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 for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE Members' ttt the Division 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 in this experiment the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The fi r s t post-weaning winter period is very important in 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 in a decreased growth rate of the bred heifers. (4) The physical difficulties of parturition in two year old heifers do not appear to be insurmountable i f the winter plane of nutrition is adequate. (5) The lactation period means a heavy drain on the young female hence a high level of nutrition must be provided in 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 bull 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 is animal weight given in pounds;) ACKNOWLEDGMENT The w r i t e r wishes to thank Dean B l y t h e Eagles, Chairman of the D i v i s i o n of Animal Science, f o r permission to conduct t h i s experiment and f o r p r o v i s i o n of departmental f a c i l i t i e s . S i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e i s a l s o expressed to Dr. A.J. Wood, Profe s s o r i n the D i v i s i o n of Animal Science, 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 the execution of t h i s p r o j e c t and the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s and to 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 to acknowledge the cooperation r e c e i v e d from h i s f e l l o w students p a r t i c u l a r l y during the weekly weight recordings of the animals. The w r i t e r i s f u r t h e r indebted to 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 of the h e i f e r c a l v e s , to 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 of the c a l v e s , and to B u c k e r f i e l d s L t d . , and B.C. Packers L t d . , f o r the p r o v i s i o n of feed and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . I t i s a pleasure to acknowledge the keen i n t e r e s t and f i n a n c i a l support by Colonel V i c t o r Spencer f o r the furtherance of research on beef c a t t l e . The author wishes to express sincere thanks to all" members of his graduate Committee for their direction, assistance and criticism during the conduction of this, thesis: To Dean Blythe Eagles, Dr. A.J. Wood, Dr. W.D. Kitts, Dr. W.Y. Anderson, Dr. V.C. Brink. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 I I . L i t e r a t u r e Review 3 1. The Various Growth Patterns of Beef C a t t l e 3 2. The E f f e c t of the Breeding Age on the Growth of the Dam, on M i l k Production and on the Growth of Calves 11 I I I . Experimental 20 1. General Outline 20 2. Planes of N u t r i t i o n 20 3. Experimental R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n . . . 26 A. F i r s t Winter P e r i o d 26 B. F i r s t Pasture P e r i o d 33 C. Second Winter Period . 40 D. Second Pasture P e r i o d 50 E. Growth Rate of Calves 55 IV. Conclusions and Summary 62 V. Appendices 1. The Growth Curves of H e i f e r s and Calves 2. Weekly Weight Records of H e i f e r s and Calves 3. Feed Consumption Records 4. Composition of Feed- r a t i o n 5. A n c i l l a r y C a l c u l a t i o n s 1 INTRODUCTION A great number of feeding and breeding experiments w i t h the domestic animals are continuously being conducted throughout the world. L i v e s t o c k production i s a dynamic process and research and progress i n a l l branches o f scie n c e are, each year, adding to 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 the key to production p o t e n t i a l and through continuous research we are able to v i s u a l i z e new ho r i z o n s , l i m i t e d by present knowledge. I t i s the combination of hard work by farmers and the a p p l i c a t i o n of research e f f o r t s that help to s o l v e so many of the problems of l i v e s t o c k production. World l i t e r a t u r e i n the past f i f t y years has accum-u l a t e d a vast amount of i n f o r m a t i o n i n the f i e l d of animal husbandry; many va l u a b l e r e s u l t s have been obtained i n animal breeding and feeding methods, i n m i l k , beef, wool or egg produ c t i o n , which can be a p p l i c a b l e i n general. But the great m a j o r i t y of experimental data and r e s u l t s are of the highest value i n the environment where the experiments have been conducted. Climate, feed crops, feeds and feeding p r a c t i c e s , breeds and breeding methods are the 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 present experiment upon which the subject of 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 of 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 Influence of Various Planes of N a t r i t i o n on  Animal Growth: The comparison of s a l e s records from recent s t u d i e s i n the United States w i t h records t h i r t y years e a r l i e r i n d i c a t e s that there has been a decided trend toward the marketing of c a t t l e at younger ages. Sales of two year-olds were comparatively few i n number, s i n c e most producers are s e l l i n g y e a r l i n g s . P r a c t i c a l l y none of the stockmen i n t e r -viewed i n the study reported c a r r y i n g aged s t e e r s - three or four years o l d , as was common i n the 1920 's (American C a t t l e Producer, Business Magazine, September 1953). S e v e r a l reasons can be given f o r t h i s change: the e l i m i n a t i o n of oxen f o r d r a f t purposes, the consumer's demand f o r higher q u a l i t y beef, the use of the higher growth p o t e n t i a l of young animals may be c i t e d . However, the greatest i n f l u e n c e was exerted by the r e s u l t s of numerous feeding t r i a l s based on the progress i n animal physiology, biochemistry, 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 the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t i n g the var i o u s growth r a t e s that can be expected when animals are fed on d i f f e r e n t planes of n u t r i t i o n . ( G u i l b e r t , 1950; Moulton, 1953; Lush, 1930; Haecker, 1922; Amschler, 1953;) . The cost of feed i s the p r i n c i p l e f a c t o r i n most cases that determines the l e v e l of animal feeding. A b r i e f c a l c u l -JillBSlBHBBH! IIIHII • • • H l I l B i l i i l E l I l l i , i l l :::::::::::::::::: |s||iiiHiiii|iiii 4 a t i o n of the t o t a l net energy cost of animal growth under d i f f e r e n t environmental c o n d i t i o n s could be a h e l p f u l guide i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the e f f o r t s of ranchers. The maintenance cost expressed i n net c a l o r i e s was c a l c u l a t e d by using Brody's data 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 animal's a c t i v i t y as i t i s shown on F i g u r e No. 2. Figure No. 1 r e p r e -sents the growth patterns of four h y p o t h e t i c a l animals r a i s e d by d i f f e r e n t feeding p r a c t i c e s . Curve 