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 Doornenbal, Huibert 1956-12-31

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
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
Original Record: 1.0106221 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0106221.txt
Citation
1.0106221.ris

Full Text

ASPECTS OF RATE AND EFFICIENCY OF GAIN IN BEEF CATTLE AMD HERITABILITY ESTIMATES  by  H u i b e r t Doornenbal  A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t o f The.Requirements f o r t h e Degree,of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE  in the Department o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e standard r e q u i r e d from candidates f o r the degree o f MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE  Membersv o f tha*-B3bartment o f  Animal Sconce  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l . , 1956  - i -  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The author wishes to express h i s gratitude to h i s major Professor, Dr. J . C. Berry, D i v i s i o n of Animal Science, f o r guidance i n the preparation of t h i s manuscript and to Dr. V. C. Brink, Head of the D i v i s i o n of Plant Science and Dr. S. ¥. Nash, Department of Mathematics, f o r t h e i r assistance i n the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s .  The author also wishes to thank Mr. T. G. W i l l i s , Superintendent of the Dominion Range Experimental Farm, Kamloops, f o r h i s encouragement and the use of the necessary f a c i l i t i e s and Mr. George Davidson, herdsman, f o r h i s care and feeding of the experimental animals.  The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr. A. J . Wood, D i v i s i o n of Animal Science, who conducted the p r e l i m i nary work which made possible the present study.  Dr. Wood evaluated  and rated the 1 9 purebred Hereford b u l l s and selected 9 of them t o be used at the Range Experimental Farm at Kamloops.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page Abstract Introduction I. Review of Literature A. Heritability of rate of gain B. Factors affecting rate and economy of gain a) age and weight of dam b) gestation length c) season of birth d) birth weight e) suckling period f ) weaning weight g) sex h) type i ) size and age j ) feed utilization C.  Correlation between rate and efficiency of gain  I I . Experimental A. Experimental animals B. Feeding and management III. IV.  Results Discussion  i i i iv 1 5 5 6 7 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 21 23 27 28  Summary  41  Appendix Bibliography  43 89  - ill 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 b u l l , 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 during post-weaning period;  birth weight and daily gain  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 400 - 600 pounds, r = 600 - 800 pounds, r s  -0.98 -0.97 -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.  iv -  INTRODUCTION  In the past much emphasis has been placed on v i s u a l con* formation i n s e l e c t i o n of breeding stock i n beef c a t t l e *  In general,  the only records available to beef o a t t l e breeders have been showr i n g •winnings and subjective evaluations made by i n d i v i d u a l breeders* Ideals or standards of conformation were o r i g i n a l l y established because 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p between conformation and most economically important factors i n beef c a t t l e production*  The need, f o r more adequate measures of performance  as aids to s e l e c t i o n has led to the development of "Performance Testing."  In order to be p r o f i t a b l e , beef c a t t l e must have the inherent  a b i l i t y to grow r a p i d l y .  Individual beef animals d i f f e r i n t h e i r  a b i l i t y to grow and to convert, economically, feed into gains.  Per-  formance t e s t i n g i s a means of i d e n t i f y i n g individuals possessing superior productive q u a l i t i e s and i t i s also a way  of evaluating s i r e s  f o r transmitting these q u a l i t i e s to t h e i r o f f s p r i n g .  A great number  of studies have shown that these v a r i a t i o n s are due, i n part, to genetic influences, t h u s : j u s t i f y i n g s e l e c t i o n f o r rate and economy of g a i n . Purebred beef c a t t l e breeders and commercial cattlemen have become increasingly interested i n experiments dealing with these t r a i t s f o r economical production.  U n t i l recently, most research of t h i s  nature has been done outside of Canada.  In 1952, with the support of  the B r i t i s h Columbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association and the f i n e n o i a l support of the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e , the Department of Animal Husbandry of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  -  V  -  initiated a Beef Bull Research Project i n 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 l i f e with different genotypes or were exposed to different environmental influences* The expression of heritable characteristics can be changed by appropriate 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 i n the literature are not consistent. to 100 percent.  The figures vary from about 10 to close  The Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, (1963-1954) i n  i t s Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, makes the statement (referring to rate of gain i n beef oattle):  "In a recent review of the interpretation of  progeny tests, i t was stated that 80-90^ of the variation between progeny groups was non-genetic."  Knapp and Nordskog (1946 ), in a study 6  made of the reoords of 177 steer oalves from 23 sires, estimated the heritability of daily gain i n 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 percent respectively. A large number of investigators report heritability estimates for rate of gain which are between the two extremes mentioned above. Patterson, et a l , (1949) reported on the rate of gain of animals 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 correlation 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 a l , (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, i n a record of performance test, from 500 to 900 pounds live weight.  Kohli, et a l , found the heritability for aver-  age daily gain i n 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 a l , (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: Group included  Number of Animals  A l l animals Animals raised at BF A l l Herefords Herefords raised at BF A l l Brahmans Brahmans raised at BF . F. (Hereford x Brahman)  863 587 329 189 124 33 359  Heritability Percent 38 34 51 21 46 46 33  The8e values were computed from tests at four stations. above values show considerable v a r i a b i l i t y .  Heritability applies  The  - 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 i t s  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 Warwick, et a l , (1954 and 1955)  100.  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 herit a b i l i t y by use of this method. For this calculation, 68 parents with test records were paired with the average of their offspring (n = The regression coefficient was 0.29  147).  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. between paternal half-sibs.  This study uses the correlation  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 i s limited by the fact that errors  due to sampling or incorrect estimation of environmental influences are multiplied by 4. Although there i B much variability i n the estimates of herit a b i l i t y of gain i n the literature reviewed, the more reliable experimental results and the bulk of evidence suggest a substantial heritabil i t y figure,, probably of the order of 65 percent.  <U»  B.  5  mm  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 b u l l 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 i t s 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 f i r s t calf heifers and,to a lesser extent from second calf cows, grew faster than those from the older age range. This i s probably due to a greater persistency in lactation of young cows. •  Knapp, et a l , (l942 ) found the optimum range for cow producb  t i v i t y to be 5 to 7 years.  Koch and Clark (1955) indicate i n their  analysis of 4553 calves that maternal environment has considerable i n fluence on birth weight, gain from birth to weaning and weaning score. For yearling gain and score, maternal environment appeared to be of l i t t l e importance. Dawson, et a l , (1947) reported that birth weight of calves i n 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 d e f i nite relationship between age of dam and birth weight of c a l f .  The.  maximum birth weight was not reached until the cows are 9 to 10 years old.  Hitchcock, et a l , (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 i s 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 w i l l be pointed out later, is probably largely due to the milking 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 l o t . b) Gestation length: Burris and Blunn (1952) indicate a high correlation between length of gestation and birth weight of c a l f .  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 a l (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 i s 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 between the facts of their findings and the impression that earlier calves appear to do better i s no doubt due to the inability of a person to adjust mentally for differences i n 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) i n evaluating the influence of maternal environment suggest in their comparisons that maternal environment from conception 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 e f f i c i e n t .  