209.

THE R E L A T I O N S H I P OF BONE TO MUSCLE I N BEEF CARCASSES

t . O m W Y f H E I JRm"

Int roduc t ion

Considerable i n t e r e s t has a r i s e n among meats research personnel
tfithin the last f e w years on s i z e of bone as an indicator of muscle develop-
ment. T h i s i i l t e r e s t i s nothing new as beef c a t t l e producers, c a t t l e feeders,
c a t t l e buyers and beef processors have f o r years been concerned about the
amount of bone i n c a t t l e and i t s economic importance. Lush i n 1926 stated,
"The whole problem of s i z e of bone i n its r e l a t i o n t o meat value, t o the de-
sirabilities of c a t t l e SI feeder c a t t l e and t o t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of c a t t l e f o r
range--beef production i s a large one".
L i t t l e consistency has been shown i n l i v e animai v i s u a l appraisal as
we often deman heavy boned breeding c a t t l e and then do an "about face" and
"praise'" slaughter s t e e r s f o r possessirig q u a l i t y and refinement of bone. Bone
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a% fundmentally determined by inheritance j however, t h e
l e v e l of n u t r i t i o n probably has some influence on the development of bone.
Since muscles are attached t o bones and their chief purpose i s t o operate o r
move the bones, it seems l o g i c a l t h a t their s i z e and shape i s associated with
t h e s i z e and shape of bones.

Several major f a c t o r s must be considered when one undertakes t o f i n d

the relationship of bone t o muscling:
1. Accurate, useable indicators of boae thickness both on the l i v e
animal and i n the carcass4
2. Variations i n amount and d i s t r i b u t i o n of fat.
3. Variations i n age, weight and perhaps breed and previous environment.
4. An accurate, e a s i l y obtainable measure of muscling.

Considerable work has been done o r is presently underway i n t h e

f i e l d of bone-muscle relationships, but very l i t t l e has been published on the
subject as such. There are conflicting reports and ideas i n the published
literature.
Review of Literature
Hammond (1921, 1932) McMeekam (1940, 1941), Palsson (1939) and others
i n England and New Zealand have completely dissected many thousands of meat ani-
mals (mainly swine and sheep, but some c a t t l e ) , separating, weighing and meas-
uring each individual muscle and each individual bone i n the body. This work

*Assistance of G. T. King, R. L. Simms, Frank A. O r t s , Ray Hm Means, J, J C

Guenther, B. 3, Bland and s t a t i s t i c a l laboratory staff i s acknowledged,
210 .
involves a slow, meticulous separation of t h e t i s s u e s using scalpels, forceps,
and s c i s s o r s while keeping t h e cut covered as well as possible with drunr,
towels t o avoid evaporation. These workers have found a strong positive
correlation between the w e i g h t of bone in each animal and the weight of muscle
t i s s u e . McMeekan (1956) stated "So strong i s t h i s relationship t h a t the
weight of muscle could be determined within one percent i f t h e weight of the
cannon bones are known". He a l s o aaid, 'On the average f i n e boned animals
w i l l k i l l out with a smaller percentage of lean meat and a l a r g e r percentage
of f a t a t t h e same weight then w i l l a stronger, t h i c k e r boned beast".

Walker (1958) has found correlations of :sf between cannon weight

and muscle weight and between t o t a l bone weight and muscle tretght of Jersey
heifers. I n t h i s work each muscle was removed and dealt with as an e n t i t y .

