Economic and Marketing INFORMATION 
FOR INDIANA
FARMERS
Lafayette, Indiana
November 27,  1953
Prepared by members of the Agricultural Staff of Purdue University
Shall We Produce A Meat-Type Hog}
THE QUESTION posed in
By
E. C. MILLER and E. J. TURMAN, Animal Husbandry
(Progress in marketing meat-type hogs was discussed in an article by M. Paul Mitchell in the September 23, 1953, issue of this publication.)
sociating   with   a   finished
hog.
The thickness of back-fat
is one of the best measures
of the amount of fat distributed throughout the
carcass. A Choice No. 1
hog, weighing between
180 and 220 pounds, can
carry from 1.1 to 1.6 inches
of back-fat. Contrast this
with the 2.25 inches of
back-fat carried by the
average hog marketed today!
the title is not easy to
answer simply yes or no.
Yet progressive swine producers are agreeing that
the answer must be yes if
pork is to continue to compete with other meat products.
The problem is more
than one of excess lard
produced by our modern
hog. Consumers are showing a definite preference
for leaner cuts of meat. Unfortunately, fat is distributed throughout the carcass,
and leanness cannot be
obtained by merely trimming fat from the wholesale cuts. Table 1 shows
the percentage of fat in
three different  types  of   hog   carcasses.
Swine producers are facing a real challenge today.
Let us first examine the characteristics of a meat-type
hog and then discuss the possibilities of producing
such an animal.
What is a Meat-type Hog?
In 1951, the government established market grades
for live hogs based on body conformation, length
°f body and back-fat thickness. Meat-type hogs were
given the grade name of Choice No. 1, while the other
grades established, in order of desirability, were
Choice No. 2, Choice No. 3, Medium and Cull. Choice
No. 1 hogs are found at all market weights. Howler, the greatest percentage fall within the 180 to
220 Pound bracket.
Back-fat Thickness
The most striking characteristic of a Choice No. 1
no9 is leanness. Only enough fat is tolerated to as-
fure ^nderness and tastiness.   In most cases, this is
ss fQt than producers have been accustomed to as-
This is a typical Choice No. 1 hog. Note the length
of body, well developed ham and general smoothness
throughout. This hog will have more than 50 percent
of its carcass weight in ham, loin and shoulder.
Length of Body
A Choice No. 1 hog is
long but not extreme. The
carcass must measure 28.5
to 32 inches from the aitch
bone in the ham to the
first rib. For basis of comparison, a live hog weighing
between 180 and 220 pounds that measures 42
inches from the base of ear to the root of tail will
yield about a 30-inch carcass.
Length is important because it affects the weight
of loin and belly, two of the valuable primal cuts.
Research has revealed a close relationship between
length of body and leanness.
How Can We Solve the Problem?
Basically there are two approaches to solving the
problem. One, to produce Choice No. 1 hogs from
our present day type by changing feeding methods.
This approach can bring about the quickest results,
but may not be the most practical. Second, to retain
our present methods of feeding but make necessary
changes in type through selection and breeding. From
the longtime viewpoint, this second method appears
to offer the most practical solution.
Improvement Through Feeding
Hogs begin to lay on fat when the energy intake is