They suggest that birth weight should be given consid-  eration in selection i n 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 i n 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 v a r i -  ance in economy of gain i s accounted for by variations in birth weight. Pierce, et a l , (1954) worked with stall-fed (individually) calves and lot-fed (10 calves i n 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 per day more from birth to the end of test.  of a pound  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 (I946 ) estimated heria  tability of birth weight to be 42 and 34 percent; Dawson et a l (1947) 29 percent; Knapp and Clark, (1950) 45 percent; Gregory et a l , (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 l i f e 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 b u t t e r f a t produced by these cows. was working with Herefords, Aberdeen-Angus and Shorthorns.  He  The average  production f o r a l l cows was 1,498 pounds of milk with an average b u t t e r fat  t e s t of 3.08 percent and 46.1 pounds of b u t t e r f a t . The largest  record made wa6 2,458 pounds of milk and 88.4 pounds of b u t t e r f a t during a 244-day l a c t a t i o n , at an age of 12 years.  The lowest producer was a  3-year o l d cow with a record o f 312 pounds of milk and 14 pounds of b u t t e r f a t i n 236 days. There was a considerable degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between the quantity of milk produced d a i l y by the dams and the d a i l y gain i n weight i n t h e i r calves during the f i r s t , second, t h i r d and fourth months. gross correlations observed were 0.60,  0.71,  The  0.52 and 0.35, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  During the following 4 months the correlations were smaller i n magnitude and not s i g n i f i c a n t . Cows producing less than 6.5 pounds of milk d a i l y during maximum production f a i l e d to produce s a t i s f a c t o r y c a l v e s .  At weaning, 8  months, the average weight of t h i s group was only 354 pounds. Cows that produced from 6.5 to 12.9 pounds d a i l y during maximum production weaned calves with an average weight of 405 pounds, and cows that averaged more than 13 pounds d a i l y during t h e i r highest producing periods weaned calves that averaged 475 pounds. The lowest producer with a maximum recorded production of only 2.3 pounds d a i l y produced a stunted c a l f that weighed only 259 pound6 at 8 months.  The author pointed out  that a minimum production of 6 to 8 pounds d a i l y during the f i r s t 3 months was required t o produce a 400-pound or larger c a l f at 8 months. The above etudy i l l u s t r a t e s the great influence milk production of the dam has on the early growth of the c a l f , 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 negatively 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 a l (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 l o t . 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. Working with individually fed and lot-fed calves they stated that for individually-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. However, 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 d i f f e r -  ences in weight and size at weaning ( a l l 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 i n lot-feeding, and hence correlation between suckling gain and gain at test would exist. Knapp and co-workers (l941 ) found no correlation between b  weaning weight, or suckling gain, and daily gain in the feed l o t . 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 i s 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) i s 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 i s to be expected, since weaning weight i s largely a function of the dam's maternal a b i l i t y .  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 i s even negatively related to the genes directly influencing these t r a i t s . These investigators indicate that the pre-weaning and post-weaning period are markedly different i n the environments provided. In preweaning growth the calf is protected and nourished to a large extent by the cow, the gains of the calf and its f i n a l 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 i t s dam's productivity.  Several investigators have reported the .repeatability of  weaning weight to be i n 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 (l946 ) a  12 percent and 30 percent; Knapp et a l (1950), 28 percent; Koch and Clerk (1955), 24 percent; Gregory et a l (1950) working with 2 sources of data, reported 26 percent and 52 percent. A repeatability and heritability of this magnitude indicates that weaning weight of a cow's f i r s t calf could be used profitably as a criterion i n auch a program for replacement cows.  - 13 In summary, weaning weight, although important, is not indicative 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 i n f l u 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 a l , 1947; Gregory, Blunn and Baker, 1950; Knapp et a l , 1942 ; Koch end Clark, 1955). Koch and Schleicher (1955) report a difference of 6.7 pounds i n favour of the b u l l calves at birth. Significant differences i n 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 i n 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 (I941 ), Bloom (1953) and b  - 14 and Koch (1951). Dahmen and Bogart (1952) found that beef animals possessing similar breeding and being exposed to the same environment show marked sex differences i n 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. When testing progeny and comparing sires, i t appears to be necessary to apply correction factors for sex differences in the offspring.  The gaining and fattening ability of the 'Regular ": " and "Comprest" types of Hereford eteers has been a question in the minds of steer feeders for some time. HiHey et a l (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 f.or 173 days.  concentrates  In summary, tho results of this 285-day feeding period  were as follows: ii  Average i n i t i a l vreight Average f i n a l weight Gain per animal Daily gain per animal T.D.L. Lbs/100 lbs. of gain & Difference significant at 0.05  Regular' 470 1,000 530 1.86 645  A A A  "Comprest'II 478 954 476 1.67 674  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 i n 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 a l (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 a l (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, because of their physios  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 i t s maintenance and reduce correspondingly the total efficiency of growth unless this increase in maintenance i s  - 16 compensated by an increase i n 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 physiologic 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 a l (1959) showed that efficiency of feed u t i l i z a 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 i n creased, but the cost of the gain went up more than directly proportional. Pierce et a l (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 i s dependent upon at least two factors, i n i t i a l efficiency and rate of deoline in efficiency.  Efficiency, therefore, i s a funotion  of live weight. As an animal increases in age and size, there are corresponding changes in the physiological functions governing the u t i l i z a 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 i s possible one of the more important factors influencing feed efficiency.  Animals that used the least feed per  pound of gain seem to be superior in digesting crude f i b e r .  These i n -  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 i s 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 i s 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 i s not so associated with water gain.  The energy equivalent of one gram  of fat i s 2^- times that of one gram of protein. Hence, one gram of f a t gain i s calorically equivalent to about 8 grams of protein gain (including associated water)."  Therefore, inherent differences i n animals that  are exhibited i n 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 i n rate of gain and vice versa.  Winters and  McMahon (1933) report a correlation of 0.34 between rate and efficiency of gain.  Knapp, et a l . , (1941) reported a correlation of 0.44.  Wood-  ward, et a l . , (1954) reported a correlation of 0.23 between rate and economy of gain.  Higher correlations were reported by other investiga-  tors, Galgan, et a l . , (1955) 0.755;  Pierce, et a l . , (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 f i n a l 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 i n 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 described by Spillmah and Lang (1924). This curve:expresses with a high degree of accuracy the relationship between live weight and feed consumption.  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 u t i l i z a t i o n .  Black and Knapp (1936)  suggest that a l l steers be fed from 500 to 900 pounds in order to measure efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n .  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 (1946 ) 75 percent (haIf-sib,correa  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 a l . , (1955) 3.2 percent; Shelby, Clark and Woodward (1955) 22 percent, and Kohli, et a l . , (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. 