.
Walker (1958) further reported that she used weight/leogth r a t i o as an indi-
c a t o r of bone thickness
Callow (1948) reported that the r a t i o between weiglrt of muscular
t i s s u e and bone increases during f a t t e n i n g and when carcasses contain over
twenty percent f a t t y t i s s u e the percentages of muscular t i s s u e s , bone t i s s u e ,
tendon, e t c , , all decrease as the percentage of f a t t y tissue increases.
Hankins e t a1 (1943) obseqed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the
muscle-bone r a t i o of beef and'dual purpose shorthorns and also a s i g n i f i c a n t
difference between muscle bone r a t i o s of the progeny of sires within each
type. This indicated that muscle bone r a t i o i s a rather d e f i n i t e l y i n h e r i t e d
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Correlations between muscle bone ratio and l i v e animal meas-
urements gave l i t t l e indication t h a t selections could be made on the basis of
conformation &s evaluated by such megisyreplfsnts.
Ush (1926) reporcted t h e percentage of l e g bone6 (front and rear
shanks) t o be very good indicators of the percentage of gone i n t h e dressed
side of beef, but that t h i s was l a r g e l y a secondary e f f e c t of t h e primary
f a c t o r s of age and fatness. L i t t l e o r no evidence of any r e l a t i o n between
dressing percent and percentage of bone was found when t h e degree of f a t n e s s
was constant.
Workers in the Bureau of Animal Industry, U.S.D.A. (1935) and Hankins
e t a1 (1946) found t h e percentage of bone and lean i n the nine-ten-eleven rib
cut provided a basis for estimating the bone and lean content of the dressed
beef carcass. This has been substantiated by Cole e t a1 (1958) and others.

Weseli et a1 (1958) and Good (J958) reported a simple correlation

coefficient of .22 and a p a r t i a l correlation coefficient (among steers of
similar weight) of .11 between trimed c a n o n circumference snd ribeye area
from 153 h g U 6 , Hereford and Shorthorn steers entered i n the 1956 Inter-
national Carcass Contest. Significant, but small correlations were found
when l i v e bone score and l i v e measurements (circumference of l e f t metacarpus
and f r o n t a l and l a t e r a l measurements midway between t h e knee and pastern
j o i n t ) were correlated wlth clean metacarpus measurements (metacarpus freed
of a l l excess t i s s u e and measured in the sane manner as l i v e measurements).
This study indicates that l i v e animalmasuremente are not too usef'ul f o r
predicting a c t u a l bone measurements.
 211.

Merkel and Boughton (1958) found nonsignificant correlations be-

tween l i v e f r o n t shank cannon circumference and l o i n eye area f r o m 53 Here-
ford heifers and 30 Hereford steers when the e f f e c t of weight was removed.
These workers reported nonsignificant p a r t i a l correlations between area of
round muscles and l i v e fmnt cannon circumference i n both steer8 and heifers,
but they did find highly s i g n i f i c a n t simple and p a r t i a l correlations between
l i v e cannon circumPerence and percent commercial round and between combined
percent rib, loin, round and chuck y d cannon circumference i n heifers, These
same Correlations were not s i g n i f i c a n t in steers. Tbis Indicates differences
in muscle-bone r e l a t i o n due t o sex. Merkel f i r t h e r stated t h a t c e r t a i n head
measurements w e r e not wen associated with musczing characteristics.
Arthaud (1958) reports low simple and partial correlations between
l i v e measuremnte (circumference of f m n t and rear shank and length of f r o n t
and rear shank measured f r o b the bzWcjoint t o the dew claw) and are of
rlbeye on 50 head of c a t t l e slaughtered i n 1957.

mtler e t al (1956) concluded t h a t bones tend t o develop proportion-

ally i n beef animals. Muscles afe attached t o bones a t t h e i r o r i g i n and i n -
sertion, 80 muscle weight i n diff'e*nt yholesale c u t s tends t o be proportionate,

Eqeritnental
Detailed slaughter, carcws and bone d a t a were obtained f r o m 73
Hereford and B r a h m n Crossbred steers and 16 Herefom2 and Hereford x Angus
heifers. The slaughter procedure was e s s e n t i a l l y as recommended by Deans
(1951). Both sides of the carca88e6 were c u t by procedures described by
Hankins and &we (1946). EQeaSura&ats were made in a manner described by
Naumann (1951).
The procedure used in ob-ing bone data is outlined below.
1. Weigh removed shanks and feet and head.
2. Remove feet, phalanges, %ndons and other extraneous matter from
metacarpus and metatarsus.
3. Weigh and measure length fwith calipers) of both l e f t and right
cleaned metscarpus and metatarsus.
4. Weigh and mea6ure length of both l e f t and r i g h t cleaned tibia,
(Tlbia m i n u s tuber calcis.)
5. Weigh and measure length of both l e f t and r i g h t cleaned femur.
6.
.
Weigh and measure length of both l e f t and right cleaned Radius Ulna.
(Minus c a r p a l bones )
7, Obtain width ( l a t e r a l ) and depth (frontal) measurements of metacarpus
and metatarsus at midpoint of length with s l i d i n g vernier caliper.,
8. Saw metacarpus at midpoint of length, t r a c e and coppate cross-
s e c t i o n a l area with planimeter.
212.

