Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Aspects of rate and efficiency of gain in beef cattle and heritability estimates 1956

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1956_A4 D6 A8.pdf
UBC_1956_A4 D6 A8.pdf
UBC_1956_A4 D6 A8.pdf [ 6.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0106221.json
JSON-LD: 1.0106221+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0106221.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0106221+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0106221+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0106221+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0106221.ris

Full Text

ASPECTS OF RATE AND EFFICIENCY OF GAIN IN BEEF CATTLE AMD HERITABILITY ESTIMATES by Huibert Doornenbal A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t of The.Requirements f o r the Degree,of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE in the Department of Animal Science We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE Membersv of tha*-B3bartment of Animal Sconce THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ap r i l . , 1956 - i - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to express his gratitude to his major Professor, Dr. J. C. Berry, Division of Animal Science, for guid- ance i n the preparation of this manuscript and to Dr. V. C. Brink, Head of the Division of Plant Science and Dr. S. ¥. Nash, Department of Mathematics, for their assistance in the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The author also wishes to thank Mr. T. G. W i l l i s , Super- intendent of the Dominion Range Experimental Farm, Kamloops, for his encouragement and the use of the necessary f a c i l i t i e s and Mr. George Davidson, herdsman, for his care and feeding of the experimental animals. The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr. A. J. Wood, Division of Animal Science, who conducted the prelimi- nary work which made possible the present study. Dr. Wood evaluated and rated the 19 purebred Hereford bulls and selected 9 of them to be used at the Range Experimental Farm at Kamloops. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i i Introduction iv I. Review of Literature A. Heritability of rate of gain 1 B. Factors affecting rate and economy of gain 5 a) age and weight of dam 5 b) gestation length 6 c) season of birth 7 d) birth weight 7 e) suckling period 8 f) weaning weight 11 g) sex 13 h) type 14 i ) size and age 15 j) feed utilization 16 C. Correlation between rate and efficiency of gain 18 II. Experimental A. Experimental animals 21 B. Feeding and management 23 III. Results 27 IV. Discussion 28 Summary 41 Appendix 43 Bibliography 89 - i l l - ABSTRACT Nine purebred Hereford bulls which had been tested for rate and efficiency of gain at the University of British Columbia, were bred to 99 heifers, 11 heifers to eaoh bull, obtained from commercial breeders. Bach of the offspring, a total of 84, was weaned at 400 pounds and then plaoed on an individual feeding test, using the same feeding sohedule and the same concentrate ration as that used for the bulls•° At 800 pounds, the animals were slaughtered, r a i l graded and several carcase measurements were collected* Daily rate of gain and feed efficiency were computed over three periods. The following correlations were calculated; birth weight and daily gain during pre-weaning periodj birth weight and daily gain during post-weaning period; daily gain during pre-.weaning and post- weaning period; daily gain during post-weaning period and percentage lean in ribcutj daily gain during post-weaning period and carcass grade. The'V* value of eaoh of the above calculations was found to be "low". There was a very high correlation between rate and efficiency of gain for each of the three periods; 400 - 800 pounds, r Z -0.98 400 - 600 pounds, r = -0.97 600 - 800 pounds, r s -0.98 A simple plan for home testing was outlined. This plan calLs for selection on the basis of rate of gain during a test period of approximately 5 months. Animals enter the test period in groups with equal body weight and are f u l l fed. i v - INTRODUCTION In the past much emphasis has been placed on visual con* formation i n selection of breeding stock i n beef cattle* In general, the only records available to beef oattle breeders have been show- ring •winnings and subjective evaluations made by individual breeders* Ideals or standards of conformation were originally established be- cause i t was thought they were indicators of desirable production and carcass t r a i t s * Previous studies have often shown l i t t l e relationship be- tween conformation and most economically important factors i n beef cattle production* The need, for more adequate measures of performance as aids to selection has led to the development of "Performance Test- ing." In order to be profitable, beef cattle must have the inherent a b i l i t y to grow rapidly. Individual beef animals d i f f e r i n their a b i l i t y to grow and to convert, economically, feed into gains. Per- formance testing is a means of identifying individuals possessing superior productive qualities and i t is also a way of evaluating sires for transmitting these qualities to their offspring. A great number of studies have shown that these variations are due, i n part, to genetic influences, thus:justifying selection for rate and economy of gain. Purebred beef cattle breeders and commercial cattlemen have become increasingly interested in experiments dealing with these t r a i t s for economical production. Until recently, most research of this nature has been done outside of Canada. In 1952, with the support of the Br i t i s h Columbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association and the finenoial support of the Federal and Provincial Departments of Agriculture, the Department of Animal Husbandry of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia - V - initiated a Beef Bull Research Project in whioh twenty .three purebred bulls were tested for rate and efficiency of gain. Nine of these tested bulls were used in a progeny test carried.out at the Dominion Range,Experimental Farm at Kamloops. ; .ft The purpose of this study was to indicate e 1) The extent to which rate and economy of gain are . heritable by way of a regression of offspring on sire.. 2) To what extent rate and economy of gain are correlated. 3) How performance testing might be applied to the benefit of the beef oattle industry. - 1 - I. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A. Heritability of rate of gain. The oonoept of heritability concerns whether the differences observed between individuals arose because they started life with dif- ferent genotypes or were exposed to different environmental influences* The expression of heritable characteristics can be changed by approp- riate environment under which that genotype develops. Heritability, therefore, oan be defined as the fraction of the observed variation due to genetic differences. Estimates of heritability for rate of gain as reported in the literature are not consistent. The figures vary from about 10 to close to 100 percent. The Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, (1963-1954) in its Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, makes the statement (referring to rate of gain in beef oattle): "In a recent review of the interpretation of progeny tests, i t was stated that 80-90^ of the variation between pro- geny groups was non-genetic." Knapp and Nordskog (19466), in a study made of the reoords of 177 steer oalves from 23 sires, estimated the heritability of daily gain in the feed lot to be 99 percent. This figure was arrived at by the half-sib correlation method. Using the parent-offspring relation method, thi6 estimate beoame 97 percent. Knapp and Clark (1950) revised their estimates to 65 percent and 77 per- cent respectively. A large number of investigators report heritability estimates for rate of gain which are between the two extremes mentioned above. Patterson, et al, (1949) reported on the rate of gain of ani- mals tested for a period of 7 years. Six to 10 bull progeny per sire were tested, giving a total of 814 progeny. Using the half-sib correla- tion method, they ooncluded that heritability was extremely high for this character, the actual numerical value being olose to 100 percent. After collecting more data and improving the technique of analysis, Patterson, et al , (1954) revised this heritability figure to an average value of 53 percent. Kohli, Cook and Dawson (1952), weaned 62 calves at 500 pounds and then fed individually, in a record of performance test, from 500 to 900 pounds live weight. Kohli, et a l , found the heritability for aver- age daily gain in the feed lot to be 63.6 percent. This coefficient agrees.very closely with the revised figure of 65 percent obtained by Knapp and Clark (i960). Dawson, Yao and Cook, (1955), reporting on data from 58 Milking Shorthorn steers, representing the offspring of 9 bulls and 51 cows, estimated the heritability of average daily gain to be 18.8 percent. Kincaid, et al, (1952) computed heritability of growth rate from gain data available for both sires and progeny. These varied from 0 to 42 percent and averaged 22 percent for 81 bulls fed individually and 12 percent for 55 heifers on pasture. Warwick, Cartwright and Hazen, (1954) report several heritability figures for gaining ability for groups of cattle with different genetic makeup. In summary, these figures are as follows: Number of Heritability Group included Animals Percent A l l animals 863 38 Animals raised at BF 587 34 A l l Herefords 329 51 Herefords raised at BF 189 21 A l l Brahmans 124 46 Brahmans raised at BF . 33 46 F. (Hereford x Brahman) 359 33 The8e values were computed from tests at four stations. The above values show considerable variability. Heritability applies - 3 - directly only to the group from which data are collected. In those combined studies, cattle went on test at different ages, weight and finish. Those factors, and differences in other environmental condi- tions, probably account for most of the variability in the results. These estimates were obtained by using the half-sib correlation method. To overcome differences in number of animals, differences due to test year and breed, the data were analyzed on the basis of the gain ratio. The gain ratio was computed for each animal by dividing its total gain on test by the average total gain on test of animals of the 6ame year, breed, sex and ration group and multiplying by 100. Warwick, et al, (1954 and 1955) also report values using the second method of calculation, the regression of offspring-on-parent. According to Lush (1940) less bias is incorporated in estimates of heri- tability by use of this method. For this calculation, 68 parents with test records were paired with the average of their offspring (n = 147). The regression coefficient was 0.29 and heritability was estimated to be 57 percent. Five additional bulls had gain test records from another station but sired Bluebonnet tested calves. VJhen thie information was added (n s 291) the estimate changed slightly to 54 percent. Here again the gain ratio for each individual was computed before analysis. Shelby, Clark and FJoodward (1955) calculated heritability of gain in the feed lot from data collected over a 10-year period (1942-1951) of Record of Performance testing at the U.S. Range Livestock Experiment Station at Miles City, Montana. Records of 635 steers from grade cows mated to 88 sires from 9 lines were available. This study uses the correlation between paternal half-sibs. Components of variance were estimated as outlined by Henderson (1953) in method 1. These investigators arrived - 4 - at a value of 60 percent. According to the authors, the.major advantage of using paternal half-sib correlation to estimate heritability is that the resultant value contains only additive plus a.small fraction of the epistatic portion of heredity variance. The accuracy of this method depends on the number of degrees of freedom available for estimating the differences between sires. It is limited by the fact that errors due to sampling or incorrect estimation of environmental influences are multiplied by 4. Although there iB much variability in the estimates of heri- tability of gain in the literature reviewed, the more reliable experi- mental results and the bulk of evidence suggest a substantial heritabi- l i t y figure,, probably of the order of 65 percent. <U» 5 mm B. Factors affecting rate and economy of gain* Growth rate and economy of feed utilization are considered to be very complex and to involve innumerable genetic, physiological and environmental factors (Brody 1945). a) Weight and age of dam; Rollins and Guilbert (1954) reported on monthly weights of each of 159 purebred Hereford bull and heifer calves out of 57 cows. These investigators analyzed the relation between a calf's rat© of growth from birth to 4 months and its 240-day weaning weight. They dealt with the question of culling cows, using the weight of the f i r s t calf at 3 months as a criterion. They found that the age of the dam heid an effect on both periods, birth to 4 months and 4 months to weaning at 240 days. Dams in the range of 7 to 10 years produced calves that grew fastest to 4 months of age and were heaviest at weaning. However, from 4 to 8 months of age the calves from fi r s t calf heifers and,to a lesser extent from second calf cows, grew faster than those from the older age range. This is probably due to a greater persistency in lac- tation of young cows. • Knapp, et al, (l942b) found the optimum range for cow produc- tivity to be 5 to 7 years. Koch and Clark (1955) indicate in their analysis of 4553 calves that maternal environment has considerable in- fluence on birth weight, gain from birth to weaning and weaning score. For yearling gain and score, maternal environment appeared to be of li t t l e importance. Dawson, et al, (1947) reported that birth weight of calves in the beef Shorthorn herd at Belteville tended to increase at the rate of 0.2 pound per month of increase in the age of the dom until the dams were 6 years old, after which there was no affect of age of dam. Weight of dam was found to be related to birthweight of calf to about the same extent as was age of the dam. They also found that the largest calves at birth and those with the highest prenatal growth rates tended to reach 500 pounds (weaning weight) and 900 pounds (slaughter weight) the soonest. Burris and Blunn (1952) found a defi- nite relationship between age of dam and birth weight of calf. The. maximum birth weight was not reached until the cows are 9 to 10 years old. Hitchcock, et al, (1956) reported a correlation of birthweight with age of dam of 0.45 for male calves and 0.36 for female calves. However, they stated that no evidence was found that age of the dam needs consideration when selection is bused on yearling weights* In summary, most studies report that weight and age of dam do have an influence on birth weight and growth-rate from birth to weaning. This, B6 will be pointed out later, is