . · • , < A    
  i .  wx.  =~_ _!•€·_;*,  ` ,`     ,·—¤‘ A V   ‘ · 5
  W,. A   W! W   A ,  n lr *   4, _ ~.,~~ · "” “`“f" '    · ··
    ~—i    **7:/~·#»¤·< $1;   ·',  “7T‘   /·A~i   I  
' '\ 51 \ —»7! 'I  J~ __ A ·   ,0   /    K ·   *3%  
§*;‘4 {   ’ "I     { wig g / i  -»`   I
nv -4 liv ,;..-` ,..4   g   »  Y
  •¤·. q; · r *·   » {
AA}, we 4    ¤ ,; .
, • *4 ° 4 ` ¢ [ “ A = 4
Z ‘ F ‘ ,» A5 F
·»~ * A   ,• E JF I r{_~j .  U
_ _ I   l ,.  A ff "  _ ,_
3 ; si  _ . ra As ti,}   A  j_  ,V ,    T
i ZM ," `* A " 5* ’   ' ·   °*`°i·i·é    A
. A  * J ~ ~ ·   wai-  “   r A e
. 3 , {· ”   1,, J ‘- »· V '? . "
" i   l wl; .  i /;?;  ·   l` x `v.h    
  ,’ 44   ""     A,  ·v, v  4
  4 _ A 'V 'A  4, 44 H  A      V   V '  i f
Fig. 'IO
Carcass number AAAA , ....AA,AA....A..,...A..A.,................,A....,.....AA,..A...AA....A.,.A....,..,. `l5
Warm carcass weight .AA..A,.A..A..A.....,...,.......A..A..AAA,...A....,..AA,...A.,.A..A.AA,A.. 594 Ib
Stage of maturity AAA..AA.,.............AA...........A........A....A..A,..AAAAAAAAA.A.....AA.....A...A.... A
_ Conformation .,.AA...A.A......,,AA,.A..A..A.....A...,....A..A........A...A,..,..A..AA....AAA...AAA. Choice
Degree of marbling AAAA , .,......A.,A..A......,,AA...,.AA...A..A..A..A..A..A......AA..AAA..AAA,. Modest
USDA grade A,.,.,...A,.A.,....A..A.....A,.A,.A.A...AA....A,AA...,A....A....,.....A....,,.AA.A...AA. Choice
Area of ribeye AAAA...,......,.A......,A......,...........,.......AAA..AAAA..A...A.,.....A..A `l`l.2 sq. in.
Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat A.,,AAAAAA...A..AAAA..AAA.A,AAAAAA..AAAA,A.A,..A....A.A..AA...A... 3.5%
Thickness of fat over ribeye AAA,..A.,,.....,.,...A.A.....A....AAAA..,.A...A.A,..A,A.AAA.AA.A,. 0.9 in.
Cutability ,AA.,A.A,.AA.....A....AA..AA.A.A..A..A..A.AAAA..,A,AA.AA..A......A,.A..AA..A.,A..A,A.A..A. 47.4%
Estimated difference in value per hundredweight of carcasses 9 and `IS ,. $4.50
— 15

   A .·  w “ L ` A   w.,   */*" ,
~* ` ai? ’   ‘  
,  -V_’   * A   ' ( 1.
_ \ ~ . _  , iii #4 L.   ' Q"   A ` TM ,
, . S "" · `V , Ar  ‘   ¥ Q
L1-- W. Il %-.§;·   . AA   ~
    I .1 "`_!¢ I     "”’ ""a¥/L ’   ` >r `  J ` 1,
""T f· 5  Q,. .:A?’~*l   A A A   ‘ lg;
--} »# g · “ S   $3;;;: ‘;  $:.9 S  
s rg 4. A I _
p v , U A V fj} V 35}! l E ’ .
kl  E       é R   V   . {fin ‘ I  _L `
~ gx     4;y*¢z» —.;   :\  .; _    
l·~•';.    V, '  ·i·  . l` ZL     il  °  *i"'”a’ ·    
. '   V  { 4   -.¤  ’’     :*,._     {  §§g';Y ~ '§_ ;,h
' _   ; r if-.   Ax:  1;; V § _·` %        Arr"- r`   l A1   .
L. _ • Q/‘ wp ·,- _  Q 1, {g l      F   { A; I g· , if
K gala  lv ,2 / .,,4% · iw:} 'f}:· il Y ` l' ,,;  '_{ `J " x r y ' Q?  E  
z ‘ ,_ ’ i, ,, ‘¢,‘   A ‘ U I · ,4  ,_ ·
ii   A  A` ·` T `, ·"’   0  `  ··'. 4* ·;>  »A, . A  f·’   "
- l   _ i V {    : g."§   A ’.Y _ Q •~ *
X til       A   »`>A, A
\, ` r   r  ·    L »’A A V ff; { i   »Q.· M;
  ·    Jiu   Ji- ;- *2} i x , ; .
. 4* A   * xr ; ~ ~ :~
"` ’¤ x ,,. ... .... ‘ A. A:wk r,¤  .. » ',.~ ·* '
 7j I 1 ‘ ·? f` QFUL Psiaéigh   M   y ,·
__;_ , ( ,_· >.~-»-` »< A - ! V
"     A     gw _ gA,,"’»
¤  A l       ` §/?€ r _,r—~ ..,. L
' l ` Ll V " ¤ ~;,"-u.     V3 ,1 
al, ` A   ;~    Aw   L. "i 2 . · *2  
, lr ; _\ \ .  > §‘   · 4*/ Q }§`* `
_ '._ i `  { "  }__ ·~·»C’A `   _   _ if
‘ —_   · y ??F{?_¤.} " < .   ”` ` " Q E
‘· »A——A~ ·· ··¤z we -`*~  ""‘ ·  ‘ ee  A A 3, ·—   AA 
,L ,,      Q. ·°a· ·_’is‘._ · lj M  gg, . ‘—·’ ’   7  
M. . ., ’   .`, > P. · 4. $w qi; ..1
,   " ' " ‘ ~. "’ '   . ,1 .   ~ ° " -°Z.    
‘\   ~.    .  `* ‘  A· ' “ `¥  ·      ~
A   F  '·"·‘*    . ..,    I   3i a:*?*`f»·""l
  A AI; ’  *   ._>—A A   _
Fig. `ll
Carcass number ......,..............,.....,.....,........,............,........,.............,....... ,. `l`l
Warm carcass weight ....,..,................,................,...,..........,................. 626 lb
Stage of maturity ..............,...................,..........,... . .......................,......,.,., A-
Conformation .....,..,..........,................,........,..........,..,......................,... Choice
Degree of marbling .... , ..,...............................,....,....,..................,.....,... Slight
USDA grade ................,..,.................................,...,......,................. High good
Area of ribeye ....,.....,................................................................. 12.1 sq. in. A
Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat ..,..,.......,.............,.,.................................. 3.0%
Thickness of tat over ribeye ,... . ................ . .,..,..............................,...... 0.4 in.
Cutability .....................................,...............,,.,....................,.............. S`l.`I %
16