9. Calculate weight/leagth r a t i o s by dividing t h e weight of each bone

by i t s length.
10. All bones w e r e kept i n t h e cooler and cleaned and weighed as quickly
a s possible t o prevent loss from evaporation.
The rib, chuck, l o i n and round were given a retail trim so t h a t all
fat i n excess of 1/4 t o 3/8 inch and excess bony portions were
removed. These trimmed cuts were used as indicators of m s c l i n g as they were
thought t o be more uniform i n fat content than wholesale cuts. The longissimus
d o r s i muscles ( r i b eye) of each carcass were traced at the t w e l f t h r i b and a
planimeter was used t o determine the cross section area i n square Ulches.
Results
Analysis of the data from t h e heifers and Brahman crossbred steers
has not been completed,

A number of simple c o r r e h t & o n coefficients were colnputed using

data from 28 Hereford steers which were fed f o r 215 d a y s , represented si%
herds, and averaged 559 pounds of c h i l l e d carcass with a r a g e of from 426
t o 715 pounds.
Highly s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were found between the weights and
between t h e lengths of metacarpus, metatarsus, tibia, femur and ulna-radius.
(Table 1)

Table 1. Correlations between t h e weights and petween the lengths of trimmed

metagarpus, t i b i a femur, metatarsus and ulna-radius. 1958.
I I I I Ulna- I

*Signi$lcant at .01 l e v e l
Fhese high correlations are further proof that bones develop pro-
portionately both in length and weight.
Highly s i g n i f i c a n t correlation coefficients between trimmed bone
weights and weights of c e r t a i n beef cuts, as w e l l as area of eye muscle, are
Shorn i n Table 2,
 213.

Meta- U U -
- - rrm tarsus Tibia Femur Radiuf
Sum b i n , Rib, Round (rump 1

Cornlatione of bone lengkhg wLth weights of various beef cuts and

area of eye narscle are shown in Table 3-

Table 3. ComJ.&ions of bene lkngt;hs with weights of various beef cuts and

- m . carpus I tarsus Tibia Femur Radiu

Sum &in, Rib, Round (nmrp
on? Regular whlsa9cut) .575- ,58W ,792w .823* .81
Sum Retail Trinnned Rib, I t

The highly s i g n i f i d c o m h t i o n eoeff'icients of weight/length

r a t l o e of certain bones wlthorei@ts o f vafiotts beef c u t e and area of eye
muscle are shown in -3.e 4.

Table 4. Correlations of weightbngth ratios of certain bones with m W s

These correlations look pmmieing an8 indicate that a strong posi-

tive r e l e t i o ~ h i pbetween bone thickness (we%@t/lengthratio) and mecling
214 .
( t r i m e d boneless cushion round, ribeye area, etc.) existed i n t h e 28 steers
i n t h i s study. It is realized, however, t h a k sone part-whole correlations
resulted f r o m these comparisons and no adjustment was made for weight o r age
differences.
A great deal o f work is e t i l l needed i n this field, since the com-
position of beef carcasses is becoming increasingly important t o t h e beef
producer, processor and consumer. W e are looking f o r reasonably accurate,
simplified methods of detecting muscling and percentage edible portion i n
l i v e c g t t l e . Perhaps 6ome measure of bone thickness w i l l give ut3 this c r i t e r i a .
We are searching f o r better ways t o determine bone thickness both in %be l i v e
animal anit' in the carcass. We are s t r i v i n g t o find the upper and lower limits
of bone thickness as E l a t e d t o m s c l e development.
I think these problems ccm and w&ll be solved i n the near future,
which i n turn will be b e n e f i c i a l t o all se510nts of the beef cattle industry.

Literature Cited

Arthaud, V. H. 1958. Relationships between l i v e measurements and area of rib

eye. Personal ComPrmnication.