25th, 1953.  This test ended after 147 days of feeding on A p r i l  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 Experimental 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. 200 199 207 205 203 202 . 204 206 201  ll/t. at  180 days 520 (e) 478 (e) 490 (e)  Wt. at 270 days  Wt. at 360 days  Gain per Day:  Pound T.D.N. Per Lbs/Gain  710 705 680  956 (e) 908 (e) 895  2.37 2.34 2.16  4.01 3.96 4.63  -  663 553 605  838 732 815 (e)  2.00 2.13 2.04  5.07 4.61 4.21  387  535 468 540  725 670 725  1.92 2.14 1.90  4.40 4.34 4.66  431  397  e = estimated Table 1 gives information relative to the bulls used in this test.  - 22 The heifers used i n 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 b u l l s . 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 b i r t h . Eighty-five calves were raised.  - 23 B.  Feeding and management. , The feeding procedures used i n the experiment were the same  as those followed i n the University of British Columbia b u l l test.  The  animals were fed twice daily to a feeding schedule shown i n Table 2. Roughage was fed at 0.9 percent of the animal's weight and the concentrate 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 b u l l test at the University as well as for the test at Kamloops was University of British Columbia ration No. 50.  The ingredients are listed i n 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 screenings pellets per head per day.  This ration was estimated to be s u f f i -  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 i n 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 i n 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 Animal Pounds  Roughage Intake - Pounds -  Concentrate Intake - Pounds -  Morning  Evening  Morning  Evening  300 325 350 376 400  1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6  1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8  3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7  3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7  425 450 475 600  1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2  1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3  3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0  3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1  .525 550 575 600  2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7  2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7  4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3  4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4  625 650 675 700  2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1  2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2  4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6  4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6  725 750 775 800  3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6  3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6  4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8  4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8  825 850 875 900  3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1  3.7 3.9 4.0 4.1  4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0  4.9 4.9 6.0 5.0  925 950 975 1000  4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5  4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5  5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2  5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2  - 25 -  Table 3. U.B.C. RATIOW NO, 50 Constituent  Pounds Per Ton  Ground oats Ground barley Molasses Alfalfa Meal Bone Meal O i l Cake Meal Bran  800 500 .100 .100 , 20 ,380 .100  1  2000  The proximate composition of the alfalfa hay and conoentrate pellets is given i n Table 4..  Table 4. Constituent Dry Matter Protein (Nx6.25) Ether extract Crude fibre Ash Nitrogen Free Extract Carotene (Micrograms/gm)  Hay 87.0$ 14.9 1.6 ' 30.4 7.5 32.6 15  Concentrate 89.2$ 16.1 4.4 9.7 5.1 53.9  -  - 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 according 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 i n the appendix presents a summary of the recalculation of the performance test on the nine bulls used at the Experimental Farm at Kamloops. This recalculation (of Table 1 i n the thesis) was necessary i n order to compare rate and efficiency of gain of the bulls over an equal weight period. Table 2, 3, and 4 i n 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 i n 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 i n 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 i n the low-gaining group but has a higher rate of gain than any i n the medium group, and a higher efficiency than two i n the mediumgaining group.  Further, Bull no. 207 i n the high group i s somewhat less  efficient than b u l l no. 202 i n the medium group and than b u l l 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 i s that the method  used i n allocating the nine bulls to high, medium, and lew gaining groups i e 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 f i n a l weight and dividing this by the number of days (147)  o n  test.  Efficiency of gain was calculated by dividing  the t o t a l feed consumed during the test by the t o t a l gain.  There «as  a considerable variation i n i n i t i a l and f i 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 i n method  \-JSLS  made i n the original  29 -  rating and allocation of the nine bulls.  This has required a r e .  calculation of rate and efficiency for the nine bulls using the correot basis of comparison. In appendix Table 1, the author has recalculated the a v a i l able information on the nine bulls, using the 600 - 800 pound period as a basis of comparison. a l l nine bulls.  This was the only weight period common to  The aotual i n i t i a l weight of b u l l no. 205 was  651  pounds so the 600 pound weight had to be estimated by extrapolation* Similarly, the actual f i n a l 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 extending 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 i n 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 i n rate and efficiency of gain between progeny groups, providing these t r a i t 6 are highly heritable.  This expected  similarity i n offspring actually occurred as shown by.the progeny group comparisons (Table 5^ 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 s t a t i s t i c a l significance be demonstrated for average daily rate of gain between the groups. The fact that s t a t i s t i c a l significance can be demonstrated for the 400 - 800 l b . 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 i n average rate of gain between males and females.  This i s  Table 5  Mean Daily Gain of a l l Animals i n each Bull-Group  B u l l No.  400-800 l b s . Ave. d a i l y gain  Rank  400-600 l b s . Ave. d a i l y gain  Rank  600-800 l b s . Ave. d a i l y 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 f a s t e r rate than females* 1952;  (Kooh and Clark, 1956; Burris e t a l ,  Dawson et a l , 1947; Gregory e t a l , 1950; Knapp et a l , 1942 ). b  There appears to be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n rate of gain within sex and within group.  Table 6  Mean Daily Gain o f Animals i n eaoh Bull-Group by Sex B u l l No.  400-800 l b s . Ave. d a i l y gain  400.600 l b s . Ave. daily gain  600.800 l b s . Ave. d a i l y 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. Interactions Between groups Between sex Sex x group Error  600 - 800 pound period .S.S. 0.2024 1.4203 0.0775 2.5348  D.F. 8 1 8 66.  S.S. . D.F. 0.158374 - 8 0.308124 1 0.091649 8 1.870200 66 1  &  .  1  --  M.S.. 0.019797 0.308124 0,011456 0.028336  5  Calculated F 0.698652 10.873941 0.404291  ~  t  Tabled F @ p= 0.05 @ pa 0.01 2.08 2.79 3.99 7.04 2.79 2.08 mm  *»-  400 . 800 pound period  0,  Interaction: Between groups Between sex Sex x group Error  . — —  Tabled F @ ps 0.05 @ ps 0.01 2.08 2,79 3.99 7.04 2.08 2.79  400 *> 600 pound period  b. Interaction: Between groups Between sex Sex x group Error  Calculated F 0.6587 36.9773 0.25228  . M.S. 0.02530 1.42030 0.00969 0.03841  S.S. 0.2748 0.7452 0.0439 1.0642  D.F. 8 1 8 66  M.S. 0,03435 0.74520 0.005488 0.01612  Caloulated F 2.1309 A 46.2159 0.34045  Tabled F @ p= 0.05 @ p= 0.012.06 2,79 3.99 7.04 2.08 2.79 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 i s 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 i n this project, i t was found that there was a very "low" correlation, r = 0.27 which might imply that maternal environment, such as suckling 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 "low * (r : 0»36). 1  The correlation between daily gain during  the pre-weaning and po6t-weaning periods, was "low" (r s 0.41).  This  is i n 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 i s largely masked by maternal environment, but i s 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 f i r s t 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between rate and e f f i c i e n c y of gain and the amount of lean and f a t i n the carcass, a t r a c i n g of the r i b section between the 11th and 12th r i b was taken on a l l the carcasses by the Livestock Marketing Service personnel i n Vancouver.  From these traoings, with the use of a planimeter, the  percentage lean and f a t (exolusive of bone) i n the r i b seotions determined.  This information has been reoorded  was  i n appendix Table  5.  The c o r r e l a t i o n between d a i l y gain during the post-weaning period and the percentage lean i n the r i b c u t was  (r - 0.35),  evaluation i s an important part of performance t e s t i n g . carcasses, exactly h a l f graded A.  