1 expresses maximum animal growth r e s u l t i n g from supplemental feeding of calves during the summer and from the highest l e v e l of n u t r i t i o n during the w i n t e r p e r i o d . The animal reaches a body weight of a thousand pounds when fourteen months o l d . The second animal i s placed on a s l i g h t l y lower feeding standard d u r i n g the weanling winter but receives supplemental feed during the y e a r l i n g summer on pasture. A thousand pounds of body weight i s reached at eighteen months of age. The animal represented by curve 3 i s fed only a s m a l l amount of concentrate during the winter p e r i o d as a supplement to good q u a l i t y hay. I t reaches the same weight as the previous animals when i t i s 24 months o l d . Animal number four i s r a i s e d without any supplemental feed during the winter 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 of poor q u a l i t y hay. This animal requires t h i r t y - t w o months to reach the same weight. The t o t a l amount of net c a l o r i e s r e q u i r e d f o r the 5 maintenance of these four animals was c a l c u l a t e d by the method of summation of squares i n d i c a t e d on F i g u r e No. 3. The t o t a l maintenance cost i n net Therms obtained from such a c a l c u l a t i o n i s given 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 " In order to a r r i v e at more accurate f i g u r e s f o r maintenance cost of these four animals a c o r r e c t i o n has t o be made on the b a s i s of numerous experimental 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) pointed out, t h a t , i f the r a t i o n of one animal was suddenly reduced under the normal maintenance requirements there would be a process of readjustment. I f the r e d u c t i o n was not too severe, a f t e r a short p e r i o d of time a s t a t i o n a r y l i v e weight would be obtained and f o l l o w i n g that there would be an increase i n weight. The M i s s o u r i Experiment (20) showed a lower maintenance requirement f o r animals on a low plane of n u t r i t i o n . Armsby (2) concludes that at l e a s t a part of a lower maintenance cost at the low plane of n u t r i t i o n may come from "voluntary r e s t r i c t i o n of motion on the part of the animals on a low n u t r i t i o n plane." K e l l n e r (15) has reported data showing that f a t s t e e r s have a higher maintenance requirement than those i n medium c o n d i t i o n . 6 Results from the va r i o u s experiments are given i n Table No. 1 . TABLE 1 DAILY MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS PER 1 0 0 0 POUNDS BODY WEIGHT M i s s o u r i Experiment high plane ... 5 770 C a l . (Moulton) Winter p e r i o d med. plane ... 4444 C a l . low plane ... 4164 C a l . high plane ... 5777 C a l . Summer per i o d med. plane ... 4869 C a l . low plane ... 4408 C a l . Armsby 5995 C a l . K e l l n e r 5742 C a l . Eckles 6173 C a l . Many feeding experiments have proved a cl o s e r e l a t i o n -s h i p between the amount of net eneggy i n t a k e and maintenance requirements: h i g h energy i n t a k e corresponds to a high main-tenance cost and a low maintenance requirement i s i n accordance w i t h the low plane of n u t r i t i o n ( G u i l b e r t and L o o s l i , ( 1 9 5 D > 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 the r e s u l t s of numerous experiments and d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s i t seems t o be reasonable t o increase the maintenance cost of animal N o . l . , fed on the high l e v e l of n u t r i t i o n , and to decrease that of animal IV, fed on a low plane of n u t r i t i o n , both about 1 5 $ . Corrected data used f o r f u r t h e r c a l c u l a t i o n s are as f o l l o w s : 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 for 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 di f f e r e n t age and body weight - used for the ca l c u l a t i o n - are given i n Table I , Appendix V. The results obtained i n the calculations are summar-ized i n the following Table No. 2. (for detailed tables see Appendix V, Table 2). TABLE 2 NET ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND GROWTH Animal Age of Animals at 1000 Lbs. Body Wt. i n Months 1 (high plane) 14 2 18 (medium high pl.) 3 24 (Med-low plane) 4 (low plane) 32 Total Mainten-ance cost i n net energy Therms 3,806. 5,612.6 Requirements for Growth i n net energy Therms. 1,862.5 4,612.4 1,770.0 1,750.0 6,200.5 1,897.5 Total Net Energy cost i n Therms. 5,668.5 6,382.4 7,362.6 8,098.0 /soo 13 oo I loo Nov . 10 00 900 •S $ /<? /z H // 4o 11 J4 ic •** Jo 3 1 34 36 3<r A . »v - 1 1 K E U F F E L & E S S E R C S . N . Y A$£. c-n Months 8 From Table No. 2 i t may be shown that maintenance costs make up 67.1$ of the cost of producing animal No. I , 72.3$ for animal No. 2, 76.2$ for animal No. 3 and 76.6$ for animal No. 4. I t i s evident that maintenance i s the largest single 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 int e n s i v e l y new feeding methods and practices i n order to r e s t r i c t , as much as possible, the period of time which i s required to fatten and f i n i s h an animal. The difference i n t o t a l net energy cost of animal 1 and 4 i s as high as 2 and one half m i l l i o n calories (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 of hay or 2,858 pounds of concentrate or 10.12 tons of green forage more than animal 1 - i n order to reach equal body weight. Table No. 3 i n Appendix V shows the production cost of those four animals as follows: 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 results favour the high l e v e l feeding method of animal No. 1. Here are some facts which A Using the following 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 to be considered: the p r i c e of g r a i n f i n i s h e d c a t t l e i s always higher than that of c a t t l e f i n i s h e d on grass only; the sh o r t e r feeding period of animal No. 1 avoids the accumulation of unnecessary overhead c o s t s ; twice as much beef can be pro-duced i n the same period of time; f a s t gains and high carcass grades always go together; beef p r i c e s can be pr e d i c t e d w i t h more c e r t a i n t y f o r the f o l l o w i n g s p r i n g than f o r a period of two or three years. Curve No. 4 on Fi g u r e I can be considered as represen-t a t i v e of the growth of animals intended f o r the breeding herd on the great m a j o r i t y of ranches. 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: the sm a l l amount of poor q u a l i t y hay fed i s not o f t e n s u f f i c i e n t even to maintain an equal body weight during the winter p e r i o d and the animal loses weight. There i s no doubt that young h e i f e r s , under such 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 weight does not reach 500 pounds. To demonstrate some of the ^normal" growth patterns of beef c a t t l e , the a c t u a l data, obtained i n various feeding experiments, were p l o t t e d and the growth curves constructed on Figure No. 4. How d i f f e r e n t planes of n u t r i t i o n i n f l u e n c e the growth and body weight of animals becomes evident i f we com-pare various body weights that the animals reached at the same age - f o r instance - when one year o l d . 