Butler, 0. D., Be L. Warwick and T. C, Cartwright. 1956. Slaughter and car-

cass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of shortfed yearling Hereford and Brahman x Hereford
steers. J. Ani. Sci. 15:93.
Callow, E, H. 194f3, Comparative s t u d i e s of meat. The changes in the carcass
during growth and f a t h n i n g , aad their r e l a t i o n t o t h e chemical composi-
t i o n of the f a t t y aod muscular t i s s u e . J. Agr. Sci. 38:174..
Cole, J, W. 1958. Comparisow of the wan percentwe separable at,bone and
lean of the carcasa with that of t h e mean percentage of saparable fat,
bone and lean of selected cuts of the careass.. Personal communication.
Deans, R. J. 1951. A recommended procedure f o r slaughtering experimental
catt!.e. Proc. Fourth A m . Reciprocal Meat Conf. National Livestock and
Meat Board. 81.
Good, Don L. 1958.. Relationships of l i v e and carcas8 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
slaughter steers Personal communication.
Hammond, J. 1921. On the r e l a t i v e growth and development of various breeds
w d crosses of sheep. J. Agr. Sci. 11:367.

Hanmnond, J. 1932. Growth and the development of mutton q u a l i t i e s in the

sheep. Oliver and Boyd. London.
Hsnkins, 0, G., Bradford Knapp, Jr. and Ralph W. Pbillips. 1943, The muscle-
bone r a t i o as an index of merit 2n beef and dual-purpose c a t t l e .
J. Ani. Sci. 2:42.
 215.

Hankins, 0. G. and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef

carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 926.
Lush, J. L. 1926. P r a c t i c a l methods of estimating proportions of f a t and
bone in c a t t l e slaughtered i n commercial packing plants. 3. Agr. Res.
32:727.

McMeekan, C, P. 1940. Growth and development i n the pig with p a r t i c u l a r re-

ference t o carcass quality, J. A g r i . Sci, 30:276.
McMeekan, C. P. 1942. Growth and development i n the p i g with s p e c i a l refer-
ence t o carcass q u a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . J. A g r i . Sci. 31:l.

Review and Grazier' s Record. 66 ~ 2 7 3 .

McMeekan, C. P. 1956. Beef carcass judging by measurement. The P a s t o r i a l

Merkel, Fbbt. A. 1958. Bone-mscle relationships. Personal c o m n i c a t l o n .

Naumann, H. D. 1951. A recommended procedure f o r measuring and grading beef
f o r carcass evaluation. Proceedings Fourth Annual Reciprocal Meat Con-
ference, National Live Stock and Meat Board. 89.
Palsson, H. 1939. Meat q u a l i t i e s in t h e sheep with specfal reference t o
Scottish breeds and crosses. J. Agri. Sci. 29:544,
United S t a t e s Bureau of' Animal Industry. 1935. Report of t h e chief of t h e
Eureau of Animal Industry. 55 pp.
Walker, Daintry. 1958. Bone-mscle relationships. Personal cormnunication.
Weseli, John D., D. L. Good and L. A. Holland. 1958, Relationships among
l i v e and carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of slaughter s t e e r s . Kansas Agri. Expt.
Sta., Circular 358:55.

MR, COLE: I would say that i s very good, and I think the
people i n Texas should be congratulated on t h i s type of work. It i s
meticulous, it i s hard, and it i s something t h a t we a l l have t o do i f we
a r e going t o help t o solve these problems we are faced with i n beef car-
cass evaluation.

Now in working out t h i s pmgram the committee suggested topics,

and I should l i k e t o s a y a t t h i s time, Vern, that i f anybody has any idea
f o r the committee he should f e e l a t l i b e r t y t o contribute the suggestion
because we would l i k e t o have it even though the person doesn't happen
t o be on t h e Beef Carcass Evaluation Committee. I am sure t h e chairman
next year will welcome any suggestions t h a t are submitted.
216.

I must admit that we have a most unique report here, and t h e

committee planned it that way, I am sure, to save t h e b e s t u n t i l t h e
last. W e have a lady on our committee, and she is 8 grand, capable per-
eon. M&eCover is going t o talk t o u6 about an approach t o r.IEaSUring
beef tenderness (Applause)

MISS SYLVIA COVER: Mr. C a h i l l , Mr. Cole and Members of the

Reciprocal Meat Conference: I am afraid I cannot l i v e up t o all the
nice things that have been said about me, but I do appreciate being in-
v i t e d t o speak.

##########