Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of the winter plane of nutrition on the growth rate and subsequent parturient behavior… Kansky, Ladislav Leo 1955

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1955_A4 K2 I6.pdf [ 63.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106374.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106374-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106374-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106374-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106374-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106374-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106374-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106374-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106374.ris

Full Text

THE INFLUENCE OF THE WINTER PLANE OF NUTRITION ON THE GROWTH RATE AND SUBSEQUENT PARTURIENT BEHAVIOR OF BEEF HEIFERS by LADIS LAV LEO KANSKY  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE IN THE DIVISION OF ANIMAL SCIENCE  We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE  Members' ttt the D i v i s i o n  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1 9 5 5  ABSTRACT  Four groups of weanling Hereford heifers were placed on four different winter planes of nutrition for a period of two years according to the following pattern: Group I  -  Low plane of nutrition  Group II  - Medium-low plane of nutrition  Group III - Medium-high plane of nutrition Group IV  -  High plane of nutrition  During the summer seasons the heifers were kept on pasture providing the same feeding level for a l l animals.  The one year  old heifers were bred during the months of June and July. A l l animals were weighed weekly and feed consumption was recorded weekly. To illustrate the growth rate of the heifers, K-values were calculated for a l l animals by the method of least squares and their growth curves were constructed. At the end of the second winter period a l l parturition data were carefully recorded and the rate of growth of the calves studied. From the results obtained i n this experiment the following conclusions can be drawn: (1)  The f i r s t post-weaning winter period i s very important i n  regard to the feeding level of young growing heifers.  The medium-  low plane of nutrition (Group II) showed the best results from the economic point of view.  (2)  Young heif ers can be bred as yearlings i f the previous  winter-feeding level allows them to grow continuously and to reach at least 700 pounds body weight before the breeding period starts. (3)  The gestation period did not result i n a decreased growth  rate of the bred heifers. (4)  The physical d i f f i c u l t i e s of parturition i n two year old  heifers do not appear to be insurmountable i f the winter plane of nutrition i s adequate. (5)  The lactation period means a heavy drain on the young  female hence a high level of nutrition must be provided i n terms of sufficient amount of pasture dry matter during the grazing season. (6)  Average birth weight of calves was 62.9 pounds, being  higher for b u l l calves than heifer calves. (7)  Pasture dry matter requirements for beef cattle may be  calculated from the following equation: DM = 0.17  w  7  (w i s animal weight given i n pounds;)  ACKNOWLEDGMENT The w r i t e r wishes t o thank Dean B l y t h e E a g l e s , Chairman of the D i v i s i o n o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e , f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o conduct t h i s experiment and f o r p r o v i s i o n o f  departmental  facilities. S i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e i s a l s o expressed  t o Dr. A . J . Wood,  P r o f e s s o r i n the D i v i s i o n o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e , f o r h i s a c t i v e i n t e r e s t , a s s i s t a n c e , and c r i t i c i s m of t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s p r o j e c t and the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s and t o Dr. W.D.  K i t t s f o r h i s t i m e l y and v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e . The  author a l s o wishes t o acknowledge the  cooperation  r e c e i v e d from h i s f e l l o w s t u d e n t s p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g the w e e k l y weight r e c o r d i n g s of the  animals.  The w r i t e r i s f u r t h e r i n d e b t e d t o the Douglas Lake C a t t l e Company f o r t h e i r c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n o f the h e i f e r c a l v e s , t o P a c i f i c E l e v a t o r s f o r funds f o r the purchase o f the c a l v e s , and t o B u c k e r f i e l d s L t d . , and B.C.  Packers  f o r the p r o v i s i o n o f f e e d and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . a p l e a s u r e t o acknowledge the keen i n t e r e s t and  Ltd.,  It is  financial  support by C o l o n e l V i c t o r Spencer f o r the f u r t h e r a n c e o f r e s e a r c h on beef c a t t l e . The author wishes to express sincere thanks to a l l " members of his graduate Committee for their direction, assistance and during the conduction of this, thesis: Wood, Dr. W.D.  Kitts, Dr. W.Y.  criticism  To Dean Blythe Eagles, Dr.  Anderson, Dr. V.C.  Brink.  A.J.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page  I.  Introduction  1  II.  L i t e r a t u r e Review  3  1.  The V a r i o u s Growth P a t t e r n s o f B e e f C a t t l e  2.  The E f f e c t o f t h e B r e e d i n g Age on t h e Growth o f t h e Dam, on M i l k P r o d u c t i o n and on the Growth o f C a l v e s  III.  3  11  Experimental  20  1.  General Outline  20  2.  Planes o f N u t r i t i o n  20  3.  E x p e r i m e n t a l R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  IV.  A. F i r s t W i n t e r P e r i o d B. F i r s t P a s t u r e P e r i o d C. Second W i n t e r P e r i o d . D. Second P a s t u r e P e r i o d E. Growth R a t e o f C a l v e s C o n c l u s i o n s and Summary  V.  Appendices 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  . . . 26 26 33 40 50 55 62  The Growth Curves o f H e i f e r s and C a l v e s Weekly Weight Records o f H e i f e r s and C a l v e s Feed Consumption Records Composition of F e e d - r a t i o n Ancillary Calculations  1  INTRODUCTION  A g r e a t number o f f e e d i n g and b r e e d i n g w i t h t h e domestic animals a r e c o n t i n u o u s l y b e i n g throughout  the world.  experiments conducted  L i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t i o n i s a dynamic  process and r e s e a r c h and p r o g r e s s i n a l l branches o f s c i e n c e a r e , each y e a r , adding t o i t s e f f i c i e n c y on farms and ranches.  E f f i c i e n c y i s t h e k e y t o p r o d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l and  through continuous  r e s e a r c h we a r e a b l e t o v i s u a l i z e new  h o r i z o n s , l i m i t e d by p r e s e n t knowledge.  I t i s the combination  o f h a r d work by farmers and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s t h a t h e l p t o s o l v e so many o f t h e problems o f l i v e s t o c k production. World l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e p a s t f i f t y y e a r s has accumu l a t e d a v a s t amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e f i e l d o f a n i m a l husbandry; many v a l u a b l e r e s u l t s have been o b t a i n e d i n a n i m a l b r e e d i n g and f e e d i n g methods, i n m i l k , b e e f , w o o l o r egg p r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h c a n be a p p l i c a b l e i n g e n e r a l .  But the  g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a and r e s u l t s a r e o f t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e i n t h e environment where t h e experiments been conducted.  have  C l i m a t e , f e e d c r o p s , feeds and f e e d i n g  p r a c t i c e s , breeds and b r e e d i n g methods a r e t h e main f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the great v a r i a t i o n of experimental r e s u l t s . The p r e s e n t experiment  upon w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s  t h e s i s i s based makes no c l a i m f o r o r i g i n a l i t y o f concept;  2  many reports have already been made on the influence of the breeding age on the subsequent history of early and late bred females and many papers have been published dealing with the influence of different planes of nutrition on animal growth*  3 LITERATURE REVIEW 1,  The I n f l u e n c e o f V a r i o u s P l a n e s o f N a t r i t i o n on Animal  Growth:  The comparison o f s a l e s r e c o r d s from r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n the United States w i t h records t h i r t y years  earlier  i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e has been a d e c i d e d t r e n d toward t h e marketing  o f c a t t l e a t younger ages.  S a l e s o f two y e a r - o l d s  were c o m p a r a t i v e l y few i n number, s i n c e most producers a r e selling yearlings.  P r a c t i c a l l y none o f t h e stockmen i n t e r -  viewed i n t h e s t u d y r e p o r t e d c a r r y i n g aged s t e e r s - t h r e e o r f o u r y e a r s o l d , as was common i n t h e 1 9 2 0 ' s (American  Cattle  P r o d u c e r , B u s i n e s s Magazine, September 1 9 5 3 ) . S e v e r a l reasons c a n be g i v e n f o r t h i s change: t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f oxen f o r d r a f t p u r p o s e s , t h e consumer's demand f o r h i g h e r q u a l i t y b e e f , t h e use o f t h e h i g h e r growth p o t e n t i a l o f young animals may be c i t e d . was  However, t h e g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e  e x e r t e d by t h e r e s u l t s o f numerous f e e d i n g t r i a l s based  on t h e p r o g r e s s i n a n i m a l p h y s i o l o g y , b i o c h e m i s t r y , b i o l o g y , g e n e t i c s , economics, e t c .  Many examples can be found i n t h e  l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t i n g t h e v a r i o u s growth r a t e s t h a t c a n be expected when animals a r e f e d on d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s o f n u t r i t i o n . ( G u i l b e r t , 1950; M o u l t o n , 1953; Lush, 1930; H a e c k e r , 1922; Amschler, 1953;). The  c o s t o f f e e d i s t h e p r i n c i p l e f a c t o r i n most cases  t h a t determines  the l e v e l o f animal feeding.  A brief  calcul-  JillBSlBHBBH!  i l l  IIIHII  •••HlIlBiliilElIlli , ::::::::::::::::::  |s||iiiHiiii|iiii  4 a t i o n o f the t o t a l n e t energy c o s t o f a n i m a l growth under d i f f e r e n t environmental  c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d be a h e l p f u l  i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the e f f o r t s o f  guide  ranchers.  The maintenance c o s t expressed  i n net c a l o r i e s  was  c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g Brody's d a t a f o r d a i l y maintenance r e q u i r e ments of s t e e r s and by adding twenty per cent f o r the a c t i v i t y as i t i s shown on F i g u r e No.  2.  F i g u r e No.  animal's 1 repre-  s e n t s the growth p a t t e r n s o f f o u r h y p o t h e t i c a l animals by d i f f e r e n t f e e d i n g p r a c t i c e s .  raised  Curve 1 expresses maximum  a n i m a l growth r e s u l t i n g from s u p p l e m e n t a l  f e e d i n g of c a l v e s  d u r i n g the summer and from the h i g h e s t l e v e l o f n u t r i t i o n d u r i n g the w i n t e r p e r i o d .  The  a n i m a l reaches a body w e i g h t o f  a thousand pounds when f o u r t e e n months o l d .  The  second  a n i m a l i s p l a c e d on a s l i g h t l y lower f e e d i n g s t a n d a r d the w e a n l i n g w i n t e r but r e c e i v e s s u p p l e m e n t a l y e a r l i n g summer on p a s t u r e . i s reached  during  feed during  the  A thousand pounds o f body w e i g h t  a t e i g h t e e n months o f age.  The  animal  represented  by curve 3 i s f e d o n l y a s m a l l amount o f c o n c e n t r a t e  during  the w i n t e r p e r i o d as a supplement t o good q u a l i t y hay.  It  reaches the same weight as the p r e v i o u s animals when i t i s 24 months o l d . supplemental  A n i m a l number f o u r i s r a i s e d w i t h o u t  any  f e e d d u r i n g the w i n t e r p e r i o d s , r e c e i v i n g o n l y a  l i m i t e d amount o f poor q u a l i t y hay.  This animal requires  t h i r t y - t w o months t o r e a c h the same w e i g h t . The  t o t a l amount o f net c a l o r i e s r e q u i r e d f o r the  5  maintenance  o f t h e s e f o u r a n i m a l s was c a l c u l a t e d by the method  o f summation o f squares i n d i c a t e d on F i g u r e No. 3. maintenance  The  total  c o s t i n net Therms o b t a i n e d from s u c h a c a l c u l a t i o n  i s g i v e n below: Animal I .  3>309.6 therms.  Animal I I .  4,212.4  »  Animal I I I .  5,612.6  "  Animal IV.  7,294.9  "  I n o r d e r t o a r r i v e a t more a c c u r a t e f i g u r e s f o r maintenance  c o s t o f these f o u r a n i m a l s a c o r r e c t i o n has t o be  made on the b a s i s o f numerous e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s and d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Waters (25) a n i m a l was  p o i n t e d o u t , t h a t , i f the r a t i o n o f one  s u d d e n l y reduced under t h e normal  maintenance  requirements t h e r e would be a p r o c e s s o f r e a d j u s t m e n t .  I f the  r e d u c t i o n was not too s e v e r e , a f t e r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f time a s t a t i o n a r y l i v e weight would be o b t a i n e d and f o l l o w i n g t h a t t h e r e would be an i n c r e a s e i n w e i g h t . The M i s s o u r i Experiment  (20)  showed a lower  maintenance  requirement f o r animals on a low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n . Armsby (2) maintenance  concludes t h a t a t l e a s t a p a r t o f a l o w e r  c o s t a t the low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n may  come from  " v o l u n t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n o f m o t i o n on the p a r t o f t h e a n i m a l s on a low n u t r i t i o n p l a n e . " K e l l n e r (15)  has r e p o r t e d d a t a showing t h a t f a t s t e e r s  have a h i g h e r maintenance condition.  requirement than those i n medium  6 R e s u l t s from t h e v a r i o u s experiments a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e No. 1 . TABLE 1 DAILY MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS PER 1 0 0 0 POUNDS BODY WEIGHT M i s s o u r i Experiment (Moulton)  h i g h p l a n e ... 5 7 7 0 C a l . med. p l a n e ... 4444 C a l . low p l a n e ... 4164 C a l .  Winter period  h i g h p l a n e ... 5777 C a l . med. p l a n e ... 4869 C a l . low p l a n e ... 4408 C a l . 5995 C a l . 5742 C a l . 6173 C a l .  Summer p e r i o d Armsby Kellner Eckles  Many f e e d i n g experiments have proved a c l o s e  relation-  s h i p between t h e amount o f n e t eneggy i n t a k e and maintenance r e q u i r e m e n t s : h i g h energy i n t a k e corresponds t o a h i g h m a i n tenance c o s t and a low maintenance  requirement i s i n accordance  w i t h t h e l o w p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n ( G u i l b e r t and L o o s l i ,  (195D>  Hogan, Salmon and Pox, ( 1 9 5 2 ) . To harmonize  our c a l c u l a t i o n s w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f  numerous experiments and d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s i t seems t o be r e a s o n a b l e t o i n c r e a s e t h e maintenance  cost o f animal N o . l . ,  f e d on t h e h i g h l e v e l o f n u t r i t i o n , and t o d e c r e a s e t h a t o f a n i m a l I V , f e d on a l o w p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n , b o t h about 1 5 $ . C o r r e c t e d d a t a used f o r f u r t h e r c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e as follows:  7 Animal I .  3,806 Therms.  Animal I I .  4,612.4- «.  Animal I I I .  5,612.6  "  Animal IV.  6,200.5  "  The t o t a l body weight made by a l l four animals i s equal: 925 pounds and the requirements of net energy f o r t h i s growth vary very s l i g h t l y .  The data of net energy stored i n  one pound of gain at a d i f f e r e n t age and body weight - used f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n - are given i n Table I , Appendix V. The r e s u l t s obtained i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s are summarized i n the f o l l o w i n g Table No. 2.  ( f o r d e t a i l e d tables  see Appendix V, Table 2). TABLE  2  NET ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND GROWTH Animal  Age o f Animals at 1000 Lbs. Body Wt. i n Months  Total Maintenance cost i n net energy Therms  Requirements f o r Growth i n net energy Therms.  T o t a l Net Energy cost i n Therms.  3,806.  1,862.5  5,668.5  2 18 (medium high p l . )  4,612.4  1,770.0  6,382.4  3 (Med-low plane)  24  5,612.6  1,750.0  7,362.6  4 (low plane)  32  6,200.5  1,897.5  8,098.0  1 (high plane)  14  /soo  13  oo  I loo Nov  . 10 00  •S  900  $  /<?  /z  //  H A  A$£.  .  c-n  4o »v  11 -1  1  Months  J4  ic  •**  Jo  3 1  34  3<r  36 KEUFFEL  &  ESSER  CS.  N.  Y  8  From Table No. 2 i t may be shown that maintenance costs make up 67.1$ o f the cost of producing animal No. I , 72.3$ f o r animal No. 2, 76.2$ f o r animal No. 3 and 76.6$ f o r animal No. 4.  I t i s evident that maintenance i s the l a r g e s t  s i n g l e cost i n animal production. That i s one of the main reasons why breeders of beef c a t t l e are seeking so i n t e n s i v e l y new feeding methods and p r a c t i c e s i n order to r e s t r i c t , as much as p o s s i b l e , the period of time which i s required t o f a t t e n and f i n i s h an animal.  