Caroass  Of the  To e s t a b l i s h i f there was  84  any  relationship between a rate of gain and grading, a " c h i - square" t e s t was  applied. 2 X  test for,rate of gain and carcass grade ( 2 x 3 contingency table)  A  it Note*  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  There was one grade D^s C grades.  t h i s grade has been inoluded i n the  X  2  s 0.409  D.F,  X  2  f o r 2 d.f. @ p s 0.05  =  Z (3-l)(2-l) = 2 5.99  The r e s u l t Indicates that the n u l l hypothesis i s true, or i n other words, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of carcass grades i s Independent of the d a i l y rate of gain.  - 36 Correlation between fate and efficiency of gain* Undoubtedly the most important correlation i n 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 B i g n i f i o a n t . 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 important 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 i s 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 i n the literature review.  These investigators indicate that a considerable  » 37 portion of variations i n rate and efficiency ofs,gain i s under genetic influence.  Because of this inheritance, selection for these traits i s  of major importance.  <  If the present beef cattle -population i s 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 i n livestock breeding. Differences among animals iii the .ability to use feed efficiently are d i f f i c u l t to measure accurately under practical farming 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 consumption of animals on test) is j u s t i f i e d . Suoh a program oould be briefly outlined as followsB a) cation.  A l l cattle have to be permanently .marked for i d e n t i f i -  Ear-tags or neck chains with numbers can be used but i t i s  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 a b i l i t y of the dam; a factor important i n 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 i n dicative of the inherited a b i l i t y to grow. The daily gain during this period i s 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 i n daily rate of gain during this period are largely due to inherited differences i n gaining a b i l i t y * 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 i s 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 subsequent 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 i n f e r i o r o f f s p r i n g from a herd. This kind of performance t e s t i n g has been started i n the United States and even after a few years, the r e s u l t s are showing •very markedly and many commercial breeders who  buy b u l l s from pure-  bred breeders, pay a considerable premium f o r b u l l s on which i n formation on rate of gain i s a v a i l a b l e . Undoubtedly, i n the near future, pedigree, type and conformation alone w i l l not be s u f f i c i e n t as bases of evaluating beef cattle.  Information on production w i l l be added. In the future i t would be possible to e s t a b l i s h the same  p r i n c i p l e of comparison i n evaluating production i n beef c a t t l e , as has been established i n the Hoistein and Ayrshire breeds, where the production of the i n d i v i d u a l i s compared with the National Breed Class Average.  Suoh a program would be of great value i n producing more  r a p i d l y gaining and more e f f i c i e n t animals i n our beef breeds.  Recommendations to 1)  breeders;  To the breeder, purebred or commercial, i t i s recommended  that he give rate of gain f i r s t consideration, being c a r e f u l i n obtaining and evaluating records. 2)  A simple home test i s a l l that i s necessary to obtain  valuable information on rate of gain. Equipment required a)  record book  b)  soales  c)  device to mark c a t t l e f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (ear tattoo and/or tags)  . 40 Records to be kept  '  • •'  a) date of b i r t h b) weaning weight o) i n i t i a l weight on t e s t d) f i n a l weight on t e s t and average d a i l y gain during t e s t * 3)  Animals enter test a t an equal body weight i n order to  be able to compare rate of gain during the t e s t period on a sound b a s i s * 4)  While on t e s t , a l l animals are f u l l fed*  5)  Male as w e l l as female o f f s p r i n g should be tested f o r  approximately 5 months* 6) Weaning weight, keeping age i n mind, i s valuable i n dicator of the milking a b i l i t y of the dam and therefore, should be used as part o f the basis f o r c u l l i n g 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 i n a high, medium and low gaining group on an unsound basis, t h i 6 information i n 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) (r = 0.36).  Birth weight and daily gain during post-weaning period  - 42 •  o)  Dally gain during pre-weaning and post-weaning periods  (r = 0.41).  d)  Daily gain during post-weaning period and percentage  lean i n ribout ( r z 0 . 3 5 ) . 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 400 - 600 pounds, r e 600 . 800 pounds, r •  -0.98 -0.97 -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  Bull No.  Age at 600 lbs.  ¥feight  Age at 800 lbs.  Weight  T E S T  Total Days 600-800 Gain lbs.  BULLS  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb,of Gain Hay:  Cone:  Lbs .T.D.N. . Per 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 BULL  Calf No.  Sex Wt. at B.A  Wt. at W.A  Age at W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.&  No.  Age at S.  20 0  Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs* T.D.N. from Daily Grade Per 400.800 Gain Hay: Cone: 100 lb .Gain lbs. 400-800 .  -  108  -  114  m  73  400  166  1.97  808  376  210  1.94  B  2.66  4.33  436.1  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  171.1  1.96  2.95  4.73  478.7  —  .  —  —  -  i on i.c,o  Average:  73.7  A S B - Birth W --Weaning S - Slaughter  398.2 227.1  1.80  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L  Calf No.  Sex  Wt. at B.&  Wt. at W.A  Age at W. _  No.  199  .avg. Daily Gain B-W  Tift. at S.n  Age at S.  Days from 400-800 lbs.  Care. Avg. Daily Grade Gain 400-800  Feed/lb.Gain , Lbs. T.D.N. Per Hay i Cono: 100 Lb.Gain  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  F  76  412  191  1.76  800  485  294  1.32  A  3.96-  6.33  641.2  172  M  68  400  181  1.83  812  419  238  1.73  B  3.09  4. 94  499.9  112  M  70  410  183  1.86  800  400  217  1.81  A  2.84  4.61  464.4  181.9  1.83  421.4  239.6  1.68  3.14  5.06  510.9  187 188  Average:  72.6  & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) B U L L  Calf No.  Sex  No.  207  Avg. Care; Daily Grade Gain 400-800  Wt. at B.A  Wt. at W.£  Age at W  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.A  Age at S.  Days from 400-800 lbs.  78  406  154  2.13  800  357  203  1.94  Feed/lb.Gain  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lb .Gain  Hay:  Cono:  A  2.76  4.41  447.0  106  M  121  M  68  400  175  1.90  802  399  224  1.79  • A  2.78  4.64  463.9  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  186.3  1.81  415.9  229.6  1.74  3.02  4.90  494.0  ;  J.ol  Average:  72.4  4 I B . Birth W Weaning S - Slaughter  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) BULL  Calf Ho.  Sex  101  M  115  Wt. at ' B.ii  No.  205  lit* . at ' W.it  Age at W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.&  Age at S.  Days Avg. Care. from Daily Grade 400-800 Gain 400-800 lbs.  88  402  205  1.53  822  457  252  1.67  U  82  414  183  1.81  800  400  217  139  m  64  406  212  1.61  804  443  149  u  67  400  198  1.68  818  159  m  63  414  177  1.98  170  F  65  406  187  179  13  78  402  191  F  58  162  F  190  F  Feed/lb.Gain  Lbs. T.D.E. Per 100 lb.Gain  Hay:  Cones  B  3.17  5.05  512.3  1.78  C  2.97  4.80  484.7  231  1.72  B  3.09  4.98  502.9  443  245  1.71  B  3.01  4.96  497.94  802  394  217  1.79  B  2.96  4.77  482.5  1.82  806  418  231  1.73  B  3.00  4.83  488.3  170  1.91  824  401  231  1.83  B  2.87  4.66  469.7  400  208  1.64  800  460  252  1.59  A  3.29  5.37  540.5  62  402  217  1.57  816  490  273  1.52  B  3.49  5.61  567.3  65  410  181  1.91  804  454  273  1.44  B  3.60  5.89  592.7  193.8  1.75  436  242.2  1.68  3.15  5.09  513.9  1 97  Xc. 1  Averagei  69.2  & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) BULL  Calf No.  Sex  Wt, at B.A  107  F  66  404  111  U  61  400  19  No.  203  Days Avg. Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.I-3. from Daily Grade Per Hay: 400-800 Gain Cone: 100 lb.Gain 400-800 lbs.  Avg. Daiiy Gain B-W  Wt. at S.A  Age at S.  203  1.67  810  455  252  1.61  B  3.29  5.28  534.3 .  155  . 2.19  800 . 393  238  1.68  B  3,05  5.03  504.4  Age Wt. at at ' W.A- ' • W.  A  -a*  142  II  74 '  412  172  1.97  800  375  203  1.91  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  F  63  410  194  1.79  820  439  245  1.67  A  3.15  5.10  514.1  F  71  410  181  1.87.  804  426  245  1.61  A  3.24  5.25  529.4  184.2  1.87  3.12  5.06  509.9  1 A.K i.'xO  105  Average:  68.6  n = D - Birth El - Weaning S - Slaughter  424.5 240.3  1.68  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.) BULL  Calf No.  Sex  100  No.  20 2  at B.A  Wt. at W.A  Age at W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.E  Age at S.  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  m  82  402  158  2.03  808  368  210  1.93  A  2.68  4.38  440.8  F  63  402  258  1.31  806  531  273  1.48  B  3.43  5.58  562.4  .202  1.67  449.3  247.3  1.63  3.22  5.18  523.6  wt.  Care. Feed/lb.Gain Days Avg. from Daily Grade Gain Hay: Cone: 400-800 400-800 lbs.  