10 1. M i s s o u r i Steers (low plane) . . . 375 Lbs i n 12 months 2. Texas Steers 405 3. Minnesota Steers 740 4. C a l i f o r n i a Hereford B u l l s . . . . 860 5. A u s t r i a n Dual Purpose C a t t l e . . 1100 Growth curve No. I represents the poor growth of s t e e r s obtained i n Group I I I of the M i s s o u r i experiment (20). The s t e e r s were fed on such a r a t i o n that the average d a i l y gain during the f i r s t two years was 0.69 pounds. Curve No. 4 expresses the growth of s t e e r s on a high plane of n u t r i t i o n i n the same ex-periment. The t y p i c a l growth p a t t e r n of Texas beef c a t t l e (Hereford-Brahman) i s shown by curve 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 part of the grazing season, the r a t e of increase i n weight 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 of the Minnesota s t e e r s fed on a hi g h plane of n u t r i t i o n . However the feeding l e v e l was not s u f f i c i e n t to a l l o w the s t e e r s to express a maximum rate of growth, as i s shown i n G u i l b e r t ' s experiment w i t h Hereford 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 curve No. 6 i s more or l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l ; not very many animals under present normal c o n d i t i o n s express t h e i r growth r a t e according t o t h i s curve. As Amschler s t a t e s " i t i s the great task of modern s c i e n t i f i c workers i n animal science to improve the r a t i o n and to s e l e c t the breeds which would show t h e i r r a t e of growth s i m i l a r i l y to t h i s growth curve." II II it tt it it it tt tt ii it II it it tt it 11 The normal growth patterns of beef c a t t l e vary to a great extent according to the environment which p r e v a i l s during t h e i r production. I t i s tru e t h a t the production and feeding methods on a great number of ranches are d i c t a t e d and d i r e c t e d by given c o n d i t i o n s but these methods could be changed and improved i n many cases i f the conservative t r a d i t i o n a l customs of ranchers would not oppose them. 2. The E f f e c t of the Breeding Age on the Growth of the Dam. on M i l k Production, on B i r t h Weight^ and P o s t - n a t a l  Growth Rate of Calves Under normal ranching c o n d i t i o n s the young females are bred when two years o l d . Mumford (1921) (22) enumerates some of the o p i n i o n s , wide-spread at that time among the p r a c t i c a l , breeders, on the breeding of young and immature animals: 1. The growth of the young mother i s retarded. 2. The u l t i m a t e s i z e of the young mother i s diminished. 3. The o f f s p r i n g of young parents are s m a l l e r , l e s s t h r i f t y and l e s s vigorous. 4. The continued mating of very young parents w i l l u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n decreasing the s i z e of the race or breed. 5 . The o f f s p r i n g of very young parents are 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 subject Mumford c a r r i e d on the experiment f o r ten y e a r s , breeding young swine at the youngest p o s s i b l e age. Body measurements, changes i n weight, 12 feed consumption, and parturition dates were carefully recorded and compared with those obtained in the experiment with swine bred at a mature age. The results of his great work can be briefly summarized as follows: The period of gestation has a tendency to increase the rate of growth of the female. Lactation is apparently a heavy drain on the mother, inhibiting growth, especially during the f i r s t part of the lactation period. But the smaller size of mature sows bred at an early age is not significant. 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 profitable throughout their period of usefulness and there was no indication of retarded growth. The findings, based on calving and pro-duction records of 253 Holstein cows from 40 herds, clearly indicate that cows which bear their f i r s t calves at about two years old or slightly less get such a head start in 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 cattle are common and easy to obtain there is an entirely different situation in beef cattle 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 literature contains very l i t t l e information 13 concerning the y i e l d s of m i l k produced by beef cows. Gowen (1920) gives the l a c t a t i o n records f o r three pure bred Aber-deen Angus cows i n h i s report on the Maine Cross breeding experiment w i t h d a i r y and beef breeds of c a t t l e . Knapp and Black (1941) (16) studying the 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 that the m i l k consumption of the suck-l i n g calves had the greatest i n f l u e n c e on the growth r a t e , greater than any other f a c t o r , as f o r instance b i r t h weight, s i r e s , dams, sex, or feed consumption. But the m i l k pro-d u c t i o n record of the cows i s not included i n t h e i r r e p o r t . Cole and Johansson (1933) (6) reported the l i f e - t i m e m i l k production records of seven purebred Aberdeen Angus cows, milked twice a day. The cows were maintained under the same co 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 production was about 3,000 pounds per l a c t a t i o n ( w i t h i n a range of 1000-6000 pounds). The most d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s of m i l k and b u t t e r f a t production i n beef breeding herds were done by the 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 of Arkansas during the years 1940 - 1 9 5 2 . G i f f o r d ( 1 9 5 3 ) (8) published a t o t a l of 77 m i l k and b u t t e r f a t records, which are based on an eight month l a c t a t i o n p e r i o d . In t h i s study 28 Hereford, seven Aberdeen Angus and f i v e Shorthorn cows were used. The t o t a l m i l k pro-d u c t i o n during 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 production record each month, which was obtained by hand 14 m i l k i n g one h a l f of the udder one day and the other h a l f the second day. The r e s u l t s 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 to note t h a t i n the Hereford group m i l k production increases u n t i l s i x years of 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 according to l a c t a t i o n s . The greatest amount of m i l k was produced by a two year o l d Aberdeen Angus cow which was milked twice a day a f t e r she l o s t her c a l f . She produced 2,544 pounds of m i l k and 100 pounds of b u t t e r f a t i n 244 days. The lowest record of m i l k and b u t t e r -f a t production was obtained from Hereford