The d i f f e r e n c e i n t o t a l net  energy cost of animal 1 and 4 i s as high as 2 and one h a l f m i l l i o n c a l o r i e s (2,429,500 c a l . ) , whieh means that animal 4 w i l l consume - expressed i n pounds of feed - 5»400 pounds o f hay or 2,858 pounds of concentrate or 10.12  tons of green  forage more than animal 1 - i n order t o reach equal body weight. Table No. 3 i n Appendix V shows the production cost of those four animals as f o l l o w s : Animal No. 1  $95.50  No. 2  91.24  No. 3  85.34  No. 4  82.40  Although the production cost of animal 4 i s expressed by the lowest f i g u r e , the f i n a l r e s u l t s favour the high l e v e l feeding method of animal No. 1.  Here are some f a c t s which  A Using the f o l l o w i n g c a l o r i c values of feed: one pound of hay - 450 c a l o r i e s , concentrate 850 c a l o r i e s , grass 120 c a l o r i e s .  9 have t o be c o n s i d e r e d : t h e p r i c e o f g r a i n f i n i s h e d c a t t l e i s always h i g h e r than t h a t o f c a t t l e f i n i s h e d on grass o n l y ; t h e s h o r t e r f e e d i n g p e r i o d o f a n i m a l No. 1 a v o i d s t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f unnecessary overhead c o s t s ; t w i c e as much beef can be p r o duced i n t h e same p e r i o d o f t i m e ; f a s t g a i n s and h i g h c a r c a s s grades always go t o g e t h e r ; b e e f p r i c e s can be p r e d i c t e d w i t h more c e r t a i n t y f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g s p r i n g than f o r a p e r i o d o f two o r t h r e e y e a r s . Curve No. 4 on F i g u r e I c a n be c o n s i d e r e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e growth o f a n i m a l s  intended f o r the breeding  on t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f ranches.  herd  A c t u a l l y the s i t u a t i o n i n  many cases i s s t i l l worse: t h e s m a l l amount o f poor q u a l i t y hay f e d i s not o f t e n s u f f i c i e n t even t o m a i n t a i n an e q u a l body weight d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r p e r i o d and t h e a n i m a l l o s e s w e i g h t . There i s no doubt t h a t young h e i f e r s , under s u c h c o n d i t i o n s , cannot be bred as y e a r l i n g s when t h e i r body w e i g h t does n o t r e a c h 500 pounds. To demonstrate some o f t h e ^normal" growth p a t t e r n s o f beef c a t t l e , t h e a c t u a l d a t a , o b t a i n e d i n v a r i o u s f e e d i n g experiments, F i g u r e No. 4.  were p l o t t e d and t h e growth curves c o n s t r u c t e d on How d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s o f n u t r i t i o n i n f l u e n c e t h e  growth and body w e i g h t o f a n i m a l s becomes e v i d e n t i f we compare v a r i o u s body weights  t h a t t h e animals reached  age - f o r i n s t a n c e - when one year o l d .  a t t h e same  10 1.  M i s s o u r i S t e e r s (low p l a n e ) . . .  375 Lbs i n 12 months  2.  Texas S t e e r s  405  3.  Minnesota Steers  4.  C a l i f o r n i a Hereford B u l l s  5.  A u s t r i a n D u a l Purpose C a t t l e  II  II  it  tt  740  it  it it  tt  860  tt  ii it  II  . . 1100  it  it tt  it  ....  Growth c u r v e No. I r e p r e s e n t s the poor growth o f s t e e r s o b t a i n e d i n Group I I I o f the M i s s o u r i experiment ( 2 0 ) .  The s t e e r s were  fed on s u c h a r a t i o n t h a t t h e average d a i l y g a i n d u r i n g the f i r s t two y e a r s was 0.69 pounds.  Curve No. 4 e x p r e s s e s the  growth o f s t e e r s on a h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n i n the same experiment.  The t y p i c a l g r o w t h p a t t e r n of Texas beef c a t t l e  (Hereford-Brahman) i s shown by c u r v e No. 2.  A l l the c a t t l e  grew r a p i d l y i n the e a r l y p a r t o f the g r a z i n g s e a s o n , the r a t e o f i n c r e a s e i n w e i g h t f e l l o f f as the season advanced. Curve No. 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the growth o f the M i n n e s o t a s t e e r s fed  on a h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n .  However the f e e d i n g l e v e l  was not s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e s t e e r s t o e x p r e s s a maximum r a t e of g r o w t h , as i s shown i n G u i l b e r t ' s experiment w i t h H e r e f o r d b u l l s (growth curve No. 5 ) .  The growth p a t t e r n  i l l u s t r a t e d by c u r v e No. 6 i s more or l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l ;  not  v e r y many a n i m a l s under p r e s e n t normal c o n d i t i o n s e x p r e s s t h e i r growth r a t e a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s c u r v e .  As Amschler s t a t e s " i t  i s the g r e a t t a s k o f modern s c i e n t i f i c w o r k e r s i n a n i m a l s c i e n c e t o improve the r a t i o n and t o s e l e c t t h e breeds w h i c h would show t h e i r r a t e o f growth s i m i l a r i l y t o t h i s growth curve."  11 The normal growth p a t t e r n s o f beef c a t t l e v a r y t o a g r e a t e x t e n t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e environment w h i c h p r e v a i l s during their production.  I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n and  f e e d i n g methods on a g r e a t number o f ranches  a r e d i c t a t e d and  d i r e c t e d by g i v e n c o n d i t i o n s b u t these methods c o u l d be changed and improved i n many cases i f t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e t r a d i t i o n a l customs o f r a n c h e r s would n o t oppose them. 2.  The E f f e c t o f t h e B r e e d i n g Age on t h e Growth o f t h e Dam. on M i l k P r o d u c t i o n , on B i r t h Weight^ and P o s t - n a t a l Growth Rate o f C a l v e s Under normal r a n c h i n g c o n d i t i o n s t h e young females a r e  bred when two y e a r s o l d .  Mumford (1921) (22)  o f t h e o p i n i o n s , wide-spread  enumerates some  a t t h a t time among t h e p r a c t i c a l ,  b r e e d e r s , on t h e b r e e d i n g o f young and immature a n i m a l s : 1.  The growth o f t h e young mother i s r e t a r d e d .  2.  The u l t i m a t e s i z e o f t h e young mother i s d i m i n i s h e d .  3.  The o f f s p r i n g o f young p a r e n t s a r e s m a l l e r , l e s s  t h r i f t y and l e s s v i g o r o u s . 4.  The c o n t i n u e d mating  o f v e r y young p a r e n t s  will  u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n decreasing the s i z e o f the race or breed. 5.  The o f f s p r i n g o f v e r y young p a r e n t s a r e l e s s v a l u a b l e  f o r breeding  purposes.  To b r i n g some l i g h t on t h i s s u b j e c t Mumford c a r r i e d on t h e experiment  f o r t e n y e a r s , b r e e d i n g young swine a t t h e  youngest p o s s i b l e age. Body measurements, changes i n w e i g h t ,  12 feed consumption, and p a r t u r i t i o n dates were c a r e f u l l y recorded and compared with those obtained i n the experiment with swine bred at a mature age.  The results of his great  work can be b r i e f l y summarized as follows: The period of gestation has a tendency to increase the rate of growth of the female.  Lactation i s apparently a  heavy drain on the mother, i n h i b i t i n g growth, e s p e c i a l l y during the f i r s t part of the l a c t a t i o n period.  But the smaller s i z e  of mature sows bred at an early age i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . Studies at the Wisconsin Experiment Station indicate that cows which freshen while f a i r l y young - at 22 or 23 months of age - are apt to be the most p r o f i t a b l e throughout their period of usefulness and there was no i n d i c a t i o n of retarded growth.  The findings, based on calving and  pro-  duction records of 253 Holstein cows from 40 herds, c l e a r l y indicate that cows which bear their f i r s t calves at about two years old or s l i g h t l y less get such a head s t a r t i n production that those calving for the f i r s t time at a more mature age are not able to catch up.  On the other hand, i t  may not be desirable to bring heifers into production before at least eighteen months of age. While the milk production records of dairy c a t t l e are common and easy to obtain there i s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n beef c a t t l e because of the obvious d i f f i c u l t y of testing the beef cows for milk production under normal ranch conditions.  The l i t e r a t u r e contains very l i t t l e information  13 concerning  t h e y i e l d s o f m i l k produced by b e e f cows.  Gowen  (1920) g i v e s t h e l a c t a t i o n r e c o r d s f o r t h r e e pure bred A b e r deen Angus cows i n h i s r e p o r t on t h e Maine C r o s s  breeding  experiment w i t h d a i r y and beef breeds o f c a t t l e . Knapp and B l a c k (1941) (16) s t u d y i n g t h e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the r a t e of gain of Shorthorn  calves during the  s u c k l i n g p e r i o d , found t h a t t h e m i l k consumption o f t h e s u c k l i n g c a l v e s had t h e g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e on t h e growth r a t e , g r e a t e r t h a n any o t h e r f a c t o r , as f o r i n s t a n c e b i r t h w e i g h t , s i r e s , dams, s e x , o r feed consumption.  But the m i l k  pro-  d u c t i o n r e c o r d o f t h e cows i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r r e p o r t . C o l e and Johansson (1933) (6) r e p o r t e d t h e l i f e - t i m e m i l k p r o d u c t i o n r e c o r d s o f s e v e n purebred Aberdeen Angus cows, m i l k e d  t w i c e a day.  The cows were m a i n t a i n e d  same c o n d i t i o n s as d a i r y c a t t l e .  The average m i l k  under t h e production  was about 3,000 pounds p e r l a c t a t i o n ( w i t h i n a range o f 10006000 pounds). The most d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s o f m i l k and b u t t e r f a t p r o d u c t i o n i n beef b r e e d i n g herds were done by t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Arkansas d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1940-1952.  Gifford (1953)  (8) p u b l i s h e d a t o t a l o f 77 m i l k  and b u t t e r f a t r e c o r d s , w h i c h a r e based on an e i g h t month lactation period.  I n t h i s s t u d y 28 H e r e f o r d , seven Aberdeen  Angus and f i v e S h o r t h o r n  cows were used.  The t o t a l m i l k  pro-  d u c t i o n d u r i n g one l a c t a t i o n p e r i o d was c a l c u l a t e d from a one day p r o d u c t i o n r e c o r d each month, w h i c h was o b t a i n e d by hand  14 m i l k i n g one h a l f o f the udder one day and second  the o t h e r h a l f  the  day. The  results  of G i f f o r d ' s s t u d i e s are given i n Table  3.  I t i s of i n t e r e s t t o note t h a t i n the H e r e f o r d group m i l k p r o d u c t i o n i n c r e a s e s u n t i l s i x y e a r s o f age or u n t i l the f o u r t h l a c t a t i o n when c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o l a c t a t i o n s . g r e a t e s t amount o f m i l k was  The  produced by a two y e a r o l d Aberdeen  Angus cow w h i c h was m i l k e d t w i c e a day a f t e r she l o s t her calf.  She produced 2,544 pounds of m i l k and 100 pounds o f  butterfat  i n 244 days.  f a t p r o d u c t i o n was  The  l o w e s t r e c o r d o f m i l k and b u t t e r -  o b t a i n e d from H e r e f o r d cows, b e i n g about  675 pounds lower t h a n the average p r o d u c t i o n o f Aberdeen Angus and  Shorthorns. T a b l e No.  4 taken from G i f f o r d ' s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s  the  d a i l y m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f cows i n an e i g h t month p e r i o d and the average d a i l y g a i n i n body w e i g h t o f t h e i r c a l v e s . h i g h e s t d a i l y m i l k p r o d u c t i o n was  observed  d u r i n g the  month o f l a c t a t i o n among the S h o r t h o r n and H e r e f o r d  The first  cows.  The Aberdeen Angus cows showed the h i g h e s t p r o d u c t i o n d u r i n g the second month o f l a c t a t i o n . p r o d u c t i o n s t e a d i l y decreased  I n a l l t h r e e breeds the m i l k t o about one h a l f o f the amount  i n the e i g h t h month o f l a c t a t i o n .  The H e r e f o r d c a l v e s made  good average g a i n s even though the average d a i l y m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e i r dams a r e ranged from 8.5 f i r s t month t o 4.1  pounds d u r i n g the  pounds d u r i n g the e i g h t h month.  TABLE 3 LACTATION RECORDS OF BEEF COWS ACCORDING TO AGE Classification Age i n years  2- 3 3- 4 4- 5 5 -6 6 -7  7 and over Lactation  Hereford Production of Milk Butterfat Lbs  1,195 1,160 1,455 1,412  1,575 1,255  1,175  35. 37.7  44.9  44. 46.5 34.8  first second third fourth fifth S i x and l a t e r  1,168  34.2 37.8 44.9 48.4 34.1 34.9  Average: a l l records  1,303  38.5  1,266  1,474  1,589  1,324  Aberdeen-Angus Production of Milk Butterfat Lbs  Shorthorn Production of Milk Butterfat Lbs  1,470 1,990 2,267 1,802 2,389 2,458  48.3 61.1 82.1 66.6 85. 88.4  1,696  1,470  48.3  1,696  2,159 2,491 2,389 2,458  81.5 50.1 85. 88.4  2,153  1,972  68.7  2,102  69.9  2,322 1,541 2,128  49.7 76.0 34.8 58.2  2,134  49.7 75.1 73.5 34.8 37.2  1,983  58.7  2,390 1,541  TABLE 4 AVERAGE DAILY MILK PRODUCTION OF COWS AND DAILY GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT OF THEIR CALVES Months  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Mean  Hereford Average D a i l y Average Milk Prod a i l y gain duction i n calf's weight Pounds  Aberdeen-Angus Average D a i l y Average Milk prod a i l y gain in calf's duction weight Pounds  Shorthorn Average D a i l y Average Milk Prod a i l y gain duction in calf's weight Pounds '  14.55  8.52 7.67 7.26 6.07 5.25 4.79 4.80  1.27 1.09  9.53 10.08  1.79  1.47 1.59 1.49 1.59 1.58  9.01 7.85 7.59 7.97 6.83  1.53 1.66 1.32 1.56 1.79  11.03 9.53 8.03 8.59 8.83 6.52 6.38  6.06  1.44  8.54  1.54  9.18  4.14  1.41  1.42 1.28  9.41  '  *  1.46 2.13 1.65 2.09 1.66 1.76 1.25 1.56 1.69  H OS  17  According  t o G i f f o r d t h e r e i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree  o f c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e q u a n t i t y o f m i l k produced d a i l y by the dams and t h e d a i l y g a i n s i n weight o f t h e i r s u c k l i n g c a l v e s d u r i n g t h e f i r s t f o u r months. a r e expressed respectively.  The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s  by t h e f o l l o w i n g f i g u r e s :  . 6 0 , 171,  . 5 2 , .35  D u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r months t h e c o r r e l -  a t i o n s a r e s m a l l e r and n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . There a r e s t i l l o t h e r i m p o r t a n t  problems w h i c h a r e  o f t e n d i s c u s s e d by beef c a t t l e b r e e d e r s i n r e g a r d t o m i l k  pro-  d u c t i o n o f dams and m i l k consumption o f t h e i r c a l v e s , f o r instance: How much m i l k does a c a l f need f o r i t s maximum growth? I s t h e m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f b e e f cows s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e maximum growth r a t e o f t h e i r  calves?  I s t h e r e any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e m i l k  production  of a dam and t h e growth r a t e o f a c a l f I n t h e p o s t weaning period? What a r e t h e main f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e m i l k  pro-  d u c t i o n o f a b e e f cow? Some o f these problems have a l r e a d y been p a r t i a l l y s o l v e d b u t many o t h e r s r e q u i r e i n t e n s i v e c a r e f u l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Ragsdale and Herman (24) r e p o r t e d t h a t when 5 v e a l c a l v e s were r e a r e d by t h e n u r s e cow method, they averaged 1 pound o f g a i n f o r each 9.4 pounds o f m i l k consumed. calves gain approximately  These  2 pounds d a i l y , t h e r e f o r e , i t c a n be  18 assumed that the milk consumption was  only 18.8 pounds d a i l y .  Similar results were obtained by Beckdel (3) i n his experiment with veal calves; 9.4 pounds of milk was required by the calves to make 1 pound of gain. G i f f o r d s experiment 1  The results from  show that the amount of milk required by  the calves per 1 pound of gain was much lower - being 6 . 2 ,  6.5  and 6.9 pounds of milk consumed by Hereford, Aberdeen Angus, and Shorthorn calves respectively. Yapp and Nevens (28) suggest that 1 pound of milk should be fed d a i l y to a c a l f for each 10 pounds of body weight, up to the maximum of 15-18  pounds d a i l y .  According to Peterson  (23) d a i l y milk consumption of a young c a l f should be 8% of i t s t o t a l weight. In Gifford's experiment with beef c a t t l e i t was  found  that the milk available to the calves d a i l y - i n percentage of their body weight - was as follows: Angus 12.6$, and Shorthorn 15.3$.  Hereford 10$, Aberdeen-  The average b i r t h weight of  the calves was 66 - 53 - 74 pounds respectively. It seems to be reasonable to conclude that the maximum d a i l y consumption a b i l i t y of the calves i s one of the factors which determines  the upper l i m i t i n milk production of  the highest producing beef cows.  I f the mammary gland i s not  emptied at each suckling i t i s l o g i c a l to assume that the backpressure of residual milk w i l l result i n diminished subsequent milk output.  The e f f e c t o f m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f dams on t h e growth o f t h e i r h e i f e r - c a l v e s d u r i n g t h e post-weaning time has been s t u d i e d by G i f f o r d .  A h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n has been  found between t h e m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f dams and t h e body w e i g h t o f h e i f e r - c a l v e s up t o 36 months o f age: The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were: .82, . 6 9 ,  .53,  .55  a t t h e age o f 8 - 12 - 24 - 36 months r e s p e c t i v e l y . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e shows t h e mean w e i g h t s o f 20 h e i f e r s from G i f f o r d * s e x p e r i m e n t , d i v i d e d i n t o 3 groups a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n l e v e l s o f t h e i r dams.  TABLE 5 THE RELATION OF CALF GROWTH RATE TO MILK OUTPUT OF THE DAM Lactation Period: M i l k Lbs. 738 1,322 1,894  Average Weight o f H e i f e r s i n Pounds Birth 65 64 65  4 Mos. 182 210 222  8 Mos.  12 Mos.  24 Mos.  299 397 422  423 485 523  741 758 876  36 Mos, 802 899 911  20  EXPERIMENTAL 1.  General O u t l i n e Four groups each c o n s i s t i n g o f seven w e a n l i n g H e r e f o r d  h e i f e r s were p l a c e d on f o u r p l a n e s o f n u t r i t i o n on November 23» 1953  and were c a r r i e d on the f o u r s e l e c t e d l e v e l s o f  f e e d i n g u n t i l May  1,  1954.  A p e r i o d o f one week was  allowed  f o r the a n i m a l s t o change from a d r y r a t i o n t o p a s t u r e . a l l the a n i m a l s were p l a c e d on adequate p a s t u r e u n t i l 13>  1954.  July.  Then  October  The h e i f e r s were bred d u r i n g t h e months o f June and  D u r i n g t h e second w i n t e r the b r e d y e a r l i n g h e i f e r s were  a g a i n d i v i d e d i n t o the f o u r o r i g i n a l groups and f e d on the four planes of n u t r i t i o n .  The second p a s t u r e p e r i o d was  the  f o u r t h and f i n a l phase o f t h i s Beef C a t t l e R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t and the experiment was 2.  t e r m i n a t e d on J u l y 31st,  1955»  Planes of N u t r i t i o n (A) F i r s t W i n t e r P e r i o d The f e e d i n g p a t t e r n f o r t h e f o u r groups o f h e i f e r s  was d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g sequence: Group I .  f e d on a low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group I I .  f e d on a medium low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group I I I .  f e d on a medium h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group IV.  f e d on a h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n .  (a) was  Low P l a n e o f N u t r i t i o n : - t h i s l e v e l o f f e e d i n g  computed t o r e p r e s e n t  cedure.  t h e normal  -ranch w i n t e r i n g  pro-  The h e i f e r s i n t h i s group were o f f e r e d a l f a l f a - g r a s s  hay o f b e t t e r t h a n average q u a l i t y t o t h e l i m i t o f a p p e t i t e . 1$ was e s t i m a t e d  t h a t t h e hay i n t a k e would approximate t h a t  g i v e n i n T a b l e 6.  I o d i z e d s a l t was o f f e r e d f r e e c h o i c e . TABLE 6  ANTICIPATED HAY INTAKE OF LOW PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds  400 425 450 475  500  Pounds o f Hay per day 11.2 11.9 12.6 13.3 14.0  T h i s r a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d and energy c o n t e n t .  Pounds o f T.D.N. p e r day 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.7  inadequate w i t h respect t o p r o t e i n  Normal growth was n o t e x p e c t e d .  (b) Medium Low P l a n e o f N u t r i t i o n : - t h i s l e v e l o f f e e d i n g was d e s i g n e d t o y i e l d a s l i g h t , p o s i t i v e g a i n over the w i n t e r i n g p e r i o d .  Hay i n t a k e was r e s t r i c t e d t o a s p e c i f i e d  l e v e l a t each body weight t o c o n s e r v e on roughage used and t o p e r m i t adequate i n t a k e o f supplementary f e e d . offered free choice. i n T a b l e 7.  The f e e d i n g s t a n d a r d  I o d i z e d s a l t was  followed i s given  22  TABLE 7 FEEDING STANDARD USED FOR MEDIUM LOW PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds  Pounds of Hay per Day  400  9.0 9.0 9.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6  425 450 475 500 525 550  Pounds of Supplement "B" Calculated per Day Pounds of T.D.N, per day 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.9  5.5 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.7  This feeding l e v e l was based on Morrison's lower recommendations of requirements f o r wintering beef calves to gain 0.75 to 1.0 pounds per day. (c)  Medium High Plane of Nutritions - this l e v e l  of feeding was designed to promote a medium degree of growth and anticipated a d a i l y rate of gain of approximately 1.0 to 1.25 pounds per day.  Iodized s a l t was offered free choice.  The feeding standard designed to produce this rate of gain i s given i n Table 8 .  23  TABLE 8 FEEDING STANDARD DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A RATE OF GAIN of 1.0 to 1.25 POUNDS PER DAY - MEDIUM HIGH PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds  Pounds of Hay per Day  9.0 9.0 9.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 10.5  400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575  (d)  Pounds of Supplement "B" Calculated per Day Pounds of T.D.N, per Day 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.1  6.3 6.5 6.6 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 8.0  High Plane of N u t r i t i o n : - the feeding standard  for this group was considered to be improvidently high but was included to give the upper maximum of growth rate.  I t was  anticipated that i t would produce a mean rate of gain of 1.5 pounds per day throughout the wintering period.  I t was  anticipated that the heifers i n this group would not only achieve maximum growth rate but would also fatten. posed feeding standard i s given i n Table 9.  The pro-  24  TABLE 9 FEEDING STANDARD DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A RATE OF GAIN OF 1.5 POUNDS PER DAY HIGH PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds  Pounds of Hay per Day  Pounds of Supplement "A" per Day  4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0  400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700  Calculated Pounds of T.D.N, per Day  9.6 10.2 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.2 16.8  8.2 8.6 9.0 9.4 9.8 10.2 10.6 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.1 12.5 12.9  The concentrate p e l l e t s were formulated as shown i n Table I - Appendix IV. and were pelleted through a S.W. m i l l to y i e l d 1/4"  pellet  c y l i n d r i c a l pellets having an apparent  density of 0 . 9 8 . The proximate composition of concentrate and hay i s given i n Table II - Appendix IV. B. Second Winter Period The basis for the calculation of the four planes of n u t r i t i o n for the second winter period was Morrison's Feeding Standard (1948) and his estimate of dry matter intake i n animals i n this weight range.  This feeding standard was taken as the  high plane of n u t r i t i o n .  For the Medium-high plane 90$ of the  TABLE 10 FEEDING STANDARD ON A PER-ANIMAL-PER-DAY BASIS SECOND WINTER PERIOD Body Weight  TDN in #  700  11.6 11.8 12.1 12.3 12.5 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.5. 13.7 13.9 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.1 15.3 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.3  25 50 75  800  25 50 75  900  25 50 75  1000  25 50 75  1100  25 50 75  1200  Low Plane 10% TDN# Hay# 8.1 8.3  8.5 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.5 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.2 11.3  16.2 16.6 17.0 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.2 18.6 19.0 19.2 19.6 19.8 20.2 20.4 20.8 21.0 21.4 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.6  Medium-low Plane 80$ TDN TDN# Hay# Concentrate # 12.0 9.5 12.3 9.7 12.6 9.8 12.8 10.0 13.1 10.2 13.3 10.4 13.6 10.6 13.9 10.8 14.1 10.9 14.4 11.2 14.6 11.3 14.9 11.5 15.2 11.7 15.4 11.9 15.7 12.1 16.0 12.2 16.2 12.4 16.5 12.6 16.8 12.8 17.0 13.0 17.3 9.3  5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4  5.5  5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.4  6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8  Medium-high Plane 90$ TDN TDN# Hay# Concentrate # 10.4 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.7 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6  8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.6  9.9 10.1 11.3 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.7 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.1 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.8  High Plane 100$ TDN trate # 11.6 11.8 12.1 12.3 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2  13.5 13.7 13.9 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.1  15.3 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.3  4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4  4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8  14.8  15.1 15.4 15.7 16.0 16.3 16.6 16.9 17.1 17.4 17.7 18.0 18.3 18.6 18.9 19.2 19.4 19.7 20.1 20.3 20.7  ro  H i g h p l a n e was  used, f o r the Medium-low p l a n e 80%  and f o r the  Low p l a n e 70%,  expressed  feeding  i n pounds o f T.D.N.  s t a n d a r d i s g i v e n i n Table 3.  The  10.  E x p e r i m e n t a l R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n : The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t h i s experiment a r e  presented  i n a c h r o n o l o g i c sequence a c c o r d i n g t o f e e d i n g p e r i o d s  as  follows:  The  A  f i r s t winter period  B  f i r s t pasture period  C  second w i n t e r p e r i o d  D  second p a s t u r e p e r i o d  growth curves o f a l l e x p e r i m e n t a l animals a r e  i n Appendix I .  The  r e g r e s s i o n l i n e s were c a l c u l a t e d by  method o f l e a s t s q u a r e s . e x p e r i m e n t a l animals  given  the  Weekly body weight r e c o r d s : o f a l l  can be found i n Appendix I I .  Feed con-  sumption d a t a a r e g i v e n i n Appendix I I I . A.  F i r s t Winter P e r i o d : T a b l e 11  at  c o n t a i n s the body weights  the b e g i n n i n g o f the experiment,  of weanling  heifers  t h e i r gain i n weight during  the w i n t e r - f e e d i n g p e r i o d and t h e average d a i l y , g a i n - a c c o r d ing  t o the f o u r groups.  o f the h e i f e r s was  Because n e i t h e r age nor b i r t h w e i g h t  known, e q u a l body w e i g h t s  o f the animals were  used as the b a s i s f o r comparison of d a i l y g a i n , d a i l y f e e d i n t a k e and o f the f e e d e f f i c i e n c y among the groups - as i t I s e v i d e n t from T a b l e s 12 -  15.  27 The h i g h e s t d a i l y g a i n d u r i n g the w i n t e r p e r i o d was made by group IV on t h e h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n . g a i n expressed .271$  The r a t e o f  i n percentage o f t h e average body weight was  i n comparison w i t h group I , I I , I I I , showing t h e r a t e o f  g a i n .140$, .162$  and .192% r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The r e s u l t s o f t h e feed e f f i c i e n c y , p r e s e n t e d  i n Table  14, a r e i n agreement w i t h t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e , t h a t as an a n i m a l becomes h e a v i e r i t s feed e f f i c i e n c y becomes l o w e r , w h i c h means t h a t more f e e d i s r e q u i r e d p e r one pound o f g a i n made. A d i s c r e p a n c y can be observed  i n group I I I - a t t h e body w e i g h t  o f 450 and 500 pounds, the e f f i c i e n c y o f f e e d expressed i n pounds o f T.D.N, i s 7.1 and 6.4 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The f i g u r e  7.1  does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e average o f the whole group as i t was c a l c u l a t e d f o r 3 animals o n l y .  The remainder o f t h e a n i m a l s  o f t h i s group were h e a v i e r a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the experiment. A s i m i l a r case o c c u r r e d i n Group IV a t t h e body w e i g h t o f 650 pounds - w h i c h was reached  by 3 animals  Assuming t h a t t h e h a y . c o n t a i n s c o n c e n t r a t e 6%  only. 50$ T.D.N, and t h e  T.D.N., t h e h i g h e s t f e e d e f f i c i e n c y p e r 1  pound o f g a i n was shown by t h e animals  i n Group I V , f e d a  r a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g a h i g h amount o f c o n c e n t r a t e . Table 15 i n d i c a t e s t h e c o s t o f feed r e q u i r e d by a n i m a l s per 1 pound o f g a i n a t d i f f e r e n t body w e i g h t s , f o r i n s t a n c e : a t 500 pounds o f body weight t h e feed c o s t p e r 1 pound o f g a i n v a r i e s v e r y s l i g h t l y ; a g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e i n c o s t c a n be obs e r v e d a t 550 o r 600 pounds o f body w e i g h t ; g a i n was made by Group IV.  t h e most  expensive  TABLE 11 GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE FIRST WINTER PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) Heifer No. 30 31 32 =* 33 o u 34 e> 35 36  K-Value .001753 .001157  .001441  .001486 .001483 .000781 .001702  Total Average 37 38 39 ft 40 o 41  r-i  o 42 43  .001509  .001742 .001473  .001658 .001393 .002071 .001517  Total Average M 44  §•47 48 o 49 2  50  432 513  470 441 503  419  446  3224 460.5 501  417  473  444 444 400 454  3133 447.6  .002016 .002270 .001880 .001737  486 483 495 449  .001797 .002062  459  .001641  Total Average 51 52 53 P. =( 54 o r-i 55 56 57  Body Weight Begin. End  .003028 .002592 .001654 .003371 .003163 .002544 .002643  Total Average  426 432  3230 461.4 435  441  465 472  429 429  572 618 592 561 639 476 586  Gain I n 161 days 140  Average D a i l y gain .87 .65 .76 .75 .85 .35 .87  105 122 120 136 57  140  4044 577.7  820 117  5.10 .73  639 552 599 580 556 558 579  138 135 126 136 112 158 125  .86 .84 .78 .84 .70 .98 .78  930 132.9  5.78 .83  673  187  1116  670 595 555 613 602  175  4063 580  697  214 146 129 154 170  .  1.33 1.09 .91  .80  .96 1.06  4405  1175 167.9  7.31  708 646 608 813 715 646  273 205  1.70 1.39 .89 2.12 1.78 1.35 i:34  629.3  405  620  3076 439.4  4756 679.4  143 341 286 217 215  1680  240  1.04  10.57 1.51  TABLE 12 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS Group I II III IV  450  500  550  .741  .798 .812  .827  .772  .816  .958 1.445  1.257  .893  1.053 1.589  600  650  1.176  1.336 1.911  1.628  TABLE 13 DAILY FEED INTAKE PER ANIMAL AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS 450  Group No. I II III IV  •  Hay  Concent.  9.3 7.5 7.5 2.  2. 3.2 9.  Hay 12.9 9. 8. 4.  500  1Concent.  2.3 3.7 10.  Hay 15.3 9.6 9.6 4.  550  600  Concent.  1  2.9 4.1 13.2  Hay  10.5 4.  650  Concent.  5.  14.4  Hay  4.  Concent.  16.6  ro vO  TABLE 14 FEED EFFICIENCY PER 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS - IN LBS. Group I II III IV H  450  500  Hay  Cone.  TDN  Hay  Cone.  12.6 9.7 9.2 1.6  2.6 3.9 7.2  6.3 6.5 7.1 5.5  16.2 11.1 8.4  2.8  2.8 3.9 6.9  TDN  Hay  8.1 7.3 6.4 5.9  18.5 10.8 9.1 2.5  550  600  650  Cone.  TDN  Hay" -Cone.  TDN  Hay  Cone.  TDN  3.3 3.9 8.3  9.3 7.5 7. 6,7  8.9 2.5  7.3 7.  2.1  8.7  6.8  4.3  8.8  Assuming t h a t hay c o n t a i n s 50$ TDN and c o n c e n t r a t e c o n t a i n s 65$ TDN  TABLE 15 COST OF FEED PER 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN CENTS Group I II III IV ft  450 12.6  14.9  17.  16.  500 16.2 16.7 16.2 16.6  550 18.5  17.4 16.9 19.1  600  650  •• 17.5 20.1  19.5  P r i c e o f f e e d used i n c a l c u l a t i o n : 1 t o n o f hay  $20.00  1 t o n o f c o n c e n t r a t e . . . 40.00  o  TABLE 16 FIRST WINTER FEEDING PERIOD:  SUMMARY OF RESULTS  WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS. Group  I II III IV  Number of Animals 7 7 7 7  Average Body Wgt a t the Begin. End. 460.5 447.6 461.4 439.4  577.7 580. 629.3 679.4  T o t a l Gain T o t a l f e e d conper per sumption p e r Animal Group group" i n L b s . Hay Concen. 117. 132.9 167.9 240.  820. 930. 1175. 1680.  Cost o f 1 Pound o f G a i n :  2,681 4,578 12,880 18. 16.8 16.5 17.6  Cost o f Feed  Feed E f f i c i e n c y p e r 1 Lb. o f g a i n Hay Cone. TDN.  148.40 155.82 194.25 296.31  18.1 11. 8.7 2.3  . . . .  I II III IV  Group Group Group Group  2.9 3.9 7.7  9.1 7.4 6.9 6.1  32  A summary o f the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t w i n t e r p e r i o d i s g i v e n on T a b l e 16.  The a n i m a l s  o f Group I V ,  were one hundred pounds h e a v i e r than those o f Group I and t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n body w e i g h t o f t h e animals was a p p r o x i m a t e l y  50 pounds.  i n Groups I I and I I I  A v e r y s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e was  shown  between Groups I and I I - r e s u l t i n g from a lower body w e i g h t o f Group I I a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f e e d i n g p e r i o d and from a h i g h q u a l i t y hay f e d . I t c o u l d be s a f e l y concluded  that the  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two groups would be much more n o t i c e a b l e under normal r a n c h i n g c o n d i t i o n s , where poor q u a l i t y hay i s f e d i n most  cases.  U s i n g t h e g i v e n purchase p r i c e s f o r f e e d ($20. per 1 t o n o f hay, $40. per 1 t o n o f c o n c e n t r a t e ) g a i n was made by t h e animals  t h e most  expensive  o f Group I (18£); Group IV comes  second (17.6^); Group I I o c c u p i e s t h e t h i r d p l a c e and t h e cheapest g a i n was shown by Group I I I . A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of production cost i s given i n a t a b u l a t e d form: TABLE 17 COST OF ADDITIONAL GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT Group  I II III IV  Total Gain Lbs 820  930 1175  1680  Total Feed . $ 148.40  155.82  194.25 296.31  Additional gain Lbs  Additional cost $  Additional cost per 1 pound $ •  50  245 505  7.42 38.43 102.06  14.8 15.7  20.2  33 The p r o d u c t i o n c o s t o f the a d d i t i o n a l g a i n i n Group I I I v a r i e s o n l y s l i g h t l y from t h a t o f group I I .  