 . 7"°"‘Y"\ ` ` “ as   *"’*—   _ " VY ’§   ;§
  V ,         ·~ . 
  or ..4 3 {   1 , -. ’
‘&'“”“ ‘”' `M `"‘   é gv ,.~A»»_, . —/:- »  
E » ;¤ Q   ’     »~ —-—é··Vj;  
H __   V ____A` Exam     " {I
‘ • A .*` www _,A_, M
________N____   *. `   — Q .,$, _‘*· `\ g _ , ____¤_....
F'r......."' .7  !.—-~· -,,—¥ . ‘ , 6 'nif '“ I
‘ { ·"’· Vw   , 'Z, -§‘ - ‘ j ~
gy s· vg “" _ `  .   vv-Q. ` r   .r  "~' .  ‘ V ·
'   'i§· Y? ‘   .’£*; » V   .. , `»   »·'i=‘€·· ‘·
V ,_~.·<‘ ...4· x ,9- if { ,9. . W  · ·_     -  _
    .1·_x·#iV:1;%g§‘f;g.; V  { . Z     V; x yl ul ·   2 '\     _   _}  , _
,· ,     a ..;~  .. ww . .   lz.,   ~ ,· · ,
  `j`2 .’,    tiff"  Q ·’ .¤“’   i f J"  
‘ ‘ `,’. Q   ‘‘»`   " .    . ~LV,   ' ..   ` "   G  >`·°>
"?iE X » A lil!    " ` ‘ ,   ¥’
    ` gi,   >   ~ gat ,
~ -   *’ *5* * ,    ’*     .
;@ i? @¤..» V *»A A`          UX
> ° M_ { N, ., r —··»——~·’***   " /   V M I
  7   """ %5?} `f*   I   T " ,
. .      S     A ¤ · 2 .2
. · y Vs   ,   ,/V },·.Z..-.. ··
W. V D" V   , 2 S  fl.  " W       ¤°`
VM V— -2   ~*· ‘  *·· ‘V ‘.V if J V , .   `$*’:}@ A
\       ¤_ V M ·\_ ’ , ____   ;    ~·V V  .
Li     x T;         L     V        
_§}%?`*<»   {:4 jp ta ` QQ Lzf fr  . ‘ "  >_ ·;y_   (I f
 z , V Q, ··‘%  * A`   gt",   ‘ c v ~   .  
   Q V g   ?   ""   ». `  ?      VV  
 ‘ 'V~»           .               *
i _       ’        
VV _ ._V, t;,@,,,.,,   ’..: e   W. 1% ;,   * V
Fig. `I2
Carcass number .......4,........4,....4...............,..,.4....,................,..,........,........... 4
Warm carcass weight .............. , .............. . ...............................,...4.r...... 620 Ib
Stage of maturity .4...,..4.................,........,.....,..........,................................... A
Conformation ...,..,..4.....r...,........,.........,................,......................,......... Good
Degree of marbling ....,............,...............................,.........,.................,.. Slight
USDA grade ...............,...................4....,.................4............................,.. Good
Area of ribeye »...,..4...,................,44.............4...,.,........,...,....,....4..,. 'll.2 sq. in.
V Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat ....,,.,......,.........,............,......,.......,........... 3.0%
Thickness of fat over ribeye ............... , .....,...........,.,.....,...................... 0.7 in.
Cutability ,.....r.. . ,.r.. ., ........................................,........,....................... 48.7%
Estimated difference in value per hundredweight of carcasses ll and 4 .. $3.00
17

    

 
 Agricultural and Home Economics Extension Service of the University of Kentucky, the
United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. W. A. Seay, Director. Issued in
furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30. 1914.
1OM—11—67