cows, being about 675 pounds lower than the average production of Aberdeen Angus and Shorthorns. Table No. 4 taken from G i f f o r d ' s r e p o r t presents the d a i l y m i l k production of cows i n an eight month per i o d and the average d a i l y gain i n body weight of t h e i r c a l v e s . The highest d a i l y m i l k production was observed during the f i r s t month of l a c t a t i o n among the Shorthorn and Hereford cows. The Aberdeen Angus cows showed the highest production during the second month of l a c t a t i o n . In a l l three breeds the m i l k production s t e a d i l y decreased to about one h a l f of the amount i n the e i g h t h month of l a c t a t i o n . The Hereford calves made good average gains even though the average d a i l y m i l k pro-d u c t i o n of t h e i r dams are ranged from 8.5 pounds during the f i r s t month to 4.1 pounds during the e i g h t h month. TABLE 3 LACTATION RECORDS OF BEEF COWS ACCORDING TO AGE C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Age i n years 2- 3 3- 4 4- 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 and over Hereford Production of Milk Butterfat Lbs 1,195 1,160 1,455 1,412 1,575 1,255 35. 37.7 44.9 44. 46.5 34.8 Aberdeen-Angus 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 Shorthorn Production of Milk Butterfat Lbs 1,696 2,322 1,541 2,128 49.7 76.0 34.8 58.2 Lactation f i r s t second t h i r d fourth f i f t h S i x and l a t e r Average: a l l records 1,175 1,266 1,474 1,589 1,324 1,168 1,303 34.2 37.8 44.9 48.4 34.1 34.9 38.5 1,470 2,102 2,159 2,491 2,389 2,458 1,972 48.3 69.9 81.5 50.1 85. 88.4 68.7 1,696 2,390 2,153 1,541 2,134 1,983 49.7 75.1 73.5 34.8 37.2 58.7 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 Hereford Average D a i l y Average M i l k Pro- d a i l y gain d u c t i o n i n c a l f ' s weight Pounds 8.52 7.67 7.26 6.07 5.25 4.79 4.80 4.14 Aberdeen-Angus Shorthorn Average D a i l y Average Average D a i l y Average M i l k pro- d a i l y gain M i l k Pro- d a i l y gain duction i n c a l f ' s weight Pounds duc t i o n i n c a l f ' s weight Pounds ' 1.27 9.53 1.79 14.55 1.46 1.09 10.08 1.42 11.03 2.13 1.41 9.41 1.28 9.53 * 1.65 1.47 9.01 1.53 8.03 2.09 1.59 7.85 1.66 8.59 1.66 1.49 7.59 1.32 8.83 1.76 1.59 7.97 1.56 6.52 1.25 1.58 6.83 1.79 6.38 1.56 Mean 6.06 1.44 8.54 ' 1.54 9.18 1.69 H OS 17 According to G i f f o r d there i s a considerable degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between the q u a n t i t y of m i l k produced d a i l y by the dams and the d a i l y gains i n weight of t h e i r s u c k l i n g calves during the f i r s t four months. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are expressed by the f o l l o w i n g f i g u r e s : . 6 0 , 171, .52, .35 r e s p e c t i v e l y . During the f o l l o w i n g four months the c o r r e l -a t i o n s are sma l l e r and not s i g n i f i c a n t . There are s t i l l other important problems which are oft e n discussed by beef c a t t l e breeders i n regard to m i l k pro-d u c t i o n of dams and m i l k consumption of 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? Is the m i l k production of beef cows s u f f i c i e n t to al l o w the maximum growth ra t e of t h e i r calves? Is there any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m i l k production of a dam and the growth r a t e of a c a l f In the post weaning period? What are the main f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the m i l k pro-d u c t i o n of a beef cow? Some of these problems have already been p a r t i a l l y solved but many others 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) reported that when 5 v e a l calves were reared by the nurse cow method, they averaged 1 pound of gain f o r each 9.4 pounds of mil k consumed. These calves gain approximately 2 pounds d a i l y , t h e r e f o r e , i t can be 18 assumed that the milk consumption was only 18.8 pounds daily. Similar results were obtained by Beckdel (3) in his experiment with veal calves; 9.4 pounds of milk was required by the calves to make 1 pound of gain. The results from Gifford 1s experiment 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 daily to a calf for each 10 pounds of body weight, up to the maximum of 15-18 pounds daily. According to Peterson (23) daily milk consumption of a young calf should be 8% of its total weight. In Gifford's experiment with beef cattle i t was found that the milk available to the calves daily - in percentage of their body weight - was as follows: Hereford 10$, Aberdeen-Angus 12.6$, and Shorthorn 15.3$. The average birth weight of the calves was 66 - 53 - 74 pounds respectively. It seems to be reasonable to conclude that the max-imum daily consumption a b i l i t y of the calves is one of the factors which determines the upper limit in milk production of the highest producing beef cows. If the mammary gland is not emptied at each suckling i t is logical to assume that the back-pressure of residual milk w i l l result in diminished subse-quent milk output. The e f f e c t of mi l k production of dams on the growth of t h e i r h e i f e r - c a l v e s during the post-weaning time has been studied 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 the m i l k production of dams and the body weight of h e i f e r - c a l v e s up to 36 months of 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, .69 , .53 , .55 at the age of 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 the mean weights of 20 h e i f e r s from G i f f o r d * s experiment, d i v i d e d i n t o 3 groups according to the production l e v e l s of t h e i r dams. TABLE 5 THE RELATION OF CALF GROWTH RATE TO MILK OUTPUT OF THE DAM L a c t a t i o n Average Weight of H e i f e r s i n Pounds P e r i o d : M i l k Lbs. B i r t h 4 Mos. 8 Mos. 12 Mos. 24 Mos. 36 Mos, 738 65 182 299 423 741 802 1,322 64 210 397 485 758 899 1,894 65 222 422 523 876 911 20 EXPERIMENTAL 1. General O u t l i n e Four groups each c o n s i s t i n g of seven weanling Hereford h e i f e r s were placed on four planes of n u t r i t i o n on November 23» 1953 and were c a r r i e d on the four s e l e c t e d l e v e l s of feeding u n t i l May 1, 1954. A p e r i o d of one week was allowed f o r the animals to change from a dry r a t i o n to pasture. Then a l l the animals were placed on adequate pasture u n t i l October 13> 1954. The h e i f e r s were bred during the months of June and J u l y . During the second w i n t e r the bred y e a r l i n g h e i f e r s were again d i v i d e d i n t o the four o r i g i n a l groups and fed on the four planes of n u t r i t i o n . The second pasture period was the f o u r t h and f i n a l phase of t h i s Beef C a t t l e Research P r o j e c t and the experiment was terminated on J u l y 31st, 1955» 2. Planes of N u t r i t i o n (A) F i r s t Winter P e r i o d The feeding p a t t e r n f o r the four groups of h e i f e r s was designed according to the f o l l o w i n g sequence: Group I . fed on a low plane of n u t r i t i o n Group I I . fed on a medium low plane of n u t r i t i o n Group I I I . fed on a medium high plane of n u t r i t i o n Group IV. fed on a high plane of n u t r i t i o n . (a) Low Plane of N u t r i t i o n : - t h i s l e v e l of feeding was computed to represent the normal -ranch w i n t e r i n g pro-cedure. 