probably largely due to the milk- ing ability of the dam. Most investigators indicate that there is l i t t l e or no association between the environment of the dam and the growth rate and economy of gain during the period in the feed lot. b) Gestation length: Burris and Blunn (1952) indicate a high correlation between length of gestation and birth weight of calf. Differences in gestation length accounted for 7.9 percent of the variance in oalf weights. Though a few sires Beem to have considerable affect on gestation length, the analysis of the data showed that within breeds, sire affectsalone was not significant. Sire as well as dam influence gestation length. Dawson et al (1947) found a significant but relatively low positive correlation between the length of gestation period and birth weight. Unless birth weight has a significant influence on later growth, gestation length would not affect rate of gain* o) Season of birth: Koch and Clark (1955) indicate that the difference between the growth rates of the early and late calves is not ae important as many people have thought. The regression figure arrived at was not s i f n i f i - cantly different from zero. As the authors point out, the conflict be- tween the facts of their findings and the impression that earlier calves appear to do better is no doubt due to the inability of a person to ad- just mentally for differences in age when examining a group of calves of mixed ages. d) Birth weight; Dawson, Phillips and Black (1947) state that the correlation between birth weight or prenatal growth rate and economy of gain during the feeding period showed there was practically no association. There also was l i t t l e relationship between birth weight and the length of the feeding period from weaning (500 pounds) to slaughter (900 pounds), Koch and Clark (1955) in evaluating the influence of maternal environ- ment suggest in their comparisons that maternal environment from con- ception to birth and from birth to weaning had a large influence on birth weight, gain from birth to weaning and weaning weight, but a small influence on yearling gain. Dahmen and Bogart (1952), however, found that birthweight had a significant effect on economy of gain while on test. The calves that were largest at birth gained faster and were more efficient. They suggest that birth weight should be given consid- eration in selection in view of the fact that i t had an influence on the time required for calves to attain a slaughter weight of 800 pounds. They indicated that for every 1-pound increase in birth weight there is a corresponding 0.010 of a pound increase in gain per day during the test period and,a 2-pound saving in total digestible nutrients for each 100-pound gain in live weight. They claim that 18 percent of the vari- ance in economy of gain is accounted for by variations in birth weight. Pierce, et al, (1954) worked with stall-fed (individually) calves and lot-fed (10 calves in each lot) calves-. They found that for the s t a l l - fed calves, birth weight had a significant effect on gain on test and on gain from birth to the end of test-. Calves 10 pounds heavier at birth gained 0.13 of a pound per day more on test, and 0.041 of a pound per day more from birth to the end of test. For lot-fed calves, an ad- ditional 10 pounds at birth resulted in 0.41 pound extra gain per day on test and 0.083 pound added gain per day from birth to the end of the test. In both cases in this study, calves heavier at birth gained faster on test and from birth to market. Several estimates of heritability of birth weight have been reported in the literature. Knapp and Nordskog (I946a) estimated heri- tability of birth weight to be 42 and 34 percent; Dawson et al (1947) 29 percent; Knapp and Clark, (1950) 45 percent; Gregory et al, (1950) 45 percent and 100 percent; Burris and Blunn, (1952) 22 percent; Shelby, Clark and Woodward, (J.965) 72 percent, and Koch and Clark (1955) 42 percent. e) Suckling period: Affeots of suckling gain on performance later in the calf's life has been the object of considerable study. Gifford (1963) made an extensive study of the correlation between milk production of dams and growth of calves.. One of the most striking observations made by Gifford - 9 - was the small amount of milk and butterfat produced by these cows. He was working with Herefords, Aberdeen-Angus and Shorthorns. The average production for a l l cows was 1,498 pounds of milk with an average butter- fat test of 3.08 percent and 46.1 pounds of butterfat. The largest record made wa6 2,458 pounds of milk and 88.4 pounds of butterfat during a 244-day lactation, at an age of 12 years. The lowest producer was a 3-year old cow with a record of 312 pounds of milk and 14 pounds of butterfat i n 236 days. There was a considerable degree of correlation between the quantity of milk produced daily by the dams and the daily gain i n weight i n their calves during the f i r s t , second, third and fourth months. The gross correlations observed were 0.60, 0.71, 0.52 and 0.35, respectively. During the following 4 months the correlations were smaller i n magnitude and not significant. Cows producing less than 6.5 pounds of milk daily during maxi- mum production f a i l e d to produce satisfactory calves. At weaning, 8 months, the average weight of this group was only 354 pounds. Cows that produced from 6.5 to 12.9 pounds daily during maximum production weaned calves with an average weight of 405 pounds, and cows that aver- aged more than 13 pounds daily during their highest producing periods weaned calves that averaged 475 pounds. The lowest producer with a maximum recorded production of only 2.3 pounds daily produced a stunted calf that weighed only 259 pound6 at 8 months. The author pointed out that a minimum production of 6 to 8 pounds daily during the f i r s t 3 months was required to produce a 400-pound or larger calf at 8 months. The above etudy illustrates the great influence milk production of the dam has on the early growth of the calf , but i t also indicates the - 10 - decreasing magnitude of this influence as the calf grows older, t i l l this influence approaches zero at weaning time. Koch and Clark (1955) state that the maternal environment from birth to weaning appears nega- tively correlated, genetically, with weaning weight. Burris and Baugus (1955) found the same high correlation between milk production of the ewe and growth of their lambs. Early growth and milk production were highly correlated (r ~ 0 . 8 3 ) . As the lambs grew older the correlation between growth and milk production in each 4-week period decreased rapidly. However, the total milk production and total growth of the lamb to 16 weeks were highly correlated (r = 0 . 8 3 ) . Knapp et al (1941 ) showed that 41 percent of the variation in rate of gain during the suckling period of beef calves was accounted for by differences in the amount of milk, hay and grain consumed and particularly in the amount of milk, Dahmen and Bogart (1952) found that the variance in suckling daily gains had no significant affect on either rate or economy of gain in the feed lot. However, they suggest that suckling gains do have their importance in their value of measuring the milking ability of the dam; therefore, the use of gains during the suckling period in a selec- tion index is worthwhile. Pierce, Avery, Burris and Bogart (1954) found no significant correlation between birth weight and suckling gain. Work- ing with individually fed and lot-fed calves they stated that for indi- vidually-fed calves gain per day during the suckling period had no affeot on gain on test or gain from birth to the end of the test. How- ever, for lot-fed calves suckling gain had a significant positive affect on gain on test and on gain from birth to the end of the test. There was no explanation given why there was a difference in this respect - 11 - between individually fed and lot-fed calves. It could be that differ- ences in weight and size at weaning (all calves were weaned between October 1st and 18th) accounted for differences in feed intake and, therefore, calves with a high daily growth rate during the suckling period were able to acquire more feed in lot-feeding, and hence correla- tion between suckling gain and gain at test would exist. Knapp and co-workers (l941b) found no correlation between weaning weight, or suckling gain, and daily gain in the feed lot. They found high negative correlations of both weaning weight and suckling gain with efficiency in the feed lot, indicating the heavier the calf at weaning, the more feed is required for maintenance and efficiency decreases. This, of course, is only the case when calves are weaned at a constant age and not at a constant weight. Koch and Clark (1955) found a negative genetic correlation between matornal environment and growth response• Undoubtedly, maternal environment from conception to weaning accounts for a large proportion of variances between individual calves. However, i f calves are put on test at a constant weight, which is as much a uniform physiological age as possibly can be achieved, much of the pre-test differences should not affect post-weaning gain, and the influence of suckling ability of the dom which accounts for most of the variation, (Gifford 1953) is greatly reduced. f) Weaning weight; Weaning gains and weaning weights are our best indicators of the milking ability of the dam. Koger and Knox (1951) found a small but significant negative correlation between weaning weight and long yearling gain. Knapp and Clark (1950) also showed low or non-significant - 12 . correlations with weaning weight and they indicate that this is to be expected, since weaning weight is largely a function of the dam's mater- nal ability. Koch and Clark (1955) found that maternal environment appeared to be of l i t t l e importance for yearling gain and score or is even negatively related to the genes directly influencing these traits. These investigators indicate that the pre-weaning and post-weaning period are markedly different in the environments provided. In pre- weaning growth the calf is protected and nourished to a large extent by the cow, the gains of the calf and its final weaning weight being determined largely by available milk supply* In the post-weaning period rustling ability and the capacity to handle large quantities of roughage would be important faotors in determining gains. Selection based on gains made up to weaning would be ineffectual in improving the genotypes for later gains. In a selection program for replacement cows, the weight of a calf at weaning would be a useful measure of its dam's pro- ductivity. Several investigators have reported the .repeatability of weaning weight to be in the neighbourhood of 50 percent (Koger and Knox 1947; Koch,1951; Gregory, 1950; Botkin and VJhatley, 1953; Rollins et al,. 1954; Koch and Clark, 1955 reported 34 percent). Heritability estimates for weaning weight reported in the literature are: Knapp et^al (l946a) 12 percent and 30 percent; Knapp et al (1950), 28 percent; Koch and Clerk (1955), 24 percent; Gregory et al (1950) working with 2 sources of data, reported 26 percent and 52 percent. A repeatability and heri- tability of this magnitude indicates that weaning weight of a cow's fir s t calf could be used profitably as a criterion in auch a program for replacement cows. - 13 - In summary, weaning weight, although important, is not indica- tive of a calf's genetic potentialities for growth. The calf's true inherited efficiency and ability to grow are displayed after weaning. g) Sex: The results of investigators in general agree that sex influ- ences birthweight, weaning weight and rate and economy of gain. The birth weight differences, because of sex, reported in the literature range from 4.2 to 5.8 with bull calves averaging about 4.7 pounds heavier than heifers (Burris and Blunn, 1952; Dawson et al, 1947; Gregory, Blunn and Baker, 1950; Knapp et al, 1942 ; Koch end Clark, 1955). Koch and Schleicher (1955) report a difference of 6.7 pounds in favour of the bull calves at birth. Significant differences in rate of gain prior to weaning have also been observed. Rollins and Guilbert (1954) estimated that bull calves on the average gained 0.13 pounds per day more than heifer calves from birth to ,4 months of age. For a 240-day weaning weight bull calves were 68 pounds heavier than heifer calves. Koch and Clark (1955) found that the average difference between male end female calves at weaning was 26.2 pounds. Koger and Knox (1945) indicated that steer calves outweighed heifer calves at weaning by 32 pounds. Bogart and Blackwell (1950) found that bulls gained faster and more efficiently than did heifers. Bulls gained on an average of 2.34 pounds per day while heifers gained 1.74 pounds. The heifers required 265 pounds more feed per 100 pounds gain than the bulls. Significant differences in rate of gain prior to weaning have also been observed, male calves gaining at a faster rate, by Black and Knapp (1936), Knapp and Black (I941b), Bloom (1953) and - 14 - and Koch (1951). Dahmen and Bogart (1952) found that beef animals pos- sessing similar breeding and being exposed to the same environment show marked sex differences in growth rate and efficiency. In comparing bulls and heifers between 500 and 800-pounds,\ the average daily gain of bulls was 2.3 pounds as compared to 2.0 pounds for heifers. For every 100 pounds of gain the bulls required an average of 391 pounds of T.D.N., while the heifers required an average of 483 pounds of T.D.N. necessary to apply correction factors for sex differences in the off- spring. prest" types of Hereford eteers has been a question in the minds of steer feeders for some time. HiHey et al (1951) compared 7 regular and 7 comprest animals. These calves were self-fed for 112 days on a feed mixture calculated to promote normal growth. Following this, they received individually a feed mixture containing 59 percent concentrates f.or 173 days. In summary, tho results of this 285-day feeding period were as follows: When testing progeny and comparing sires, i t appears to be The gaining and fattening ability of the ": 'Regular " and "Com- i i Regular' "Comprest' II Average i n i t i a l vreight Average final weight Gain per animal Daily gain per animal T.D.L. Lbs/100 lbs. of gain 470 1,000 A 530 A 1.86 A 645 478 954 476 1.67 674 & Difference significant at 0.05 level. "Regular" type steers made higher gains on less feed than "Comprest" steers in this study. The difference in feeding efficiency was not - 15 - significant. Tho difference between expenses, as calculated in this test, and the carcaas values resulted in an advantage of $8.42 per head in favour of the "Regular" steers. Cook et al (l95l) in a study of live animal measurements reported that steers shorter in body and in height at withers and at the floor of the chest tended to grade slightly higher than more rangy steers. They studied data from steers killed at a con- stant weight', Woodward et al (1954) stated that the long-bodied steers in their experiment appeared to have caroasses as desirable as those of the short-bodied