The l e v e l o f  f e e d i n g would be f u l l y j u s t i f i e d i f the producer would i n t e n d t o s e l l the b r e e d i n g s t o c k . the animals  He c o u l d expect a h i g h e r p r i c e f o r  o f Group I I I because o f t h e i r b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n and  appearance. To s u p p o r t the c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  the advantages  o f h i g h f e e d i n g p r a c t i c e s o f beef c a t t l e , made a t the  beginning  i n t h i s t h e s i s , l e t us compare the c o s t o f a d d i t i o n a l g a i n o f Group IV w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n c o s t o f Group I . Group  I IV  Total Gain Lbs  Total Cost $  Additional Gain Lbs  820 1680  148.40 296.31  Additional Cost $  Additional Cost per 1 Pound  147.91  17.2  860  I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t w i c e as much b e e f was  produced i n the same  p e r i o d o f time i n Group IV and the p r o d u c t i o n c o s t of 1 pound o f g a i n was B.  s l i g h t l y lower than i n Group I .  F i r s t Pasture Period D u r i n g a p e r i o d of one week w h i c h was  animals  a l l o w e d f o r the  t o adapt themselves from a d r y r a t i o n t o the  pasture,  the h e i f e r s were f e d a g r a d u a l i n c r e a s i n g q u a n t i t y o f g r a s s . May  7, 1954  a l l the animals were p l a c e d t o g e t h e r on  and changes i n body weight were r e c o r d e d w e e k l y . p e r i o d l a s t e d 160 days.  The  The  On  pasture pasture  g a i n i n w e i g h t made by the  animals  34  d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d i s r e c o r d e d on T a b l e No. 18. The h i g h e s t r a t e o f g a i n was observed day.  i n Group I I b e i n g 1.53 pounds p e r  The h i g h e s t t o t a l g a i n made by Group I I , was 1,716 pounds;  that o f the three remaining  groups i n descending  o r d e r was  1,630 pounds f o r Group I I I , 1,580 pounds f o r Group I , and 1,032 pounds f o r Group I V . I f we compare t h e average d a i l y  gain  made by t h e animals a t e q u a l body w e i g h t we f i n d t h a t a t 650 pounds, o f body weight t h e h i g h e s t d a i l y g a i n was shown by t h e animals  o f Group I . T h i s h i g h r a t e o f growth o c c u r r e d  the f i r s t few weeks on p a s t u r e .  during  L a t e r on Group I I occupied  the f i r s t p l a c e i n r e g a r d t o r a t e o f g a i n as i n d i c a t e d i n T a b l e No. 19. The i n f l u e n c e o f p a s t u r e on growth o f t h e animals i s most e v i d e n t from t h e growth c u r v e s .  Group I f e d on t h e l o w  p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n showed t h e h i g h e s t i n c r e a s e i n weight d u r i n g the f i r s t seven weeks.  This increase i n weight i s a l s o n o t i c e -  a b l e on t h e growth curves o f t h e animals s m a l l e r degree.  The animals  i n Group I I but i n a  o f Group IV f e d on t h e h i g h  plane  o f n u t r i t i o n showed, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p a s t u r e p e r i o d , a d e c r e a s e i n r a t e o f growth.  This i n d i c a t e s that the pasture  a l o n e f o r t h i s group meant a lower p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n t h e i r winter feeding standard.  than  The sudden l o s s i n body w e i g h t  a f t e r t h e s e v e n t h week on p a s t u r e t h a t i s v i s i b l e on t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e growth curves can p r o b a b l y be e x p l a i n e d by t h e animals  r u n n i n g about w i l d l y when f r i g h t e n e d by t h e n o i s e o f  shot guns i n t h e v i c i n i t y .  TABLE 18 GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE FIRST PASTURE PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) Heifer No. 30 31 32 "  a.  33  % 34  u  35 36  K-Value  38  K 39 P<  2 41  a  42 43  Gain i n 160  Days  Average Daily Gain  576  774  198  1.24  619  862  243  1.52  .004123 .002493  597  865  268  1.68  596  783  214  1.34  .004098 .003104  637  904  267  1.67  473  655  182  1.14  603  811  208  1.30  .004061 .001888 .004071  .002278  .003289 .002063  .002526 .003020 .002386 .003759 .001932  Total Average 37  Body Weight a t the Begin. End  .002887 .002283  .004810  .002519 .002178 .003980  .002488  .003769 .002316 .002275 .003625 .002373  Total Average  4074 582  5654 807.7  1580 225.7  9.89  1.41  652  874  222  1.39  576  856  280  1.75  607 571  853 820  246 249  1.54 1.56  574  827  253  1.58  589 607  824 838  235 231  1.47  4176  5892  1716  10.73 1.53  596.6  841.7  245.1  1.44  36  TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) Heifer No  K-Value  44  .003825 .001767 .002868 .002130 .003161 .001987  45  a 46 3  4?  2 48  o  49 50  1.46  697  954  257  1.61  668  879  211  I.32  .003381  609 566  796  187 209  1.17 1.31  .003345  601  232  1.45  300  1.88  .001821 .002024  .002182 .004942  .002699  52  (Died)  o  56 57  days  234  51  u 55  160  Average Daily Gain  876  Total Average  P. 54  Gain i n  642  .002651  53  Body Weight a t the Begin. End  .001279  .004929 .002514 .002474 .001150 .001583  .001420 .001962 .002317 Total Average  593  775 833 893  4376  6006  625.1  858  1630 232  10.20 1.46  682  835  153  .96  595  880 ,  285  764  923  159  .99  709  896 801 717  187  1.17  4020 670  5052  1032 172  6.45 1.08  4690  5894  1204  7.53  649  621  842  152  96  1.78  .95 .60.  ft  Corrected f o r 6 Animals  TABLE 19 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS. Group I II III IV  650  700  750  800  2.535  1.492  1.648 1,761 1.554 1.367  1.846 1.878 1.672 1.483  2.184  1.643 1.519 1.459  2.092 1.911  TABLE 20 FIRST PASTURE PERIOD : SUMMARY OF RESULTS WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS Group  I II III IV  Number o f Animals 7 7 7 6  Body Weight a t Begin. End. 582. 596.6 625.1 670.  807.7 841.7 858. 842.  Total: Lbs o f Beef per a c r e  T o t a l Gain Per Animal P e r Group 225.7  245.1  232.9 172.  5,958 Lbs  1,580. 1,716. 1,630 1,032.  Average D a i l y gain per a n i m a l  No. of Acres  1.41 1.53  1.46 1.08  14  14 A c r e s  425.5 Lbs v3  As can be seen on T a b l e No.  20 the t o t a l g a i n made  by a l l groups d u r i n g the g r a z i n g season on f o u r t e e n a c r e s p a s t u r e c o n s i s t e d o f 5»958 pounds.  of  T h i s accounted f o r 425.5  pounds o f beef p r o d u c t i o n per a c r e o f p a s t u r e . I f we  c o n s i d e r w i n t e r f e e d i n g and p a s t u r e as  one  p r o d u c t i o n p e r i o d the r e s u l t i n g c a l c u l a t i o n shows the most p r o f i t a b l e l e v e l of feeding f o r w i n t e r i n g of weanling  heifers.  Assuming t h a t t h e c o s t f o r a l l f o u r groups i s c o n s t a n t  except  f o r feed d u r i n g the w i n t e r the f i n a l d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i o n c o s t becomes more e v i d e n t a t the end o f the p a s t u r e p e r i o d . T a b l e No.  2 compares the a d d i t i o n a l g a i n and  i t s c o s t among  the groups. TABLE 21 Group  Average Body Weight  T o t a l Gain Pounds  I II III  808 842 858  2380 2646 2863  IV  842  2856  The  Additional Gain - Lbs  266 217 7  Cost of Feed 148.40 155.82 194.25 296.31  Cost o f Additional Gain $ 7.42 38.43 102.06  a d d i t i o n a l g a i n o f 266 pounds of the a n i m a l s  Group I I i n c r e a s e d the t o t a l c o s t o f f e e d by $7.42, w h i l e c o s t o f a d d i t i o n a l g a i n i n Group I I I was  in the  much h i g h e r $38.43.  T h i s h i g h e r l e v e l of n u t r i t i o n would be j u s t i f i e d o n l y i f the r a n c h e r would i n t e n d t o s e l l the bred h e i f e r s a t t h e end the p a s t u r e p e r i o d . animals  of  He c o u l d expect a b e t t e r p r i c e f o r the  of Group I I I than f o r those o f Group I I as a r e s u l t  of  39  s l i g h t l y b e t t e r appearance.  On the o t h e r hand i f t h e b r e e d e r  wants t o keep t h e h e i f e r s f o r h i s own b r e e d i n g s t o c k t h e most p r o f i t a b l e w i n t e r f e e d i n g l e v e l would be those o f Group I I w h i c h made t h e b e s t use o f t h e p a s t u r e .  There was no s i g n i -  f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n body w e i g h t between t h e a n i m a l s o f Group I I and Group I I I a t t h e end o f t h e p a s t u r e p e r i o d . The problems  o f management d u r i n g t h e summer a r e  s i m p l e i n comparison w i t h t h o s e a r i s i n g d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r . soon as p a s t u r e s t u r n green t h e f e e d i n g problems  As  are l a r g e l y  s o l v e d because g r a s s i s an i d e a l r a t i o n f o r young growing animals.  Grass a l o n e o r d i n a r i l y p r o v i d e s a s a t i s f a c t o r y  d u r i n g t h e g r a z i n g season.  ration  T h e r e f o r e t h e emphasis on t h e  maximum use o f p a s t u r e i n beef p r o d u c t i o n i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t . "Grass i s t h e cheapest s o u r c e o f n u t r i e n t s f o r b o v i n e s , e s p e c i a l l y when i t i s consumed i n s i t u " ( H a m i l t o n 1952). T h e r e f o r e , t h e main duty o f t h e r a n c h e r must be t o make an e f f o r t t o manage  h i s p a s t u r e s i n s u c h a way t h a t t h e a n i m a l s  can make t h e b e s t use o f them and express t h e maximum growth d u r i n g t h e g r a z i n g season.  An i m p o r t a n t problem w h i c h f r e -  q u e n t l y a r i s e s on ranches i s whether or n o t t h e a n i m a l s o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f grass d u r i n g t h e g r a z i n g season. To s o l v e t h i s problem f o r our experiment a c a l c u l a t i o n was made i n o r d e r t o determine t h e p a s t u r e d r y m a t t e r requirements o f a l l experimental animals.  The c a l c u l a t i o n was  based on t h e r e s u l t s o f an experiment w i t h t h e S h o r t h o r n cows  338-111 K E U F F E L ft E S S E H C O . Logarithmic, 2V* X 2 Cycles. M A D E IN U . S . A .  40 w h i c h was c a r r i e d on d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1955.  The main  purpose o f t h i s experiment was t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f aureomycin on pregnant and l a c t a t i n g cows ( K i t t s , 1955 - u n p u b l i s h e d d a t a ) .  S i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e d a i l y grass  i n t a k e was r e c o r d e d and m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t o f t h e green f o r a g e was determined.  U s i n g t h e a c t u a l d a t e from t h i s experiment t h e  d r y m a t t e r requirement o f a n i m a l s a t d i f f e r e n t body w e i g h t s was c a l c u l a t e d by t h e method o f l e a s t s q u a r e s . shown on T a b l e No. 4, Appendix V.  The c a l c u l a t i o n i s  The f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n was  derived: Dry m a t t e r requirement  =  .17 w 7  where w i s a n i m a l body w e i g h t i n pounds The r e g r e s s i o n l i n e o f d r y m a t t e r i n t a k e i s shown on F i g u r e 5. U s i n g t h i s e q u a t i o n t h e t o t a l requirement o f p a s t u r e d r y m a t t e r was c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l e x p e r i m e n t a l a n i m a l s .  As  i t i s shown on T a b l e V - Appendix V, 2.743 tons o f d r y m a t t e r per a c r e was t h e n e c e s s a r y p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t .  Assuming  t h a t t h e s p o i l a g e o f grass on p a s t u r e c o n s i s t s o f 25#» t h e t o t a l requirement was 3.43 tons p e r a c r e .  According t o the  s t a t e o f t h e p a s t u r e d u r i n g t h e summer 1954 i t c o u l d be s a f e l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e amount o f grass a v a i l a b l e on t h e p a s t u r e met the d r y m a t t e r requirement o f a l l a n i m a l s . C.  Second W i n t e r P e r i o d The t h i r d phase o f t h i s experiment c a n be c h a r a c t e r -  i z e d as a w i n t e r i n g p e r i o d o f bred beef h e i f e r s under f o u r d i f f e r e n t planes of n u t r i t i o n .  41  The h e i f e r s were d i v i d e d a g a i n i n t o f o u r  original  groups; t h r e e a n i m a l s (No. 35 > 37» 49) were s o l d so t h a t the e q u a l number o f a n i m a l s i n each group was used f o r the cont i n u a t i o n of t h e e x p e r i m e n t . The f e e d i n g s t a n d a r d used d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d i s g i v e n on T a b l e 10.  and the feed consumption r e c o r d can be found i n  T a b l e I I - Appendix  III.  The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d on f o l l o w i n g T a b l e s No. 22  -  26 a r e based on the p e r i o d o f 150 days - up t o the b i r t h o f the f i r s t c a l f ; t h e f o l l o w i n g two months was the p e r i o d o f c a l v i n g which i s discussed separately. The i n f l u e n c e of d i f f e r e n t p l a n e s o f n u t r i t i o n on the growth r a t e o f bred y e a r l i n g h e i f e r s i s c l e a r l y seen on the growth c u r v e s :  Group I coming from p a s t u r e on hay r a t i o n o n l y  showed a v e r y l a r g e d e c l i n e i n the growth r a t e . d a i l y g a i n i n w e i g h t was d e c r e a s e d from 1.41 to  The average  pounds on p a s t u r e  .55 pounds d u r i n g the second w i n t e r p e r i o d .  A slight  c r e a s e o f r a t e o f g a i n was a l s o observed i n Group I I .  de-  There  was not any remarkable change i n the growth r a t e o f Group  III.  and i n most cases the growth curve o f these a n i m a l s i s r e p r e s ented by the s t r a i g h t l i n e c o v e r i n g 2 phases o f the e x p e r i m e n t : the  f i r s t p a s t u r e and the second w i n t e r p e r i o d .  The r a t e o f  g a i n i n Group IV - f e d on the h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n - was l o w e r than t h a t o f Group I I I .  I n some cases a tendency t o  i n c r e a s e the growth r a t e was o b s e r v e d ; however t h e change i n the  growth r a t e on the average was not s i g n i f i c a n t .  The  TABLE 22 .'GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE SECOND WINTER PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS) Heifer No.  K-Value  30  .0003728  Poo  .0003819 .0007745  M  034 36  .0008898  .0006420 .0008010  Total Average  S38 §40 g41  042  43  K44 M  45  P.46  o47 548 50  ,51 fc53 p,54 *55 256 °57  .001136 .001316 .001576 .001676 .001546 .001758  Body Weight a t the Begin. End  .80  102  .63 .60 .68  5171  861.8  5670 945.  499 83.2  3.32  875 837  1000 1010  125 173 205 224 204 246  .83 1.09 1.37 1.49 1.36 1.64  1177  7.78  880  815 930  833  810  826 826  856  1015 1050 1030 1102  .001574 .001677 .002001 .002081  935 981 907 815 792  1171 1246  889  5319  Total Average  .001759 .001888 .001916 .001514 .001736 .001785 Total Average  .29  120  902  5030  .001799  150  days  Average D a i l y gain  855 1022 928 910 1020 935  811  Total Average  .001604  Gain i n  838.3  6207 . 1034.5  44  48 95 90  196.2  236 265 300  .32  .55  1.30 1.57  284  1150  207 261  1.77 2. 1.89 1.38 1.74  6872  1207 1099 999  1553  1145.3  258.8  10.35  886.5  850  1094  244  1.63 1.77 1.99 1.47  858  1123  911 802 740  1132  5109  6569  948  851.5  1246  1028  946  1094.8  265 298 221  226 206 1460 243.3  1.73  1.51 1.37  9.74 1.62  TABLE 23 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHT IN LBS (SECOND WINTER PERIOD - 150 DAYS) Group I II III IV  850 .552 1.338 1.566 1.523  900  .641 1.351 1.684 1.563  950  1000  1100  .645  .766 1.501 1.789 1.763  2.009 1.946  1.426  1.721 1.678  LO  TABLE 24 FEED EFFICIENCY PER 1 POUND OF GfilN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS (IN LBS.) Group Hay  850 A Cone. TDN  900 Hay Cone.  TDN  Hay  950 Cone.  TDN  1000 Hay Cone.  TDN  I 39.2 1 6 . 5 29.6 14.8 30.4 15.2 26.4 13.2 II 10.2 4.2 7.8 10.4 4.3 8.0 10.2 4.1 7.8 1 0 ; ! 4.1 7.7 III 5.8 7.1 7.5 5.6 6.8 7.2 5.7 6.9 7.3 5.7 6.9 7.3 IV 2.9 10.9 8.6 3. 10.9 8.6 2.9 10.5 8.3 2.9 10.4 8.3 ft Assuming t h a t hay c o n t a i n s 5°# TDN and c o n c e n t r a t e c o n t a i n s 65$ TDN  1100 Hay Cone.  TDN  5.4 2.8  6.9 7.9  6.5 10.  TABLE 25 COST OF FEED IN 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS (IN CENTS)A Group I II III IV 2  850  900  950  1000  1100  32.9 18.6 20. 24.7  29.6 19. 19.2 24.8  30.4 18.4 19.5 23.9  26.4 18.3 19.5 23.7  18.4 22.8  Based on p u r c h a s i n g  price:  $20. $40.  1 t o n o f hay 1 ton of concentrate  4*  45  average d a i l y g a i n made by group IV was 1.62  pounds i n  comparison w i t h 1.73 pounds by Group I I I . The h i g h e s t t o t a l g a i n i n t h i s 150 day p e r i o d was reached pounds.  by t h e animals o f Group I I I - c o n s i s t i n g o f 1553 The l o w e s t g a i n - 499 pounds - was made by Group I  (Table 2 2 ) . A comparison o f t h e d a i l y g a i n i n weight a t e q u a l body weights  among t h e groups i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h i g h e s t g a i n t h r o u -  ghout t h e whole p e r i o d was made by Group I I I - as i t i s shown on T a b l e  23. The feed e f f i c i e n c y d a t a g i v e n on T a b l e 24 s u p p o r t t h e  p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s o f many i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t t h e g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d does n o t mean a v e r y h i g h s t r e s s on t h e young growing animal.  The animals  i n a l l f o u r groups showed an i n c r e a s i n g  t r e n d o f feed e f f i c i e n c y towards p a r t u r i t i o n .  The g a i n i n body  weight o f a pregnant a n i m a l i s p r i m a r i l y caused by an i n c r e a s i n g w e i g h t o f t h e f o e t u s and by a c c u m u l a t i o n a m n i o t i c and a l l a n t o i c f l u i d s .  of the  The f e e d requirement  i n the  net energy s e n s e , t o make one pound o f g a i n o f t h e f o e t a l t i s s u e s i s much lower - as i t i s b u i l t m a i n l y from muscle tissue.  The d i f f e r e n c e i n n e t energy requirements  t o make one  pound o f g a i n i n t h e p r o t e i n sense and f a t was shown i n t h e f i r s t part of t h i s  thesis.  T a b l e No. 26 c o n t a i n s a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s obt a i n e d d u r i n g t h e second w i n t e r p e r i o d .  