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 of b e t t e r than average q u a l i t y to the l i m i t of a p p e t i t e . 1$ was estimated that the hay inta k e would approximate that given i n Table 6. Iodized s a l t was o f f e r e d f r e e choice. TABLE 6 ANTICIPATED HAY INTAKE OF LOW PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds Pounds of Hay Pounds of T.D.N. per day per day 400 11.2 5.4 425 11.9 5.7 450 12.6 6.0 475 13.3 6.4 500 14.0 6.7 This r a t i o n was considered inadequate w i t h respect to p r o t e i n and energy content. Normal growth was not expected. (b) Medium Low Plane of N u t r i t i o n : - t h i s l e v e l of feeding was designed to y i e l d a s l i g h t , p o s i t i v e gain over the w i n t e r i n g p e r i o d . Hay in 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 at each body weight to conserve on roughage used and to permit adequate int a k e of supplementary feed. Iodized s a l t was of f e r e d f r e e choice. The feeding standard followed i s given i n Table 7. 22 TABLE 7 FEEDING STANDARD USED FOR MEDIUM LOW PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds of Hay Pounds of Supplement "B" Calculated Pounds per Day per Day Pounds of T.D.N, per day 400 9.0 1.5 5.5 425 9.0 1.7 5.6 450 9.0 2.0 5.8 475 9.6 2.0 6.1 500 9.6 2.3 6.3 525 9.6 2.5 6.4 550 9.6 2.9 6.7 This feeding level was based on Morrison's lower recommen-dations of requirements for wintering beef calves to gain 0.75 to 1.0 pounds per day. (c) Medium High Plane of Nutritions - this level of feeding was designed to promote a medium degree of growth and anticipated a daily rate of gain of approximately 1.0 to 1.25 pounds per day. Iodized salt was offered free choice. The feeding standard designed to produce this rate of gain is given in 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 of Hay Pounds of Supplement "B" Calculated Pounds per Day per Day Pounds of T.D.N, per Day 400 9.0 2.7 6.3 425 9.0 3.0 6.5 450 9.0 3.2 6.6 475 9.6 3.5 7.1 500 9.6 3.8 7.3 525 9.6 4.1 7.5 550 9.6 4.4 7.7 575 10.5 4.1 8.0 (d) High Plane of Nutrition: - the feeding standard for this group was considered to be improvidently high but was included to give the upper maximum of growth rate. It was anticipated that i t would produce a mean rate of gain of 1.5 pounds per day throughout the wintering period. It was anticipated that the heifers in this group would not only achieve maximum growth rate but would also fatten. The pro-posed feeding standard is given in Table 9. 2 4 TABLE 9 FEEDING STANDARD DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A RATE OF GAIN OF 1.5 POUNDS PER DAY HIGH PLANE GROUP Body Weight Pounds of Hay Pounds of Supplement "A" Calculated Pounds per Day per Day Pounds of T.D.N, per Day 400 4.0 9.6 8.2 425 4.0 10.2 8.6 450 4.0 10.8 9.0 475 4.0 11.4 9.4 500 4.0 12.0 9.8 525 4.0 12.6 10.2 550 4.0 13.2 10.6 575 4.0 13.8 11.0 600 4.0 14 . 4 11.4 625 4.0 15.0 11.8 650 4.0 15.6 12.1 675 4.0 16.2 12.5 700 4.0 16.8 12.9 The concentrate pellets were formulated as shown in Table I - Appendix IV. and were pelleted through a S.W. pellet m i l l to yield 1/4" cylindrical pellets having an apparent density of 0.98. The proximate composition of concentrate and hay is given in Table II - Appendix IV. B. Second Winter Period The basis for the calculation of the four planes of nutrition for the second winter period was Morrison's Feeding Standard (1948) and his estimate of dry matter intake in animals in this weight range. This feeding standard was taken as the high plane of nutrition. For the Medium-high plane 90$ of the TABLE 10 FEEDING STANDARD ON A PER-ANIMAL-PER-DAY BASIS SECOND WINTER PERIOD Low Plane Body TDN 10% Weight i n # TDN# Hay# Medium-low Plane 80$ TDN Hay# Concen-TDN# Medium-high Plane 90$ TDN TDN# Hay# Concen-High Plane 100$ TDN trate # trate # trate # 700 11.6 8.1 16.2 9.3 12.0 5.0 10.4 8.0 9.9 11.6 4.0 14.8 25 11.8 8.3 16.6 9.5 12.3 5.1 10.6 8.2 10.1 11.8 4.1 15.1 50 12.1 8.5 17.0 9.7 12.6 5.2 10.8 8.4 11.3 12.1 4.2 15.4 75 12.3 8.7 17.4 9.8 12.8 5.3 11.1 8.6 10.5 12.3 4.3 15.7 800 12.5 8.8 17.6 10.0 13.1 5.4 11.3 8.8 10.7 12.6 4.4 16.0 25 12.8 8.9 17.8 10.2 13.3 5.5 11.5 9.0 10.9 12.8 4.5 16.3 50 13.0 9.1 18.2 10.4 13.6 5.6 11.7 9.1 11.1 13.0 4.5 16.6 75 13.2 9.3 18.6 10.6 13.9 5.7 11.9 9.3 11.3 13.2 4.6 16.9 900 13.5. 9.5 19.0 10.8 14.1 5.8 12.1 9.4 11.5 13.5 4.7 17.1 25 13.7 9.6 19.2 10.9 14.4 5.8 12.3 9.6 11.7 13.7 4.8 17.4 50 13.9 9.8 19.6 11.2 14.6 5.9 12.5 9.8 11.9 13.9 4.9 17.7 75 14.2 9.9 19.8 11.3 14.9 6.0 12.7 10.0 12.1 14.2 5.0 18.0 1000 14.4 10.1 20.2 11.5 15.2 6.1 12.9 10.2 12.3 14.4 5.1 18.3 25 14.6 10.2 20.4 11.7 15.4 6.2 13.2 10.4 12.5 14.6 5.2 18.6 50 14.8 10.4 20.8 11.9 15.7 6.2 13.4 10.6 12.7 14.8 5.3 18.9 75 15.1 10.5 21.0 12.1 16.0 6.3 13.6 10.7 12.9 15.1 5.4 19.2 1100 15.3 10.7 21.4 12.2 16.2 6.4 13.8 10.9 13.1 15.3 5.5 19.4 25 15.6 10.8 21.6 12.4 16.5 6.5 14.0 11.1 13.3 15.6 5.6 19.7 50 15.8 11.0 22.0 12.6 16.8 6.6 14.2 11.3 13.4 15.8 5.6 20.1 75 16.0 11.2 22.4 12.8 17.0 6.7 14.4 11.5 13.6 16.0 5.7 20.3 1200 16.3 11.3 22.6 13.0 17.3 6.8 14.6 11.6 13.8 16.3 5.8 20.7 ro High plane was used, f o r the Medium-low plane 80% and f o r the Low plane 70%, expressed i n pounds of T.D.N. The feeding standard i s given i n Table 10. 3. Experimental Results and D i s c u s s i o n : The r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s experiment are presented i n a chronologic sequence according to feeding periods as f o l l o w s : A f i r s t w inter p e r i o d B f i r s t pasture p e r i o d C second winter p e r i o d D second pasture period The growth curves of a l l experimental animals are given 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 the method of l e a s t squares. Weekly body weight records:of a l l experimental animals can be found i n Appendix I I . Feed con-sumption data are given i n Appendix I I I . A. F i r s t Winter P e r i o d : Table 11 contains the body weights of weanling h e i f e r s at the beginning of the experiment, t h e i r gain i n weight during the w i n t e r - f e e d i n g period and the average d a i l y , gain - accord-ing to the four groups. Because n e i t h e r age nor b i r t h weight of the h e i f e r s was known, equal body weights of 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 feed i n t a k e and of the feed e f f i c i e n c y among the groups - as i t Is evident from Tables 12 - 15. 