— 144 — 
an example of this, we may take the following comparison of the two factors in a sample 
of Finmark fish from 1913. The weights are stated in kilos, the percentage of the whole 
represented by the gutted fish being given below. In all the skrei sizes, over 65 cm. 
Comparison of whole and gutted weight, Finmark fish, May 1913. 
55—59 60-64 65-69 70—74 75—79 80-84 85-89 90-94 
Wiholeswerchire er 1.5 1.8 28) ee AN RTE NEO) 
Gutted weight . . . . .. ii 1626 LG) ae A BLY) 
Gutted°/, ofwholeweight 61 68 69 67 66 66 66 65 
the average values vary only between 61 and 69%. Thus a whole fish weighed here 
one and a half times as much as a gutted, the latter being 2/, the weight of the former. 
Sy Ss © Loy [oJ a = 
ES Ss BGS ESS ea oF 8 
1 | Re rey ZT 
be} Le) OR SR Ne) 
Sn SV Ss GSS es sexe sur 
SWS 
Fig. 93. Curves showing average weights (kilos) of the different size groups, 
whole weight, (uppermost); and gutted weight. 
The third part (or 33 %) lost consists of head, liver, and intestines. Of this, the head 
may represent 20 %, the intestines 7—10 % and the liver about 4 %, varying according 
to the size of the fish. The relative similarity between the whole and gutted weights 
is also distinctly indicated by the curves of the two average weights for different size- 
groups, as shown in Fig. 93. 
From this figure it will be seen that the weight increases greatly with increasing 