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lb.Gain  i fii 101  180  Averages  73.0  A s B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  Appendix Table 2 (Cont.)  BULL  No.  20 4  Car ei- .Feed A b .Gain Avg. Days from Daily Grade 400-800 Gain Hay: Cone: lbs. 400.-800  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lb .Gain  Calf No.  Sex  Wt. at B.&  Wt. • at W.it  Age at W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  ?Jt. at S.&  Age at S.  110  F  69  402  197  1.69-  804  463  266  1.51  A  3.41  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  —  ---  5.25  531.1  140 Average:  - •  —  4 5 B ~ Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  558.6  -  —  70.5  5.54  -  199.1  —  —  1.71  453.8 254,6  1.59  —  3.27  Appendix  BULL  Calf No.  Sex wt. at  gable 2 (Cont.) N o .  B.A  at W.A  Age at  W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.A  Age at S.  •  Wt.  206  Avg. Days Care. Feed/lb.Gain Lbs. T.D.N. from Daily Grade Per Hay: Conc: 100 lb.Gain 400-800 Gain 400-800 lbs.  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  mm  LOC  141  M  76  400  187  1.73  810  446  259  1.58  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  F  57  403  215  1.63  802  481  266  1.48  B  3.52  5.75  578.4  179.3  1.87  429.8  250.4  1.63  3.28-  5.29  534.6  LCO  152  Average:  70.8  A s B"- Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  Appendix Table 2 (Cont,) BULL  Calf Hb.  Sex  No.  B.±  Wt. at WJt  Age at W.  Avg. Daily Gain B-W  Wt. at S.ft  Age at S.  Wt. at  201  Avg. Days Care. from Daily Grade 400-800 Gain 400-800 lbs.  Hay:  Cone:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lb.Gain  Feed/Lb .Gain  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  188.6  1.82  3.34  5.37  542.8  Average:  68.1  & = B - Birth W - Weaning S - Slaughter  446.4 257.7  1.58  Appendix liable 3 B U L L  Calf No.'  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  108  -  114  M  166  135  M  150  Age at 600 lbs.  Days 400-600 lbs.  No.  Total Gain  200  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. .of Gain Hay:  Cono:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  —  —  285  119  194  1.63  2.66  4.83  470.89  146  251  105  194  1.85  2.33  4.24  412.89  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  171  285  114  1.74  2.52  4.55  444.38  128  Average  Appendix Table 3  B U L L  Calf No- .  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  Age a t 600 lbs.  NO.  (Cont.)  199  Days 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  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  M  176  288  112  194  1.73  2.45  4.54  440.33  164  m  184  310  126  202  1.60  2.73  4.94  482.42  175  F  191  331  140  188  1.34  3.09  5.64  549.64  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  182  302.4  120.6  1.64  2.66  4.83  470.86  187 188  Average:  • "  ,  Appendix Table g (Cont.) BULL  Calf No,  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  Age at 600 lbs.  Days 400-600 lbs.  No.  Total Gain  207  Gain For Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Huy:  Conci  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  : 154  245  91  198  2.18  2.05  3.67  359.23  175  301  126  200  1.59  2.60  4.90  473.08  ---  —  221  361  140  204  1.46  2.98  5.45  530.39  184  310  126  184  1.46  2.96  5.47  530.57  170  282  112  174  1.55  2.84  5.06  496.73  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  1.79  2.46  4.50  438.08  106  M .  121  M  131  -  137  F .  153  F  156  H  166  Average:  ,  Appendix Table S (Cont.) B U L L  Calf Eb.  Sex  Age at 400 lbs,.  Age at 600 lbs-  Ho..  Days 400-600 lbs..  Total Gain  205  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb,. of Gain Hay:  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  1.62  2.72  4.97  483.23  Average:  Appendix fable 3 (Cont.) BULL  Calf No.  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  Age at 600 lbs.  No.  Days 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  203  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  Cone:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 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  184  305.6  121  1.63  2.66  4.88  474.35  Average:  Appendix Table 8 (Cont.) BULL  Calf No.  Sex  100  II  171  113  F  122  Ho.  202  Days 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  297  126  208  193  319  126  F  240  373  136  U  187  147  F  158  Age at 400 lbs.  Age at 600 lb 8 .  Feed/lb. of Gain  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  Hay:  Cones  1.65  2.57  4.60  450.52  200  1.59  2.75  4.99  486.91  133  204  1.53  2.85  5.14  502.14  285  98  202  2.06  2.01  3.61  353.27  190  309  119  202  1.70  2.50  4.52  441.38  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  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  202  323.3  121.3  1.67  2.58  4.70  457.76  161 180 Average  I  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.)  BULL  Calf No.  Sex  110  F.  118  F  130  M .  143 148 165  No.  204  Age at 400 lbs.  Age at 600 lbs.  Days 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  197  337  140  200  .218  358  140  251  377  M  154  SS.  175  Feed/lb. Gain  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  Hay:  Cone:  1.43  2.99  5.45  531.13  194  1.39  3.07  5.60  545.59  126  196  1,56  2.72  5.03  487,80  266  112  194  1.73  2,50  4.60  447.15  315  140  194  1.39  3.15  5.75  559.66  a*  •  176  mm —  ma  w  CO  •  — mm mm  178  M ,  195  307  112  194  1.73  2.46  4.58  443.34  189  M .'  229  355  126  186  1.48  2.97  5.20  512.39  197  M.  174  321  147  202  1.37  2.97  5.27  sir.22  199  329.5  130.4  — —  1.51  2.85  5.19  505.54  140 Average:  ' cn  Appendix Table 3 (Cont.) BULL  Coif No.  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  Age at 600 lbs.  No.  Days 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  206  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  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  194  1.63  2.73  4.90  479.60  132  -  119  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  157  M  171  283  112  200  1.79  2.43  4.44  171  M  181  293  112  180  1.61  2.77  5,01  489.29  170  275  105  186  1.77  2.52  4.55  444.77  167  300  133  210  1.58  2.71  4.98  484.04  3.47  6.23  609.41  2,84  5.14  502 .07  177 194  F  125  -  152  F,  Average  •  --215  369 ,  154  179.3  305.3  126  200 1.57  432.23  —  1  e> o j  Appendix Table 5 (Cont,) BULL  Calf Sot  Sex  Age at 400 lbs.  103  M  158  117  F  123  20 1  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain  Lbs. T.D.M. Per 100 lbs.Gain  Bays 400-600 lbs.  Total Gain  277  119  198  1.66  2.47  4.64  447.90  168  308  140  196  1.40  3.15  5.60  548.55  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  188.6  322.3  133.6  1.49  2.96  5.34  521.59  Average:  Age at 600 lbs.  Ho,  Hay:  Cone:  Appendix Table 4 BULL  Calf No.  Sex . Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  No.  200  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Bay  Feed/lb . of Gain Hay;  Cone:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lbs .Gain  108 114  M  285  376  91  214  2.35  2.66  3.88  404.50  135  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  285  398  114  - 3.37.  4.91  511.97  128  AVERAGE:  1.88  -  Appendix fable 4 (Cont*) BULL  Calf No.  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  Ho.  199  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  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  F  331  485  154  200  1.30  4.78  6.97  727.18  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  302  421  1.74  3.60  5.28.  549.70  187 188  AVERAGE s  .  119  Appendix Table 4 (Confc.) B U L L  Calf No.  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  No.  207  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  .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  m  301  399  98  202  2.06  2.97  4.38  454.77  137  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  297  416  119  1.73  3.57  5.29  548.34  131  AVERAGE I  ,  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BULL  Calf , No. -  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  No,  2 05  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hays  Cone:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 Lbs.Gain  101  a  331  457  126  220  1.75  3.59  5.16  540.56  115  '. M  295  400  105  200  1.90  3.27  4.78  498.22  139  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  316.3  436.0  119.7  1,75  3.56  5,23  543.79  127  AVERAGE:  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BULL  No.  203  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  455  133  210  288  393  105  M  270  375  151  F  310  160  m  275  Calf No,  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  107  F  322  111  M  142  Age at 800 lbs.  Feed/lb. of Gain  Lbs. T.D.N. per 100 lbs.Gain  Hay:  Cone:  1.58  3.93  5.76  599.91  200  1.90  3.22  4.76  494.28  105  200  1.90  3.17  4.73  489.95  450  140  200  1.43  4.21  6.20  644.54  394  119  218  1.83  3.35  4.94  513.65  124  r  f •  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  F  313  439  126  226  1.79  3.43  5.07  525.92  145 105 AVERAGE •  •an***  F  307  426  119  204  1,71  3.58  5.25  546.75  305.6  424.6  119.0  ——  1.73  3.56  5.24  545.05  o 1  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BULL  Calf Kb.  