27 The highest d a i l y gain during the winter period was made by group IV on the high plane of n u t r i t i o n . The r a t e of gain expressed i n percentage of the average body weight was .271$ i n comparison w i t h group I , I I , I I I , showing the r a t e of gain .140$, .162$ and .192% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r e s u l t s of the feed e f f i c i e n c y , presented i n Table 14, are i n agreement w i t h the ba s i c p r i n c i p l e , that as an animal becomes heavier i t s feed e f f i c i e n c y becomes lower, which means that more feed i s required per one pound of gain made. A discrepancy can be observed i n group I I I - at the body weight of 450 and 500 pounds, the e f f i c i e n c y of feed expressed i n pounds of 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 not represent the average of the whole group as i t was c a l c u l a t e d f o r 3 animals only. The remainder of the animals of t h i s group were heavier at the beginning of the experiment. A s i m i l a r case occurred i n Group IV at the body weight of 650 pounds - which was reached by 3 animals only. Assuming that the hay.contains 50$ T.D.N, and the concentrate 6% T.D.N., the highest feed e f f i c i e n c y per 1 pound of gain was shown by the animals i n Group IV, f e d a r a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g a high amount of concentrate. Table 15 i n d i c a t e s the cost of feed required by animals per 1 pound of gain at d i f f e r e n t body weights, f o r i n s t a n c e : at 500 pounds of body weight the feed cost per 1 pound of gain v a r i e s very s l i g h t l y ; a greater d i f f e r e n c e i n cost can be ob-served at 550 or 600 pounds of body weight; the most expensive gain was made by Group IV. TABLE 11 GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE FIRST WINTER PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) H e i f e r No. 30 31 32 33 34 =* o u e> 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 o 42 43 r-i ft o M 44 §•47 2 48 o 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 P. =( o r-i K-Value Body Weight Gain In Average D a i l y Begin. End 161 days gain .001753 432 572 140 .87 .001157 513 618 105 .65 .001441 470 592 122 .76 .001486 441 561 120 .75 .001483 503 639 136 .85 .000781 419 476 57 .35 .001702 446 586 140 .87 T o t a l 3224 4044 820 5.10 Average 460.5 577.7 117 .73 .001509 501 639 138 .86 .001742 417 552 135 .84 .001473 473 599 126 .78 .001658 444 580 136 .84 .001393 444 556 112 .70 .002071 400 558 158 .98 .001517 454 579 125 .78 T o t a l 3133 4063 930 5.78 Average 447.6 580 132.9 .83 .002016 486 673 187 1116 .002270 483 697 214 1.33 .001880 495 670 175 . 1.09 .001737 449 595 146 .91 .001641 426 555 129 .80 .001797 459 613 154 .96 .002062 432 602 170 1.06 T o t a l 3230 4405 1175 7.31 Average 461 .4 629.3 167.9 1.04 .003028 435 708 273 1.70 .002592 441 646 205 1.39 .001654 465 608 143 .89 .003371 472 813 341 2.12 .003163 429 715 286 1.78 .002544 429 646 217 1.35 .002643 405 620 215 i : 3 4 T o t a l 3076 4756 1680 10.57 Average 439.4 679.4 240 1.51 TABLE 12 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS Group 450 500 550 600 650 I .741 .798 .827 I I .772 .812 .893 I I I .816 .958 1.053 1.176 1.336 IV 1.257 1.445 1.589 1.628 1.911 TABLE 13 DAILY FEED INTAKE PER ANIMAL AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS Group 450 500 550 600 No. Hay Concent. Hay 1 Concent. Hay 1 Concent. Hay Concent. I 9.3 12.9 15.3 I I • 7.5 2. 9. 2.3 9.6 2.9 I I I 7.5 3.2 8. 3.7 9.6 4.1 10.5 5. IV 2. 9. 4. 10. 4. 13.2 4. 14 .4 650 Hay Concent. 4. 16.6 ro vO TABLE 14 FEED EFFICIENCY PER 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS - IN LBS. Group 450 500 550 600 650 Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN Hay" -Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN I 12.6 2.6 6.3 16.2 8.1 18 .5 9.3 I I 9.7 6.5 11.1 2.8 7.3 10.8 3.3 7.5 I I I 9.2 3.9 7.1 8 .4 3.9 6.4 9.1 3.9 7. 8 .9 4.3 7.3 IV 1.6 7.2 5.5 2.8 6.9 5.9 2.5 8 .3 6,7 2.5 8.8 7. 2.1 8.7 6.8 H Assuming that hay contains 50$ TDN and concentrate contains 65$ TDN TABLE 15 COST OF FEED PER 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN CENTS Group 450 500 550 600 650 I 12.6 16.2 18 .5 •• I I 14 .9 16.7 17.4 I I I 17. 16.2 16.9 17.5 IV 16. 16.6 19.1 20.1 19.5 ft P r i c e of feed used i n c a l c u l a t i o n : 1 ton of hay $20.00 1 ton of concentrate... 40.00 o TABLE 16 FIRST WINTER FEEDING PERIOD: SUMMARY OF RESULTS WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS. Group Number Average Body Wgt T o t a l Gain of at the per per Animals Begin. End. Animal Group I 7 460 .5 577.7 117. 820. I I 7 447.6 580. 132.9 930. I I I 7 461.4 629.3 167.9 1175. IV 7 439.4 679.4 240. 1680. T o t a l feed con-sumption per group" i n Lbs. Hay Concen. 2,681 4,578 12,880 Cost of 1 Pound of Gain: 18. 16.8 16 .5 17.6 Cost of Feed Feed E f f i c i e n c y per 1 Lb. of gain Hay Cone. TDN. 148.40 18.1 9.1 155.82 11. 2.9 7.4 194.25 8.7 3.9 6.9 296.31 2 .3 7.7 6.1 . Group I . Group I I . Group I I I . Group IV 32 A summary of the r e s u l t s obtained during the f i r s t w i nter period i s given on Table 16. The animals of Group IV, were one hundred pounds heavier than those of Group I and the d i f f e r e n c e i n body weight of the animals i n Groups I I and I I I was approximately 50 pounds. A very 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 weight of Group I I at the beginning of the feeding p e r i o d and from a high q u a l i t y hay f e d . I t could be s a f e l y concluded that the d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups would be much more n o t i c e -able under normal ranching c o n d i t i o n s , where poor q u a l i t y hay i s fed i n most cases. Using the given purchase p r i c e s f o r feed ($20. per 1 ton of hay, $40. per 1 ton of concentrate) the most expensive gain was made by the animals of Group I (18£); Group IV comes second (17.6^); Group I I occupies the t h i r d place and the cheapest gain 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 tabulated form: TABLE 17 COST OF ADDITIONAL GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT Group T o t a l T o t a l A d d i t i o n a l A d d i t i o n a l A d d i t i o n a l Gain Feed . gain cost cost per 1 Lbs $ Lbs $ pound $ I 820 148.40 • I I 930 155.82 50 7.42 14 .8 I I I 1175 194.25 245 38.43 15.7 IV 1680 296.31 505 102.06 20.2 33 The production cost of the a d d i t i o n a l gain i n Group I I I v a r i e s only s l i g h t l y from that of group I I . The l e v e l of feeding would be f u l l y j u s t i f i e d i f the producer would intend to s e l l the breeding stock. He could expect a higher p r i c e f o r the animals of Group I I I because of t h e i r b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n and appearance. To support the conclusions concerning the advantages of high feeding p r a c t i c e s of beef c a t t l e , made at the beginning i n t h i s t h e s i s , l e t us compare the cost of a d d i t i o n a l gain of Group IV w i t h the production cost of Group I . Group T o t a l T o t a l A d d i t i o n a l A d d i t i o n a l A d d i t i o n a l Gain Cost Gain Cost Cost per Lbs $ Lbs $ 1 