steers. They also remarked that the trend towards selection for short-coupled beef cattle could \vell be faulty considering the fact that most of the better cuts of beef are from the back. Kohli et al (1951) found that steers xvhich were shorter in , height and length of body and smaller in circumference of foreflank were slightly superior in rate and economy of gain. Stonaker et al (1952) found that comprest type steer calves, when fed to a low choice slaughter grade, gained as efficiently per unit of feed eaten as did the conventional type calves. Koger and Knox (1952) conclude that selection for compactness in Hereford cattle was highly effective, indicating high heritability of body proportions. i) Size and Aget There is no doubt that size and age,s because of their physio- logical effects upon production of body substance, influence rate and economy of gain. Brody (1945, p.49) states that the increase in size of a given animal associated xvith increasing age would be expected to increase the energy cost of its maintenance and reduce correspondingly the total efficiency of growth unless this increase in maintenance is - 16 - compensated by an increase in growth rate. In the case of different species, such as in cattle and chickens, there is such compensation and, therefore, nearly the same efficiency of growth, at equivalent physio- logic ages. The increase in size associated with increasing age in the same animal, however, is not compensated for by an increase in growth rate, with the result that there is a decrease in efficiency of growth with increasing age or weight. Hankins et al (1959) showed that efficiency of feed utiliza- tion was a straight-line funotion of live weight; efficiency deoreases in direct proportion to increase in live weight. With increasing age, feed efficiency also decreased. Whiting (1955) reported that i t costs 37 percent more to put 100 pounds of gain on from 800-900 pounds than from 400-500 pounds. The rate of gain increased as the body weight in- creased, but the cost of the gain went up more than directly proportional. Pierce et al (1954) found that age on test has a significant affeot on gain on test. Lambert (1936) states that the ability of an animal to convert feed into gain is dependent upon at least two factors, i n i t i a l efficiency and rate of deoline in efficiency. Efficiency, therefore, is a funotion of live weight. As an animal increases in age and size, there are cor- responding changes in the physiological functions governing the utiliza- tion and deposition of nutrients. j) Feed Utilization. Baker, Colby and Lyman (1951) set up an experiment to find whether variation in digestion rates was in any way related to feed efficiency or rate of gain of the individual animals. Feed was analysed and fecal samples were collected by use of canvas bags. The data indicated - 17 - that digestion of crude fiber is possible one of the more important fac- tors influencing feed efficiency. Animals that used the least feed per pound of gain seem to be superior in digesting crude fiber. These in- vestigators suggest that the great differences that exist between animals in their ability to make gains lies in tho utilization of their feed after i t is absorbed rather than in differences between animals in ability to digest and absorb nutrients. Brody (1945: 753) points out that "two animals may gain weight at different rates, yet gain energy at the same rate. This is because some types of weight gains involve greater energy storage per unit live weight than others. For instance, one gram of protein gain 1B necessarily associated with 3 grams of water gain, whereas one gram of fat gain is not so associated with water gain. The energy equivalent of one gram of fat is 2̂- times that of one gram of protein. Hence, one gram of fat gain is calorically equivalent to about 8 grams of protein gain (includ- ing associated water)." Therefore, inherent differences in animals that are exhibited in different rates of fat deposition in relation to weight gains, would have a pronounced affect on the amount of feed required per unit gain. - 18 . C. Correlation between rate and efficiency of gain. A high correlation between rate and efficiency of gain seems to be a biological necessity. However, data from the literature indi- cate that the correlation is not always high. Guilbert and Gregory (1944) found that 2 groups of animals having the same efficiency of gain differed significantly in rate of gain and vice versa. Winters and McMahon (1933) report a correlation of 0.34 between rate and efficiency of gain. Knapp, et al., (1941) reported a correlation of 0.44. Wood- ward, et al., (1954) reported a correlation of 0.23 between rate and economy of gain. Higher correlations were reported by other investiga- tors, Galgan, et al . , (1955) 0.755; Pierce, et al., (1954) 0.82. Knapp and Baker (1944) tested 66 steers sired by 9 bulls; 6 to 8 progeny from each bull made up each sire group. These steers were individually fed for a 273-day period. The i n i t i a l weight of the steers varied from 298 to 492 pounds and the final weights from 759 to 1134 pounds. The gain in the feed lot varied from 1.42 pounds to 2.48 pounds per day. The lot means of rate and efficiency showed a low relationship. The correlation between observed rate and gross efficiency of gain was 0.49. However, in this estimation of cor- relation between rate and economy of gain, animals were compared at different body weights. Kleiber (1936) stated that use of absolute rate of gain as an index of efficiency is applicable only to animals of the same size. At least 2 components, growth and maintenance, contri- bute to the utilization of feed by growing animals. The heavier the animal the higher the requirements for maintenance become. Comparisons and selections on gross efficiency in time constant feeding periods are generally misleading and erroneous. Knapp and Baker -19 - corrected this efficiency correlation figure of 0.49 by applying the law of diminishing returns, based on the curve of diminishing increment des- cribed by Spillmah and Lang (1924). This curve:expresses with a high degree of accuracy the relationship between live weight and feed consump- tion. This method of correction was applied to each of the 66 steers. The correlation between daily gain and this corrected efficiency of gain was found to be 0.83. The authors suggest that correcting to a weight constant basis or feeding on a weight constant basis tends to eliminate the errors introduced under time constant feeding. It is likely that those lower figures of correlations between rate and efficiency of gain ,, mentioned earlier were not corrected for weight, but were based on a ; time constant feeding porlod and thus were misleading, 1 Guilbert and Gregory (1944) also pointed out that comparing beef animals fed on a time constant basis may introduce biased estimates of feed utilization where considerable variation in size and fatness exists. They proposed feeding cattle to a constant degree of fatness in testing for efficiency of feed utilization. Black and Knapp (1936) suggest that a l l steers be fed from 500 to 900 pounds in order to mea- sure efficiency of feed utilization. Knapp and Baker (1944) conclude that comparisons of gross efficiency should be made only, between animals of the same size. Heritability figures for efficiency of gain reported in the literature aret Knapp and Eordskag (1946a) 75 percent (haIf-sib,corre- lation) and 54- percent (regression of the average performance of the, progeny oh the performance of the sires and using the sires offspring regression within groups of sires fed the same year (analysis of covar* iance) this estimate became 48 percent; Knapp and Clark (1950) 48 percent; - 20 - Dawson, et al., (1955) 3.2 percent; Shelby, Clark and Woodward (1955) 22 percent, and Kohli, et al., (1952) 25.6 percent. These estimates vary greatly, probably because of differences in breeds, populations, feeding and comparison at different body weights• - 21 - II. EXPERIMENTAL A. Experimental Animals. During the winter of 1952-1953, 23 bulls were tested for rate of gain and feed efficiency at the University of British Columbia. These animals arrived at the University during the f i r s t half of November 1952 and were started on an individual feeding test on November 29th, 1962. This test ended after 147 days of feeding on April 25th, 1953. The animals were weighed weekly and an accurate record of the feed consumption vj&a kept. At the end of the feeding period, 9 bulls were selected for performance testing of their progeny at the Range Ex- perimental Farm at Kamloops. The bases of selection were: a) average daily gain, obtained by dividing total gain by the number of days on testj b) efficiency of gain, calculated from the total feed consumption divided by the total pounds of gain: o) weight for age basis (Doornenbal and Wood, 1952-1953, Table IX A). Table 1. Bull No. ll/t. at 180 days Wt. at 270 days Wt. at 360 days Gain per Day: Pound T.D.N. Per Lbs/Gain 200 520 (e) 710 956 (e) 2.37 4.01 199 478 (e) 705 908 (e) 2.34 3.96 207 490 (e) 680 895 2.16 4.63 205 663 838 2.00 5.07 203 - 553 732 2.13 4.61 202 431 605 815 (e) 2.04 4.21 . 204 387 535 725 1.92 4.40 206 468 670 2.14 4.34 201 397 540 725 1.90 4.66 e = estimated Table 1 gives information relative to the bulls used in this test. - 22 - The heifers used in this performance test were supplied by 9 commercial cattlemen, each supplying 11 open heifers. These 99 heifers were divided into 9 groups of 11 animals aB follows: Eaoh bull-group consisted of one heifer, taken at random,- from each of the ,9 breeders; the reat were at random divided over the 9 bulls to make up the total number of 11 heifers per bull-group. During the summer of 1953, the heifers were kept on irrigated pasture arid hand bred to the 9 bulls. A precise breeding date for each female was recorded. Five heifers were lost during the pasture season from bloat. Two of the heifers were bred before arrival at the Station and calved in early winter; the rest of the heifers (92) calved during the spring and summer of 1954. Seven calves were still-born or died from various causes shortly after birth. Eighty-five calves were raised. - 23 - B. Feeding and management. , The feeding procedures used in the experiment were the same as those followed in the University of British Columbia bull test. The animals were fed twice daily to a feeding schedule shown in Table 2. Roughage was fed at 0.9 percent of the animal's weight and the concen- trate allowance determined by adjusting the concentrate to a level equal to the difference between the total digestible nutrients of the standard and the digestible nutrients provided by the hay. The concentrate ration used for the bull test at the University as well as for the test at Kamloops was University of British Columbia ration No. 50. The ingredients are listed in Table 3. After blending the constituents the ration was pelleted into one-half inch cylindrical pellets. During the winter of 1953-1954, the bred heifers were fed 15 pounds of alfalfa hay and 3 pounds of whale solubles-barley-refuse screen- ings pellets per head per day. This ration was estimated to be suffi- cient for a gain of one-half pound per day. During the summer of 1954, cows and calves were kept on i r r i - gated pasture• To eliminate as much as possible the differences in milking ability of the dams, the calves, while on pasture, were creepfed, using the same concentrate that was used during the dry-lot feeding period. Where there are differences in milking ability of the dam, creep-feeding favours genie value for growth response at the expense of the genie value for milking ability (Koch and Clark, 1955). Cows and calves were weighed weekly. As soon as a calf reached - 24 - Table 2. DAILY FEEDING SCHEDULE Wt. of Roughage Intake Concentrate Intake Animal - Pounds - - Pounds - Pounds Morning Evening Morning Evening 300 325 350 376 400 425 450 475 600 .525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 6.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 - 25 - Table 3. U.B.C. RATIOW NO, 50 Pounds Constituent Per Ton Ground oats 800 Ground barley 500 Molasses .100 Alfalfa Meal .100 Bone Meal , 20 Oil Cake Meal ,380 Bran .100 1 2000 The proximate composition of the alfalfa hay and conoentrate pellets is given in Table 4.. Table 4. Constituent Hay Concentrate Dry Matter 87.0$ 89.2$ Protein (Nx6.25) 14.9 16.1 Ether extract 1.6 ' 4.4 Crude fibre 30.4 9.7 Ash 7.5 5.1 Nitrogen Free Extract 32.6 53.9 Carotene (Micrograms/gm) 15 - - 26 - the weight of 400 pounds, i t was weaned and put on dry-lot feeding. The weaned calves were housed 10 to a pen and had freedom of this pen exoept at feeding time when they were restrained with neok chains to permit accurate measurement of feed intake. They were fed twice daily accord- ing to the feeding schedule shown in Table 2. When the calves reached 800 pounds, they were sent to market. 