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  No.  2 02  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Hay:  Cone:  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  Feed/lb, of 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  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  M  270  368  98  212  2.16  2.83  4.18  433.73  195  F  384  531  147  206  1.40  4.34  6.38  663.32 -  323.3  449.3  126.0  1.61  3.88  5,68.  591.09  AVERAGE:  F  * i  161 180  ,  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BOLL  Calf Eb. •  Sex  i l g O tit  600 lbs.  Age et 800 lbs.  Ho.  204  Day 8 600-800 Lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Bay  Feed/lb, of Gain Hays  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  11  315  448  133  220  1.65  3.67  5.28  S52.96  135 176  _  —  —  ___  ...  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  321 .  440  119  202  1.70  3.68  5.34  557.96  329.5  453.8  124.3  1.68  3.66  5.32  555.43  —  -  .  140 Av^esj  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BULL  Sex  Calf No.  104 120  Age at 600  . ''  132  Age at 800  Days 600-800'  lbs.  No.  2 0 6  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  lbs.  lbs.  P  322  497 •  175  210  M-  293  405  112  202  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  Cone:  1.20  5.02  7.35  765.21  1.80  3.40  5.01  521.22  —  "-  Lbs. T.D.N. Per 100 lbs.Gain  —-  •  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  M  275  373  98  226  2.31  2.67  3.94  409.06  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  305  387  124  1.71  3.71  5.45  566.88  177  ' "  194  *  125 152  Average:  Appendix Table 4 (Cont.) BULL  Calf IJo.  Sex  Age at 600 lbs.  Age at 800 lbs.  NO.  201  Days 600-800 lbs.  Total Gain  Gain Per Day  Feed/lb. of Gain Hay:  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  322.3  446.4  124.1  1.68  3.71  5.39  562.65  AVERAGE:  Appendix Table 5 BULL No ,200 BEEP CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.s Sex:  108 M  114 M  128  . u  135  150 M  163 F  169 M  186 M c  192 F  138 M.  168 F  A  B  A  Carcass Grade  B  c  B  A  A  Warn Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt. of Hind Quarters  422 405 206  400 383 195  408 401 202  425 418 211  423 415 205  424 420 201  423 419 209  460 454 223  408 401 196  Hind Leg Length, "• " Length of side, ».».«•  23.2 23.4 43.1 43.0 . -  22 .5 23.1 43 43  22.9 22.9 44.5 44.9 .  24.3 24.3 44.7 45.0  23.2 23.1 43.3 43.7  23.0 23 .0 43.6 43.4  22.9 23.1 43.3 43.0  22.7 22.7 43.9 44.1  23.4 23.1 44.0 . 43.5  l  3 2.5  2.5 nil  2.5 2.0  4 3  3.5 3.0  3.6 3.5  2.5 . 3.5  3.5 3.5  3.5 5.0  • *  3.0 4  3 3  2.0 2.5  4 4  4.0 3.0  3.5 4  3.5 3.5  4.5 4.0  5.0 . 3.5  Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  65.13% (26.43) -  79.90$ 62.09$ 61.23$ 65.15$ 70.50$ 56.41$ 71.98$ 71.41$ (29.34) (21.88) (24.14) (27.18) (26.96) (25.00) (28.23) (27.52)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  34.87$ (14.15) -  20.10$. 37.91$ 38.77$ 34.85$- 29.50$ 43.59$. 28.02$ 28.59$ (7.38) (13.36) (15.28) (14.54) (11.28) (19.32) (10.99) (11.02)  r. 1. r. . l . .  Fat Distribution Marbling Colour & Texture of Meat Colour of Fat  - . . —  -  Right Rib Section:  Appendix Table S (Cont.) BULL  CALF NO.  No.  200  REMARKS  108  -  114  None  128  -  135  Fat f a i r l y 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  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.  Jo  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL Ho.199 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS  Calf Ho.j Sex»  102  119  . M  U  Carcase Grade  A  c  Warm Carcass lift. Cold Carcass wt. FJt.of Hind Quarters  437 430 212  416 409 204  428 423 210  434 430 222  Hind Leg Length, r .  23.1 23.2 42.8 42.8  24.1 24.6 43.2 43.5  23.1 23.3 44.3 43.8  4.5 3.5  2 2  5 4  3 2  Length of side, r . .." " 1. Fat d i s t r i b u t i o n Marbling Colour & Texture of Efeet Colour of Fat  126 F  134  146  164  F  M  M  175  187  F  M  A  A  -  402 386 196  442 438 218  410 404 203  -  22.5 22.8 43.5 43.4  22.4 23.0 43.0 42.7  23.4 23 .4 43.4 43.7  23.2 23.1 43.5 43.7  3.0 3.5  .4.5 4.0  2.5 2.0  3 3  3.8 4.5  4.0 3.5  .5.0 4.3  .3.5 3.5  3.5 3  5.0 . 3.5  • A  A  . B  188  172  -  M  , -  -  -  — —  -  —  -  -  a*  _  112 • M  B  A  417 412 209  422 418 205  23.2 23.5 43.4 43.4  22.8 23.1 42.7 43.0  3 2  4 2  2 '3  3 3  Right Rib Section; Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  70.88$ 77.31$ 62.07$ 58.12$ 66.37$ 68.07$ 69.70$ (29.94) (31.48) (27.36) (25.41) (24.00) (29.68) (27.38) -  Area of Fat ( i n square inches)  29.12$ 22.69$ (12.30) (9.24)  37.93$ 41.88$ 33.63$ 31.93$ 30.30$ (16.72) (18.31) (12.16) (13.92) (11.90) -  -  68.59$ 73.94$ (29.63) (29.34) 31.41$ 26.06$ (13.57) (10.34)  Appendix Table S (Cont.) BULL  CALF NO.  No.  199  REMARKS  102  None  119  A light covers barish over loin, hip and ribs? only fat i n regular pattern.  126  Hips f u l l ; a l i t t l e weak i n loin.  134  ii very good carcass; a well r i l l e d 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 i n steak-piece.  187  -  188  -  172  Texture of meat was course and meat had a darkish colour.  112  Excellent conformation; lack of f i n i s h .  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL No .207 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS 137 F  153 F  156 M  166 M  183 M  196 F  155 M  129 M  A  C  B  A _  B  A'  B  A  B  441 437 204-  430 424 206  416 411 205  424 418 206  430 425 212  445 438 217  428 422 207  427 422 206  432 425 214  430 422 205  23.1 23.0 42.3 42.5  23.1 23.2 42.6 42.5  23.0 23.1 45.1 45.5  23.1 23.9 43.4 43.2  23 23 43.5 43.5  24.0 23.9 43.6 43.6  22.8 22.8 42.8 42.7  23.9 24 43.5 43.5  23 .0 23.8 42.3 42.4  23.2 23.5 44.5 44.2  5• 3-  4 5  4, 2  3,5 3.5  4 4  3 1  4' 4;5  2.5 2.5  4. 4-.  3 3  4 5  4 4  3 4  4.0 4.0  5 5  3.5 3.5  5' 4  3 3  44  3 2.5  Calf No.: Sex:  106 Li  121 M  Carcass Grade  A•  Warm Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt. of Hind Quarters Hind Leg Length, r . * « n . Length of side, r.' 1 ;  „  „  „  1 #  Fat distribution Marbling Colour & Texture of Meat Colour of Fat J  131  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  60.69$ 59.31$ (25.20) (24.79) -  73.76$' < 65.51$ 69.42$ 74.68$ 68.31$ 68.44$ 59.23$ 64.13$ (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)  •  cn I  Appendix Table 5 (Cont,) BULL  CALF NO.  No-,  207  REMARKS  106  None  121  None  131  -  137  None  153  None  156  None  166  Good fleshing and conformation; lacking f i n i s h .  183  None  196  Very hollow loin  155  Good colour  129  Conformation good; a weak f i n i s h .  -4  e>  Appendix Table 6 (Cont.) BULL Ho .205 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: Sex: .  101 H  115 Li  127 F  139 M  149  Carcass Grade  B  C  -  B  Warm Carcass I t . Cold Carcass Wt.. Wt.of Hind Quarters  413 408 205  428 419 211  -  Hind Leg Length, r. tl . !» I» 1. Length of side, r. tt « « 1.  23.2 . 23.7 43.5 43.0  23 23 43.7 42.9  Fat Distribution Marbling Colour & Texture of Meat Colour of Fat  3 1.5  at  _  -  2 2  159 M  170 F  179 H  191 F  182 F  190 F  B  B  B  B  A  B  B  419 415 208  439 422 217  434 428 218  418 412 216  404 398 197  412 407 210  432 428 221  433 428 220  23 22.8 42.3 42.9  22.7 22.7 43.2 43.2  23.1 23.5 43.2 43.2  23.1 23.0 43.9 43.3  23.3 23.4 42.7 42.6  23.0 23.4 42.7 43.0  23.0 23.1 43.0 42.9  23.4 23.6 42.4 42.2  U  2.5 2.5  3 3  3 3  3.0 4.5  3.5 2.5  4 4  2.5 4.0  3 4  3 3  3 3  2 4  4.3 3.0  4 3  4 4  3.5 , 4  4 3.5  —  3 2.5  3 3  -  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle 66.60$ 75.26$ (in square inches) . (27.12) (30.36) -  62.39$ 69.59$ 65.6$ 66.40$ 60.86$ 58.42$ 54.01$ 46.06$ (28.40) (29.72) (26.28) (26.72) (23.88) ,(27>;88) (28.28) (22.92)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  37.61$ 30.41$ 34.4$ 33.60$ 39.14$ 41.58$ 45.99$ 53.94$ (17.12) (12.99) (13.77) (19.52) (15.36) (19.84) (24.08) (26.84).  33.40$ 24.74$ (13.60) (9.98) -  i  t  -o -a l  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL  N o  J e  2 05  REMARKS  CALF HO. 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 f i n i s h .  149  A top a carcass. ,  159  Rib-cut quite dark; very f u l l rounds.  170  Plain shoulders and slightly down in loin; good buttocks.  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 f a t over t a i l head, hooks and shoulders; loin and hip conformation poor.  Appendix fable 5 (Cont.) BULL No . 2 0 3 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: Sex:  107  111  124  142  151  160  173  181  193  F  m  F  M  F  M  m  M  F  Carcass Grade  B  B  Warm C areas s Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt.of Hind Quarts rs  450 442 221  402 395 194  Hind Leg Length, r .  23.4 23.6 43.4 43  23.4 23.7 42.6 42.8  2.5 4 4 3.5  n  it  n  Length of side, n  it  II  1.  r. 1.  Fat distribution Marbling Colour and Texture of Meat Colour of Fat  C  A  C  Dl  B  A  396 392 198  434 427 211  400 394 196  386 380 192  429 420 208  440 436 216  -  23.4 23.6 42.7 42.7  23.3 23.1 42.3 42,2  24.1 24.3 45.0 45.1  23.8 23.6 44.2 44.1  24.2 24.7 44.2 44.0  22.7 23.1 43.1 43.1  3.0 1.5  -  3.0 1.5  4 4  2.0 2.0  4 0  3 3  4 4  2 3  •  ...  2.5 2.5  3 3.5  4.0 2.5  2 2  3.5 3  4 4  mm .  —  mm  145  -  105  F  mm  A  -  412 405 203  -  22.3 22.2 41.9 41.5  -  3 3  —  -  —  3 3  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  58.04$ 62.21$ (25.40) (24.56)  -  75.43$ 50.00$ 72.05$ 77.18$ (26.55) (25.44) (23.66) (26.92)  62.61$ 56.80$ (25.32) (25.88) -  57.41$ (22.04)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  41.96$ (18.36)  -  24.57$ (8.65)  37.39$ 43.20$ (15.12) ( 1 9 . 6 8 ) -  42.59$ (16.35)  37.79$ (14.92)  50.00$ (25.44)  27.95$ (9.18)  22.82$ (7.96)  1 -J CO  1  Appendix gable 5 (Cont.) BULL  CALF NO.  