Bone lengths - Estimating height

[Louisa Gidney]

It has been suggested that the short-leg Dexter may appear more beefy because it has "normal" muscle attached to abnormally short bones.
As a preliminary test of this hypothesis, I have applied the factors used to estimate the height of archaeological cattle from their bones to a short-leg Dexter bull skeleton. In life, the animal was c. 36 inches or c. 94 cm tall.
The humerus, upper fore limb, gave a result estimating height at 1.12m. The femur and tibia of the hindlimb both suggested a height c. 1.03m. Only the metapodials, or cannon bones, both suggested a height of 0.94m.
This strongly suggests that the upper limb bones of the short leg Dexter do not exhibit an extreme reduction in length, this is seen only in the non meat-bearing metapodials.
It also suggests that we might not identify the presence of "short-leg" cattle archaeologically, if we do not have complete metapodials.
Lots more bones to measure but just thought I'd share the fun.

[Broomcroft]

I've done quite a lot of reading on chondro over the past couple of years and have a kept my own little library of articles. Most of what you read is really about the human condition. The human version apparently also leads to obesity, which to me means a tendency to put on fat easily. That sort of makes sense with shorties because they are easier to finish and the beef contains more fat on a like for like basis.

So in other words, is it just the same amount of meat compressed into less area, or is it that they have a tendency to obesity/more fat, or both?

I think to me the obesity angle makes more sense although I have had a few massively boned shorties where the amount of meat produced was much less than you would have thought. And some of my highest figures have come from quite fine-boned steers.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1252427793