The f e e d  efficiency  per one pound o f g a i n i s t w i c e as s m a l l i n Group IV as i n  46 Group I - expressed  i n pounds o f T.D.N.  Only a s l i g h t  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e feed e f f i c i e n c y i s n o t i c e a b l e between Groups I I and I I I . The cheapest g a i n d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d was made by the animals  o f Group I I , t h e h i g h e s t c o s t was r e q u i r e d by  Group I V . The f i r s t t h r e e p e r i o d s c o n s i d e r e d as one u n i t were the bases f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n presented can be seen from t h e r e s u l t s t h e animals  i n T a b l e No. 27.  As  o f Group I I were most  j  p r o f i t a b l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l o w e s t c o s t p e r one pound o f g a i n . The f i g u r e s , i n column t h r e e do n o t express  the absolute  value  o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n c o s t o f one pound o f g a i n but a r e t h e means f o r comparison o f a l l t h e groups.  The c o s t o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l  g a i n i n Group I I - 944 pounds - was $71.53.  T h i s means t h a t  each a d d i t i o n a l pound i n Group I I c o s t 7.58 c e n t s , so t h a t t h e f e e d i n g s t a n d a r d o f t h i s Group seems t o be most  economical.  The a d d i t i o n a l 570 pounds o f g a i n i n Group I I I were produced at a p p r o x i m a t e l y  t h r e e times t h e c o s t o f Group I I .  This  feeding  s t a n d a r d as was s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y would be j u s t i f i e d o n l y i f the bred h e i f e r s were i n t e n d e d f o r s a l e .  Even though t h e t o t a l  g a i n o f Group IV was 77 pounds lower than t h a t o f Group I I I t h e t o t a l c o s t o f f e e d was $144.68 h i g h e r .  The r a i s i n g o f b r e e d i n g  s t o c k on a h i g h p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n as Group IV was f e d would be v e r y u n p r o f i t a b l e f o r t h e r a n c h e r . The l a s t two months o f t h e w i n t e r f e e d i n g p e r i o d w h i c h were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c a l c u l a t i o n we're the p e r i o d of c a l v i n g .  P r a c t i c a l l y a l l t h e c a l v e s were b o r n between  TABLE 26 SECOND WINTER PERIOD : SUMMARY OF RESULTS  3  WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS. Group  I II III IV  &  Number of Animals 6 6 6 6  Average Body Wgt. at the Begin. End. 861.8 838.3 886.5 851.5  945. 1034.5 1145.3 1094.8  T o t a l Gain per per A n i m a l Group  T o t a l feed consumption p e r group i n Lbs Hay Coneen.  Cost o f Feed $  Feed E f f i c i e n c y p e r 1 Lb. o f g a i n Hay Cone. TDN  83.2 196.2 258.8 243.3  16,581.6 12,816.6 5,233. , . 4,414.8 15,969.6  168.52 232.63 320/92 363.54  33.8 10.9 6.5 3.  499 1177 1530 1460  C a l c u l a t i o n s a r e based on t h e p e r i o d o f 150 days up t o t h e b i r t h o f t h e f i r s t Cost o f 1 Pound o f G a i n :  $  t 4 0  33.8 19.8 20.7 24.9  4.4 7.1 10.9  16.9 8.3 8. 8.6  calf  ... Group I ... II ... " HI ... " IV 0  4>» S3  TABLE 27  Group  I II III IV  T o t a l Gain during the F i r s t 3 Periods 2879 3823 4393 4316  T o t a l Cost o f feed $ 316.92 388.45 515.17 659.85  Average Cost o f 1 Pound o f g a i n  11.  Additional Gain  10.16  944  11.73 15.29  570 77  Cost of A d d i t i o n a l Gain Total P e r 1 Lb.  71.53 126.72  144.68  7.58 22.23  fe  49 TABLE 28 PARTURITION DATA Cow No.  Loss o f Body Wgt. by c a l v i n g i n Lbs.  30 31 32 33 34 36  67. 91. 90. 107. 109.  464. Total Average 92.8 38 39  C a l f Weight I n Lbs I n % o f cow s body w e i g h t 1  Sex o f C a l v i n g calves Percent.  62.  3.63  6.07  Heifer Heifer  59. 63. 67.  6.32 6.05  Heifer Bull Heifer  31.  6.96  282. 56.4  29.03  55.  4.83  83.3#  5.81  125. 99.  75.  50.  4.71 7.03 4.06  Heifer Heifer Bull Heifer  43  150  77.  6.78  Bull  Total Average  561. 112.2  308. 61.6  27.41  44 45 46 47 48 50  115. 130.  63.  145. 134.  96.  61. 81.  5.29 5.45 5.74 5.87 5.80 6.40  Total Average  788. 131.3  416. 69.3  40 41 42  51 53 54 55 56 57  105.  82.  168.  131  148 112 102  118  123  51.'  5.48  70. 70. 71.  62 73 59 55  67 61  •  Heifer Heifer Bull Bull Heifer Bull  34.55 5.29  5.96 4.34 4.68 5.95 5.70  377 62.8  31.92  A l l Groups Average 1 1 4 . 6  62.9  5.59  5.32  died died died 50$ (100$)  5.76  734 122.3  Total Average  83.35?  Heifer Heifer Heifer Bull Bull Heifer 100$  H e i f e r s 63.6$ Bulls 36.4$  79.17  March 1 6 and May 1 1 except t h r e e w h i c h were b o r n l a t e r on t h e pasture. the  The w e i g h t o f t h e c a l v e s expressed i n p e r c e n t a g e o f  dam's body w e i g h t does n o t show any s i g n i f i c a n t  between t h e g r o u p s , t h e average b e i n g 5 - 5 9 p e r c e n t . No. 2 8 ) .  difference (Table  The average b i r t h w e i g h t o f t h e c a l v e s was 6 2 . 9  pounds; t h e h e a v i e s t c a l v e s were born i n Group I I I , t h e s m a l l e s t i n Group I , as was a n t i c i p a t e d .  The l o w e s t average  o f t h e b i r t h weight o f t h e c a l v e s i n Group I was caused by c a l v e No. 3 0 w e i g h i n g 3 1 pounds.  A l t h o u g h t h i s c a l f was s m a l l  i t was kept w i t h t h e herd f o r t h e purpose o f f u r t h e r e x p e r i mentation.  Of t w e n t y - f o u r h e i f e r s 2 2 gave b i r t h t o c a l v e s ;  however 3 o f them d i e d s h o r t l y a f t e r b e i n g b o r n thus making the  c a l v i n g percentage 7 9 . 1 7 $ .  I I I showed p h y s i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s assistance.  F i v e o f t h e s i x cows i n Group a t t h e c a l v i n g and r e q u i r e d  One cow i n each o f t h e o t h e r groups had t h e same  calving d i f f i c u l t i e s .  The h i g h e s t l o s s o f body w e i g h t t h r o u g h  c a l v i n g was observed i n Group I I I , t h e average b e i n g 1 3 1 . 3 pounds. D.  Of a l l t h e c a l v e s b o r n 6 3 . 6 $ were h e i f e r s and 36.4 b u l l s . The Second P a s t u r e P e r i o d The f o u r t h and f i n a l phase o f t h i s f e e d i n g experiment  had two main o b j e c t i v e s :  t o determine t h e i n f l u e n c e o f l a c t -  a t i o n on t h e growth r a t e and development  o f two-year o l d cows  and t o determine whether o r not t h e two-year o l d s a r e a b l e t o produce a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f m i l k f o r maximum growth o f t h e calves.  51 A r e m a r k a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the growth r a t e of the young cows can be observed among the f o u r groups by  study-  i n g the l a s t segment o f t h e i r growth c u r v e s . The  cows i n Group I s i m i l a r l y as i n the f i r s t  p e r i o d - i n c r e a s e d t h e i r r a t e of g a i n more t h a n 100$ comparison w i t h t h a t of the p r e v i o u s p e r i o d .  in  After  three -  f o u r weeks on p a s t u r e the d e c l i n e o f the growth r a t e always i n d i c a t i n g an a s c e n d i n g  tendency.  During  77 days on p a s t u r e - when the experiment was  pasture  occurred  the p e r i o d o f  terminated  t h i s group reached the h i g h e s t t o t a l g a i n i n w e i g h t -  605  pounds i n comparison w i t h 34-8 pounds o f Group I I , 242 pounds of Group I I I and 165 The  pounds of Group IV. ( T a b l e  h i g h d a i l y g a i n o f t h i s group was  i n s u f f i c i e n t r a t i o n a t the b e g i n n i n g  29). p r o b a b l y due  to  o f the l a c t a t i o n p e r i o d .  Fed on a medium q u a l i t y hay o n l y , the cows d i d not r e c e i v e a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f n u t r i e n t s f o r growth and m i l k after parturition.  The  production  i n h i b i t e d growth and l o s s o f body  weight was  the r e s u l t .  When p l a c e d on p a s t u r e t h e i r d a i l y  i n t a k e was  h i g h enough t o a l l o w the cows t o produce a s u f f i c -  i e n t amount of m i l k as w e l l as t o r e p l a c e the body t i s s u e up i n the f i r s t few weeks of l a c t a t i o n f o r m i l k The maintenance c o s t of t h i s group was  feed  used  production.  the l o w e s t among the  groups a c c o r d i n g t o the lowest body w e i g h t a t the b e g i n n i n g the p a s t u r e  period.  A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n was lesser  of  extent.  The  observed i n Group I I but t o a  maintenance c o s t was  much h i g h e r because  TABLE 29 CHANGES IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE SECOND PASTURE PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) K-Value  Body Weight a t the Begin. End  30  842  969  127  894  988  94  1.22  964  1056  92  1.19  33  .007864 .000469 .004686 .001210 .003886 .000706 .005637  837  924  87  1.13  34  .004430  921  1041  120  1.56  843  928  85  5301. 883.5  5906.  605.  1138 1078  31 P.  32  o  36  .000072 .000684 .003131 .000488  Total Average  p.  o  38.  .002329  1084  39  .000083  .000471  A1073 1018 978  .000591  A1122  .002369  1135 1029  40 41 42  .000114 .003604  .000615 43  .001999  984.  Total gain or l o s s i n 77 days  Average d a i l y gain loss  Cow No.  1142  1150  1.65  1.11  7.86  1.31  100.8  0.77  1024  1011 1231  '  0.08  6.  0.43  33. 8  2'}  28.)  117.  1.52  1219  84.  1.09  1078  49.  0.64  348.  4.53  .000135  Total Average  6386.  * 6560  1064.3  A  After parturition  *  174 Lbs l o s t by c a l v i n g  1093. 3  58.  0.76  TABLE 29 (CONTINUED) Cow No.  K-Value  44  .003043 -.000026 .002193  1126  .003521 .000165  1145  45 46  o 47 u o 48 50  .002414 -.000446 .005386 .000192 .004550 .000117  Total Average  51 53 54 55 o 56 C5 57  .002791 -.000594 .004950:  -.000124 .000154 .000730 •.000170 .000217  Total Average  Body Weight at the Begin. End 1149 1194  1208  1175  1147 1269 1201 1212  Total gain or l o s s i n 77 days  Average d a i l y gain loss  49) 21  0.'27  75 )  0.09  -28)  -68 )  7  /  0.87  67  •  1072  1073  1  0.01  942  1012  70  0.91  1076  1152  76  0.99  6555. 1092.5  242 6797 1132.8 40.3  0.52  1069  1133  0.25  1066 1142  1135  3.14  1230 1095 1070 1054  1153 1060 1070  64.) 19 -45.) 76. ) - 7. ) 13. 58. -10. 16.  6584 1097.3  6749 1124.8  165. 27.5  1115  1088 1142 1243  6  Q  6  9  0.90 0.17 0.75 -0.13 0.21 2.15 0.36  54  the cows were about 180 Group I .  pounds h e a v i e r than the animals  T h i s o f f e r s an e x p l a n a t i o n o f the s l i g h t l y  of  lower  r a t e o f g a i n o f t h i s group as compared w i t h t h a t observed i n Group I .  E n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t growth p a t t e r n s were found i n  Group I I I and Group IV.  The  change from the d r y l o t t o  p a s t u r e a l s o r e s u l t e d i n an i n c r e a s i n g r a t e of g a i n d u r i n g first 2 - 3  the  weeks, the i n c r e a s e b e i n g much lower t h a n t h a t o f  groups I and I I .  Group I I I c o n s i s t i n g of t h r e e  and t h r e e n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows expresses  lactating  very c l e a r l y  the  i n f l u e n c e of l a c t a t i o n on the r a t e of growth o f young cows. W h i l e the n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows f o l l o w e d the p a t t e r n of Group I w i t h an i n c r e a s i n g growth r a t e throughout the whole p e r i o d , the l a c t a t i n g cows showed a n o t i c e a b l e decrease i n the r a t e of g a i n - expressed Only one  by the n e g a t i v e K - v a l u e on the growth c u r v e s .  e x c e p t i o n can be p o i n t e d out - l a c t a t i n g cow No.  55  i n Group IV showed an i n c r e a s i n g t r e n d o f growth r a t e d u r i n g the whole p a s t u r e p e r i o d . These heavy and f a t cows o f Groups I I I and IV d i d not r e c e i v e a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f grass t o meet the h i g h maintenance c o s t and m i l k p r o d u c t i o n .  No o t h e r r e s u l t c o u l d  expected than the l o s s of body w e i g h t or lower m i l k The  be  production.  second p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n  with  growth r a t e o f the c a l v e s . S t i l l another problem arose d u r i n g the second period:  pasture  whether or not the p a s t u r e p r o v i d e s grass i n s u f f i c i e n t  amount f o r a l l e x p e r i m e n t a l a n i m a l s . was  c a r r i e d on as was  T a b l e V, Appendix V ) . a c r e was  3.07  tons.  A similar  calculation  done f o r the f i r s t p a s t u r e p e r i o d (see The  t o t a l d r y m a t t e r requirement  To t h i s f i g u r e i t was  per  n e c e s s a r y t o add  30$ t o express the s p o i l a g e made by the g r a z i n g a n i m a l s , so t h a t the d r y m a t t e r requirement (^  4 tons).  3.99  per a c r e was  tons  I f we take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t a t l e a s t  10  c a l v e s were a l s o consuming g r a s s and t h a t the 7 a c r e s o f p a s t u r e produced  a lower y i e l d per a c r e due t o r e n o v a t i o n ,  we can c o n c l u d e t h a t the p a s t u r e d i d not produce a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f g r a s s f o r a l l t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n i m a l s . n e c e s s a r y a f t e r the experiment was  I t was  t e r m i n a t e d , t o feed the  animals s u p p l e m e n t a l green f o r a g e . E.  Growth Rate o f C a l v e s A l l c a l v e s were i d e n t i f i e d w i t h e a r t a g s h a v i n g  the  l a s t two f i g u r e s i d e n t i c a l w i t h numbers o f t h e i r dams.  As  can  be seen from t h e growth curves (Appendix I ) t h e r e i s a marked d i f f e r e n c e i n the growth p a t t e r n between Groups I and  IV.  The c a l v e s of Group I showed a h i g h e r r a t e o f g a i n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 5 t o 6 weeks; a f t e r t h i s p e r i o d the r a t e o f g a i n dec l i n e d as i s i n d i c a t e d by a w e l l marked "break" on the growth curves.  A s i m i l a r change i n r a t e o f g a i n was  Group IV w i t h the one e x c e p t i o n o f c a l f No. was  not observed i n  55.  C a l f No.  30  not c o n s i d e r e d as n o r m a l , w e i g h i n g 31 pounds a t b i r t h -  t h a t i s about one h a l f o f the average b i r t h w e i g h t o f a l l  56 calves.  I t s r a t e o f growth was s l i g h t l y lower t h a n the  average o f Group I and i t d i d not change d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i mental p e r i o d .  There was no evidence  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f dwarfism  o f any o f t h e t y p i c a l  shown by t h i s c a l f a s i d e from  i t s small s i z e . The growth p a t t e r n s o f t h e c a l v e s w i t h i n Group I I and I I I v a r y t o a l a r g e r e x t e n t :  about 50$ show a s i m i l a r i t y  t o Group I and the o t h e r h a l f f o l l o w s t h e p a t t e r n o f Group IV. The d i f f e r e n c e i n average r a t e o f g a i n among t h e groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t - as i t i s e v i d e n t from Table  30.  T a b l e 31 shows t h a t the b i r t h w e i g h t o f t h e b u l l c a l v e s was c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r than t h a t o f t h e h e i f e r c a l v e s . T a b l e 33 p r e s e n t s a comparison o f body w e i g h t o f c a l v e s a t t h e same age. c a l v e s o f Group I reached  I t i s o f i n t e r e s t t o note t h a t the a h i g h e r w e i g h t a t any g i v e n age  than Group I V , a l t h o u g h the average b i r t h w e i g h t was a l l y t h e same.  practic-  T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s not  apparent from the e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a .  F u r t h e r work s h o u l d be  c a r r i e d out t o c o n f i r m t h i s f i n d i n g and i f p o s s i b l e seek an explanation f o r i t s occurrance. The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n Groups I I and I I I do n o t express a t r u e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the groups s i n c e they were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g d a t a from o n l y t h r e e  animals.  The body w e i g h t range o f dams was t o o narrow i n t h i s experiment t o draw any v a l u a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s on the i n f l u e n c e o f body w e i g h t on the b i r t h w e i g h t o f t h e c a l v e s .  The  TABLE 30 RATE OF GROWTH OF CALVES (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) Group  I  Calf No.  Total Average  Calculation Weight  30 31  31 62  34 63  33  59  59  34  63  63  36  67  66  282 56.4  285 57  38 39  55 51  56 49  40 41 43  75 50 77  79 54 76  Total Average II  Birth Wgt.  308 61.6  314 62.8  K-Value  .01217 .02774 .01332 .00678 .02132 .00888 .02071 .00979 ,01888 .00931 •v.  .01489 .01609 .02162 .01041 .01251 .01761 .01088 .01485  ,  Average daily gain  Total Gain  Age in Days  182 336  148 273  137 136  1.08 2.01  F F  224  165  98  1.68  F  247  184  98  1.88  M  227  161  97  1.66  F  Body Weight a t t h e end o f experiment  1216 243.2  Sex  8.31 1.66  931 186.2  106 172  50 123  39 83  1.28 1.48  F F  299 114 276  220 60 200  104 42 119  2.12 1.43 1.68  M F M  967 193.4  653 130.6  7.99 1.60  -o  TABLE 30 (CONTINUED) rroup  Calf No.  Birth Wgt.  Calculated Weight  III  44  63  64 •  45  70  70  47  71  68  Total Average  IV  Total Average  60.  202 67.3  51 53  62 73  67 70  54  59  57  55  55  59  56 57  67 61  65 62  204  377 62.8  380 63.3  K-Value  .01945 .00940 .01978 .01632 .00899 .02239 .00916 .01507  .01190 .01338 .01042 .01579 .01442 .01734 .00979 .01125 .02990 .01491  Age Average in daily days gain  Body Weight at the end of experiment'  Total gain  307  243  123  1.98  F  268  198  112  1.77  F  205  137  88  1.56  M  780 260  578 192.7  219 172  152 102  98 84  1.55 1.21  F F  229  172  91  1.89  F  234  175  105  1.67  M  158 105  93 43  80 18  1.16 2.39  M F  1117 186.2  737 122.8  S<  5.31 1.77  9.87 1.65  VJI CO  59  TABLE 31 MEAN BIRTH WEIGHT OF CALVES ACCORDING TO SEX B u l l calves . . . . 