27 „ I I I . RESULTS Table 1 in the appendix presents a summary of the re- calculation of the performance test on the nine bulls used at the Experimental Farm at Kamloops. This recalculation (of Table 1 in the thesis) was necessary in order to compare rate and efficiency of gain of the bulls over an equal weight period. Table 2, 3, and 4 in the appendix present a summary of the results of the performance test on 84 calves. One calf, no. 195, was sent to market before she reached the weight of 800 pounds and is not inoluded in the analysis of the data. The three growth periods, 400 - 800 pounds, 400 - 600 pounds, and 600 - 800 pounds do not represent exactly a 400 or a 200 pound weight period. The oalves were weighed weekly and the weights closest to 600 and 800 pounds were used as the start or end of an interval. Table 5 in the appendix presents the data on a l l the carcasses. This table also presents some brief remarks, as reported by the graders, which in some cases give an indication why a oertain grade has been designated. IV. BISCUgSIQN Originally, the nine bulls selected to be used at the i^erimental Farm, Kainlpops, were picked fro® a group of 19 on the presumed basis that three of them trere high gaining bulls, three were medium and three were low gaining bulls, (Table 1 ) . The rating i n this table i s open to question. Bull no. 206 i s in the low-gaining group but has a higher rate of gain than any in the medium group, and a higher efficiency than two in the medium- gaining group. Further, Bull no. 207 in the high group i s somewhat less efficient than bull no. 202 i n the medium group and than bull ho. 206 in the low group. The difference© in rate of gain are so slight (only ©iQ2 lbs, between no. 20? and no; 206) that the allocation appears unjustified by the data. An even more serious fault is that the method used in allocating the nine bulls to high, medium, and lew gaining groups ie unsound. Bate of gain i n Table 1 was calculated by i sfiBt^acting the i n i t i a l weight from the final weight and dividing this by the number of days (147) o n test. Efficiency of gain was calculated by dividing the total feed consumed during the test by the total gain. There «as a considerable variation in i n i t i a l and fi n a l weight of the animals. In calculating rate and efficiency, this was not taken into consideration; The proper procedure i s to stake comparisons and ratings over an equal body-weight period. (KLeiber, 1936$ Black and Khapp, 1936j Knapp and Baker, 1944; Brody, 1945; Wood, 1952-53, see page 12 and 1 9 ) . Furthemore, this i s the method required for the purpose of this study; It follows that a fundamental error in method \-JSLS made in the original 29 - rating and allocation of the nine bulls. This has required a re. calculation of rate and efficiency for the nine bulls using the correot basis of comparison. In appendix Table 1, the author has recalculated the avail- able information on the nine bulls, using the 600 - 800 pound period as a basis of comparison. This was the only weight period common to a l l nine bulls. The aotual i n i t i a l weight of bull no. 205 was 651 pounds so the 600 pound weight had to be estimated by extrapolation* Similarly, the actual final weights of bulls 202, 201, and 204 were 755 pounds, 764 pounds, and 738 pounds respectively so these were extrapolated to 800 pounds. These extrapolations were done by ex- tending the growth curves as presented by Riley (1953). Examination of appendix Table 1 reveals that the original allocation has, in some cases, changed drastically. A l l three high gaining bulls (Table l) moved, two bulls to the medium and one to the low gaining group (appendix Table 1). Two of the low gaining and one of the medium group (Table 1) comprise the high gaining group in appendix Table 1. Another observation is that in appendix Table 1 the bulls, with one minor exception, rank in the same order on efficiency as they do on rate of gain. This result is expected because of the very high correlation (see page 36) between rate and efficiency. In Table 1, however, the bulls rank in markedly different order on efficiency to what they do on rate of gain. This is a further indication that the method used in rating and ranking the bulls (Table 1) was seriously at fault. Further examination of appendix Table 1 shows that there is actually very l i t t l e difference between the nine bulls in rate and - 30 « efficiency of gain. Six of the nine bulls are very similar for these traits and only two bulls, 202 and 204, show a slightly higher merit and only one bull, 205, shows a slightly lower merit. With Buch a great similarity among the sires, one would hot expect much difference in rate and efficiency of gain between progeny groups, providing these trait6 are highly heritable. This expected similarity in offspring actually occurred as shown by.the progeny group comparisons (Table 5̂  6, and 7). Table 7 presents a summary of the analysis of variance components by weighted squares of means according to the method out. lined by Goulden (1952). This method takes into account sex differences in rate of gain. Over the 400 - 600 pound and the 600 - 800 pound periods, there is no statistically significant difference for average rate of gain between the groups. Only over the 400 - 800 pound period can statistical significance be demonstrated for average daily rate of gain between the groups. The fact that statistical significance can be demonstrated for the 400 - 800 lb. period and not for the 400 - 600 or 600 800. period i s , probably, a reflection of the fact that the averages are based on more weighings.in the former casej in other words the samples are larger. The group with the high average daily rate of gain, one can state with some confidence, gains more rapidly than the groups characterized by low averages daily rates of gain. For eaoh of the three periods there is a highly significant difference in average rate of gain between males and females. This is Table 5 Mean Daily Gain of a l l Animals i n each Bull-Group 400-800 lbs. 400-600 lbs. 600-800 lbs. Bull No. Ave. daily gain Rank Ave. daily gain Rank Ave. daily gain Rank 199 1.65 5 1.65 4 1.68 5.5 200 1.76 1 1.72 2 1.82 1 207 1.70 2 1.75 1 1*68 5.5 205 1.66 6 1.60 6 1.72 2.5 205 1.67 3.5 1.62 5 1.72 2.5 202 1.67 3.5 1.70 3 1.66 7 204 1.55 9 1.48 9 1.64 8,5 206 1*58 8 1*54 7 1.64 8.5 201 1.59 7 1.50 8 1.69 4 - 32 - i n agreement with a l l other investigators who found that males grow at a faster rate than females* (Kooh and Clark, 1956; Burris et a l , 1952; Dawson et a l , 1947; Gregory et a l , 1950; Knapp et a l , 1942 b). There appears to be no significant difference i n rate of gain within sex and within group. Table 6 Mean Daily Gain of Animals i n eaoh Bull-Group by Sex 400-800 lbs. 400.600 lbs. 600.800 lbs. Bull No. Ave. daily gain Ave. daily gain Ave. daily gain ' M. P. M. F« M. F. 199 1.73 1.68 1.63 1.66 1.86 1.50 200 1.87 1.65 1.78 1*66 1.98 1.66 207 . 1.81 1.59 1.85 1.65 1.81 1.56 205 1.75 1.57 1.67 1.54 1*86 1*60 203 1.73 1*60 1.66 - 1.59 1.82 1.63 202 1.79 1.55 1.81 1,60 1.80 1.51 204 ; 1.63 1.48 1.54 1.41 1.72 1.55 206 1.73 1.43 1.63 1.46 1*84 1.45 201 1,69 - l.*48 ' * 1.57 1.43 1.82 1.56 Table 7 Summary of Analysis of Varianoe Components by Weighted Squares of Means a. 600 - 800 pound period Tabled F Interactions .S.S. D.F. . M.S. Calculated F @ ps 0.05 1 @ ps 0.01 Between groups 0.2024 8 0.02530 0.6587 2.08 2,79 Between sex 1.4203 1 1.42030 36.9773 3.99 7.04 Sex x group 0.0775 8 0.00969 0.25228 2.08 2.79 Error 2.5348 66. 0.03841 . — — . -- b. 400 *> 600 pound period Tabled F Interaction: S.S. . D.F. M.S.. Calculated F @ p= 0.05 @ pa 0.01 Between groups 0.158374 - 81 0.019797 5 0.698652 2.08 2.79 Between sex 0.308124 1 0.308124 10.873941 3.99 7.04 Sex x group 0.091649 8 0,011456 0.404291 2.08 2.79 Error 1.870200 66 0.028336 t ~ mm *»- 0, 400 . 800 pound period Tabled F Interaction: S.S. D.F. M.S. Caloulated F @ p= 0.05 @ p= 0.01- Between groups 0.2748 8 0,03435 2.1309 A 2.06 2,79 Between sex 0.7452 1 0.74520 46.2159 3.99 7.04 Sex x group 0.0439 8 0.005488 0.34045 2.08 2.79 Error 1.0642 66 0.01612 MM & There appears to be a slight difference between groups over the 400 - 800 pound period. - 34 - Correlations» Most workers have found that growth during the pre.weaning period is largely independent of birth weight. They indicate that, maternal environment from conception to birth largely influences birth weight. Rate of gain during the pre-weaning period, according to these workers, is largely dependent on the milk production of the dam. In calculating the correlation between birth weight and daily gain during the pre-weaning period for the 84 offspring in this project, i t was found that there was a very "low" correlation, r = 0.27 which might imply that maternal environment, such as suck- ling ability of the dam, largely influences daily gain from birth to weaning, as has been indicated by other investigators. The correlation between birth weight and post-weaning growth, also was "low1* (r : 0»36). The correlation between daily gain during the pre-weaning and po6t-weaning periods, was "low" (r s 0.41). This is in agreement with other workers: (Roger and Knox, 1951j Knapp and Clark, 1950; Koch and Clark, 1950). It would appear that birth weight, weaning gains and weaning weights are mainly indicators of maternal environment and milking ability of the dam. During the pre-weaning period the true inherited ability to grow is largely masked by maternal environment, but is displayed during the post-weaning period. These views are supported by other workers e.g. Gifford (1953) who found a high correlation between rate of gain during the suckling period and milk production of the dam, r Z 0.60 for the first month and r - 0.71 for the second month. Burris and Baugus (1955), working with sheep, found a high correlation (r a 0,90) - 35 - between growth of lambs and milk produotion of the ewes* To determine whether a relationship exists between rate and efficiency of gain and the amount of lean and fat i n the carcass, a tracing of the rib section between the 11th and 12th rib was taken on a l l the carcasses by the Livestock Marketing Service personnel in Vancouver. From these traoings, with the use of a planimeter, the percentage lean and fat (exolusive of bone) in the rib seotions was determined. This information has been reoorded in appendix Table 5. The correlation between daily gain during the post-weaning period and the percentage lean in the ribcut was (r - 0.35), Caroass evaluation i s an important part of performance testing. Of the 84 carcasses, exactly half graded A. To establish i f there was any relationship between a rate of gain and grading, a "chi - square" test was applied. 2 X test for,rate of gain and carcass grade ( 2 x 3 contingency table) A B C* High rate of gain: >1,65 22 (23) 20 (18.6) 4 (4.4) 46 Low rate of gain: <C 1,65 20 (19) 14 (15.4) 4 (3.6) 38 42 34 8 84 it Note* There was one grade D^s this grade has been inoluded i n the C grades. X 2 s 0.409 D.F, Z (3-l)(2-l) = 2 X 2 for 2 d.f. @ p s 0.05 = 5.99 The result Indicates that the n u l l hypothesis i s true, or i n other words, the distribution of carcass grades is Independent of the daily rate of gain. - 36 - Correlation between fate and efficiency of gain* Undoubtedly the most important correlation in this project is that between rate and efficiency of gain. The importance of selection for efficiency has been stressed by many investigators. In each of the three periods the correlation between rate and feed consumption per unit of gain was found to be very highs 400 - 800 pound periods r - -0.98 400 - 600 pound periods r = -0.97 600 - 800 pound periods r S -0.98 This means that animals with a high rate of gain used less feed per pound gained than did animals which had a low rate of gain. Although these figures are slightly higher than those reported by some investigators: (Roubicek, 1961, r a 0.87; Galgan 1956, r Z .0.75; Pierce 1954, r s 0.82: Knapp 1944, corrected, r s 0.83) they are of the same order of magnitude and highly Bignifioant. Some other workers have found muoh lower values, but as has been stated in the literature review, some of these figures have been obtained by comparing animals on the;unsound unequal-body-weight basis. Heritability estimates were intended to comprise an im- portant part of this thesis. As has already been pointed out the actual differences between the nine sires used were extremely small and as expected the differences between their progeny groups were also extremely small. Consequently, this experimental material is un- satisfactory for the calculation of heritability estimates for rate and efficiency of gain. Although none have been calculated for this project many workers have recorded heritability estimates as outlined in the literature review. These investigators indicate that a considerable » 37 - portion of variations in rate and efficiency ofs,gain is under genetic influence. Because of this inheritance, selection for these traits is of major importance. < If the present beef cattle -population is to be improved by breeding in order to increase the proportion of animals that make rapid and efficient gains, i t is essential that a policy be developed for performance testing of beef cattle that w i l l be adaptable to practical procedures in livestock breeding. Differences among animals iii the .ability to use feed efficiently are difficult to measure accurately under practical farm- ing conditions. Because of the very high correlation that exists between rate of gain and efficiency of gain, a simple production test where rate of gain only is measured (without recording-.feed con- sumption of animals on test) is justified. Suoh a program oould be briefly outlined as followsB a) A l l cattle have to be permanently .marked for identifi- cation. Ear-tags or neck chains with numbers can be used but i t is advisable to use an ear tattoo as well, as tags often get lost. b) Record the birth date of a l l calves. c) Weigh a l l calves at weaning time. d) If there is a period for adjustment after weaning, weigh a l l calves at date of entry on feeding test. e) Select cattle for a Uniform weight when entering tha feeding test. f) Weigh cattle at the conclusion of the test, which lasts for approximately 5 months. g) During the test, animals are f u l l fed. - 3a Weaning weights are indicative of the lactating ability of the dam; a factor important in beef production and beef cattle selection,. When animals of the same age are compared at -weaning time, a breeder can use this information in culling and replacing his cow herd. - • : • The gains made during the feeding period are largely in- dicative of the inherited ability to grow. The daily gain during this period is calculated by dividing total gain during the test by the number of days on test. Providing the animals started the test at equal body weight, are f u l l fed and kept under the same environment, differences in daily rate of gain during this period are largely due to inherited differences in gaining ability* This performance testing ie quite simple and oould be put into practice by any breeder. The purebred breeder can use i t in a selection program on hi8 bulls. It provides him with records that are useful for possible progeny testing of his sires and i t provides valuable information for his customers, the commerical cattle breeders. In purebred herds where these production records have been kept, the commercial beef producer is able to buy bulls on the basis of these reoords as well as on type and conformation* The commercial breeder can use performance testing as & tool to evaluate his sires as a group and his cow herd and also in a replacement program where he can test his young female stock for sub- sequent replacement of his cows as required. This type of performance testing not only puts emphasis on high rate of gain (and efficiency) but i t also facilitates elimination - 39 - of poor milk producers, shy breeders, and other kinds of inferior offspring from a herd. This kind of performance testing has been started in the United States and even after a few years, the results are showing •very markedly and many commercial breeders who buy bulls from pure- bred breeders, pay a considerable premium for bulls on which i n - formation on rate of gain is available. Undoubtedly, in the near future, pedigree, type and con- formation alone w i l l not be sufficient as bases of evaluating beef cattle. Information on production w i l l be added. In the future i t would be possible to establish the same principle of comparison in evaluating production i n beef cattle, as has been established in the Hoistein and Ayrshire breeds, where the production of the individual is compared with the National Breed Class Average. Suoh a program would be of great value in producing more rapidly gaining and more e f f i c i e n t animals i n our beef breeds. Recommendations to breeders; 1) To the breeder, purebred or commercial, i t i s recommended that he give rate of gain f i r s t consideration, being careful i n obtain- ing and evaluating records. 2) A simple home test i s a l l that is necessary to obtain valuable information on rate of gain. Equipment required a) record book b) soales c) device to mark cattle for identification (ear tattoo and/or tags) . 