Pound I 820 148.40 IV 1680 296.31 860 147.91 17.2 I t i s evident that twice as much beef was produced i n the same period of time i n Group IV and the production cost of 1 pound of gain was s l i g h t l y lower than i n Group I . B. F i r s t Pasture P e r i o d During a period of one week which was allowed f o r the animals to adapt themselves from a dry r a t i o n to the pasture, the h e i f e r s were fed a gradual i n c r e a s i n g q u a n t i t y of grass. On May 7, 1954 a l l the animals were placed together on pasture and changes i n body weight were recorded weekly. The pasture p e r i o d l a s t e d 160 days. The g a i n i n weight made by the animals 34 during t h i s p eriod i s recorded on Table No. 18. The highest r a t e of gain was observed i n Group I I being 1.53 pounds per day. The highest t o t a l gain made by Group I I , was 1,716 pounds; that of the three remaining groups i n descending order 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 IV. I f we compare the average d a i l y g a i n made by the animals at equal body weight we f i n d that at 650 pounds, of body weight the highest d a i l y g a i n was shown by the animals of Group I . This high r a t e of growth occurred during the f i r s t few weeks on pasture. Later on Group I I occupied the f i r s t place i n regard to r a t e of gain as i n d i c a t e d i n Table No. 19. The i n f l u e n c e of pasture on growth of the animals i s most evident from the growth curves. Group I fed on the low plane of n u t r i t i o n showed the highest increase i n weight during 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 -able on the growth curves of the animals i n Group I I but i n a smal l e r degree. The animals of Group IV fed on the high plane of n u t r i t i o n showed, at the beginning of the pasture p e r i o d , a decrease i n r a t e of growth. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t the pasture alone f o r t h i s group meant a lower plane of n u t r i t i o n than t h e i r winter feeding standard. The sudden l o s s i n body weight a f t e r the seventh week on pasture that i s v i s i b l e on the m a j o r i t y of the growth curves can probably be explained by the animals running about w i l d l y when f r i g h t e n e d by the noise of shot guns i n the v i c i n i t y . TABLE 18 GAIN IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE FIRST PASTURE PERIOD (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) H e i f e r K-Value Body Weight at Gain i n Average No. the 160 D a i l y Begin. End Days Gain 30 .004061 576 774 198 1.24 .001888 31 .004071 619 862 243 1.52 .002278 32 .004123 597 865 268 1.68 .002493 " 33 .003289 596 783 214 1.34 a. .002063 % 34 .004098 637 904 267 1.67 u .003104 .002526 35 .003020 473 655 182 1.14 .002386 36 .003759 603 811 208 1.30 .001932 T o t a l 4074 5654 1580 9.89 Average 582 807.7 225.7 1.41 37 .002887 652 874 222 1.39 .002283 38 .004810 576 856 280 1.75 .002519 K 39 .002178 607 853 246 1.54 .003980 571 820 249 1.56 P< .002488 2 41 .003769 574 827 253 1.58 a .002316 42 .002275 589 824 235 1.47 43 .003625 607 838 231 1.44 .002373 T o t a l 4176 5892 1716 10.73 Average 596.6 841 .7 245.1 1.53 TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) 36 H e i f e r No K-Value Body Weight at the Begin. End Gain i n 160 days Average D a i l y Gain 44 45 a 46 3 4? 2 48 o 49 50 P. o u 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 .003825 .001767 .002868 .002130 .003161 .001987 .001821 .003381 .002024 .003345 .002182 .004942 .002651 642 697 668 609 566 601 593 876 954 879 796 775 833 893 234 257 211 187 209 232 300 T o t a l 4376 6006 1630 Average 625.1 858 232 .002699 682 835 153 .001279 (Died) 285 .004929 595 880 , .002514 159 .002474 764 923 .001150 187 .001583 709 896 .001420 649 801 152 .001962 621 717 96 .002317 T o t a l 4020 5052 1032 Average 670 842 172 1.46 1.61 I . 3 2 1.17 1.31 1.45 1.88 10.20 1.46 .96 1.78 .99 1.17 .95 .60. 6.45 1.08 ft Corrected f o r 6 Animals 4690 5894 1204 7.53 TABLE 19 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS IN LBS. Group 650 700 750 800 I 2.535 1.492 1.648 1.846 I I 2.184 1.643 1,761 1.878 I I I 2.092 1.519 1.554 1.672 IV 1.911 1.459 1.367 1.483 TABLE 20 Group I I I I I I IV Number of Animals 7 7 7 6 FIRST PASTURE PERIOD : SUMMARY OF RESULTS WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS Body Weight at Begin. End. 582. 596.6 625.1 670. 807.7 841.7 858. 842. T o t a l Gain Per Animal Per Group 225.7 245.1 232.9 172. 1,580. 1,716. 1,630 1,032. Average D a i l y gain per animal 1.41 1.53 1.46 1.08 No. of Acres 14 T o t a l : 5,958 Lbs 14 Acres Lbs of Beef per acre 425.5 Lbs v3 As can be seen on Table No. 20 the t o t a l gain made by a l l groups during the grazing season on fourteen acres of pasture c o n s i s t e d of 5»958 pounds. This accounted f o r 425.5 pounds of beef production per acre of pasture. I f we consider w i n t e r feeding and pasture as one production 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 h e i f e r s . Assuming that the cost f o r a l l four groups i s constant except f o r feed during the winter the f i n a l d i f f e r e n c e i n production cost becomes more evident at the end of the pasture p e r i o d . Table No. 2 compares the a d d i t i o n a l gain and i t s cost among the groups. TABLE 21 Group Average T o t a l Gain A d d i t i o n a l Cost of Cost of Body Pounds Gain - Lbs Feed A d d i t i o n a l Weight Gain $ I 808 2380 148.40 I I 842 2646 266 155.82 7.42 I I I 858 2863 217 194.25 38.43 IV 842 2856 7 296.31 102.06 The a d d i t i o n a l gain of 266 pounds of the animals i n Group I I increased the t o t a l cost of feed by $7.42, w h i l e the cost of a d d i t i o n a l gain i n Group I I I was much higher $38.43. This higher 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 only i f the rancher would intend to s e l l the bred h e i f e r s at the end of the pasture p e r i o d . He could expect a b e t t e r p r i c e f o r the animals of Group I I I than f o r those of 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 other hand i f the breeder wants to keep the h e i f e r s f o r h i s own breeding stock the most p r o f i t a b l e w i n t e r feeding l e v e l would be those of Group I I which made the best use of the pasture. 