7 0 . 1 Lbs Heifer calves . . . 6 1 . 4 Lbs  TABLE 32 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHT OF CALVES IN LBS.  Group  100  I II III IV  1.73 1.35 2.05 1.37  150  200  1.93  2.07 2.26 1.83  2.38 2.69 2.12  2.41  2.44  1.69 1.75 1.96  230  TABLE 33 COMPARISON OF BODY WEIGHT AT THE SAME AGE OF CALVES (WEIGHT IN LBS.) ' Group I  Calf No. A 30 31 33 34 36  Average II  38 39  40 41 43  Average 44  III  45 * 46 47 *• 48 *• 50  Average IV  51 53 54 55 56 57  Average  Birth Weight  Days  Days  Days  49  103 246  208  30  60  90  34 63 59 63 66  113 115  71 177 159 170 161  62.8  116  166.8  223.3  56 49 79 54 76  92 96 120 92 105  135 175  185 255  145  202  62.8  101  151.6  214  64 70 70 68 61  115 108  170 176  226 220  121  158  209  69.  114.6  168  218.3  67 70 57 59 65  98 105 95 99  140 134 147  200 183 227 202  62  90  126  63.3  97.4  139.6  118 118  227 212  81  151  A  C a l f No. 30 was n o t i n c l u d e d  *  C a l v e s No. 4 6 , 48, 50 d i e d s h o r t l y a f t e r b i r t h  into calculations  203.  h i g h e s t average o f t h e c a l v e s ' weight a t b i r t h was observed i n Group I I I . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e growth r a t e o f the c a l v e s , m i l k p r o d u c t i o n o f a l l two-year o l d cows was c o n s i d e r e d as s u f f i c i e n t under t h e g i v e n management c o n d i t i o n s . T a b l e 34 shows the weight changes o f t h e cows over a time c o n s t a n t  lactation  period. TABLE 34 THE Group  I II III IV A  INFLUENCE OF LACTATION ON BODY WEIGHT OF DAMS Average Body Wgt before p a r t u r i t i o n - Lbs.  Average Body Wgt. 90 days a f t e r p a r t u r i t i o n Lbs. 958  964  1132  A  Loss o f Body Weight Lbs. 6  52  1080  1155  1204 1171 1193  49  A 53  1118 1135  58  D a t a f o r n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows t h a t l o s t t h e i r c a l v e s after birth.  shortly  As i t i s e v i d e n t from t h i s t a b l e t h e cows d i d n o t r e a c h t h e body weight w h i c h t h e y had b e f o r e p a r t u r i t i o n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e months o f l a c t a t i o n .  The s m a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e was ob-  s e r v e d i n Group I , t h e . s l o w e s t r e c o v e r y a f t e r was  shown by t h e cows o f Group IV.  parturition  A c c o r d i n g t o these  results  l a c t a t i o n r e t a r d e d t h e growth o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n i m a l s .  The  d a t a o f n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows i n Group I I I s u p p o r t s our statement a that the pasture d i d not p r o v i d e / s u f f i c i e n t l y plane o f n u t r i t i o n .  high  /  62  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  Four groups o f w e a n l i n g H e r e f o r d h e i f e r s were p l a c e d on f o u r d i f f e r e n t w i n t e r p l a n e s o f n u t r i t i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f two y e a r s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n : Group I  -  Low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group I I -  Medium-low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group I I I -  Medium-high p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n  Group IV  High plane of n u t r i t i o n  -  D u r i n g t h e summer seasons  t h e h e i f e r s were kept on  p a s t u r e p r o v i d i n g t h e same f e e d i n g l e v e l f o r a l l a n i m a l s .  The  one y e a r o l d h e i f e r s were b r e d d u r i n g t h e months o f June and July.  A l l animals were weighed weekly and f e e d  consumption  was r e c o r d e d weekly. To i l l u s t r a t e t h e growth r a t e o f t h e h e i f e r s ,  K-values  were c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l a n i m a l s by t h e method o f l e a s t  squares  and t h e i r growth curves were constructed.;. A t t h e end o f t h e second w i n t e r p e r i o d a l l p a r t u r i t i o n d a t a were c a r e f u l l y r e c o r d e d and t h e r a t e o f growth o f t h e c a l v e s s t u d i e d . . From t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t h i s experiment t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn: (1)  The f i r s t post-weaning w i n t e r p e r i o d i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t  i n r e g a r d t o t h e feeding, l e v e l o f young growing h e i f e r s . medium-low p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n (Group I I ) showed t h e b e s t r e s u l t s from t h e economic p o i n t o f view.  The  (2)  Young h e i f e r s can be b r e d as y e a r l i n g s i f the p r e v i o u s  w i n t e r - f e e d i n g l e v e l a l l o w s them t o grow c o n t i n u o u s l y and t o r e a c h a t l e a s t 7 0 0 pounds body weight b e f o r e the b r e e d i n g period (3)  starts.  The g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d d i d not r e s u l t i n a decreased  growth  r a t e o f the bred h e i f e r s . (4)  The p h y s i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of p a r t u r i t i o n i n two y e a r o l d  h e i f e r s do not appear t o be i n s u r m o u n t a b l e i f the w i n t e r p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n i s adequate. (5)  The l a c t a t i o n p e r i o d means a heavy d r a i n on the young  female hence a h i g h l e v e l o f n u t r i t i o n must be p r o v i d e d i n terms o f s u f f i c i e n t amount o f p a s t u r e d r y m a t t e r d u r i n g the g r a z i n g season. (6)  Average b i r t h weight o f c a l v e s was 6 2 . 9 pounds, b e i n g  h i g h e r f o r b u l l c a l v e s than h e i f e r c a l v e s . (7)  P a s t u r e d r y m a t t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r beef c a t t l e may  c a l c u l a t e d from the f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n : DM =  0.17  W  7  (w i s a n i m a l weight g i v e n i n pounds)  be  64  BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.  A m s c h l e r , W., D i e Baby-Beef und J u n g r i n d e r m a s t R e i f f e i s e n d r u c k e r e i , Wien, 1953.  2.  Armsby, H.P., and J.A. F r i e s , 1917. Influence of the Degree o f F a t n e s s o f C a t t l e Upon t h e i r U t i l i z a t i o n o f Feed, J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h I I , 451-72.  3.  Bechdel, S . J . S t u d i e s i n V e a l P r o d u c t i o n Pa. S t a t e C o l . Ann. R p t . O f f . Doc. 14, 1916-17, 337-47,  1917.  4.  B l a c k , W.H. and B. Knapp, 1938. A Method o f M e a s u r i n g Performance i n B e e f C a t t l e . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e American S o c i e t y o f A n i m a l P r o d u c t i o n , pp. 72-77.  5.  B r o d y , S., 1945, B i o e n e r g e t i c s and Growth P u b l i s h i n g Company, New York.  6.  C o l e , L.Z. and T. Johansson. The Y i e l d and C o m p o s i t i o n of M i l k from "Aberdeen-Angus Cows". J o u r . D a i r y S o c . 6:565-580,  Reinhold  1933.  7.  D i c k e r s o n , G.E. and J.W. Gowen, 1947, H e r e d i t a r y O b e s i t y and E f f i c i e n t Food U t i l i z a t i o n i n M i c e . S c i e n c e . 105:496-498.  8.  G i f f o r d , W., The V a l u e o f P a r t i a l and Completed L a c t a t i o n Records f o r E v a l u a t i o n D a i r y Cows. J o u r . D a i r y S c i . 26:724, 1943.  9.  G i f f o r d , W., Records o f Performance T e s t s f o r B e e f C a t t l e i n B r e e d i n g Herds. A g r i c u l . E x p e r . S t . U n i v e r s i t y o f A r k a n s a s . B u l l 531, 1953.  10.  Gowen, J.W. I n h e r i t a n c e i n C r o s s e s o f D a i r y and-Beef Breeds o f C a t t l e . I I J o u r . Hered. 11:300-316, 1920  11.  G u i l b e r t , H.R. The Importance o f Continuous Growth i n "Beef C a t t l e " C a l i f o r n i a A g r . E x p e r . S t . B u l l . No. 688, 1944.  12.  G u i l b e r t , H.R. and Y.K. L o o s l i - , 1951. Comparative N u t r i t i o n o f Farm A n i m a l s , H o u r n a l o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e 10:22-41.  13. Haecker, T.L., A n a l y s i s o f B e e f C a r c a s s e s . M i n n e s o t a A g r i c u l t . Experiment S t a t i o n . B u l l No. 193, 1922.  65  BIBLIOGRAPHY - CONTINUED 14.  Hogan, A.G. W.D. Salmon and H.D. Fox, 1922. The I n f l u e n c e o f t h e P l a n e o f N u t r i t i o n on the Maintenance R e q u i r e ment o f C a t t l e . M i s s o u r i Exp. S t n . B u l l . 51.  15.  K e l l n e r , 0 and A. K o h l e r , Untersuchungen ueber den s t o f f und E n e r g i e umsatz des erwachsenen Rindes d e r E r h a l t u n g s - und P r o d u c t i o n s f u e t t e r , Land, V e r s . S t n . 53, 1-16, 1900.  .16.  Knapp, B. J r . and W.H. B l a c k , F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Rate of Gain o f Beef C a l v e s D u r i n g the Suckling p e r i o d . J o u r . Agr. Res. 63:249-254, 1941.  17.  L u s h , J . L . Normal Growth o f Beef C a t t l e , Exp. S t a . B u l l . No. 4 0 9 , 1-34, 1930.  18.  M i t c h e l l , H.H., 1932, The E f f e c t o f t h e Amount o f Feed Consumed by C a t t l e on t h e U t i l i z a t i o n o f i t s Energy C o n t e n t . J o u r . A g r . Res. 45*163  19.  M o r r i s o n , F.B., Feeds and F e e d i n g - 21st Ed. M o r r i s o n P u b l i s h i n g Company I t h a c a , New Y o r k , 1949.  20.  M o u l t o n , C R . , Normal Growth o f Domestic A n i m a l s , M i s s o u r i Agr. Exp. S t a . Res. B u l l . 62, 1923.  21.  M o u l t o n , C R . P.F. Trowbridge and L.D. H a i g h , S t u d i e s i n A n i m a l N u t r i t i o n . M i s s o u r i Agr. Exp. S t a . Res. B u l l . 43:1-111, 1921  22.  Texas A g r .  Mumford, F.B. The E f f e c t on Growth o f B r e e d i n g Immature A n i m a l s , M i s s o u r i Agr. E x p . S t a . Res. B u l l . 45,  1921.  23.  P e t e r s e n , W.E. D a i r y S c i e n c e , J.B. L i p p i n c o t Comp. New Y o r k , 1939.  24.  R a g s d a l e , A . C and H.A. Herman, The P r o d u c t i o n o f V e a l C a l v e s , Mo. Agr. Exp. S t a . B u l l . 4 9 0 , 46-57, 1945.  25.  W a t e r s , H.J., C a p a c i t y o f Animals t o grow under Adverse C o n d i t i o n s , P r o c . S o c . Prom. Agr. S c i . 29. Ann Meeting, 190HI  26.  W i l l i a m s , C.M. M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s ( U n p u b l i s h e d ) U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1952.  66  BIBLIOGRAPHY - CONCLUDED 27.  Wood, A . J . , The R o l e o f P a s t u r e s i n A n i m a l N u t r i t i o n , Agr. I n s t i t . Review. M a r c h - A p r i l , 1955.  28.  Yapp, W.W., and W.B. Nevens: D a i r y C a t t l e , W i l e y and Sons, I ? i c . , New Y o r k , 1926.  John  APPENDIX I A n i m a l Growth Curves  0  5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  iS5============S ====5====Si=i==n==S=====i== ==1======|—g||||||||||||S !B5S ssssssssaas ssssssaas •-=-----  - ----- -a -------  -----------  11111iiili1^11ll|plIllliiiiiiiililisggiiipgijjiggjg|ilpgppiiiiii11111 Ips iiiiiiiiisiHiiiiiiisiiisiisii i l l SsssSsssisssa ssssss :ss: SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSBSS il  •••••••••  slSBSBB  S H H S H : : : : :  B5S5S5SBS  30  35  40  45  50  55  SS  iiiiiiiiiiii^iil ii  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyH!  BiiBtiiHEi  M  .11,1 • Ml IV .""U JS  • 'II. «•  §g§liiTii  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  5 6 5 5  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  s  illlllilHIIII  iiiiiiiiiiiii  SSSS55SS5 | | - SS5555S5S  =========  ssssssssssss: "SSS5S  •  •••••••••••I •••••••••••• ••••I  ••••••••••••  ss.Es: •••••••••••a ••••••••••••  ••••••••••• B•••••••••••  ssssassBsssa  S S  • MMWHMJ SS5S  l!  SS S M S S I S I I N S S S B S S S S i S i S S S 5 E S 5 S S S S B l i i S S B S ! " S  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss  :::::::  SS  ::  •••in  6-63^3 +  8,™ ii Si Is «v 3 Jo»! r-i! i i-sssss >.!  ••••••••••• ====== SSSSSBSSSSi  i f sunn n  •SSSSSSSSSSSg  iiiiiiiiiiiiiii Silas i !  HHIHIBB  :: s:  i  i [Bill Bil  •••••••••a  s :::::::::: Ml -  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  6 0  65  70  75  30  85  ||||||||g|||||||||||||||||||||||||||===:  I: •  ••••••  iiiiisiiiiiiiiiii  •••••••••••••••••••  •••••••••••a •••••••••••a  IBII LI  ! •  a EE  •••••• S3  iiilissi:  ss::  i  l55lllllIS5§55S55 5ll§ll5555llg§§Sl§S5lII  •••••••••••••••••• •••••••••• • ••••••Ml •••••••• m •••••••••  ESSES  rss sss  ss:  ss  ••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••  S  :sss  :s:  IE  :::: • MS  i I |SE|: "  •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••  B  Illlllllllilillli  [ass  tm  i l  m  s  a f i B B S i  ii  i|i|iiii|iii|i llllllllilliiP  — —  Rniraal! No.  Grbup 2 Lyioi, « S.iq/Li  T T  50  TTTi.  55  60  : :  r.90.107  I.  J±JJ J  65  7©  t  W~  75  80  85  90  95  100  . — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _  na.ana.Ma,.  IllllllllllllllUlllllllllllllIlllllllllE iii-E--_5_iiisiii i  Iill  lilllllillllllllllllilllllllllilli  liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  SSSSSSSB S 5 S S — •••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M •••••••• M H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M •••••••• •••••••• •••••••••••••MM ••••••••••••••••a •••••••• •••••••••••••••••  :===: ssssssssS ilili||i||i|S|||Sai|  •••••••••••••••a  IIIIIIHIillllilllll  lililllilllHIIIIIIIIIIIII sSss SSSSSSSB  sias  IIIIIIIilllllHIlIIIIII  mmmm ill!  ••••  II  =========  S5SSSS5SSS  ::::  !====:== a m 'M .11 •  •••••MB  •»::•:::::•::  •ii*_ii ••••  ••• • ••I  M ~  BBSS •  ' X T « a T .  IM.'n  •T-l  MMturm WM iii -ai !••••••••••••• ••ii i i m n  «•••••  I^.MIiri.,MI  Mill  ":======:"  • • M M  iiiiiiiiii  iii SSBB  iillliiiiiiliiliiillllilillilllllilliiliiiiilliiillililll  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  Si m a il •  ••••  aas  •p. w  • • • • M l  •••••••••  H I M  ••••••••  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  0  5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  ..:  liyilniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  5  10  15  — Ji...  ••.••22SSSSSS5SS!  lllffil|i|Pf:|iiill;lil  ii l l i S i i l L „ „  sii=£sis§ss=isSs=i==ssiiii==i==EESE  == s s s i i i s i i i i i i i i i i i i  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiisiiii  :=====:  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii5  ssssssssBssrsss ssssssssss  liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  ====================  Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii lllllllliilllillilillllilliilll Illllllllllllllllili 'SS iiliiiiiiisiiiii •== iisisiiiii  jiiii  -  ==================== ===  iiiiiiliiiii n •••••••«•  I  s  iiiiiiliiiii IIMisllllillil  §111  IIIIIIIIIII ••••  ••••I  ••••  in  =========== SSBSi  SSS:  IIII i  I |  ill  iiiiiiiii iiili S5SSSSSSS iiiii " H i  si  SS  -mi—  sssis  sssss  • • • • • ~m— •••••••  •••••  0  85 90 95  H  ins Ii:  !B!5  SSS 100  iiii!^  • j |« • "I ;BB  BBSBBBSSSSSSBBBBSBBBSSBBSBBSBBBBBBBBBBSBBSBBBS5SSSSSBBBSBSBBBBBBBSBB5SBBBBSBBSBSSBBSBS  II|  I  IsBBBBBBS  i Iliiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiiiiiliiiiillliiiiiiiiiiiiili H P T =====  I  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  IIIIIIIIIIIIII •SSS mini  SS  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  liiRjiii  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  ••••••••••  i i  iiiii  aassssss :::::::  iiiiiiiiiiiil! H I P  issssas :aaa  •••••••••a aaaaaaaaaa  SSBSB  5 5 S 5 5 S5S5S SSSS5SS55S!  mmmm sss issssssssi  iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiii -  •••  •••••••••••••••••••  -  •••<•• • • • • • • • • •  • •  i  iSiiiSisipSJjS  iBsisasBsiasasaas  SSSSSssssssssssss  BSSSBSBBBBSB  illiliilllllllllilUIIIIIii  ^ J l i i s  aaaaaaSSaaasaaaas  I  T5  ^  J  T  35  ^  ^  O  20 25  F  g  4p  erim<  30  l  nt  35  *  N  ESEH  11111111111 nTR4-rf f-1 1 i 1 Iii "11111 i H t W + r f r r ^ ^  40 45  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100  lisiisiiii  mmmMmmmmmmawm  ======  EE::::::  111111111111111  •••••• ••••••  •••••••••  •••••••••••••••••••a  <«M**JUie<.t»'..-»tk  ••••••  :::::: ======  I  •»-.)!••  • • • • • • • • • • • • •  ••sr  •s: SSF  ••••••H1IIIMI  B HI r SSSHSKSSSSKKSSS • U l l l l l  liHillii  '  mm  11 BMl  BBSS  S  •••••••••••••••••••••••• •••((••••••••••••••.••HaiH.Mt miMi i i ••••••••••••••••••••••••  IMM  i  •r  Illllllillillilllillliiilllillllilllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllilllllllllliillllll |p|gHlR«MPi|fgJlJgllilNllllllllllllllli IIS I s i i l l i i i i s i s  mm  «•••••••  E 3 K SSSSSSiSSSSSSS  •••••••••••••••MB *  * i l l * . ! VM J l l  Hi  I  ssiiiasiisaL  •TP  =====  =========== B  BBBBBB  8BSSSBSSBBBSSBBBS  ••I  i i i . ™ I—  -  'Mm  •••.»••••• ••••••••••  ::::::::•::::::::::::::  in:  S  S  A  5  -BBSBSBSSBSBBSSB Si»iBm*«t*««i«™w  ••••••••••••••••••  ••••••••••••••••••  ••••••••• •••••••••  iflyfli aa.aaa  =======  BBBSBS:  s •••«»«• ••••! • •••••••  ••••I IB Bl  •••••••• SBSSBSB  is!  ••••••••••••••••I •••••••••••••••••I •••••••••••••••••I ••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • •  =  ••••••  iniiHSiSn I mm  iSSSSSSSS 5  iSSSSS  Isssss :3s  nil  ••••••••••••••I ••••••••••••I ••••••••••••••I  sis!!aa:t:!sai  =========  BBSS B  ••••• • •  3 ssss ssss:  B  S SB  BBSS SB BBS •••••••••  ••••  ssss  S [BBS •••••••  •••• ••••  ••••••••• 5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  •••••I  ill  m+mm-f EBB:  liiiiiiii  ====== BBSS' ===========  IBBBBBBSBB  •••• •••• •••• ••••  •••••••  Ii3i  " BBSsaKiaSS£lSrt?iJ?K2  • "SS  :BBBBBSSB: • M l  •••••••••••••••••• mmmmm.mmmw-u'mamM'f.iMm  sss:  SSft=S2S8J588'  ===== i i i i s ====:-  iSBSSSSSSSSSSBSSSSBSSS =========  •• ••••••••  aaasaaaaaaa  45  50  55  60  65  70  •>.i. a 75 80  w  •  5s:::: ••••  SS•:::  »: S m m m m m 90 95 100  a !; s  85 SSSSSSSS5 SSSSSSSSSSS  9BSB9B9JMBMJ  I 1 I I iiiiiiiiiiisi •••••••••••••  BBSS BBSS  ii i ==========================  .