40 - Records to be kept ' • •' a) date of birth b) weaning weight o) i n i t i a l weight on test d) f i n a l weight on test and average daily gain during test* 3) Animals enter test at an equal body weight i n order to be able to compare rate of gain during the test period on a sound basis* 4) While on test, a l l animals are f u l l fed* 5) Male as well as female offspring should be tested for approximately 5 months* 6) Weaning weight, keeping age i n mind, is valuable i n - dicator of the milking a b i l i t y of the dam and therefore, should be used as part of the basis for culling cows* - 41 - SUMMARY During the winter of 1952-53, 19 Hereford bulls were tested for rate and efficiency of gain at the University of B.C. Out of this group, 9 bulls were rated and selected to be used for a progeny test at Kamloops, The 9 sires were bred to 99 heifers and their Offspring were tested for rate and efficiency of gain. The 84 offspring were weaned at 400 pounds and then put on dry lot feeding and individually fed until weight of 800 pounds was reached at which time they were sent to market. Rate and efficiency of gain were calculated for each animal over three periodst 400-800 pounds* 400-600 pounds, and 600-800 pounds (Tables 2,3, and 4 in the appendix). In Table 5, appendix^ information on the carcasses has been recorded. ; Because of rating and dividing of the bulls in a high, medium and low gaining group on an unsound basis, thi6 information in Table 1 was recalculated and recorded in appendix Table 1. There appeared to be a great similarity among the bulls for rate and efficiency of gain and this was reflooted in their progeny. Analysis of variance revealed no significant difference between progeny groups for these traits. There was a highly significant difference for rate of gain between sexes, but no significant difference for rate of gain within sex and within group. The following correlations were calculated; a) Birth weight and daily gain during pre-weaning period (r * 0.27). b) Birth weight and daily gain during post-weaning period (r = 0.36). - 42 • o) Dally gain during pre-weaning and post-weaning periods (r = 0.41). d) Daily gain during post-weaning period and percentage lean in ribout (r z 0.35). e) A "chi-square" calculation for rate of gain and carcass grade indicated that the distribution of grades was independent of daily rate of gain during the post-weaning period. The "r" value of each of the above calculations was found to be "low". There was a very high correlation between rate and efficiency of gain for eaoh of the three periodst 400 . 800 pounds, r Z -0.98 400 - 600 pounds, r e -0.97 600 . 800 pounds, r • -0.98 A simple test, to be used by the individual farmer, is outlined, in which animals are tested for rate of gain only, so that no individual feed consumption records are required to be kept. The animals enter the test at equal body weight and are evaluated on individual daily rate of gain during an approximate test period of 5 months. Appendix Table 1 P R 0 G E NY T E S T B U L L S Bull Age at ¥feight Age at Weight Days Total Gain Feed/lb,of Gain Lbs .T.D.N. . No. 600 800 600-800 Gain Per Per lbs. lbs. lbs. Day Hay: Cone: 100 Lbs .Gain 200 220 597 304 794 84 197 2.35 2.60 3.86 .400.00 199 227 601 318 800 91 199 2.19 2.84 4il7 433.61 . 207 232 596 323 806 91 210 2.31 2.61 3.92 404.46 202 268 600 347 800 79 200 2.53 2,40 3.57 370 .23 203 291 595 389 808 98 213 2.17 2.78 4.15 429.56 205 232 GOO 340 791 108 191 1.77 3.43 5.12 529.81 201 300 595 386 800 86 205 2.38 2.51 3.77 389.24 204 302 597 384 800 82 §03 2.48 2.46 3.65 378.76 206 330 600 414 796 84 196 2.33 2.64 3.89 404.29 Appendix Table 2 B U L L N o . 20 0 Calf Sex Wt. Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs* T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.A W.A W. Gain S.& S. 400.800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 lb .Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 . 108 - — . - — — - 114 i on m 73 400 166 1.97 808 376 210 1.94 B 2.66 4.33 436.1 i.c,o 135 M 74 400 146 2.23 802 342 196 2.05 C 2.50 4.09 411.3 150 M 79 400 165 1.95 814 382 217 1.91 B 2.77 4.48 452.1 163 F 66 402 160 2.10 816 398 238 • 1.74 A 3.03 4.90 494.8 169 U 80 404 152 2.13 806 376 224 1.80 A 2.97 4.76 481.3 186 11 67 406 186 1.82 808 445 259 1.55 C 3.43 5.26 539.9 192 F 75 414 167 2.03 800 405 238 1.62 A 3.30 5.31 536.7 138 M 73 408 173 1.94 824 383 210 1.98 B 2.71 4.34 439.3 168 F 76 400 225 1.44 802 477 252 1.60 A 3.20 5.10 516.9 Average: 73.7 171.1 1.96 398.2 227.1 1.80 2.95 4.73 478.7 A S B - Birth W --Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 1 9 9 Calf Sex Wt. Wt. Age .avg. Tift. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain , Lbs. T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.& W.A W. Gain S.n S. 400-800 Gain Hay i Cono: 100 Lb.Gain _ B-W lbs. 400-800 102 M 77 400 165 1.96 800 389 224 1.79 A 2.89 4.73 476.1 119 M 76 402 195 1.67 802 440 245 1.63 C 3.13 5.02 507.6 126 F 72 404 188 1.77 812 433 245 1.67 A 3.21 5.14 520.2 134 F 75 400 174 1.87 802 405 231 1.74 A 3.04 4.87 492.9 146 Li 84 400 176 1.80 800 393 217 1.84 B 2.75 4.53 454.9 164 M 55 412 184 1.94 800 429 245 1.58 A 3.32 5.35 540.5 175 187 F 76 412 191 1.76 800 485 294 1.32 A 3.96- 6.33 641.2 188 172 M 68 400 181 1.83 812 419 238 1.73 B 3.09 112 M 70 410 183 1.86 800 400 217 1.81 A 4. 94 2.84 4.61 499.9 464.4 Average: 72.6 181.9 1.83 421.4 239.6 1.68 3.14 5.06 510.9 & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 7 Calf Sex Wt. Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care; Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.A W.£ W Gain S.A S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cono: 100 Lb .Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 106 M ; 78 406 154 2.13 800 357 203 1.94 A 2.76 4.41 447.0 121 M 68 400 175 1.90 802 399 224 1.79 • A 2.78 4.64 463.9 J.ol 137 F 72 400 221 1.48 802 494 273 1.47 ' C 3.56 5.78 582.9 153 F 70 424 184 1.92 800 429 245 1.53 B 3.39 5.53 556.9 156 LI 72 416 170 2.02 800 394 224 1.71 A 3.06 4.93 498.5 166 £1 76 400 200 1.62 814 431 231 1.79 B 2.97 4.75 480,6 183 M ' 68 414 210 1.65 810 427 217 1.82 • A. • 2.93 4.68 473,7 196 F 81 400 183 1.74 806 414 231 1.70 B 3.03 4.85 490.9 155 H 68 402 173 1.93 810 390 ' 217 1.88 A ; . . « 12 .78 4.52 455.4 129 M ' 71 402 193 1.72 806 424 231 1.75 B / 2.95 4.90 490.1 Average: 72.4 186.3 1.81 415.9 229.6 1.74 3.02 4.90 494.0 4 I B . Birth W Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 5 Calf Sex Wt. lit* . Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.E. Ho. at ' at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.ii ' W.it W. Gain S.& S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cones 100 lb.Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 101 M 88 402 205 1.53 822 457 252 1.67 B 3.17 5.05 512.3 115 1 9 7 U 82 414 183 1.81 800 400 217 1.78 C 2.97 4.80 484.7 Xc. 1 139 m 64 406 212 1.61 804 443 231 1.72 B 3.09 4.98 502.9 149 u 67 400 198 1.68 818 443 245 1.71 B 3.01 4.96 497.94 159 m 63 414 177 1.98 802 394 217 1.79 B 2.96 4.77 482.5 170 F 65 406 187 1.82 806 418 231 1.73 B 3.00 4.83 488.3 179 13 78 402 170 1.91 824 401 231 1.83 B 2.87 4.66 469.7 191 F 58 400 208 1.64 800 460 252 1.59 A 3.29 5.37 540.5 162 F 62 402 217 1.57 816 490 273 1.52 B 3.49 5.61 567.3 190 F 65 410 181 1.91 804 454 273 1.44 B 3.60 5.89 592.7 Averagei 69.2 193.8 1.75 436 242.2 1.68 3.15 5.09 513.9 & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 3 Calf Sex Wt, Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.I-3. No. at at at Daiiy at at from Daily Grade Per B.A ' W.A- ' • W. Gain S.A S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 lb.Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 107 F 66 404 203 1.67 810 455 252 1.61 B 3.29 5.28 534.3 . 111 1 9 A U 61 400 155 . 2.19 800 . 393 238 1.68 B 3,05 5.03 504.4 142 II 74 ' 412 172 1.97 800 375 203 1.91 -a* C 2.70 4.41 444.1 151 F 63 400 184 1.83. 806 450 266 1.53 A 3.40 5.51 555.9 160 IS 75 400 142 2.29 814 394 252 1.64 C 3.14 5.14 516.6 173 M 74 406 238 1.39 800 462 224 1.76 D l 2.95 4.74 479,2 181 •M 70 410 189 1.80 810 427 238 1.68 B, • . 3.14 5.06 511.4 193 1 A.K F 63 410 194 1.79 820 439 245 1.67 A 3.15 5.10 514.1 i.'xO 105 F 71 410 181 1.87. 804 426 245 1.61 A 3.24 5.25 529.4 Average: 68.6 184.2 1.87 424.5 240.3 1.68 3.12 5.06 509.9 n = D - Birth El - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 20 2 Calf Sex wt. Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.A W.A W. Gain S.E S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 lb.Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 100 M 80 402 171 1.88 802 ' 416 245 1.63 B 3.16 5.09 514.3 113 F 71 400 193 1.70 800 424 231 1.73 A 2.99 4.88 491.1 122 F 70 400 240 1.38 804 499 259 1.56 A 3.36 5.43 548.3 136 1 82 404 187 1.72 800 404 217 1.82 B 2.87 4.46 455.4 147 F 76 400 190 1.71 800 449 259 1.54 B 3.40 5.44 550.7 158 F 69 404 179 1.87 802 431 252 1.58 B 3.30 5.28 534.6 174 F 64 410 242 1.43 800 522 280 1.39 B 3.78 6.09 615.2 184 i fii m 82 402 158 2.03 808 368 210 1.93 A 2.68 4.38 440.8 101 180 F 63 402 258 1.31 806 531 273 1.48 B 3.43 5.58 562.4 Averages 73.0 .202 1.67 449.3 247.3 1.63 3.22 5.18 523.6 A s B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 20 4 Calf Sex Wt. Wt. • Age Avg. ?Jt. Age Days Avg. Car ei- .Feed A b .Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.& W.it W. Gain S.& S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 Lb .Gain B-W lbs. 400.-800 110 F 69 402 197 1.69- 804 463 266 1.51 A 3.41 5.54 558.6 118 F 60 412 218 1.61 816 498 280 1.44 A 3.56 5.70 577.0 130 M 65 406 251 1.36 806 503 252 1,59 A 3.27 5 .35 534.4 143 M 73 406 154 2.16 800 371 217 1.82 A 2.85 4.67 469.1 148 M 74 400 175 1.86 814 448 273 1.52 A 3.43 5.50 556.1 165 - — - 176 - — - • 178 m 71 402 195 1.70 802 426 231 l;73 B 3.02 4.90 494.3 189 u 73 408 229 1.46 812 481 252 1.60 B 3.28 5.11 521.3 197 M 79 400 174 1.84 804 440 266 1.52 A.; . 3.33 5.30 537.6 140 — --- - — — — Average: 70.5 199.1 1.71 453.8 254,6 1.59 3.27 5.25 531.1 4 5 B ~ Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix gable 2 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 6 Calf Sex wt. • Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.A W.A W. Gain S.A S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Conc: 100 lb.Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 104 F 65 404 189 1.79 812 497 308 1.32 A 4.03 6.40 649.7 120 IE 65 404 174 1.96 800 405 231 1.71 A 3.08 4.96 500.8 LOC 141 M 76 400 187 1.73 810 446 259 1.58 mm B._ 3.29 5.34 538.2 154 M. 80 404 160 2.03 810 426 266 1.53 B 3.51 5.63 569.6 157 m 76 400' 171 1.89 800 395 224 1.79 A 2.92 4.74 478.1 171 IS 70 418 181 1.92 802 405 224 1.71 A 3.07 4.98 502.2 177 M 73 410 170 1.98 822 373 203 2.03 A 2.60 4.21 425.2 194 F 75 400 167 1.95 808 440 273 1.49 A 3.49 5.63 569,0 LCO 152 F 57 403 215 1.63 802 481 266 1.48 B 3.52 5.75 578.4 Average: 70.8 179.3 1.87 429. 8 250.4 1.63 3.28- 5.29 534.6 A s B"- Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix Table 2 (Cont,) B U L L N o . 2 0 1 Calf Sex Wt. Wt. Age Avg. Wt. Age Days Avg. Care. Feed/Lb .Gain Lbs. T.D.N. Hb. at at at Daily at at from Daily Grade Per B.± WJt W. Gain S.ft S. 400-800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 lb.Gain B-W lbs. 400-800 103 M 76 408 158 2.10 814 389 231 1.76 A 2.92 4.77 480.0 117 F 71 408 168 2.01 800 420- 252 1.56 A 3.31 5.37 541.4 123 F 63 410 251 1.38 810 510 259 1.54 B 3.47 5.54 561.3 133 M 67 404 173 1,95 806 404 231 1.74 A 2.95 4.73 478.8 144 F 68 406 196 1.72 802 504 308 1.29 A 4.09 6,30 645.6 162 F 56 ' 402 207 1.67 804 487 280 1.44 A 3.61 5.82 588.0 167 M 71 402 178 1.86 820 458 280 1.49 A 3.54 5.62 570.1 185 F 66 400 203 1.65 806 441 238 1.71 B 3.05 4.97 500.4 198 M 77 410 152 2.19 804 390 238 1.66 A 3.11 5.13 514.4 116 M 70 404 176 1.90 804 400 224 1.79 B 2.92 4.72 476.6 109 F 64 404 213 1.60 802 507 294 1.35 A 3.82 6.05 614.1 Average: 68.1 188.6 1.82 446.4 257.7 1.58 3.34 5.37 542.8 & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter Appendix liable 3 B U L L N o . 2 0 0 Calf No.' Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lbs. Days 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: .of Gain Cono: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 108 - — — 114 M 166 285 119 194 1.63 2.66 4.83 470.89 128 135 M 146 251 105 194 1.85 2.33 4.24 412.89 150 M 165 270 105 200 1.90 2.27 4.17 405.65 163 F 160 272 112 196 1.75 2 .47 4.53 440.49 169 M 152 257 105 188 1.79 2.43 4.42 430.92 186 M 186 305 119 194 1.63 2.69 4.87 475.70 192 F 167 286 119 204 1.71 2.60 4.72 460.11 138 M 173 271 98 186 1.90 2.32 4.22 411.90 168 F 225 365 140 208 1.49 2.87 4.96 490.89 Average 171 285 114 1.74 2.52 4.55 444.38 Appendix Table 3 (Cont.) B U L L N O . 1 9 9 Calf No- . Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lbs. Days 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 102 M 165 284 119 192 1.61 2.70 4.94 480.75 119 M 195 335 140 196 1.40 3.11 5.52 542.12 126 F 188 300 112 196 1.75 2.46 4.53 439.58 134 F 174 279 105 200 1.90 2.24 4.12 400.36 146 164 M m 176 184 288 310 112 126 194 202 1.73 1.60 2.45 2.73 4.54 4.94 440.33 • 482.42 " , 175 187 F 191 331 140 188 1.34 3.09 5.64 549.64 188 172 M 181 293 112 200 1.79 2.47 4.49 437.38 112 M 183 302 119 194 1.63 2.66 4.75 465.19 Average: 182 302.4 120.6 1.64 2.66 4.83 470.86 Appendix Table g (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 7 Calf No, Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lbs. Days 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain For Day Feed/lb. Huy: of Gain Conci Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 106 M . : 154 245 91 198 2.18 2.05 3.67 359.23 121 M 175 301 126 200 1.59 2.60 4.90 473.08 131 - --- — 137 F . 221 361 140 204 1.46 2.98 5.45 530.39 153 F 184 310 126 184 1.46 2.96 5.47 530.57 156 H , 170 282 112 174 1.55 2.84 5.06 496.73 166 M 200 298 98 200 2.04 2.07 3.86 373.61 183 M 210 308 98 186 1.90 2.30 4.19 . 408.40 196 F 183 281 98 200 2.04 2.06 3.84 371.84 155 M 173 285 112 198 1.77 2.47 4.50 438.37 129 1 . 193 298 105 204 1.94 2.24 4.09 398.54 Average: 1.79 2.46 4.50 438.08 Appendix Table S (Cont.) B U L L Ho.. 2 0 5 Calf Eb. Sex Age at 400 lbs,. Age at 600 lbs- Days 400-600 lbs.. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb,. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T..D..N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 101 M 205 SSI 126 200 1.59 2.71 4.94 481.19 115 1 183 295 112 186 1.66 2.64 4.83 470.12 127 - 139 M 212 324 112 200- 1.79 2.4? 4.51 438.80 149 U 198 331 133 194 1.46 2.94 5.45 528.21 159 H 177 275 98 180 1.84 2.40 4.34 423.62 170 F 187 306 119 198 1.66 2.56 4.75 460.59 179 M 170 296 126 208 1.65 2.68 4.86 474.27 191 F 208 334 126 202 1.60 2.71 5.01 486.20 182 F 217 357 140 198 1.41 3.15 5.60 549.39 190 F 181 314 133 198 1.49 2.89 5.36 519.95 Average: 1.62 2.72 4.97 483.23 Appendix fable 3 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 3 Calf Sex Age at Age at Days Total Gain Feed/lb. of Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. 