No.  2 03  REMARKS  107  Bare on both, ends; fair cover over loin and rib; a typical heifer loin and hip.  Ill  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  181  None  193  A good heifer; slightly weak loins, but strong enough to make the grade.  145  -  105  None  9  Appendix Tablo 5 (Cont.) BULL No.202 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: Sex:  100 M  113 F  122 F  136 M  147. F  158 F  174 F  184 M  195 F  Carcass Grade  B  A  A  B  B  B  B  A  A  B  Warm Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt. of Hind Quarters  418 412 201  419 413 212  420 414 206  428 420 212  418 414 204  428 419 217  421 419 213  430. 422 210  408 404 201  438 430 217  23il 23.2 42 .7 42.5  23.5 23.7 42.8 42.9  22.4 23.3 23.1 22.5 43.4 - 43.9 43.2 43.9  23.3 23.4 42 42.4  23.4 23.1 43.0 42.6  24.1 24.1 43.3 43.2  23.0 22.7 41.8 41.5  22.4 22.3 43.2 * 43U  3.5 4  3.5 3.8  2.5 2.5  3 3  3 4  2.5 3  3 3  3 3  3.5 4.7  4 3.5  3.9 , 3.5  3.0 2.5  4 4  4 4  3 3  4 3  3 3  Hind Leg Length, " " " Length of side, " " "  r. 25.1 23.4 1. r . . 43.5 43.7 1>  Fat distribution Marbling Colour & Texture of Meat Colour of Fat  3.0 4.0  161 M  180 F  » -  4.0 3.5  -  5.0 4.2  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  63*82$ 55.31$ 53.71$ 64.26$ 69.06$ 52.30$ 53.72$ 66.88$ 55.68$ (25.61) (26.44) (25.23) (27.18) (29.28) (22.76) (25.26) (25.56) (26.82) -  57.08$ (24.51)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  36.18$ 44.69$ 46.29$ 35.74$ 30.94$ 47.70$ 46.28$ 32.12$ 44.32$ (14.52)(21.36) (21.74) (15.12) (13.12) (20.76) (21.76) (12.66) (21.35) -  42.92$' (18.43)  l  00  t-»  1  Appendix Table 5 (Cont«) BULL  CALF HO.  Wo.  202  REMARKS  100  Good formation; lacks a l i t t l e over loin; bare over shoulder, particularly bare over point of shoulder  113  Formation only fair; good cover.  122  Poor rounds and loin; a low A carcass  136  A good f u l l steer, but lacking finish  147  none  158  Fat cover good; a l i t t l e excessive fat on ribs; conformation of loin and hip weak  174  Typical B heifer; weak conformation of hind quarters; f a i r l y well covered.  184  Hone  195  Shipped before reached market weight; information not used.  161 180  Good plump carcass; lacking fleshing, noticably i n loin  BULL No .204 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No.: Sex:  110  Caroass Grade  A  A  A  A  A  Warm Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt .of Hind Quarters  430 424 212  451 445 219  432 428 210  432 425 212  438 431 210  mm  Hind Leg Length.* f .  22 . 2 22 . 4 44.2 43.5  23.1 23.3 42.9 42.6  22.4 22.1 42.5 42.1  22.6 22.8 43.2 43.2  22.9 23.2 42.6 42.8  4.1 4.2  4.5 4.5  4 4  4 3  4 4  4.5 4.2  4.4 4.2  4 4  3 4  4 4  66.59$ (29.34)  n  F  n  u  Length of side, f . "  118  "  1.  Fat distribution Marbling Colour and Texture of Ha at Colour of Fat  143  130  F  148  M  M  •  165  M  176  F  -  178  189  197  140  M  M  M  F  B  B  A  mm  -  422 418 207  429 423 207  430 423 201  mm  -  23.2 23.3 44 43.8  23.1 23.1 42.5 42.7  22.6 23.1 42.0 42.1  -  -  3 2.5  3 3  3 3.5  2.5 3  4 3  4 3  -  -  -  -  _  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  62.90$ 51.99$ (29.20) (25.96)  52.41$ (24.40)  -  mm  66.06$ 65.65$ 68.54$ (27.72) (27.58) (28.35)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  37.10$ 48.01$ 37.45$ 33.41$ 47.59$ (17.23) (23.97) (16.24) (14.72) (22.16)  -  -  33.94$ 34.35$ 31.46$ (14.24) (14.43) (13.01)  62.55$ (27.12)  -  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL  CALF NO.  No,  204  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 f a i r 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 Sex:  104  Carcass Grade  A  A  Warm Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt.of Hind Quarters  450 445 230  433 428 209  Hind Leg Length, r . " " " 1. Length of side, r .  23 23.3 44.1 43.7  22.6 22.8 44 43.6  Fat distribution LSarbling Colour & Texture of Heat Colour of Fat  120 .  3.6 - 4.0  F  132 M  3 4  141 . B _  _  -  154 M  157 M  171  D  A  A  A  B  B  427 422 208  429 421 210  426 420 208  440 432 .5 218.5  433 425 210  423 448 211  23.2 23.1 43.0 43.5  23.4 23.4 42.6 43.3  23.1 23.1 43.5 43.7  23.2 23.9 43.7 43.8  23.5 23.6 44.2 44.1  a2.6  M  177 M  M  194 F  125 -  152 F  23.0 42.5 42.9  3 2  4 4  4.5 4.5  3 3  3 3.5  ' -  3 4  3 3  4 4.5  4.5 4.0  3 5  3 3.5  -  3 4  *  4.1 4.0  4 3  Right Rib Section: Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  66.49$ 66.81$ (31.77) (29.05)  69.75$ 59.89$ 62.05$ 69.97$ 59.78$ (30.05) (25.92) (26.77) (28.96) (27.76) -  41.34$ (22.04)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  33.51$ 33.19$ (16.01) (14.43) -  30.25$ 40.11$ 37.95$ 30.03$ 40.22$ (13.03) (17.36) (16.37) (12.43) (18.68) -  58.66$ (31.28)  l  CO  •  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL  CALF NO.  No.  206  REMARKS  104  Animal i s lacking some in the rounds.  120  None  132 141  Carcass information not received from graders.  154  None  157  Good carcass  05  at  171  None  177  Animal i s 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,  Appendix fable 5 (Cont.) BULL Mo .201 BEEF CARCASS MEASUREMENTS Calf No<t Sex:  103  117  123  133  144  162  167  185  198  116  109  M  F  F  M  F  F  M  F  a  M  F  Carcass Grade  A  Warm Carcass Wt. Cold Carcass Wt. Wt.of Hind Quarters  -  A  B  A  A  A  A  B  A  B  A  -  418 415 204  421 417 208  441 435 216  437 432 216  436 427 209  435 430 217  430 422 214  433 417 219  441 436 221  23.1 23.1 42.5 42.8  22.4 22.7 43.4 43.1  23.1 23.2 42.3 42.5  23.2 23.4 42.3 42.3  23.5 23.4 43.1 42.8  22.9 23.2 43.0 43.0  23.8 23.8 42.0 42.5  23.9 24.2 42.7 42.9  23.0 23.2 43.3 43.3  -  2.5 3.0  3.5 3.0  4.0 4.0  3.0 3.5  4 3  3 4  4 3  4 4  4.0 4.0  _  4.0 3.5  4.0 3.5  4.0 3.0  3 3  4 4  4 4  5 4  4.0 3.8  Hind Leg Length, r . .,  „  o  1  #  Length of side, r . " " 1. Fat distribution Marbling Colour & Texture of Meat Colour of Fat  —  —  _  2.5 3.0  Area of L.D. Muscle (in square inches)  -  -  62.92$ 56.83$ 53.06$ 54.67$ 55.17$ 53.36$ (24.54) (27.64) (25.316)(25.45) (26.04) $3.52)  65.13$ 69.13$ 59.27$ (28.37) (27.30) (29.03)  Area of Fat (in square inches)  -  -  37.08$ 43.17$ 46.94$ 45.33$ 44.83$ 46.64$ (14.46) (20.99) (22.40) (21.10) (21.16) (20.56)  34.87$ 30.87$ 40.73$ : (15.19) (12.19) (19.95)  Right Rib Section:  -  Appendix Table 5 (Cont.) BULL  No.  201  REMARKS  CALF NO. 103  Carcass information not received from graders.  117  Carcass information not received from graders.  123  A good heifer; slight weakness i n 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, J r . , and F.W. Sherwood. 1955. Control of the error variance in swine feeding t r i a l s . I By covariance adjustment for pre-experimental measures. Jour. Anim. S c i . 14 t 1174. (Abstract) Ashton, G.C., H.L. Lucas, Jr., and P.W. Sherwood. 1955. Control of the error varianoe in swine feeding t r i a l s . II By blocking and selection with respect to l i t t e r , sex and breeding. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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. S c i . 14 i 1175. (Abstract) Baird, D.M., A.V. Nalbandov, and H.1F. Norton. 1952. Some physiological causes of genetically different rates of growth in swine. Jour. Anim. S c i . 11 s 292. Baker, M.L., et a l . 1943. The relative importance of heredity and environment i n 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. S c i . 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, J r . 1936. A method of measuring performance i n 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 i n Kittitas County, Washington. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc,, Western Section, (4) I I , 1-8. Blunn, C.T., et a l . 1953. Heritability of gain i n different growth periods of swine. Jour, Anim, S c i . 12 : 1. • Bogart, R. and RiL. Blaetejell. 1950. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 488.  Ifore beef with less feed. Oregon  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. S c i . 14 s 1175-1176. (Abstract) • Botkin, M.P. and J.A. Whatley, J r . 1953. .Repeatability of production in range beef cows. Jour. Anim. S c i . 12 : 3. Botkin, M.P. 1955. Seleotion for efficiency, of gain in lambs. Anim. S c i . 14 : 1176. (Abstract)  Jour.  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. S c i , 13 s 4. Burris, M.J., and C T . Blunn. 1952. Some factors affecting gestation length and birth weight of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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 testosterone. 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. S c i . 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. S c i . 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. Agric. Ji'xpt. Sta. Bui. 310: 1.  Texas  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* S c i . 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 i n 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 i n milking Shorthorn Steers. Jour. Anim. S c i . 14 t 1. Dickerson, G.E. 1947. Composition of hog carcasses as influenced by heritable differences i n rate and economy of gain, Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res, Bui. 554 : 492. Doornenbal, H. and A.J. Wood. 1952-1953. Beef b u l l research project, 1952-53. Dept. Anim. Husb., Faculty of A g r i c , 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. S c i . 12»771-4,N» Fine* H.C. and L.M. Winters. 1953, Selection for an increase i n growth rate and market score i n two inbred lines of swine. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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 Production testing results with beef calves. Washington Agric. Exp. Stations Inst. Agric. Sciences, State College of Wash., Stations Circ. 264, A p r i l . Gifford, W. 1949. Importance of high milk production i n beef cows overestimated. Jour. Anim. S c i . 8 : 605-606, »  Gifford, W. 1953. Records of Performance tests for cattle i n breeding herds. Milk production of dams and growth of calves• University of Arkansas College of Agriculture, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Bui. 531, Feb. Goulden, C.H. 1952. Methods of statistical analysis. Sons, Inc., Hew York. 2nd Ed.  John Wiley and  Green, W.W. and J . Buric. 1953. Comparative performance of beef calves weaned at 90 to 180 days of age. Jour. Anim. S c i . ». 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. S c i . 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. S c i . 9 j 338. Grizzle, J.E. and CM. Kincaid. 1954. The relationship between body weight, daily gain, and efficiency of feed utilization i n , 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. S c i . 3 : 143. Guilbert, H.R. and P.W. Gregory. 1952. Some features of growth and development of Hereford cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 11 s 1 i 3. Hankins, O.G. and H.W. Titus. 1 0 6 9 . Growth; fattening and meat production. Food and Life, Year Book of Agriculture. Washington Government Printing Office. Hazel, L.H., et a l . 1943, Genetic^and environmental correlations between the growth rates of pigs at different ages• Jour. Anim Sci. 2 : 118. Hazel, L.N. 1946. Heritability of type and condition i n range rambouillet lambs as evaluated by scoring. Jour. Anim. S c i , 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. S c i . 3 : 390. Hitchcock, G.H., and W.A. Sawyer, et a l , 1955. Rate and efficiency of gains i n beef cattle. I I I Factors affecting weight and effectiveness of selection for gains i n weight. Agr. Expt. Sta,, Oregon State College, Tech. Bui. Wo. 34. Hutt, F.B.  1951. Progeny tests and Warwick's tables. Bibliog. Jour. Heredity, 42 266. S '51. s  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 i n Hereford cattle. Genetics 37 : 158-174, March. Kidwell, J.F. , 1953. , Some growth relations i n range Hereford cattle. Western Sect. Amer. Soc. of Anim. Prod. 4 « I t 1. Kidwell, J.F.. 1954. Some growth relations i n range oattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 13 : 1. Kidwell, J.F. 1955. A study of the relation between body conformation and carcass quality i n fat calves. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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. S c i . 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. C a h i l l . 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., J r . , et a l . 1941 . Record of performance i n Hereford cattle. Montana Agr. Exp. St. Bui. 397. Knapp, B., J r . and W.H. Black. 1941 . Factors influencing rate of gain of beef calves during the suckling period. Jour. Agr. Research. 63 s 249-254. b  Knapp, B., J r . and Phillips, et a l . 1942 . Length of feeding period and number of animals required to measure economy of gain i n progeny teste of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 1 : 285-292. a  Knapp, B., J r . , A.L. Baker, J.R. Quesenberry and R.T. Clark. 1942 . Growth and production factors i n range cattle. Montana State College Agricultural Exp. Sta. Bui. 400. b  Knapp, B.., J r . and Baker, A.L. 1944. Correlation between ratio and efficiency of gain i n steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 3 : 3.  Knapp, 8. and W. Nbrdskog. 1946® Heritability of growth and efficiency in beef cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 6: 62.70. Knapp, B. and W. Etordskog. 1946^ Heritability of animal scores, grades • and certain carcass characteristics i n beef cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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. S c i . 6 s 174-181. 'Knapp, B., J r . and R.T. Clark. 1950. Revised estimates of heritability of economic characteristics i n beef cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 9 s 582-587. Knapp, B., J r . and R.T. Clark. 1951. Genetic and environmental cor' relations between weaning scores and subsequent gains .in the feedlot with record of performance steers. Jour. Anim. S c i . 10 (2) s 365-370. 1  Koch, R.C.  1956. 1956.  Swing of the pendulum. The Farm Quarterly, winter,  Koch, R.M.  1.951. Size of calves at weaning as a permanent characteri s t i c of range Hereford cows. Jour, nim S c i . • 10 i .3 s 768. A  Kooh, R.M. and R.T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relation-i ships among economic characters i n beef cattle. I Correlations among paternal and maternal half-sibs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14 : 3, August. Koch, R.M.  and R. T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relationships among economic characters i n beef cattle. II Correlations between offspring and dam and offspring and s i r e . Jour. Anim. S c i . 14 : 5, August.  Kooh, R.M. and R.T. Clark, 1955. Genetic and environmental relationships among economic characters in beef cattle. I l l Evaluating' maternal environment. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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. S c i . 14 : 2. Koch, R.M;,  Schleicher, E.ifiT. and V.H. Arthaud. 1955. Weight changes in beef calves following birth. Jour. Anim. S c i . 14 s 3.  Koger, EI. and J.H. Knox. 1945. The affect of sex on weaning weight of range calves. Jour. Anim. S c i . 4 s 1. Koger, M. J.H. Knox. 1947. The repeatability of yearly production of range Hereford cows.. Jour, 4nim. S c i . 6 s 4.61,  - 95 -  Roger, M. and J.H. Knox. 1951. The correlation between gains made at different periods by cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 10 t 760. Roger, M. and J.H. Knox. 1952. Heritability of grade and type i n 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. S c i . 10 : 352. Kohli, M.L., A.C. Cook, and W.M. Dawson. 1952. Inheritance of growth rate and efficiency of gain i n 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 i n beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12 j 1 : 3-9. Lambert, W.V., et al.. 1936. The role of nutrition i n 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 characteri s t i c s . Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc. 293-301. Lush, J.L. 1945. Animal Breeding Plans. 3rd edition. College Press. Mason, I.L. 1951. Performance recording i n beef cattle. ing Abstract. 19 t 1-24.  Iowa State Animal Breed-  Melms, G.C. and R. Bogart. 1955. Some factors affecting feed u t i l i z a tion i n 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 i n 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. S c i . 14 : 4 ; 1034-1041. Pierce, CD., H.G, Avery, M. Burris, and R. Bogart. 1954. Rate and efficiency of gains i n beef cattle. I I . Some factors affecting performance testing. Agric. Exp. Sta,, Oregon State College, Tech. Bui. 33, July.  • 93  Rice, F.J., et a l . 1954. Length of gestation i n Hereford cowe and its relation to performance. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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. . Heredity.. 42 : 162.  Jour.  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 i n the Faculty of Agriculture, University of British Columbia, B.C. Robertson, A. 1952. Effect of inbreeding on the variation due to recessive 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. S c i . 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. i l l u s . Chicago . Stonuker, H.H., et a l . 1950. Beef breeding research i n 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. S c i . 11 : 1. Tyler, W.J., et a l . 1948. The heritability of body size of Holstein, Friesian and Ayshire cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 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 a b i l i t y . 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. S c i . 14 : 2. Went, F.W.  1953. Gene action i n relation to growth and development; phenotypic variability. Hat. Acad. S c i . 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. S c i . 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 k i l l i n g qualities of Hereford steers. Jour. Anim. S c i . 10 : 195. Williams, L. 1956. Personal correspondence. Canyon City, Oregon,O.S.A. WilBon, F.S., et' a l . 1954. Genetic studies of steer progeny groups slaughtered following three successive feeding treatments. Jour. Anim. S c i . 13 : 4 : 965. (Abstract). Winsor and Clark. 1940. A statistical study of variation i n 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. S c i . 9 : 588. Hoodward, R.R., J.R. Quesenberry, and F.S. Willson. 1954. Production and carcass quality i n 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 i n beef arid milking shorthorn steers. Jour. Anim. Sci, 12 s 4. Yao, T»S.,et a l . 1984. Heritability of milk production i n milking Shorthorn cattle. Jour. Anim. S c i . 13 : 3. Yao, T.S., et a l . 1954. Body measurements indexes as a means of selection i n Shorthorn cattle. Jour. Anim, S c i . 13s 4: 965. (Abstract). Yapp, W.W.  1923. A dimension-weight index for cattle. Anim. Prod. Proc. 50-56.  Amer. Soc.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 25 4
United States 21 3
Netherlands 1 0
Republic of Korea 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Hangzhou 16 0
Shenzhen 6 4
Ashburn 6 0
Unknown 6 8
Washington 4 0
Des Moines 3 0
Beijing 2 0
Lincoln 2 0
Bradford 1 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Mountain View 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106221/manifest

Comment

Related Items