255 



Weight of caul fat 34 lbs. 



" tripe 36 



'' liver 19 



tongue o 



" " cheek meat 7.5 " 



" " heart meat 6 



" tail 2.75 " 



" " suet and kidneys 20.5 



" green hide 86 



'\ " hindquarters 452 " 



" " fore quarters 410 '' 



Weight of the different cuts and percentage of same : 



Cuts. Weight. Percentage. 



Rounds 212.5 lbs. 22.03% 



Chucks 184.5 " 19.177o 



Loins 183.5 " 19.07% 



Plates 137 " 14.24% 



Cross ribs and shanks 87.5 " 9.09% 



Ribs 91.5 " 9.51% 



Flanks 28.75 " 2.98% 



Skirt steaks 9.25 " 0.96% 



Tail, kidneys and suet 23.25 " 2.41% 



The weights and percentages above tabulated clearly demon- 

 strate the superiority of Steer No. 2. The dressing percentage 

 while good does not show as high as should reasonably be ex- 

 .pected in a grain finished animal. The carcass was very well 

 balanced, the difference in weight between the quarters being 

 placed in the hind quarters where it should be. In Steer No. 1 

 this difference of weight was placed in the fore quarters. A 

 comparison of these weights reveals the fact that while the fore 

 quarters in each animal weighed practically the same the hind 

 quarters of Steer No. 2 w^ere one hundred and ten pounds heavier. 

 In other words, there was one hundred and ten pounds more 

 flesh placed on that part of the carcass containing the most 

 valuable cuts which was the direct result of superior breeding-. 



A comparison of weights of the heart and tripe showed Steer 

 No. 2 to be a distinctly superior animal in constitution and 

 powers of assimilation, two factors o'f utmost importance to the 

 breeder in deciding whether or not an animal can be maintained 

 at a profit. This animal showed a well turned carcass, even 

 distribution of cover fat and a well marbled condition of the 

 meat ; the flesh was of fine quality, all of which goes toward 

 producing a high degree of palatability. 



Steer No. 1 was considerably coarser throughout ; there was 

 little evenness in the distribution of fat and lean and considerable 

 waste through large coarse bones. Not near as profitable an 

 animal from the consumer's standpoint. Yet from the present 

 system of marketing, the producer received the same price per 