400 600 400-600 Gain Per Per lbs. lbs. lbs. Day Hay: Cone: 100 lbs. Gain 107 F 203 322 119 196 1.65 2.60 4.77 463.94 111 M 155 288 133 200 1.50 2.87 5.30 514.43 142 M 172 ' 270 98 188 1.92 2.20 4.08 395.36 151 F 184 310 126 206 1.63 2.61 4.85 469.86 ' 160 M 142 275 133 196 1.47 2.90 5.36 519.93 • 173 M 238 357 119 208 1.75 2.48 4.39 431.27 181 M 189 308 119 198 1.66 2.61 4.76 464.07 193 F 194 313 119 184 1.55 2.81 5.13 499.55 105 F 181 307 126 190 1.51 2.88 5.24 , 510*77 Average: 184 305.6 121 1.63 2.66 4.88 474.35 Appendix Table 8 (Cont.) B U L L H o . 2 0 2 Calf No. Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lb 8 . Days 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cones Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 100 II 171 297 126 208 1.65 2.57 4.60 450.52 113 F 193 319 126 200 1.59 2.75 4.99 486.91 122 F 240 373 133 204 1.53 2.85 5.14 502.14 136 U 187 285 98 202 2.06 2.01 3.61 353.27 147 F 190 309 119 202 1.70 2.50 4.52 441.38 158 F. 179 298 119 204 1.71 2.58 4.70 457.73 174 F 242 375 133 196 1.47 2.93 5.36 521.85 184 161 180 M 158 270 112 194 1.73 2.52 4.61 448.62 F 258 384 126 198 1.57 2.49 4.75 457.39 Average 202 323.3 121.3 1.67 2.58 4.70 457.76 I Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 4 Calf Sex Age at Age at Days Total Gain Feed/lb. Gain Lbs. T.D.N. No. 400 600 400-600 Gain Per Per lbs. lbs. lbs. Day Hay: Cone: 100 lbs.Gain 110 F . 197 337 140 200 1.43 2.99 5.45 531.13 118 F . 2 1 8 358 140 194 1.39 3.07 5.60 545.59 130 M . 251 377 126 196 1,56 2.72 5.03 487,80 143 M 154 266 112 194 1.73 2,50 4.60 447.15 148 165 SS. a* 175 315 140 194 1.39 3.15 • w 5.75 • 559.66 ' cn CO 176 178 M , 195 307 mm — ma 112 194 1.73 — mm mm 2.46 4.58 443.34 189 M .' 229 355 126 186 1.48 2.97 5.20 512.39 197 140 M. 174 321 147 202 1.37 2.97 5.27 sir.22 Average: 199 329.5 130.4 — — 1.51 2.85 5.19 505.54 Appendix Table 3 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 6 Coif No. Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lbs. Days 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 104 F 189 322 133 198 1.49 2.99 5.40 527.29 120 M 174 293 119 194 1.63 2.73 4.90 479.60 132 - • 141 Iff 187 327 140 194 1.39 3,15 5.72 557,83 154 M • 160 286 126 200 1.59 2.79 5.06 494,21 1 e> 157 M 171 283 112 200 1.79 2.43 4.44 o 432.23 j 171 M 181 293 112 180 1.61 2.77 5,01 489.29 177 170 275 105 186 1.77 2.52 4.55 444.77 194 F 167 300 133 210 1.58 2.71 4.98 484.04 125 - --- — 152 F , 215 369 , 154 200 3.47 6.23 609.41 Average 179.3 305.3 126 1.57 2,84 5.14 502 .07 Appendix Table 5 (Cont,) B U L L H o , 20 1 Calf Sot Sex Age at 400 lbs. Age at 600 lbs. Bays 400-600 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.M. Per 100 lbs.Gain 103 M 158 277 119 198 1.66 2.47 4.64 447.90 117 F 168 308 140 196 1.40 3.15 5.60 548.55 123 F 251 363 112 190 1.70 2.54 4.65 452 .72 133 M 173 292 119 198 1.66 2.55 4.56 446.78 144 F 196 343 147 198 1.35 3.25 5.35 571.96 162 F 207 361 154 202 1.31 3,35 6.01 588.20 167 M 178 325 147 198 1.35 3.26 5.80 569.17 185 F 203 329 126 200 1.59 2.77 5.05 491.88 198 M 152 285 133 196 1.47 3.02 5.49 534.91 116 M 176 288 112 190 1.70 2.55 4.67 454.47 109 F 213 374 161 196 1.22 5 ,63 6.42 630.98 Average: 188.6 322.3 133.6 1.49 2.96 5.34 521.59 Appendix Table 4 B U L L N o . 2 0 0 Calf No. Sex . Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Bay Feed/lb . Hay; of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lbs .Gain 108 114 128 135 M 285 376 91 214 2.35 2.66 3.88 404.50 M 251 342 91 208- 2.29 2.66 3.95 409.77 150 M 270 382 112 214 1.91 3.24 4.76 495.59 163 F 272 398 126 218 1.73 3.54 5.24 543.69 169 M 257 376 119 214 1,80 3.44 5.05 525.51 186 M 305 445 140 208 1.49 4.12 5.63 599.80 192 F 286 405 119 182 1.53 4.09 5.97 622.61 138 -M 271 383 112 230 2.05 3.03 4.43 461.45 168 F 365 477 112 194 1.73 - 3.56 5.24 544.77 AVERAGE: 285 398 114 1.88 - 3.37. 4.91 511.97 Appendix fable 4 (Cont*) B U L L H o . 1 9 9 Calf No. Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain ' 102 M 284 389 105 208 1.98 3.07 4.55 471.72 119 M 335 440 105 204 1.94 3.14 4.53 474.38 126 F 300 433 133 212 1.59 3.90 5.71 594.66 134 F 279 405 126 202 1.60 3.83 5.62 584.53 146 M 288 393 105 206 1.96 3.04 4.53 468.63 164 M 310 429 119 186 1.56 3.96 5.79 603.65 175 187 F 331 485 154 200 1.30 4.78 6.97 727.18 188 172 M 293 419 126 212 1.68 3.67 5.36 558.91 112 M 302 400 98 198 2.02 3.01 4.47 463.66 AVERAGE s 302 421 . 119 1.74 3.60 5.28. 549.70 Appendix Table 4 (Confc.) B U L L N o . 2 0 7 Calf No. Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain .Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per ,100 Il>s .Gain 106 fit 245 357 112 196 1.75 3.49 5.16 535.68 121 131 137 m 301 399 98 202 2.06 2.97 4.38 454.77 F 361 494 133 198 1.49 4.17 6.12 636.92 153 F 310 429 119 192 , 1.61 3.81 5.60 582.19 156 M 282 394 112 210 1.88 3.24 4.83 500.03 166 H „ 298 431 133 214 1.61 ' 3.80 5.58 580.64 183 u 308 427 119 210 1.76 3.48 5.11 531.60 196 F 281 414 133 206 1.55 . 3.98 5.82 606;. 58 155 II 285 390 105 210 2.00 . 3.08 4.54 471.38 129 M' 298 424 126 200 1.59 3.66 5.72 583.57 AVERAGE I 297 416 119 1.73 3.57 5.29 548.34 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B U L L N o , 2 05 Calf , No. - Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hays of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lbs.Gain 101 a 331 457 126 220 1.75 3.59 5.16 540.56 115 127 139 '. M 295 400 105 200 1.90 3.27 4.78 498.22 M 324 443 119 198 1.66 3.71 5.46 567.56 149 M 331 443 112 224 2.00 3-07 4.55 471.73 159 m 275 394 119 208 1.75 3.45 5.15 533.48 170 F 306 418 112 202 1.80 3.43 4.91 515.44 179 m 296 401 105 214 2.04 3.05 4.47 465.20 191 F 334 460 126 198 1.57 3.88 5.74 595,83 182 F 357 490 133 216 1.62 3.81 5.62 583.80 190 F 314 454 140 196 1.40 4.32 6.43 666,08 AVERAGE: 316.3 436.0 119.7 1,75 3.56 5,23 543.79 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 3 Calf No, Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. per 100 lbs.Gain 107 F 322 455 133 210 1.58 3.93 5.76 599.91 111 124 142 M 288 393 105 200 1.90 3.22 4.76 494.28 M 270 375 105 200 1.90 3.17 4.73 489.95 151 F 310 450 140 200 1.43 4.21 6.20 644.54 o 160 m 275 394 119 218 1.83 r f • 3.35 4.94 513.65 1 173 M 357 462 105 186 1.77 3.47 5.13 532.70 181 M 308 427 119 202 1,70 3.65 5.36 557.73 193 145 105 F 313 439 126 226 1.79 3.43 5.07 525.92 F 307 426 •an*** 119 204 1,71 3.58 5.25 546.75 AVERAGE • 305.6 424.6 119.0 —— 1.73 3.56 5.24 545.05 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 02 Calf Kb. Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb, Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 100 IS. 297 416 119 192 1.61 3.80 5.62 583.33 113 F 319 424 105 200 1.90 3.24 4.76 495.29 122 F 373 499 126 200 1.59 3.89 5.73 595.46 136 m 285 404 119 . 194 1.63 3.77 5.33 561.67 , 147 F 309 449 140 198 1.41 4.33 6.37 662.18 * i 158 F 298 431 133 194 1.46 4.06 5.89 615.36 174 F 375 522 • 147 194 1.32 4.64 6.82 709.43 184 195 M F 270 368 98 212 2.16 2.83 4.18 433.73 161 180 F 384 531 147 206 1.40 4.34 6.38 663.32 - AVERAGE: 323.3 449.3 126.0 1.61 3.88 5,68. 591.09 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B O L L H o . 2 0 4 Calf Eb. • Sex i l gO tit 600 lbs. Age et 800 lbs. Day 8 600-800 Lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Bay Feed/lb, Hays of Gain Cone: Lbs, TJD.S, per ' ' 100 lbs.Gain 110 P 337 463 126 202 1.60 3.82 6.64 58S.73 118 F 358 498 140 210 1.50 4.01 5.79 606.03 130 M 377 503 126 < 204 1.62 3.80 5.56 579.27 143 B 266 371 105 200 1.90 3.18 4.73 490.42 148 135 176 11 315 448 133 220 1.65 3.67 5.28 S52.96 _ — — ___ . . . — . - 178 £2 307 426 119 206 1.73 3.55 5.21 542.24 189 355 481 126 218 1.73 3.54 5.03 528.33 197 140 321 . 440 119 202 1.70 3.68 5.34 557.96 Av^esj 329.5 453.8 124.3 1.68 3.66 5.32 555.43 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 6 Calf No. Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800' lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 104 . P 322 497 • 175 210 1.20 5.02 7.35 765.21 120 ' ' M- 293 405 112 202 1.80 3.40 5.01 521.22 132 " - — — - • 141 M 327 446 • 119 216 1.82 3.41 5.00 520.64 154 • M 286 426 140 206 1.47 4.20 6.18 642.75 157 • M' 283 395 112 * 200 1.79 3.42 5.04- 524.02 171 M 293 405 112 204 1.82 3.34 4.95 513.58 177 ' " M 275 373 98 226 2.31 2.67 3.94 409.06 194 125 152 F 300 440 140 198 1.41 4.33 6.32 658.94 F 369 481 112 194 1.73 3.57 5.26 546.53 Average: 305 387 124 1.71 3.71 5.45 566.88 Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) B U L L NO. 2 0 1 Calf I Jo. Sex Age at 600 lbs. Age at 800 lbs. Days 600-800 lbs. Total Gain Gain Per Day Feed/lb. Hay: of Gain Cone: Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain 103 •It 277 389 112 208 1.86 3.35 4.90 510.55 117 F 308 420 112 196 1.75 3.50 5.13 534.20 123 F 363 510 147 210 1.43 4.31 6.35 659.55 133 M 292 404 112 204 • 1.82 3.33 4.90 509.90 144 F 343 504 161 198 1.23 4.92 6.76 719.20 162 F 361 487 126 200 1.59 3.87 5.64 587.86 167 M 325 458 133 220 1.65 3.78 5.46 570.88 185 F 329 441 112 206 1.84 3.32 4.90 508.66 198 M 285 390 105 198 1.89 3.20 4.77 493.97 116 M 288 400 112 210 1.88 3.26 4.77 496.70 109 F 374 507 133 202 1.52 4.00 5.68 597.69 AVERAGE: 322.3 446.4 124.1 1.68 3.71 5.39 562.65 Appendix Table 5 BULL No ,200 BEEP CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.s 108 114 128 135 150 163 169 186 192 138 168 Sex: M M . u M F M M F M . F Carcass Grade B c B A A c A B A Warn Carcass Wt. 422 400 408 425 423 424 423 460 408 Cold Carcass Wt. 405 383 401 418 415 420 419 454 401 Wt. of Hind Quarters 206 195 202 211 205 201 209 223 196 Hind Leg Length, r. 23.2 22 .5 22.9 24.3 23.2 23.0 22.9 22.7 23.4 "• " 1. 23.4 23.1 22.9 24.3 23.1 23 .0 23.1 22.7 23.1 Length of side, r. . 43.1 43 44.5 44.7 43.3 43.6 43.3 43.9 44.0 . » . » . « • l . . 43.0 . - 43 44.9 . 45.0 43.7 43.4 43.0 44.1 43.5 l Fat Distribution 3 - . 2.5 2.5 4 3.5 3.6 2.5 . 3.5 3.5 • Marbling 2.5 . n i l 2.0 3 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 * Colour & Texture — of Meat 3.0 3 2.0 4 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 . Colour of Fat - 4 3 2.5 4 3.0 4 3.5 4.0 3.5 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 65.13% - 79.90$ 62.09$ 61.23$ 65.15$ 70.50$ 56.41$ 71.98$ 71.41$ (in square inches) (26.43) - (29.34) (21.88) (24.14) (27.18) (26.96) (25.00) (28.23) (27.52) Area of Fat 34.87$ - 20.10$. 37.91$ 38.77$ 34.85$- 29.50$ 43.59$. 28.02$ 28.59$ (in square inches) (14.15) - (7.38) (13.36) (15.28) (14.54) (11.28) (19.32) (10.99) (11.02) Appendix Table S (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 0 CALF NO. REMARKS 108 - 114 None 128 - 135 Fat fairly well distributed, but lacking; rounds bare; good 'type; lack of cover lowers carcass to C grade. 150 Underfinishedj lacks fleshing over loins and rounds. 163 None Jo 169 None 186 None 192 Bare ends; loin not too strong; ribs and loin nicely covered. 138 None 168 Low A; good rib and loin; plain end cuts; very nice rib cut. Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL Ho.199 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf Ho.j 102 119 126 134 146 164 175 187 188 172 112 Sex» . M U F F M M F M - M • M Carcase Grade A c • A A . B A A - , - B A Warm Carcass lift. 437 416 428 434 402 442 410 417 422 Cold Carcass wt. 430 409 423 430 386 438 404 - 412 418 FJt.of Hind Quarters 212 204 210 222 196 218 203 - - 209 205 Hind Leg Length, r . 23.1 24.1 23.1 22.5 22.4 23.4 23.2 23.2 22.8 23.2 24.6 23.3 22.8 23.0 23 .4 23.1 — - 23.5 23.1 Length of side, r . 42.8 43.2 44.3 43.5 43.0 43.4 43.5 — - 43.4 42.7 .." " 1. 42.8 43.5 43.8 43.4 42.7 43.7 43.7 43.4 43.0 Fat distribution 4.5 2 3.0 .4.5 2.5 3 3.8 — 3 4 Marbling 3.5 2 3.5 4.0 2.0 3 4.5 - - 2 2 Colour & Texture of Efeet 5 3 4.0 .5.0 .3.5 3.5 5.0 . a* _ 2 3 Colour of Fat 4 2 3.5 4.3 3.5 3 3.5 '3 3 Right Rib Section; Area of L.D. Muscle 70.88$ 77.31$ 62.07$ 58.12$ 66.37$ 68.07$ 69.70$ - - 68.59$ 73.94$ (in square inches) (29.94) (31.48) (27.36) (25.41) (24.00) (29.68) (27.38) - - (29.63) (29.34) Area of Fat (in square inches) 29.12$ 22.69$ 37.93$ 41.88$ 33.63$ 31.93$ 30.30$ (12.30) (9.24) (16.72) (18.31) (12.16) (13.92) (11.90) - 31.41$ 26.06$ (13.57) (10.34) Appendix Table S (Cont.) B U L L N o . 1 9 9 CALF NO. REMARKS 102 None 119 A light covers barish over loin, hip and ribs? only fat in regular pattern. 126 Hips f u l l ; a li t t l e weak in loin. 134 ii very good carcass; a well rilled round and steak.piece; very thick through lower rib and plate. 146 None 164 A f u l l steer; minimum finish but cover uniformly laid on. 175 Low "A" carcass; lacking in steak-piece. 187 - 188 - 172 Texture of meat was course and meat had a darkish colour. 112 Excellent conformation; lack of finish. Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL No .207 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: 106 121 131 137 153 156 166 183 196 155 129 Sex: Li M F F M M M F M M Carcass Grade A • A C B A _ B A' B A B Warm Carcass Wt. 441 430 416 424 430 445 428 427 432 430 Cold Carcass Wt. 437 424 411 418 425 438 422 422 425 422 Wt. of Hind Quarters 204- 206 205 206 212 217 207 206 214 205 Hind Leg Length, r. 23.1 23.1 23.0 23.1 23 24.0 22.8 23.9 23 .0 23.2 * « n 1 ;. 23.0 23.2 23.1 23.9 23 23.9 22.8 24 23.8 23.5 Length of side, r.' 42.3 42.6 45.1 43.4 43.5 43.6 42.8 43.5 42.3 44.5 „ „ „ 1 # 42.5 42.5 45.5 43.2 43.5 43.6 42.7 43.5 42.4 44.2 • Fat distribution 5 • 4 4, 3,5 4 3 4' 2.5 4. 3 cn Marbling J 3- 5 2 3.5 4 1 4;5 2.5 4-. 3 I Colour & Texture of Meat 4 4 3 4.0 5 3.5 5' 3 4- 3 Colour of Fat 5 4 4 4.0 5 3.5 4 3 4 2.5 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 60.69$ 59.31$ - 73.76$ '< 65.51$ 69.42$ 74.68$ 68.31$ 68.44$ 59.23$ 64.13$ (in square inches) (25.20) (24.79) - (29.80) (27.46) (30.49) (32.68) (26.68) (29.32) (24.32) (26.24) Area of Fat (in square inches) 39.31$ 40.69$ - (16.32) (17.01) - 26.24$ 34.49$ 30.58$ 25.32$ 31.69$ 31.56$ 40.77$ 35.87$ (10.60) (14.46) (13.43) (11.08) (12.38) (13.52) (16.75) (14.68) Appendix Table 5 (Cont,) B U L L No-, 2 0 7 CALF NO. REMARKS 106 None 121 None 131 - 137 None 153 None 156 None 166 Good fleshing and conformation; lacking finish. 183 None 196 Very hollow loin 155 Good colour 129 Conformation good; a weak finish. -4 e> Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) BULL Ho .205 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: Sex: . 101 H 115 Li 127 F 139 M 149 U 159 M 170 F 179 H 191 F 182 F 190 F Carcass Grade B C - B B B B B A B B Warm Carcass I t . 413 428 419 439 434 418 404 412 432 433 Cold Carcass Wt.. 408 419 415 422 428 412 398 407 428 428 Wt.of Hind Quarters 205 211 - 208 217 218 216 197 210 221 220 Hind Leg Length, r. 23.2 23 at 23 22.7 23.1 23.1 23.3 23.0 23.0 23.4 tl . !» I» 1. . 23.7 23 _ 22.8 22.7 23.5 23.0 23.4 23.4 23.1 23.6 Length of side, r. 43.5 43.7 42.3 43.2 43.2 43.9 42.7 42.7 43.0 42.4 tt « « 1. 43.0 42.9 - 42.9 43.2 43.2 43.3 42.6 43.0 42.9 42.2 t Fat Distribution 3 2 2.5 3 3 3.0 3.5 4 2.5 3 -o -a Marbling 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 4.5 2.5 4 4.0 4 l Colour & Texture — of Meat 3 3 - 3 3 2 4.3 4 4 3.5 , 4 Colour of Fat 2.5 3 3 3 4 3.0 3 4 4 3.5 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 66.60$ 75.26$ - 62.39$ 69.59$ 65.6$ 66.40$ 60.86$ 58.42$ 54.01$ 46.06$ (in square inches) . (27.12) (30.36) - (28.40) (29.72) (26.28) (26.72) (23.88) ,(27>;88) (28.28) (22.92) Area of Fat 33.40$ 24.74$ - 37.61$ 30.41$ 34.4$ 33.60$ 39.14$ 41.58$ 45.99$ 53.94$ (in square inches) (13.60) (9.98) - (17.12) (12.99) (13.77) (19.52) (15.36) (19.84) (24.08) (26.84). i Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o J e 2 0 5 CALF HO. REMARKS 101 Light finish? off-colour; almost without marbling. 