-===:  •••••••••• ••••••••••••••a •••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••a  ••••  ====== sss •BBS  • i i i  • •  ••••••••••••••••••••••a  siii  ssssss ••••• 5  •••• 10  15  s iii 20 25  IM .IIJ. JM a H H i «r:»-ii«'jii^i-!  30 35  555B ====  iii  s:sss»sssss::ssss  :::::::::::::::::::  ssssssssssssssssssssssssss • '"' J  ======= ===  • i * :•<•:•••  ••••  -iv :::  !  sEESsESEEEsEEEEsEEsssESSsE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••  == EE as  iSSSSSSBS •••••• ••••••  SsliSSiSSSS SssSs Ssll  •••••••• ••••••••  •••••••••••••••  SSS  s  Ba M B H U B B I H M  iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii  iii:  ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '*e-i*-t»»is* rLW^ws:!!;^; sarins;.- v<iw-- •-•""M  599  ^n^iilliillllillllillilllllilllllilllllllililllllllllllllllilliiiliilllllllllillllil! IIIUHIi ':slBSSBS=s=s==::====:===::====a===::a==:a:===:::=:7^^-:^:7rn-Tsr?:E7::s= : : : : : : : : : I::::::::::::::::::: ••a  iBBBS  !:£i::»s»s»»::::i  mm • I a l "I/JIM ::  M  I  SssssBsEESaaasasiss-s.  BL SS  ••••••••  sssssEsEsssEssssiEEiEEEs iSSSSSi• • • •  •••••••••  5  • .11 • •••nrn,., • LJIMl i.IMB! i.It IB H"I' l'ill n  ::::•:::•  50 55  60 65  111 I 11111111111 SSSSSSSSSSSSS! ss -4 a::  iii:  EaaaaaaaaaaaL.  iiJHHHj  a ••••••••••••••• iw • MHMiHHHMMIIMH MM mm • M  m  Ml „ is""  iiiliiiiiiiHiiaiiHs 10  11  12  a•• s• s• a• a• B•a•• n• b•i• H•• -• H•i• i• iI  iiiiiiiiiiii 1HE •:::::::::::::::::!  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20 21  =====  =============:  •  ita 10  11  12  13  sssssss:  :ss: :ss:  a i H n n H H — = = = = = = = =  •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••a  SSI  S!  liiai ^ i f i r a i i i l J H i ::s: •••• ii ss! 3 S S B i i l l si! i !••• ESSE SSB  :ssssssss .BSSSSSSS  BBS mmm » MUM mm mm mum mm mm mm mm  S3  ••••••••••  2  3  8  9  10  11  12  13  S • _ • ••••••••• •••••••• •••••••• ••••••••  I 5?  14  15  iiiiimiiiiiliii •SS S S -  niii :::::  9  mm  SE  ====  =»:==  sss:  i  ••••• •••••  16  17  18  19  20  21  2  iiiiliiliiiigiipl I  13  1U  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  IIIIHIIil iiiiiiiiii  =========  ••••••••a ••••••••a  ••••••  ::::::  •  iliii!  Am  sssssss ssssss •••••••  mm  iilliillliililiiliiliiilililliiiiliilililiiliiii  mn mmm  SSsiis:  •••••••  s.  • • • • • • i •%. ii ' nur-ni • ir.i ••••••••••••— ••••••••  sss •BBS! •••••••••••••  ISKSS  ==============  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 17  18  19 20  21  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  iliiiiiiilliililliillillllilllillllilillllil EEEEEEEE^  mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmmmmm  •••••  ====  EL  m  mpUfM sss  ••••• ••••••  sssssssssssssssssss:  sss:::  sssssss a:::sss£s:sis£s8ssa:sss:s:ss  IMI  •  EEEEEEEEEEEEEE  SS  ss  Aie of Animals i n Weeks. 10  11  ! • H  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • U N  mm mm • • • • • I •• ••••••  •  I  urn  i • | g | • i nip n I MIS "  L2  13  14  16  17  f i l l  I  H  HH  i  H  mmi  JIlillllllllllllllllllllllL: iinHmiiuiiiiiiuiiiimn iiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiinmmiiiiiiiiimmiimm s  •SSS mmm»  sisssiiii I  i  mm  Mil  MI  •  •rri«i_  •MM I-!!!  sssssss • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a :sss I  ••••••• • I  ••••••• •••••••  ••••••  a  ESSE  mill  1  SSSS sssss SSS  ssss  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiMQiiii IIIIIIIII s iisii  ssssss £=£==:==%  •••••••• ••••••••  ========  ssssss  iiiiiiigilissiiiiii  likJI • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •  ii  • -  •••••••••••••••••••  saaasBBsssssssassas  i ssss  8• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• a••  2.SSB  Ssssss :sss  sssssssssssssssssssss! sssssssssssssssssssr  55 Si - • m •EEs SSS mm mm mi SS iii  iiiiiiiii  r. ••  ;s.r. ..-.?i.uss ••••• •••••••••••• ••••• •••••  nana ••••  ::::  SSS  I  • •  :  .  I '  ••••••••••••  Ilium IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I SSSSS  •••••••••  ssss ssss! «!!§§! ssss \mr.mm  sss i s ss  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  sssssssssssssssssssssssssss  ssssssaaaasaaaaaassssaaasas  SSSSSS  ssss  illlliiiiiiiHimililiil  lililllliliiillllililllli iiiiiiiiissiiiiiiiii  iSSS SSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSS3SSS SS ssssssssssssssss ••I  ••••••••••••••••  i i i sissisisisisiiiiiisis si  SS  SS 2  SS  iii:s sssss iiiliiliii sssss  1  :s ssssasssss  SSSSSSBSSSSSS  I  ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • •  ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a • • • ••••••••••• • • • • •1•0 • • • 3 5 ••••• 6• • • • • • • • • • 8• • • • •9 11  12  13  lk 15  16  17  B,  JSSSS , II I a  B  H  SSS S5SSSSSSS  18  19  20  21  si EE  S S S S S S S S  sssssss:  *m mm*  .ssssssssssss: •••••••••••••• ss: •••••••••••••••••••a  ================================= S S S S S S : S = ========== ==========  ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS •••••I - •«•••• I II • • • • • I I I  :ssssssss:sssssssssssssss5r:sss»  »  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••a  •••••••••••••  lU  • M l ••Pr 2 <  ••••  I  H I • I  I I  ii• , •  •••••I  M L i I  ill!  m I* i •  •  m  I • •  SSSS SSS SSS! SSS SSSS ssssssssss  ssssssssss  —  illliilllll IlllllllllHIIIi  Ii|l  |'.;  |  ii  11 I |j  :  i ssssssss  ssssssssssESinS' "sssi  sss i  • ii • II ss issassss ssssssssssssssssssS  i m H i m i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i n i i i y i i i i i i P ' r i i l i ^ l i i i H i i U imiiss^ieiU iisi  • • • • • • •  •  Hi  i i  m  ••••••••••••  i  iSSSSSSSSSI  SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS •••••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••  S ::::::: : 9  10 11 12  Hit iisi iiii  ss ssss:  13  1A  15  16 17  ••••  18 19 20  21  .:  s  s  is  si  i ijiiipi lllliillir I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l B i l i i a i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l= = l= = l <" 'S5BSSSSSSS i l l l l l l l  IHIIIIiiiiiP  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif^^MFM=====Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir  ••••••••••••I !  B  l  •••••••  I  • • • • • • w m « m i  ::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::  mmHMMMM 4mut<«ft»i»»<  IIIIIIIIIIII i H i  ••••••••••  • • • • M  - - !«?«••(  ::»::::::::::::::•:::::: •••••  HMHianiiiitiiHiiwma • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • » • • • • • • • • • • • \«>M\*\.m*\m\m.*immm\m\m -  ssssss  •  —  •  •••••••••••••••a •••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••  •••••••••••••  :::::::::::•:: 8  9  Aniifcals  EE:::3 sS sssss:  » • • •  SS8SS  ss ss  -  B  m  m  ill iii  is  ii  iiiiik  :::::: sss: III ss sss!  ••••  ••I  10 11 12 13 14 1$ 16 17 18 19 20  sss:  21  Illllilillilllliiillllllllilllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  liHIiiiiiiii Era i>.iH  ss! s i l is s; s s  l sssssss: :ss: s: ssis i lsss —  •  — I  !  - -  iisii  !  "• sssss s ESS i sss sss ss 7  iiiii I B ] ! ii iiiiiiilfiiiiifffj  •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••  iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ssssssss  iisiiiiiiiiisiiiii  H H  IIHHmmiHIHllIHjiinjiiiiliilH^^^SHillsl sssssssssssissss sss SSSsSSSSss SSSSSSSS Esssssssssssssss :s: sss is mmmmoL sss sss =========  '"SSSSSSSS!  •••••••• •••••••• ~ • • •  SSSSj • • • • • • I l i l l M I  I m  - M m  SHS  • "5  ssss  SSSEls S«.2.£l!i!l  m  :::  iii  5S5SSSSSS5 SSSSSSSS •••••• •••••••  :  —!••  iii  Iii  1:• i i  iiiiiiii llililiilliiillllilliiilliililllllllllljlll iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiisj SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ..ssss.. iiiiiiisissiiiiiis ssssssssssssssss iiS iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiisiill ========  :EEEE=EEEEEEE==========E== is  4€  iiiiiiiiiiiiiii  liiiiiEiiiiEiiliiliiiiiii  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss  i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i SSSSSS5SSSSSSS5^3!I5«^^^HSSSB: ." Ess! is :  sssssss a I  ills.  ss 3S  • • • • • • • •  *J1W  I •••••••••••••  SSBBBB5SBSSBSBB5BB  ==========  5 SSSSSSSS  ••••••••••••••••••  iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiliili  mm mm.  ssssssssss  5  :sss: srsssas: • i  SSSSSS  sssss  : in • I B••••••••  mm  i  -  ss  *Eiu  m  un is! mm  mm mm mm  I I i i i BBS _•• •  17  16  19  •  Hi _IBL  BSBSSSB  20  21  5  •==5.=======^  lilillllllllilllillllllllllllllllllllllliiiilliiilllliiiliiliilliiiililUiiiiili  APPENDIX I I Weight Records o f Beef H e i f e r s  Table I .  Weekly Body Weight R e c o r d o f B e e f H e i f e r s F i r s t W i n t e r P e r i o d - 161 Days. November 28, 1953 - May 6 , 1954.  Table I I .  Weekly Body Weight Record o f B e e f H e i f e r s F i r s t P a s t u r e P e r i o d - 160 days.  Table I I I .  Weekly Body Weight R e c o r d o f B e e f H e i f e r s Second W i n t e r P e r i o d - 210 Days.  Table IV.  Weekly Body Weight R e c o r d o f B e e f H e i f e r s Second P a s t u r e P e r i o d - 77 Days.  T a b l e V.  Weekly Body Weight Record o f C a l v e s  TABLE WO. I WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS FIRST WINTER PERIOD - 161 DAYS NOVEMBER 28, 1953 - MAY 6, 1954 Weeks >ifer No. 1 2 n 7 10 4 6 8 9 3 •5 441 460 470 454 456 30 485 465 457 473  31 32 33 34 35 36  37 II  38  39  40 41 42  43  III  44 45 46 47  48 49 50 IV  51 52 53 54 55  56 57  528  529  470 447  471 447  413 455  419  501 500  506  450 518  427 463 443  440 473  406  455  424 468  472  486  445  489 488 439 413 451 426  440 430  467 471 441  450  400  451 452  489 498 452 425 459 443 450 461 464 476  460 458 420  530  490 461  516 435 464  512 433  485 463 466 421  473  528 493 458  513 425 465  520  440  490 454 459 426  479  499 500 503 464  509 505 509 463  475 452  487 450  443 455 473 484 448  462  444  434 413  440  450 485 488 450 452 430  525 488 463 525 433 470  518  529 498 466 525 435 472 525  440  438  470 470 425 482  478  501  513 525 517  505  470 430  475 532 535 532 488 450  528 493 457  528 430 468  529  540  540  498 470  483  480  490  489 516  486 498 532  458  456  480  463 438  530  439  460  448 488  460 541 423 473  443 490 473 461 .. 425 468  532 550 488 459 494 466  470  526 490  495 481  545  468  473  438  443  454  500  464 467  431 477  553 507  553 508  479  485  440 480  440  547 450 512  460  555  470 470 445  553  490 557 521  488 478 460  483  493  547 545  547  543 485 463 497 474  548 494 470 507 481  551 560 496 473 511 484  500 503 491 566  520 509 518 583 510  522 514 527 600 519  472  485  541  490  477 459  483  490  551 513  484 557 441 504  12 487  553 528 492 566 450 504  564 449 532 499  461  570  531 508  480 456  478  500  470 500  567 575  561 565  574 514 489 523 492  572 520 479 520 503  534 527 522  547 547 548  617  549 510 500  630  550 523 496  TABLE NO. I . (CONTINUED) H e i f e r No.  Weeks 13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  30 31 32 33 34 35 36  502 567 548 502 585 453 520  505 565 535 498 583 445 517  495 561 527 500 603 452 530  520 575 545 521 600 460 540  516 575 546 515 588 453 537  540 589 554 527 580 466 537  539 600 560 535 598 460 556  552 606 568542 617 463 570  563 615 578 550 611 457 555  565 623 595 555 623 480 582  560 620 590 555 631 473 580  575 610 591 560 639 477 586  II  37 38 39 40 41 42 43  589 478 557 528 511 483 526  578 475 541 532 498 481 511  583 502 555 536 517 475 528  593 506 560 523 526 500 541  580 505 552 526 515 496 525  587 515 554 541 513 500 539  603 535 565 542 537 519 555  610 527 575 553 542 526 550  625 541 580 560 553 540 573  631 548 578 567 553 545 582.  631 546 594 573 550 551 572  639 550 590 580 558 560 580  III  44 45 46 47 48 49 50  577 584 587 530 501 535 525  586 586 595 520 504 532 518  607 610 610 544 505 548 537  608 627 615 546 506 562 545  610 615 596 530 500 547 541  628 648 601 550 .-530 581 555  632 647 632 563 520 585 555  630 641 627 565 525 576 560  636 665 632 563 542 598 586  633 676 656 580 525 592 582  650 685 659 590 545 607 595  660 696 670 590 554 615 600  51 52 53 54 55 56 57  566 563 538 641 575 542 515  568 56B $50 660 570 544 510  583 570 550 663 585 562 523  606 568 552 675 603 568 546  615 603 560 679 610 573 543  628 606 556 724 630 587 560  642 609 571 702 642 593 568  656 618 590 720 655 603 580  651 632 587 750 666 605 577  678 630 577 758 683 621 582  690  699  IV  :  —  590 780 699 630 605  606 780 705 642 615  TABLE NO. I I . WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS - FIRST PASTURE PERIOD - 160 DAYS Group  H e i f e r No. Weeks l  30 31  32  572  622  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  590  615 655 637  630 673 645  654 685 685 621 717  660 713 683 635 742  678 740 708 655 745 542  655 708 690  658 702 688  635  603  603 574 650 475 617  37 38 39 40 41 42 43  660 575  653 585  577  570  565 585  590 615  44 45 46 47 48  647  657 705  33 34 35 36  49 50 51 53 54  55  56 57  602 571 630  2  482  597 587  612  702 675  605  682  572 621 595  602 572 595 605  690 590 770 707  681 620 770 698  585  642 630  640 618  602 692 495  615 690 500 642  670  515  525 695  682  688  715  720  642  617 620 610  610 610  641  680 735  705  631  594 630 650 715  640  792 720 675 645  637 635 620  617 612 650  680 733 710  625 605  640 645  660 658 633 642 641  672 713 742  732 652 627  685 660  657 642  650  693 675 680 682 662  745  752 792 768 675 650 700 730  776  730 665 640  670 705  741  754  820  835  640  682 655  750  702  707  712 660 802  731 671  735  690  665 683  691  702  647 725 525 670  710  770 708 660  760 725 830 780  717 682  652 725 528 690 720  10  11  655  674  710  685  646 750 521 680  682  685  695 683  645 655 665  668  655  672 675 730 760 725  668  630 675 710 745  698 825 765 698 650  690 678 675 678 740  790  740 682 645  680 712  745 718 828  772 700  640  692 660 690 680  719 725  662 764 536  711 736  696  727  663 693  702  696  750 787  773 815  705  696 663 699 745  740 665 645 690  750 705  828  770  683  615  763  747  725  842 799  715 607  TABLE NO. I I . Group  H e i f e r No.  30 31  I  II  III  32  12  688 738  725  13  14  687 748  672  730 692  33 34 35 36  683 788 554  725  800 575 738  37 38 39 40 41 42 43  758 733  761 741  16  701  695  767  790  721  751 750 725  19  20  21  22  720  737 821  725  743 813 822 746  615  755 831 830 746 862  616  798  777 856 847 785 894 661 819  786 881 864 785 900 631 828  755  831 813 795 793 787 801 819  879 859 837 821 833 822 838  872 866 835 817  746  827 806 782 768 768 773 776  836  743  790 775 775 748 765  838 904 836 769736  848 924 848 771 747 797 830  832  878 956 877 777 778  875 946 886 789 765 839 873  775 712 810 587 721  582  715  18  762  765 763 712 793  720  17  782 760  735 717  718 708  722 730  710 735  720  725  44 45 46 47 48 49  778 838 768 718 689  800 855 775  800 840 780  805 852  695  760  800  730  685 741 780  800 865 790 735  51 53  765  760  770  838 802  868  750 870  608  628  710 635  54  55  56 57  730  746 747 697 785 575  15  725 705  50  IV  Weeks  (CONTINUED)  698  726  726  730  723  728  732  750  825 750  715  705  815  742 745  700  761 790 790 770 880 828  732  638  :  750 720  796 740 703 740  792 795 834 740  751  821 872 812 742  720  826  746 859 628 778  852 752  792  792  771 807  818  785 770 870 820 738 620  796 800 893 835 748 658  818 831 867 854 773 681  812 795 774 789 783 791  ;  825  848 898 865 803 695  628  908 848  750  742 786 821 817 859 917 859  762 672  832 866  831 876 917 899 824  721  823 825 846  825  874  930 907  809  723  TABLE MO. I I I . WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS - SECOND WINTER PERIOD - 210 DAYS Grp. H e i f e r Weeks l No.  2  30 31 32 33  795 890 860 810  875 795  640 835  820  660 817  Sold  890 860 825  895 845 842  910  Sold  850  842 826 850  44  895  920  46 47 48 49  910  34  35 36 37 38 39  40 41 42 43  45  50 51 53 54 55 56 57  815  905  895 815  920  810 840 810  970  790 780  916 655  815  994 930  818  855  875  794 867 890  855 880 925  865 875 962  750  813 740  910 800  920  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  805 900  820  810 910 875 820 923  832 935  831 953  850  943  832 928 880 836 944  835  871  860 860 835  885  915  860 875 965 928 815  880 880 985 940 815  920  850  915 905 825  11 815 970  865  750  755  848 990 918 900  843 982  15 855 990  1009  913  910  915  979  878  870  882  892  901 895  939 909 900 915  889 870 872 875  905 908  980  999  998  965  840  860  851  880 879  875 861  897  934  927  970  929  885 905 917 940 952 905 902 923 956 956 996 1016 1016 1048 1082 1070 941 953 960 970 1010 1008 842 842 900 868 846 888 748 820 765 783 774 828 905  14  884 871 978  879 978  892  13  888 868  900 856  830 942  888 879 825 852 850 880 878 860 886 921 873 895 850 855 864 891 923 850 855 868 886 885 920 880 885 911 885 926 937 969 942 973 925 958 965 960 1002 998 1030 1021 1045 999 1015 1025 1010 1060 1074 1100 1082 1100 940 965 970 946 987 1002 1036 1029 1042 825 845 859 858 895 913 943 928 939 800 825 824 821 858 877 896 888 885 Sold 845  12 822 985 914 879 987  962  900 838 957  10  925 949 937 955 929 955 945 963 909 928 934 950 933 965 958 965 932 961 951 955 990 1019 1008 1015 1085 1085 1079 1105 1138 1150 1150 1150 1073 1077 1082 1100 979 981 998 1010 913 900 921 920  1005 1040 972 958 979 986 1091 1105 1010 1029 911 912 820  920 915 890 880 993 1005  836  1057 1065 1000 1020 1015 1011 1024 1048 112a 1145 1160 1060 1060 1070 930 950 965 1042  861  870  875  TABLE NO. I I I .  