1012 
Journal o f Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXXI, No. 11 
(1: 4.0) as a standard for the detection of added water, remarking 
that the value for protein is more quickly, more simply, and more 
cheaply obtained than that for fat-free organic matter. 
Pannwitz and Harder (12) report the analyses of 102 samples of 
ground fresh beef, of which only 2 show protein-moisture ratios 
wider than 1:4.0, and it was found that these contained added water 
and salt. 
Referring to the writers’ investigations, it will be noted from Table 
V that the ratio of protein to moisture in the 20 samples of flesh from 
extremely emaciated cattle ranges from 1: 3.8 to 1: 4.7, the average 
being 1: 4.2. Seventeen of the twenty samples show ratios wider 
than 1: 4.0. It may be noted also that the three samples having the 
narrowest ratios likewise contain the lowest percentages of moisture, 
and two of the three samples contain the highest percentages of pro¬ 
tein. 
From Table VII, in which is shown the composition of the flesh 
from 12 very thin cattle, it will be noted that the ratio of protein to 
moisture ranges from 1: 3.6 to 1:4.4, the average being 1:4.0, the 
maximum standard set by Feder for normal flesh. Four of the twelve 
samples of flesh, Nos. 770, 1000, 1005, and 1008, show ratios wider 
than 1: 4.0, namely, 1: 4.3, 1: 4.4, 1: 4.3, and 1: 4.2, respectively. It 
may be noted also that these four samples contain higher percentages 
of moisture (fat-free basis) than any of the other samples from this 
group of cattle, each containing in excess of 80 per cent, and that they 
also contain lower percentages of protein than the other samples. 
In describing the several quarters of beef from very thin cattle 
attention has already been called to the watery condition of the 
intramuscular connective tissue of samples Nos. 1000, 1005, and 1008. 
The flesh from each of these quarters of beef had a protein-moisture 
ratio wider than 1: 4.0. Although sample No. 770 had a ratio of 
1:4.3, the description of this quarter of beef does not indicate that 
the flesh or connective tissue appeared to be more watery than that 
of other quarters of beef having ratios of 1: 4.0 or narrower. 
As judged by its percentages of protein and moisture and by the 
ration of protein to moisture, it thus appears that the flesh from four 
carcasses which had been classed as very thin resembled very closely 
that of other carcasses that had been classed as extremely emaciated. 
Whether this similarity indicates an error in the original classification 
of the carcasses on the basis of physical characteristics, or whether it 
indicates that the protein-moisture ratio is not an infallible index of 
the condition of the carcass, is not entirely clear. However, in view 
of the difficulty experienced in making a rational classification on the 
basis of physical appearance alone, the writers are inclined to the 
former alternative. But whichever alternative we accept, it is still 
evident that in the great majority of cases the protein-moisture ratio 
can be satisfactorily correlated with the physical condition of the 
carcass, and it is believed that this ratio may serve a useful purpose 
in distinguishing mere thinness from extreme emaciation in cattle. 