115 a. f u l l steer; lacking finish; a good eye but no marbling. 127 139 A beef of good conformation but a weak finish. 149 A top a carcass. , 159 Rib-cut quite dark; very f u l l rounds. 179 Poor conformation of loin, steak piece and round. 191 Evenly covered; well fatted; good conformation; a choice heifer. 182 Overfinished natural pattern, especially hooks and tail-head; shallow loins; hip conformation weak. 190 Bare hips; excessive fat over t a i l head, hooks and shoulders; loin and hip conformation poor. 170 Plain shoulders and slightly down in loin; good buttocks. Appendix fable 5 (Cont.) BULL No . 203 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: 107 111 124 142 151 160 173 181 193 145 105 Sex: F m F M F M m M F - F Carcass Grade B B mm C A C Dl B A mm A Warm C areas s Wt. 450 402 . 396 434 400 386 429 440 - 412 Cold Carcass Wt. 442 395 392 427 394 380 420 436 - 405 Wt.of Hind Quarts rs 221 194 - 198 211 196 192 208 216 - 203 Hind Leg Length, n it n r. 2 3 . 4 2 3 . 4 2 3 . 4 2 3 . 3 2 4 . 1 2 3 . 8 2 4 . 2 2 2 . 7 — 2 2 . 3 1 . 2 3 . 6 2 3 . 7 — 2 3 . 6 2 3 . 1 2 4 . 3 2 3 . 6 2 4 . 7 2 3 . 1 - 2 2 . 2 Length of side, r. 4 3 . 4 4 2 . 6 mm 4 2 . 7 4 2 . 3 4 5 . 0 4 4 . 2 4 4 . 2 4 3 . 1 - 4 1 . 9 n it II 1 . 43 4 2 . 8 - 4 2 . 7 4 2 , 2 4 5 . 1 4 4 . 1 4 4 . 0 4 3 . 1 - 4 1 . 5 1 Fat distribution 2 . 5 3 . 0 3 . 0 4 2 . 0 4 3 4 3 - J CO Marbling 4 1.5 - 1.5 4 2 . 0 0 3 4 - 3 1 Colour and Texture of Meat 4 2 • 2 . 5 3 4 . 0 2 3 . 5 4 - 3 Colour of Fat 3 . 5 3 ... 2 . 5 3 . 5 2 . 5 2 3 4 — 3 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 5 8 . 0 4 $ 6 2 . 2 1 $ - 7 5 . 4 3 $ 5 0 . 0 0 $ 7 2 . 0 5 $ 7 7 . 1 8 $ 6 2 . 6 1 $ 5 6 . 8 0 $ - 5 7 . 4 1 $ (in square inches) ( 2 5 . 4 0 ) ( 2 4 . 5 6 ) - ( 2 6 . 5 5 ) ( 2 5 . 4 4 ) ( 2 3 . 6 6 ) ( 2 6 . 9 2 ) ( 2 5 . 3 2 ) ( 2 5 . 8 8 ) - ( 2 2 . 0 4 ) Area of Fat 4 1 . 9 6 $ 3 7 . 7 9 $ - 2 4 . 5 7 $ 5 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 . 9 5 $ 2 2 . 8 2 $ 3 7 . 3 9 $ 4 3 . 2 0 $ - 4 2 . 5 9 $ (in square inches) ( 1 8 . 3 6 ) ( 1 4 . 9 2 ) - ( 8 . 6 5 ) ( 2 5 . 4 4 ) ( 9 . 1 8 ) ( 7 . 9 6 ) ( 1 5 . 1 2 ) ( 1 9 . 6 8 ) - ( 1 6 . 3 5 ) Appendix gable 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 03 CALF NO. REMARKS 107 Bare on both, ends; fair cover over loin and rib; a typical heifer loin and hip. I l l Shallow front; thin over shoulder. 124 142 Good conformation; bare over shoulders; fat lacks brightness. 151 None 160 Long, rangy type steer. I CD 173 None 9 181 None 193 A good heifer; slightly weak loins, but strong enough to make the grade. 145 - 105 None Appendix Tablo 5 (Cont.) BULL No.202 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: 100 113 122 136 147. 158 174 184 195 161 180 Sex: M F F M F F F M F M F Carcass Grade B A A B B B B A A B Warm Carcass Wt. 418 419 420 428 418 428 421 430. 408 438 Cold Carcass Wt. 412 413 414 420 414 419 419 422 404 430 Wt. of Hind Quarters 201 212 206 212 204 217 213 210 201 217 Hind Leg Length, r. 25.1 23il 23.5 23.3 22.4 23.3 23.4 24.1 23.0 22.4 " " " 1. 23.4 23.2 23.7 23.1 22.5 23.4 23.1 24.1 22.7 22.3 Length of side, r. . 43.5 42 .7 42.8 43.4 - 43.9 42 43.0 43.3 41.8 43.2 * " " " 1> 43.7 42.5 42.9 43.2 43.9 42.4 42.6 43.2 41.5 43U l Fat distribution 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.5 3 3 2.5 3 3 3.5 00 t-» Marbling 4.0 4 3.8 2.5 3 4 3 3 3 4.7 1 Colour & Texture » - of Meat 4.0 4 3.9 , 3.0 4 4 3 4 3 - 5.0 Colour of Fat 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 4 4 3 3 3 4.2 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 63*82$ 55.31$ 53.71$ 64.26$ 69.06$ 52.30$ 53.72$ 66.88$ 55.68$ - 57.08$ (in square inches) (25.61) (26.44) (25.23) (27.18) (29.28) (22.76) (25.26) (25.56) (26.82) - (24.51) Area of Fat 36.18$ 44.69$ 46.29$ 35.74$ 30.94$ 47.70$ 46.28$ 32.12$ 44.32$ - 42.92$' (in square inches) (14.52)(21.36) (21.74) (15.12) (13.12) (20.76) (21.76) (12.66) (21.35) - (18.43) Appendix Table 5 (Cont«) B U L L Wo. 2 0 2 CALF HO. REMARKS 100 Good formation; lacks a l i t t l e over loin; bare over shoulder, particularly bare over point of shoulder 113 Formation only fair; good cover. 122 Poor rounds and loin; a low A carcass 136 A good f u l l steer, but lacking finish 147 none 158 Fat cover good; a l i t t l e excessive fat on ribs; conformation of loin and hip weak 174 Typical B heifer; weak conformation of hind quarters; fairly well covered. 184 Hone 195 Shipped before reached market weight; information not used. 161 180 Good plump carcass; lacking fleshing, noticably in loin BULL No .204 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: 110 118 130 143 148 165 176 178 189 197 140 Sex: F F M M M F M M M F Caroass Grade A A A A A - B B A mm Warm Carcass Wt. 430 451 432 432 438 mm 422 429 430 mm Cold Carcass Wt. 424 445 428 425 431 - 418 423 423 - Wt .of Hind Quarters 212 219 210 212 210 - 207 207 201 - Hind Leg Length.* f. 22 .2 2 3 . 1 2 2 . 4 2 2 . 6 2 2 . 9 2 3 . 2 2 3 . 1 2 2 . 6 n n u 22 . 4 2 3 . 3 2 2 . 1 2 2 . 8 2 3 . 2 - 2 3 . 3 2 3 . 1 2 3 . 1 - Length of side, f. 4 4 . 2 4 2 . 9 4 2 . 5 4 3 . 2 4 2 . 6 - 44 4 2 . 5 4 2 . 0 " " 1 . 4 3 . 5 4 2 . 6 4 2 . 1 4 3 . 2 4 2 . 8 - 4 3 . 8 4 2 . 7 4 2 . 1 Fat distribution 4 . 1 4 . 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 _ Marbling 4 . 2 4 . 5 4 3 4 - 2 . 5 3 3 . 5 - Colour and Texture of Ha at 4 . 5 4 . 4 4 3 4 - 2 . 5 4 4 - Colour of Fat 4 . 2 4 . 2 4 • 4 4 - 3 3 3 - Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 6 2 . 9 0 $ 5 1 . 9 9 $ 6 2 . 5 5 $ 6 6 . 5 9 $ 5 2 . 4 1 $ - 6 6 . 0 6 $ 6 5 . 6 5 $ 6 8 . 5 4 $ (in square inches) ( 2 9 . 2 0 ) ( 2 5 . 9 6 ) ( 2 7 . 1 2 ) ( 2 9 . 3 4 ) ( 2 4 . 4 0 ) - mm ( 2 7 . 7 2 ) ( 2 7 . 5 8 ) ( 2 8 . 3 5 ) Area of Fat 3 7 . 1 0 $ 4 8 . 0 1 $ 3 7 . 4 5 $ 3 3 . 4 1 $ 4 7 . 5 9 $ - 3 3 . 9 4 $ 3 4 . 3 5 $ 3 1 . 4 6 $ (in square inches) ( 1 7 . 2 3 ) ( 2 3 . 9 7 ) ( 1 6 . 2 4 ) ( 1 4 . 7 2 ) ( 2 2 . 1 6 ) - - ( 1 4 . 2 4 ) ( 1 4 . 4 3 ) ( 1 3 . 0 1 ) - Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o , 2 0 4 CALF NO. REMARKS 110 Good A carcass 118 Short, blocky carcass; very fat over rib, almost wasty. 130 None 143 Dark cut; f u l l rounds 148 None 165 - 176 178 A beef of fair finish but poor hind quarter conformation; loin particularly hollow. 189 Distribution of fat good but lacking quantityi 197 None ippendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL No .206 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.s 104 120 132 141 154 157 171 177 194 125 152 Sex: . F M - M M M M M F - F Carcass Grade A A . B D A A A B B Warm Carcass Wt. 450 433 427 429 426 440 433 423 Cold Carcass Wt. 445 428 _ 422 421 420 432 .5 425 448 Wt.of Hind Quarters 230 209 - 208 210 208 218.5 210 211 Hind Leg Length, r. " " " 1. 23 22.6 23.2 23.4 23.1 23.2 23.5 a2.6 23.3 22.8 _ 23.1 23.4 23.1 23.9 23.6 23.0 Length of side, r. 44.1 44 - 43.0 42.6 43.5 43.7 44.2 42.5 43.7 43.6 - 43.5 43.3 43.7 43.8 44.1 42.9 l Fat distribution 3.6 3 3 4 4.5 3 3 ' - 3 CO LSarbling - 4.0 4 - 2 4 4.5 3 3.5 - 4 • Colour & Texture * of Heat 4.1 4 3 4 4.5 3 3 - 3 Colour of Fat 4.0 3 3 4.5 4.0 5 3.5 4 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 66.49$ 66.81$ - 69.75$ 59.89$ 62.05$ 69.97$ 59.78$ - 41.34$ (in square inches) (31.77) (29.05) (30.05) (25.92) (26.77) (28.96) (27.76) - (22.04) Area of Fat 33.51$ 33.19$ - 30.25$ 40.11$ 37.95$ 30.03$ 40.22$ - 58.66$ (in square inches) (16.01) (14.43) - (13.03) (17.36) (16.37) (12.43) (18.68) - (31.28) Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 6 CALF NO. REMARKS 104 Animal is lacking some in the rounds. 120 None 132 141 Carcass information not received from graders. 154 None 157 Good carcass 171 None 177 Animal is bare on both ends. 194 Bare on shoulders and hips, weak conformation of hip and loin. 125 152 Excessive fat; feathery intramuscular fat; bare end; poor loins, 05 at Appendix fable 5 (Cont.) BULL Mo .201 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No<t 103 117 123 133 144 162 167 185 198 116 109 Sex: M F F M F F M F a M F Carcass Grade A A B A A A A B A B A Warm Carcass Wt. 418 421 441 437 436 435 430 433 441 Cold Carcass Wt. 415 417 435 432 427 430 422 417 436 Wt.of Hind Quarters - - 204 208 216 216 209 217 214 219 221 Hind Leg Length, r. 23.1 22.4 23.1 23.2 23.5 22.9 23.8 23.9 23.0 ., „ o 1 # — 23.1 22.7 23.2 23.4 23.4 23.2 23.8 24.2 23.2 Length of side, r. 42.5 43.4 42.3 42.3 43.1 43.0 42.0 42.7 43.3 " " 1. - 42.8 43.1 42.5 42.3 42.8 43.0 42.5 42.9 43.3 Fat distribution 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 4 3 4 4 4.0 Marbling - 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3 4 3 4 4.0 Colour & Texture of Meat _ 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3 4 4 5 4.0 Colour of Fat — _ 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3 4 4 4 3.8 Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle - - 62.92$ 56.83$ (in square inches) - - (24.54) (27.64) Area of Fat - - 37.08$ 43.17$ (in square inches) - (14.46) (20.99) 53.06$ 54.67$ 55.17$ 53.36$ 65.13$ 69.13$ 59.27$ (25.316)(25.45) (26.04) $3.52) (28.37) (27.30) (29.03) 46.94$ 45.33$ 44.83$ 46.64$ 34.87$ 30.87$ 40.73$ : (22.40) (21.10) (21.16) (20.56) (15.19) (12.19) (19.95) Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) B U L L N o . 2 0 1 CALF NO. REMARKS 103 Carcass information not received from graders. 117 Carcass information not received from graders. 123 A good heifer; slight weakness in loin and general confirmation; front quarters slightly bare. 133 None 144 A medium A carcass. 162 Slightly bare on both ends. 167 None 185 Poor loin conformation 198 None 116 None 109 Good A carcass. • 89 . BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashton, G.C., H.L. Lucas, Jr., and F.W. Sherwood. 1955. Control of the error variance in swine feeding trials. I By covariance adjustment for pre-experimental measures. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 t 1174. (Abstract) Ashton, G.C., H.L. Lucas, Jr., and P.W. Sherwood. 1955. Control of the error varianoe in swine feeding tr i a l s . II By blocking and selection with respect to litter, sex and breeding. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 a 1175. (Abstract) Ashton, G.C., H.L. Lucas, Jr., and F.W. Sherwood. 1955. Control of the error variance in swine feeding t r i a l s . I l l By control of experimental conditions. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 i 1175. (Abstract) Baird, D.M., A.V. Nalbandov, and H.1F. Norton. 1952. Some physiologi- cal causes of genetically different rates of growth in swine. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 s 292. Baker, M.L., et a l . 1943. The relative importance of heredity and environment in growth of pigs at different ages. Journ. Anim. Sci* 2 : 1. Baker, J.P., R.W. Colby, and CM. Lyman. 1951. The relationship of feed efficiency to digestion rates of beef cattle. Journ. Anim. Sci. 10 : 726. Bennett, J.A., and D.J. Matthews. 1955. Performance Testing studies with beef cattle. Agr. Exp. Sta., Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah. Bui. 377. Black, W.H. and Bradford Knapp, Jr. 1936. A method of measuring per- formance in beef cattle. Proc. of the American Society of Animal Production. pp. 73-77. Black, W.H., et a l . 1938. Correlation of body measurements of slaughter steers with rate and efficiency of gain and with certain carcass characteristics. Jour. Agr. Res. 56 : 465. Bloom, P.E., 1953. Analysis of beef cattle production testing in Kittitas County, Washington. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc,, Western Section, (4) II, 1-8. Blunn, C.T., et a l . 1953. Heritability of gain in different growth periods of swine. Jour, Anim, Sci. 12 : 1. • Bogart, R. and RiL. Blaetejell. 1950. Ifore beef with less feed. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 488. Bogart, R. and J.T» Elings, 1953. Production testing of beef cattle Oregon State College, Corvallis, Extension Bui, 746. » 90 Bogart, R., G.E. Helms, R.W. Mason, et a l . 1955. Body measurements, scores, gains, and feed efficiency of growing beef cattle. Jour* Anim. Sci. 14 s 1175-1176. (Abstract) • Botkin, M.P. and J.A. Whatley, Jr. 1953. .Repeatability of production in range beef cows. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12 : 3. Botkin, M.P. 1955. Seleotion for efficiency, of gain in lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 1176. (Abstract) Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Publishing Corp. Kaw York. Buiatti, P.G. 1954. The heritability of live weight and height at withers and,the correlation between them in Chiana Beifera. Riv. Zootec. 27 : 69-63. (Abstract) Burgess, J.B., et a l . 1954. Weaning weights of Hereford calves as affacted by inbreeding. Sex and Age. Jour. Anim. Sci, 13 s 4. Burris, M.J., and CT. Blunn. 1952. Some factors affecting gestation length and birth weight of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 : 1. Burris, M.J., R. Bogart, A.lf. Oliver, et a l . 1954. Rate and Efficiency ' of gains in beef cattle. I. The response to injected testo- sterone. Tech. Bui. 31. Agr. Exp. Sta., Oregon State College CorvalliB. Burris, M.J., and CA* Baugus. 1955. Milk consumption and growth of suckling lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 1. • Cartwright, T.C. and B.L. Warwick. 1955. The relationship between birth-weight, weening weight and feedlot gain in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 4 s p. 1178. (Abstract). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 1954. C.A.B. report, Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Executive Council', 1953-1954. P. 30, top of page, unders 127 "Progeny Testing". • London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Conner, A.B. 1923. The interpretation of correlation data. Texas Agric. Ji'xpt. Sta. Bui. 310: 1. Cook, A.C, M.L. Kohli, and W.M. Dawson. 1951. Relationship of five body measurements to slaughter grade; carcass grade and dressing percentage in Milking. Shorthorn steers. Jour. Anim* Sci. 10 : 386. Dahmen, J.J. and R. Bogart. 1952. Some factors affecting rate and economy of gains in beef cattle. Agr.- Exp. Sta.., Oregon State College, Corvallis. Tech. Bui. 26. a 91 Dawson, W.M., R.W. Phillips, and W.H. Black. 1947. Birth weight as a criterion of selection in beef cattle. Jour. Anim.Sci. 6 .247 Dawson, W.M., F.S. Yao, and A. C. Cook. 1955. Heritability of growth beef characters and body measurements in milking Shorthorn Steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 t 1. Dickerson, G.E. 1947. Composition of hog carcasses as influenced by heritable differences in rate and economy of gain, Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res, Bui. 554 : 492. Doornenbal, H. and A.J. Wood. 1952-1953. Beef bull research project, 1952-53. Dept. Anim. Husb., Faculty of Agric, The University of British Columbia. A mimeographed report. Durham, R.M. and J.H. Knox. 1953. Correlations between grades and gains of Hereford cattle at different stages of growth and between grades at different times. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12»771-4,N» Fine* H.C. and L.M. Winters. 1953, Selection for an increase in growth rate and market score in two inbred lines of swine. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12 : 2. Flower, A.E,, S. Fred, et a l . 1954. Studies on gains of limited-fed steer calves and their subsequent range and full-fed gains. Western Section American Soo. Anim. Prod,, Vol. 4 P XV-4. Galgan, M.W., M.E. Ensminger, and D.E. Foster. 1955. 1954-1955 Pro- duction testing results with beef calves. Washington Agric. Exp. Stations Inst. Agric. Sciences, State College of Wash., Stations Circ. 264, April. Gifford, W. 1949. Importance of high milk production in beef cows overestimated. Jour. Anim. Sci. 8 : 605-606, » Gifford, W. 1953. Records of Performance tests for cattle in breeding herds. Milk production of dams and growth of calves• Uni- versity of Arkansas College of Agriculture, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Bui. 531, Feb. Goulden, C.H. 1952. Methods of statistical analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hew York. 2nd Ed. Green, W.W. and J . Buric. 1953. Comparative performance of beef calves weaned at 90 to 180 days of age. Jour. Anim. Sci. ». 12 t 3. Green, W.W. 1954. Relationship: of measurements of live animals to weights of grouped significant wholesale cuts and dressing percent of beef steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 t 1. 92 - Gregory, K.E., C.T. Blunn, and II.L. Baker. 1950. A study of some of the factors influencing the birth and weaning weights of beef calves. Jour. Anim. Sci. 9 j 338. Grizzle, J.E. and CM. Kincaid. 1954. The relationship between body weight, daily gain, and efficiency of feed utilization in , beef cattle. Jour; Anim Sci. 13 : 4 : 958. (Abstract). Guilbert, H.R. and P.W. Gregory. 1944. Feed utilization tests \7ith cattle. Jour. Anim.Sci. 3: 145. Guilbert, H.R. and G.H. Hart. 1944. Feed utilization tests with cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 3 : 143. Guilbert, H.R. and P.W. Gregory. 1952. Some features of growth and development of Hereford cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 s 1 i 3. Hankins, O.G. and H.W. Titus. 1 0 6 9 . Growth; fattening and meat pro- duction. Food and Life, Year Book of Agriculture. Washington Government Printing Office. Hazel, L.H., et a l . 1943, Genetic^and environmental correlations be- tween the growth rates of pigs at different ages• Jour. Anim Sci. 2 : 118. Hazel, L.N. 1946. Heritability of type and condition in range ram- bouillet lambs as evaluated by scoring. Jour. Anim. Sci, February. Henderson, C.R., 1953. Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics. 9 : 226. Hetzer, H.O., et a l . 1944. Heritability of type in Poland China swine as evaluated by scoring. Jour. Anim. Sci. 3 : 390. Hitchcock, G.H., and W.A. Sawyer, et a l , 1955. Rate and efficiency of gains in beef cattle. I I I Factors affecting weight and effectiveness of selection for gains in weight. Agr. Expt. Sta,, Oregon State College, Tech. Bui. Wo. 34. Hutt, F.B. 1951. Progeny tests and Warwick's tables. Bibliog. Jour. Heredity, 42 s 266. S '51. Johnson; L.P.V. 1950. Applied Biometrics. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis 15, Uinnesota. Kempthorne, 0. and O.B. Tandon. 1953. The estimation of heritability by regression of offspring on parent. Biometrics, The Biometric Society, March, 9:1. 98 Kidwell, J.F. 1951. Number of progeny required to test a male for heterozygosity for a recessive autosomal gene. Bibliog. Jour. , Heredity 42« 215-216. Kidwell, J.F. 1952,. -Genetio investigation of allometric growth in Hereford cattle. Genetics 37 : 158-174, March. Kidwell, J.F. , 1953. , Some growth relations in range Hereford cattle. Western Sect. Amer. Soc. of Anim. Prod. 4 « I t 1. Kidwell, J.F.. 1954. Some growth relations in range oattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 : 1. Kidwell, J.F. 1955. A study of the relation between body conformation and carcass quality in fat calves. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14s1:233. Kincaid, CM., R.C. Carter, and J.S. Copenhaver. 1952. Heritability of rate of gain from progeny tests with beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 ; 741. (Abstract). Kincaid, CM. and R.C. Carter. 1955. Estimates of Heritability of rate of gain in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 4 : 1185. (Abstract). Kleiber, M. 1936. Problems involved in breeding for efficiency bf food utilization. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc. 247-258. Klosterman, E.W., L.E. Kunkle, P. Gerlaugh, and V.R. Cahill. 1954. The effect of age of castration upon rate and economy of gain and carcass quality of beef calves. Jour. Anim. Soi. ,13 : 4.: 817, November. Knapp, B., Jr., et al . 1941 . Record of performance in Hereford cattle. Montana Agr. Exp. St. Bui. 397. Knapp, B., Jr. and W.H. Black. 1941b. Factors influencing rate of gain of beef calves during the suckling period. Jour. Agr. Research. 63 s 249-254. Knapp, B., Jr . and Phillips, et a l . 1942a. Length of feeding period and number of animals required to measure economy of gain in progeny teste of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 1 : 285-292. Knapp, B., Jr., A.L. Baker, J.R. Quesenberry and R.T. Clark. 1942b. Growth and production factors in range cattle. Montana State College Agricultural Exp. Sta. Bui. 400. Knapp, B.., Jr. and Baker, A.L. 1944. Correlation between ratio and efficiency of gain in steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 3 : 3. Knapp, 8. and W. Nbrdskog. 1946® Heritability of growth and efficiency in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 6: 62.70. Knapp, B. and W. Etordskog. 1946^ Heritability of animal scores, grades • and certain carcass characteristics in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 5 s 194-199. Knapp, B. and R.T. Clark. 1947. Genetic and environmental correlations between growth rates of beef cattle at different ages. Jour. Anim. Sci. 6s 174-181. 'Knapp, B., Jr. and R.T. Clark. 1950. Revised estimates of heritability of economic characteristics in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 9s 582-587. Knapp, B., Jr. and R.T. Clark. 1951. Genetic and environmental cor- 1 ' relations between weaning scores and subsequent gains .in the feedlot with record of performance steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 10 (2) s 365-370. Koch, R.C. 1956. Swing of the pendulum. The Farm Quarterly, winter, 1956. Koch, R.M. 1.951. Size of calves at weaning as a permanent character- istic of range Hereford cows. Jour, Anim Sci. • 10 i .3 s 768. Kooh, R.M. and R.T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relation-i ships among economic characters in beef cattle. I Correla- tions among paternal and maternal half-sibs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 3, August. Koch, R.M. and R. T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relation- ships among economic characters in beef cattle. II Corre- lations between offspring and dam and offspring and sire. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 5, August. Kooh, R.M. and R.T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relation- ships among economic characters in beef cattle. I l l Evaluat- ing' maternal environment. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 s 4 s 979-996, Koch, R.M. and R.T. Clark. 1955, Influence of sex, season of birth and age of dam on economic traits in range beef cattle. Jour, Anim. Sci. 14 : 2. Koch, R.M;, Schleicher, E.ifiT. and V.H. Arthaud. 1955. Weight changes in beef calves following birth. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 s 3. Koger, EI. and J.H. Knox. 1945. The affect of sex on weaning weight of range calves. Jour. Anim. Sci. 4 s 1. Koger, M. J.H. Knox. 1947. The repeatability of yearly production of range Hereford cows.. Jour, 4nim. Sci. 6 s 4.61, - 95 - Roger, M. and J.H. Knox. 1951. The correlation between gains made at different periods by cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 10 t 760. Roger, M. and J.H. Knox. 1952. Heritability of grade and type in range beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 > 361-369. Kohli, M.I., A.C. Cook, and 117.M. Dawson. 1951. Relationship between some body measurements and certain performance characteristics in milking Shorthorn steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 10 : 352. Kohli, M.L., A.C. Cook, and W.M. Dawson. 1952. Inheritance of growth rate and efficiency of gain in milking Shorthorn steers. Jour. Heredity. 43 s 249-252. Kunkel, H.O., R.W. Colby, and CM. Lyman. 1953. The relationship of serum protein-bound iodine levels to rates of gain in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12 j 1 : 3-9. Lambert, W.V., et al.. 1936. The role of nutrition in genetic research. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p.236-243. lush, J.L. 1940. Intra-sire correlations of regression of offspring on dam as a method of estimating heritability of character- istics. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc. 293-301. Lush, J.L. 1945. Animal Breeding Plans. 3rd edition. Iowa State College Press. Mason, I.L. 1951. Performance recording in beef cattle. Animal Breed- ing Abstract. 19 t 1-24. Melms, G.C. and R. Bogart. 1955. Some factors affecting feed utiliza- tion in growing beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 s 4 : 970-978. Helms, G.E. and R. Bogart. 1965. The effect of birth weight, age of dam and time of birth on suckling gains of beef calves. Jour. Anim. Sci., November, 14 j 4 : 1187. (Abstract). Norskog, A.W. 1944. Hereditary and environmental factors effeoting growth rate in swine. Jour. Anim. Sci. 3 : 257. Patterson, R.E., et a l . 1949. Performance testing and progeny testing of beef breeding 6took as an aid to. selection. . Jour. Anim. Sci. 6 : 608. (Abstract. Patterson, R.E., T.C. Cartwright, J.H. Jones, and J .J. tfayles. 1955. Performance testing of beef breeding stock. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 4 ; 1034-1041. Pierce, CD., H.G, Avery, M. Burris, and R. Bogart. 1954. Rate and efficiency of gains in beef cattle. II. Some factors affect- ing performance testing. Agric. Exp. Sta,, Oregon State College, Tech. Bui. 33, July. • 93 Rice, F.J., et a l . 1954. Length of gestation in Hereford cowe and its relation to performance. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 : 4» 961. (Abstract). Rice, Y.A. and F.N., Andrews. 1942.. Breeding and improvement of farm animals. 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., New York. • Rife, D.C. 1951. Method for testing two-factor inheritance. Jour. . Heredity.. 42 : 162. Riley, D.N,, 1953. Rate and efficiency of gain of pure-bred beef bulls. Essay submitted in partial fulfillment of the "requirements for B.S.A. degree in the Faculty of Agriculture, University of British Columbia, B.C. Robertson, A. 1952. Effect of inbreeding on the variation due to re- cessive genes. Genetics 37 : 189-207. Rollins, W.C. and H.R, Guilbert. 1954. Factors effecting the growth of beef calves during the suckling period. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 i 2. Roubicek^3J3.i N.W. Hilston, and S.S. Wheeler. 1951. Progeny Studies with Hereford and Shorthorn cattle. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Sta., Laramie; Bui. 307, July.. Shelby, C.E., R.T. Clark, et a l . 1954. Heritability of some pre- and post-slaughter characteristics in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci., 13 : 4 : 962. (Abstract). Shelby, C.E., R.T. Clark, and R.R. Woodward. 1956. The heritability of some economic characteristics of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 s 2. Snedecor, G.W. 1948. Statistical Methods. Iowa State College, Ames, 485 pp. Spilma and Lang. 1924. The law of diminishing returns. 178 pp. il l u s . Chicago . Stonuker, H.H., et a l . 1950. Beef breeding research in Colorado. Progress report mimeo, July. Stbnaker, H.H., et a l . 1952. Feedlot and carcass characteristics of individually fed comprest and conventional types Hereford steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 : 1. Tyler, W.J., et a l . 1948. The heritability of body size of Holstein, Friesian and Ayshire cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 7 : 516. (Abstract). • 97 . Warwick, B.L., T.C. Cartwright, and M.W. Hazen. 1954. Beef cattle performance at Bluebonriet Farm. I. Evaluation tests for gaining ability. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. Bui. 790. Warwick, B.L. and T.C. Cartwright. 1955. Heritability of rate of gain in young growing beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 2. Went, F.W. 1953. Gene action in relation to growth and development; phenotypic variability. Hat. Acad. Sci. Proc. 39 : 839-848. White, F.E. and-W.W. Green. 1952. Relationship of measurements of live animals to weights of wholesale cuts of beef. Jour. Anim. Sci. 11 : 2. Whiting, F. 1955. Steer feeding report. Canadian Cattlemen, January. Willey, H.B., O.D. Butler, J.K. Riggs, J.H. Jones, et a l . 1951. The influence of type on feedlot performance and killing qualities of Hereford steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 10 : 195. Williams, L. 1956. Personal correspondence. Canyon City, Oregon,O.S.A. WilBon, F.S., et' al. 1954. Genetic studies of steer progeny groups slaughtered following three successive feeding treatments. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 : 4 : 965. (Abstract). Winsor and Clark. 1940. A statistical study of variation in the catch of plankton nets. Jour. Elarine Res. 3 : 1-34. Winters, L.M. and H. McMahon. 1933. Efficiency variations in steers. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 94 : 1-28. Woodward, R.R. and R.T. Clark. 1950.. The repeatability of performance of several Hereford sires as measured by progeny records. Jour. Anim. Sci. 9 : 588. Hoodward, R.R., J.R. Quesenberry, and F.S. Willson. 1954. Production and carcass quality in beef cattle. Montana State College, Circular 207, December. Woodward, R.R., J.R. Quesenberry, R.T. Clark, et a l . 1954. Relation- • ships between preslaughter and postslaughter evaluations of beef cattle. United States Dept. Agric. Circ. Ho.945, May. Yao, T.S., W.M. Dawson, and A.C. Cook. 1953. Relationship between meat production characters and body measurements in beef arid milking shorthorn steers. Jour. Anim. Sci, 12 s 4. Yao, T»S.,et a l . 1984. Heritability of milk production in milking Shorthorn cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13 : 3. Yao, T.S., et a l . 1954. Body measurements indexes as a means of selec- tion in Shorthorn cattle. Jour. Anim, Sci. 13s 4: 965. (Abstract). Yapp, W.W. 1923. A dimension-weight index for cattle. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc. 50-56.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 11 1
China 2 0
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Washington 4 0
Des Moines 3 0
Ashburn 3 0
Beijing 2 0
Bradford 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items