No, 30 31 32  33  34  36  II  III  38 39 40 41 42  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  852 1015  858 1014  835 995 915 895 1010  835 1000 910 908 1025  1006 925 930 1025  836  862 991  795  832 900 936  845  808 887  830 875 931  831  829 869 933 839  857 881  846 890  940  940  945  926 833  810 910 840  955  979  1000  900 905  1012 929 959  922 909 1030  940 981  43  1045  999 980 1015 990 1065  44  1113  1136 1200 1149 1048  48  50  IV  16  972 957 1000 965  45 46 47  51 53 54 55 56 57  (CONTINUED)  1154 1121  1020 943 1072 1029 1060  1144 1071 970  890  956 1129  1037 1057  1187 1095  978  975 1000 985 1050  1140  1205 1150 1065 965  1005 1000  1020 1002  1060  1167 1218 1172 1083 987  1120  1149  1050  1075 1107 1212 1092  1090 1180 1100  1004 995 915 " 920  930 1030 935  988  1020 1030 1082  1005 1026 1032 1070  1055 1100  1045  1105  1110 1075 1110  1190  1214  1110  1106  1100  1100  1182  1156  1038  1250  1193  1217 1180  1101 1000 1177  1086 988  1099 1138 1244  1064 1109 1234 1108  1123  1021 1042 938: 967  918 896 999  920 1015 930  1109  1039  915 945 930 1030 955  932 901 1005 931  1002 1003 1030 1020 1090  1038 1041  900 940  1140  1027  936  1030  1230  1210  1260 1065  1025 1030  1045  1280  930  1017  1008 1041 1083 1052 960  1140  1110 995 II52  1131 1017 1180  1140 1040 1200  1143 1021 1185  1100 1139  1106  1130 1170  1265 1153 1052 972  1289  1131 1172 1294  1245 1130  1050 950  1144  1158 1075 985  1160 1062 1000  920  892 960 850 915 935  1035 1035  1060 1052  1105 1100 1017  1127 1106  1100 1175 1117  1128 1177 1143 1178 948 1218  891 1004  1045  1162 1021 1196 1158 1185 1296 1060  1087  1015  944  827  981  1058 1060 969  1013  1085 1010  1134  1102 1171 1137  1142 953 1195  1159  1086  1086 1057  1106 1096 1030  1178 1286 1004  1228 1300  953 870  1072  1080 980 1160 1128  950  1058 1015  942 1130  1092  1027  1020  1120 1220 1145  1120  1075  1195 1123 1063  1251  1105  1096 1102  1094 1102 1220 1084  981  1229  1116 1096 1008  978  1010 1007  TABLE NO. IV. WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS - SECOND PASTURE PERIOD - 77 DAYS Group  H e i f e r No. Weeks l 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 39  40 41 42  842 935  964  838 977 878  1084 1010 975  1140  43  1130 1031  44  1126  45  46 47  48  50  51 53 54 55 56 57  1189  1147 1078 946 1079  1076 1073 1211 1082 1032 1021  2  3  4  890  940 910  940  900 990 865  960 860 1090 995 955 1165 1155  5  6  7  8  965 958  937  971 970  1043 908  1043  1020 915 1015 910  950 961 955 1045 • 1022 918 938 1008 1022 905 913  965 929 1030 927 1000  908  930 1017 925  1140 1040  1134 1038  1059  1088  1072  1037 998  1019 990 1141 1208  1040  1000 1220 1185 1060  1150 1205 1170 1080 970 1105  1175 1250 1205 1115 1020 1150  1080 1090 1220 1105 1050 1032  1110 1150  1260 1120 1090 1085  1000 1221 1189  1078 1146  1257 1196 1093 995  1134  1138 1135 1246 1123 1090 1068  1153 1016 1000 1122 1210 1086  1018 996  1125 1192 1076  1182 1257 1215 1106 1012 1150  1173 1217 1212  1113  1122 1155 1251 1125 1107 1075  1141  1232 1138  1088 1068  1081  1005 1157  1043  1140  1206  1074  960 1035  914  1071  1171 1205 1206 1098 1015 1165  1152 1193 1200 1085 992  1111 1152 1260  1081 1107 1239 1138  1141  1090 1092  1141  1040 1075  9  917 1025 917  1076 1030 1006 1123 1192 1073 1163  1208  1202 1056 1000  1142  1103 1161  1228  1107  1045 1066  10  11  960 970  972 1000 1062 930  1042 922  1038  910  1070 1010  1008 1150 1210 1072  1042 945 1092 1020 1005 1155 1229  1084  1160 1192 1205 1060 1010 1150  1166 1212 1225 1098  1080 1130 1225 1130 1032 1082  1102 1135  1018 1155  1246  1155 1065 1020  TABLE NO. V. WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF CALVES Calf No. 30 31 46 44 43 45 55  40  48 33 34 36 51 54 47 53 39 50 56  41  38 57  Date o f Weight Birth Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. May May May May May May June June July  16. 17.  24.  29. 3. 8. 16. 18. 22. 22. 22. 25. 25. 1. 3. 6. 9. 10. 11. 17. 21. 25.  31 62 70 63 77 70 55 75 61  P  63 67 62 59 71 73 51 81 67 50 55 61  S e x March 19 F F M F M F M M F F M F F F M F F M M F F F  30 68  Died  March 26  39  82  April 2  44.5 99  68  April 9  49 112  82 74 71.5  Died  April 16  53 122 90 90 80 55.5  April 23  April 30  May  May 14  May  7  61 133  140  64  66 152  70 180  78 187  107 92 92 69 75  120 108 106 77 101  133 111 106  144 114  106  120  158 129 129 111 131  59 63  68 73 71  81  69  81  116  104 95 105  108  82 81  100  H I 109 91  69  90  101  68  68  75 60 73  Died  20  85 70 75 52  81  83 67  TABLE NO. V. (CONTINUED) Calf No. 30 31 46  44  43 45 55  40  48 33 34 36 51 54 47 53 39 50 56  41  38 57  Date o f Birth Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. May May May May May May June June July  16 17  24  29 3 8 16 18 2222 2225251 3 6 9 10 11  17 21 25  Weight  31 62 70 63 77 70 55 75 61 59 63 67 62 59 71 73 51 81 67 50 55 61  Sex F F M F M F M M F F M F F F M F F M M F F  P.  July  July  15  22  135  146  158 320  175 336  253 215 222  272  280 240  303 273 270 235  May 28  June  June 10  June 17  June 24  July  July  90  100  109  109  112  130  223  244 211 212 180  210 172  4  237  245  141  160  185  198  120  165 135 170  174  150 150 123 130 125  112 100 112 90  136 150  140 125  110 125  72  102 90  75  85  250  203  262  182 183  190 192  -183  188  196  147 160 149 137 118  148  162  165  175  172  152  153  166  102  145 138 124 136 112 109  160 146 129 142 117 119  96  96  101 63  136 115  50  58  1  281  8  292  July  310  226 235  225  193 221  202 242  180 168 180  183 198 188  198  173 155 163  170 171  132 133 122 76 71  175  137 145  122 81 80  215 203  188 183 180 145 145 133  93 87  250 215  260 205 230  208 192 200 192 156 152  142 98 90  29  282 226 257 226 211  218 203 177 175  166 110 105 68  APPENDIX I I I Weekly Feed Consumption Records o f B e e f H e i f e r s  T a b l e No. I .  Dry L o t - Phase I  T a b l e No. I I . Dry L o t - Phase I I .  TABLE I WEEKLY FEED CONSUMPTION RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS NOVEMBER 28, 1953 t o MAY 6, 1954 GROUP NO. I . Week No. 1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12  13 14 15  16 17  18 19  20 21 22 23  161 days  (7 ANIMALS)  Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs.  Hay Concentrate P e r Group i n L b s .  65. 65. 65. 65. 70.  455. 455. 455. 455. 490.  80. 85. 90. 90. 98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 103. 103. 103. 103.  108.5 108.5 108.5 108.5 109. 2,120. L b s .  560.  595.  630. 630.  686. 686. 686. 686. 686.  721. 721. 721. 721..  759.5 759.5 759.5 759.5  14,840. L b s .  TABLE I . (CONTINUED) GROUP NO. I I . (7 ANIMALS) Week No.  Hay Concentrate Per A n i m a l i n L b s .  1  52.5 52.5 52.5 65. 52.5 52.5 52.5 56. 56. 56. 63. 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 68. 68.  2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11 12  13 14 15  16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  161 days,  1,460.  14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 10.5 17.5 17.5 20.3 20.3 20.3 23.5 23.5 Lbs  383. Lbs  Hay Concentrate Per Group i n Lbs 367.5 367.5 367.5 455. 367.5 367.5 367.5 392. 392. 392.  441. 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 476. 476. 10,220. Lbs  98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 98. 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 122.5 12§.5 122.5 142.1 142.1 142.1 164.5 164.5 2,681. Lbs,  TABLE I . (CONTINUED) GROUP NO. I I I . (7 ANIMALS) Week. No.  Hay Concentrate P e r A n i m a l i n Lbs  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  52.5 52.5 52.5 56. 56. 56. 56. 56. 56. 56. 63. 67.2. 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 73.5 73.5 73.5 73.5 73.7 73.6  161 days  1,467. Lbs  22.4 22.4 22.4 24.5 24.5 25.6 25i6 26.6 26.6 26.6 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 30.8 30.8 32.9 32.9 32.9 35. 35. 35.1 654. Lbs.  Hay Concentrate P e r Group i n L b s . 367.5 367.5 367.5 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 392. 441. 470?4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 470.4 514.5 514.5 .514.5 514.5 516. 515.1 10,269. Lbs  156.8 156.8 156.8 171.5 171.5 179.2 179.2 186.2 186.2 186.2 200i9 200.9 200.9 200.9 200.9 215.6 215.6 230.3 230.3 230.3 245. 245. 245.7 4,578. Lbs  TABLE I .  (CONTINUED)  GROUP I V .  (7 ANIMALS)  Week No.  Hay , Concentrate Per A n i m a l i n Lbs  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  14. 14. 15. 14. 14. 14. 20. 28. 28. 28. 28. 28. 28. 28. 28 28 28* 28 28 28 28 28" 28  161 days  553. Lbs  63. 63. 50.. 63. 66.5 66.5 66.5 70. 70. 84. 88.2 92.4 92.4 92.4 . 85.4 96.6 100.8 10O-V8' 100.8 100.8 109.2 108.7 108.7 1,840. Lbs  Concentrai Hay P e r Group i n Lbs 98. 98. 105. 98. 98. 98. 140. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 196. 3,871. Lbs  441. 441. 350. 441. 465.5 465.5 465.5 490. 490. 588. 617.4 646.8 646.8 646.8 597.8 676.2 705.6 705.6 705.6 705.6 764.4 761.1 761. 12,880. L b s .  TABLE I I WEEKLY FEED CONSUMPTION RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS OCTOBER 15, 1954 t o MAY 14, 1955 GROUP I . (6 ANIMALS) Weeks  Hay Concentrate Per A n i m a l i n Lbs  Hay Concentrate P e r Group i n L b s .  1 2 3  123.2 124.6 127.4 124.6 130.2 130.2 127.4 130.2 130.2 133. 130.2 133. 133. 134.4 133. 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 133. 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4  739.2 747.6 764.4 747.6 781.2 781.2 764.6 781.2 781.2 798. 781.2 798. 798. 806.4 798. 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 798. 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4 806.4  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  24 25 26 27  28 29 30  210 days  3,959.2 Lbs  23,755.2 L b s .  TABLE I I .  (CONTINUED)  GROUP I I .  (6 ANIMALS)  Weeks  Hay Concentrate Per A n i m a l i n Lbs  Hay Concentrate P e r Group i n L b s .  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  93.1 93.1 93.1 95.2 95.2 97.3 95.2 97.3 97.3 100.8 97.3 98.7 100.8 102.2 102.2 102.5 104.3 106.4 104.3 106.4 107.8 106.4 109.9 107.8 109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9  558.6 558.6 558.6 571.2 571.2 583.8 571.2 583.8 583.8 604.8 583.8 592.2 604.8 613.2 613.2 615. 625.8 638.4 625.8 638.4 646.8 638.4 659.4 646.8 659.4 659.4 659.4 659.4 659.4 659.4  210 days  3,074. Lbs  38.5 38.5 38.5 39.2 39.2 39.9 39.2 39.9 39.9 40.6 39.9 40.6 40.6 41.3 41.3 41.3 42. 42.7 42. 42.7 43.4 42.7 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4  1,242.1 Lbs 18,444. :  231. 231. 231. 235.2 235.2 239.4 235.2 239.4 239.4 243.6 239.4 243.6 243.6 247.8 247.8 247.8 252. 256.2 252. 256.2 260.4 256.2 260.4 260.4 260.4 260.4 260.4 260.4 260.4 260.4 5  7,452.6vLbs.  TABLE I I . (CONTINUED) GROUP I I I .  (6 ANIMALS)  Hay Concentrate Per A n i m a l i n L b s .  63.7 63.7 65.1 65.1 65.8  67.2  65.8 68.6 70.  71.4 70.0 71.4 72.8 72.8 72.8 74.2 74.2  76.3 76.3 77.7 79.1  77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7 77.7  77.7 77.7 79.1 79.1 80.5 81.9 80.5 83.3 84.7 86.1 84.7 86,1 87.5 87.5 87.5 88.9 88.9 91.7 91.7 93.1 93.8 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1  Hay Concentrate P e r Group i n L b s .  382.2 382.2  390.6 390.6  394.8 403.2 394.8 411.6 420. 428.4 420. 428.4 436.8 436.8 436.8 445.2 445.2 457.8 457.8 466.2 4^4.6 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2 466.2  466.2 466.2 474.6 474.6 483. 491.4 483. 499.8 508.2 516.6 508.2 516.6 525. 525. 525.  533.4 533.4 550.2 550.2 558.6 562.8 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6 558.6  2,183.3 Lbs 2,629.9 Lbs 13,099.8 Lbs 15,779.4 Lbs  TABLE I I . (CONTINUED) GROUP IV. (6 ANIMALS) Weeks  Hay Concentrate P e r A n i m a l i n Lbs  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 32.2 32.2 32.9 33.6 34.3 34.3 34.3 35. 35. 35.7 35.7 36.4 37.1 37.1 37.8 38.5 37.8 38.5 38.5 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2  210 days  1,069.6 Lbs  114.1 116.2 116.2 116.2 118.3 118.3 118.3 119.7 121.8 123.9 123.9 123.9 126. 126. 128.1 128.1 130.2 132.3 132.3 134.4 135.8 134.4 135.8 135.8 137.9 137.9 137.9 137.9 137.9 137.9  Hay Concentrate Per iGroup i n L b s . 189. 189. 189. 189. 189. 193.2 193.2 197.4 201.6 205.8 205.8 205.8 210. 210. 214.2 214.2 218.4 222.6 222.6 226.8 231. 226.8 231. 231. 235.2 235.2 235.2 235.2 235.2 235.2  684.6 697.2 697.2 697.2 709.8 709.8 709.8 718.2 730.8 743.4 743.4 743.4 756. 756. 768.6 768.6 781.2 793.8 793.8 806.4 814.8 806.4 814.8 814.8 827.4 827.4 827.4 827.4 827.4 827.4  3,837.4 Lbs 6,417.6 Lbs 23,024.4 Lbs  APPENDIX IV  I n g r e d i e n t s o f the C o n c e n t r a t e R a t i o n P r o x i m a t e C o m p o s i t i o n o f Roughage and C o n c e n t r a t e  TABLE I FORMULATION OF CONCENTRATE PELLETS Supplement "A" - f e d t o Pens I I I and IV 1500 pounds 300 " 160 " 20 " 20 "  Refuse S c r e e n i n g s Dehydrated Grass Molasses Salt Bone Meal  Supplement "B" - f e d t o Pen I I Refuse S c r e e n i n g s Dehydrated Grass Molasses gait Whale * M e a i  1600 pounds 100 " 100 " 20 " "  !  !  180  2000 Pounds  2000 Pounds  TABLE I I PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATE AND HAY Constituent  Protein Fat Fibre N.F.E.  Hay  11.8 0.9 27.6 34.2  "  Concentrate P e l l e t s Supplement "A" Supplement "B" 11.1 4.5 16.2 45.8  17.0 4.4 15.1 44.0  TABLE I I I CONCENTRATE PELLETS Constituents  Pounds per Ton  Refuse S c r e e n i n g s Molasses Salt . Whale S o l u b l e C a l c i u m Carbonate  1800 100 25 50 ,, .25^ 2000  TABLE IV PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATE AND HAY Constituent Protein Fat Fibre N.F.E  Hay  Concentrate  ........  Pellets  APPENDIX V Table I .  Net Energy V a l u e o f G a i n  Table I I .  N.E.  Table I I I .  Monetary  Table IV.  C a l c u l a t i o n of pasture dry matter  T a b l e V.  Dry M a t t e r Requirement  Table V I .  Summary o f r a t e o f g a i n d a t a .  c o s t o f A n i m a l Growth e v a l u a t i o n maintenance  and growth intake  of a n i m a l on p a s t u r e  cost.  TABLE I NET ENERGY VALUE OF 1 POUND OF GAIN USED IN CALCULATIONS  Body Weight o f A n i m a l Lbs. 100 - 500 500 - 750  750 - 1000  N.E.Value o f 1 Lb o f G a i n Cal. 1,500 2,000  2,600  TABLE I I TOTAL NET ENERGY COST OF ANIMAL GROWTH Group  I  II  III  IV  Feeding Period  Number of Days  Summer Winter  210 210  Total  420  Summer Winter Summer  210 210 126  Total  546  Summer Winter Summer Wimter  210 210 175 133  Total  728  Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer  252 168 175 175 210  Total  980  Birth Final Weight Wgt Lbs Lbs 75  75  75  75  Total Gain Lbs  Average daily Gain  Maintenance N.E.Cost Therms  550 1000  475 450  2.26 2.14  1,480 2,326  712.5 1,150.  2,192.5 3,476.  1000  925  2.2  3,806  1,862.5  5,668.5  475 800 1000  400 325 200  1.9 1.55 1.58  1,224.3 1,695.1 1,693.  600. 650. 520.  1,824.3 2,345.1 2,213.  1000  925  1.69  4,612.4  1,770.  6,382.4  425 570 875 1000  350 145 305 125  1.67 .69 1.74 .94  1,175.1 1,465.2 1,507. 1,465.3  525. 290. 610. 325.  1,700.1 1,755.2 2,117. 1,790.3  1000  925  I.27  5,612.6  1,750.  7,362.6  375 400 650 675 1000  300 25 250 25 325  1.19 0.15 1.43 0.14 1.55  1,096.5 909.5 1,124. 1,460.5 1,610.  450. 37.5 500. 65. 845.  1000  925  0.94  6,200.5  1,897.5  N.E. Value of Gain Therms  T o t a l N. E . Cost Therms  1,546.5 947. 1,624. 1,525.5 2,455. 8,098.  TABLE I I I MONETARY EVALUATION OF MAINTENANCE AND  GROWTH COST  OF FOUR ANIMALS RAISED IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS AMOUNT OF FEED REQUIRED, ITS COST, PASTURE EXPENDITURE AND Group I  LABOUR COSTS  Amount o f Feed i n Pounds  Cost of Feed and labour i n $  500 2,520  Creep f e e d Concentrates  2,520  Hay  Pasture Labor d u r i n g w i n t e r II  Creep f e e d Concentrates  Hay  III  IV  A Net  A  400 1,890  2,688  Total $  12.50 50.40 12.60  15.00 5.00  .  tt  ,.  9,5*50  10.00 37.80  13.44  Pasture Labor d u r i n g w i n t e r  25.00 5.00  Hay 6,412 Concentrates 665 Pasture Labor d u r i n g w i n t e r  32.04- 13.30 30.00 10.00  85.34  Hay 5,477 Pasture Labor d u r i n g w i n t e r  27.40 45.00 10.00  82.40  Values  91.24  used f o r c a l c u l a t i o n  energy v a l u e o f f e e d s :  P r i c e of feeds:  Pasture expenditures:  1 Lb o f Hay 1 Lb o f C o n c e n t r a t e  450 C a l . 850 "  1 t o n hay $10.00 1 t o n creep f e e d 50.00 1 ton concentrate 40.00 (Labor, taxes, etc) $15.00 per a n i m a l per season  Labor d u r i n g w i n t e r - f e e d i n g p e r i o d :  $5.00 per  animal  TABLE IV CALCULATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE w  Log w X  900 900 1100 1100 1300 1300  2.954-2 2.9542 3.0414 3.0414 3.1139 3.1139  D.M.  Log D.M. y 1.26316 1.33143 1.33726 1.38057 1.38075 1.43791  18.33 21.45 21.74 24.02 24.03 27.41  8.13108  18.2190  xy  x^  3.731627 3.933311 4.067143 4.198866 4.299517 4.477477  8.727297 8.727297 9.250114 9.250114 9.696373 9.696373  24.707941  N « 6 £XY=a,£x +  £ £ x  24.707941 = I8.2190  l  * 55.347568b  a  8.131080 = 6 a  * 18.219000b  24.707941 = 18.2190a  * 55.347568b  t24.690024 = 18.2190a  1 55.321994b  .017917 b  x 3.0365  = .025554b = .7011  8.131080 = 6a * 12.77406 a  = -.77383  Log D M = l o g .77383 *• .7 log w Log D M = log .22617 * .7 l o g w D M = .#168 x  W  7  D M = .jfcL7 500 r 700 W3 s 900 s 1100 s 1300 1500 •  mm  Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.  D D D D D D  M 0 M — M B M M = M S  13.17 16.67 19.89 22.88 25.72 28.40  Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.  55.347568  TABLE V DRY MATTER REQUIREMENT OF ALL ANIMALS ON PASTURE (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS) Pasture Period  Average Number body wgt of animals of a l l animals on pasture  No. I  728  No. 2  1062  A M. AAA  Grazing season Days  27 H e i f e r s 1 Bull 24 Cows 1 Bull 19 C a l v e s  Number of Animal days  160  4,480  77  1,925"  AA  Dry M a t t e r requirement per a n i m a l per day (DM=.17W') i n Lbs.  Pasture acres  17.14  14  22.32  14  n  one h a l f o f t h e g r a z i n g p e r i o d (Experiment t e r m i n a t e d ) . calves not included C a l c u l a t e d f o r 154 days - (whole g r a z i n g p e r i o d )  D.M.Requirement ppeerr a l l groups per season Ton  AAA  D.M. Requirement p e r 1 acre of pasture Ton  38.40  2.743  42.96  3.07  TABLE V I SUMMARY OF RATE OF GAIN DATA FOR THE FOUR FEEDING PERIODS: A - i n pounds B - i n p e r c e n t a g e o f body weight (KxlOO) A. Group  I II III IV  P e r i o d 1. Weanling W i n t e r  P e r i o d 2. Yearling Summer 1.41  0.73 0.83  1.53  1.04  1.46 1.08  1.51  P e r i o d 3. Yearling Winter 0.55 1.30 1.73  1.62  P e r i o d 4. Two Year Old Summer 1.31 0.76 0.52 0.36  B. Group I II III IV  Period .140 .162 .192 .271  1.  P e r i o d 2,  P e r i o d 3.  .301 .296 .270 .223  .150 .179 .177  .064  P e r i o d 4, .277 .123 .201 .123  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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.831.1-0106374/manifest

Comment

Related Items