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 weight between the animals of Group I I and Group I I I at the end of the pasture p e r i o d . The problems of management during the summer are simple i n comparison w i t h those a r i s i n g during the w i n t e r . As soon as pastures turn green the feeding problems are l a r g e l y solved because grass i s an i d e a l r a t i o n f o r young growing animals. Grass alone o r d i n a r i l y provides a s a t i s f a c t o r y r a t i o n during the grazing season. Therefore the emphasis on the maximum use of pasture i n beef production i s very important. "Grass i s the cheapest source of n u t r i e n t s f o r bovines, e s p e c i a l l y when i t i s consumed i n s i t u " (Hamilton 1952). Therefore, the main duty of the rancher must be to make an e f f o r t to manage h i s pastures i n such a way that the animals can make the best use of them and express the maximum growth during the grazing season. An important problem which f r e -quently a r i s e s on ranches i s whether or not the animals o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t amount of grass during the grazing 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 order to determine the pasture dry matter requirements of a l l experimental animals. The c a l c u l a t i o n was based on the r e s u l t s of an experiment w i t h the Shorthorn cows 3 3 8 - 1 1 1 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 which was c a r r i e d on during the summer of 1955. The main purpose of t h i s experiment was the determination of the i n f l u e n c e of aureomycin on pregnant and l a c t a t i n g cows ( K i t t s , 1955 - unpublished data). Simultaneously the d a i l y grass int a k e was recorded and moisture content of the green forage was determined. Using the a c t u a l date from t h i s experiment the dry matter requirement of animals at d i f f e r e n t body weights was c a l c u l a t e d by the method of l e a s t squares. The c a l c u l a t i o n i s shown on Table No. 4, Appendix V. The f o l l o w i n g equation was der i v e d : Dry matter requirement = .17 w 7 where w i s animal body weight i n pounds The r e g r e s s i o n l i n e of dry matter in t a k e i s shown on Figure 5. Using t h i s equation the t o t a l requirement of pasture dry matter was c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l experimental animals. As i t i s shown on Table V - Appendix V, 2.743 tons of dry matter per acre was the necessary production requirement. Assuming that the s p o i l a g e of grass on pasture c o n s i s t s of 25#» the t o t a l requirement was 3.43 tons per acre. According to the s t a t e of the pasture during the summer 1954 i t could be s a f e l y concluded that the amount of grass a v a i l a b l e on the pasture met the dry matter requirement of a l l animals. C. Second Winter P e r i o d The t h i r d phase of t h i s experiment can 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 period of bred beef h e i f e r s under four 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 again i n t o four o r i g i n a l groups; three animals (No. 35 > 37» 49) were s o l d so that the equal number of animals i n each group was used f o r the con-t i n u a t i o n of the experiment. The feeding standard used during t h i s p e r i o d i s g i v e n on Table 10. and the feed consumption record can be found i n Table I I - Appendix I I I . The r e s u l t s presented on f o l l o w i n g Tables No. 22 -26 are based on the period of 150 days - up to the b i r t h of the f i r s t c a l f ; the f o l l o w i n g two months was the pe r i o d of c a l v i n g which i s discussed s e p a r a t e l y . The i n f l u e n c e of d i f f e r e n t planes of n u t r i t i o n on the growth ra t e of 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 curves: Group I coming from pasture on hay r a t i o n only showed a very l a r g e d e c l i n e i n the growth r a t e . The average d a i l y gain i n weight was decreased from 1.41 pounds on pasture to .55 pounds during the second winter p e r i o d . A s l i g h t de-crease of r a t e of gain was a l s o observed i n Group I I . There was not any remarkable change i n the growth r a t e of Group I I I . and i n most cases the growth curve of these animals i s r e p r e s -ented by the s t r a i g h t l i n e covering 2 phases of the experiment: the f i r s t pasture and the second w i n t e r p e r i o d . The r a t e of gain i n Group IV - fed on the hi g h plane of n u t r i t i o n - was lower than that of Group I I I . In some cases a tendency to increase the growth r a t e was observed; however the change i n the growth ra 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 H e i f e r No. M 30 P o o 034 36 S38 §40 g41 042 43 K 4 4 M45 P.46 o47 548 50 ,51 fc53 p,54 *55 256 °57 (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS) K-Value Body Weight at Gain i n Average D a i l y the 150 gain Begin. End days .0003728 811 855 44 .29 .0008898 902 1022 120 .80 .0003819 880 928 48 .32 .0007745 815 910 95 .63 .0006420 930 1020 90 .60 .0008010 833 935 102 .68 T o t a l 5171 5670 499 3.32 Average 861.8 945. 83.2 .55 .001136 875 1000 125 .83 .001316 837 1010 173 1.09 .001576 810 1015 205 1.37 .001676 826 1050 224 1.49 .001546 826 1030 204 1.36 .001758 856 1102 246 1.64 T o t a l 5030 6207 1177 7.78 Average 838.3 . 1034.5 196.2 1.30 .001574 935 1171 236 1.57 .001677 981 1246 265 1.77 .002001 907 1207 300 2. .002081 815 1099 284 1.89 .001604 792 999 207 1.38 .001799 889 1150 261 1.74 T o t a l 5319 6872 1553 10.35 Average 886.5 1145.3 258.8 1.73 .001759 850 1094 244 1.63 .001888 858 1123 265 1.77 .001916 948 1246 298 1.99 .001514 911 1132 221 1.47 .001736 802 1028 226 1.51 .001785 740 946 206 1.37 T o t a l 5109 6569 1460 9.74 Average 851.5 1094.8 243.3 1.62 TABLE 23 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHT IN LBS (SECOND WINTER PERIOD - 150 DAYS) Group 850 900 950 1000 1100 I I I I I I IV .552 1.338 1.566 1.523 .641 -1.351 1.684 1.563 .645 1.426 1.721 1.678 .766 1.501 1.789 1.763 2.009 1.946 LO TABLE 24 FEED EFFICIENCY PER 1 POUND OF GfilN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS (IN LBS.) Group 850 A 900 950 1000 1100 Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN Hay Cone. TDN I 39.2 16.5 29.6 14.8 30.4 15.2 26.4 13.2 I I 10.2 4.2 7.8 10.4 4.3 8.0 10.2 4.1 7.8 10; ! 4.1 7.7 I I I 5.8 7.1 7.5 5.6 6.8 7.2 5.7 6.9 7.3 5.7 6.9 7.3 5.4 6.5 6.9 IV 2.9 10.9 8.6 3. 10.9 8.6 2.9 10.5 8.3 2.9 10.4 8.3 2.8 10. 7.9 ft Assuming that hay contains 5°# TDN and concentrate contains 65$ TDN TABLE 25 COST OF FEED IN 1 POUND OF GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHTS (IN CENTS)A Group 850 900 950 1000 1100 I 32.9 29.6 30.4 26.4 I I 18.6 19. 18.4 18.3 I I I 20. 19.2 19.5 19.5 18.4 IV 24.7 24.8 23.9 23.7 22.8 2 Based on purchasing p r i c e : $20. 1 ton of hay $40. 1 ton of concentrate 4* 45 average d a i l y gain made by group IV was 1.62 pounds i n comparison w i t h 1.73 pounds by Group I I I . The highest t o t a l g a i n i n t h i s 150 day period was reached by the animals of Group I I I - c o n s i s t i n g of 1553 pounds. The lowest gain - 499 pounds - was made by Group I (Table 22). A comparison of the d a i l y gain i n weight at equal body weights among the groups i n d i c a t e s that the highest gain t h r o u -ghout the whole period was made by Group I I I - as i t i s shown on Table 23. The feed e f f i c i e n c y data given on Table 24 support the previous f i n d i n g s of many i n v e s t i g a t o r s that the g e s t a t i o n period does not mean a very h i g h s t r e s s on the young growing animal. The animals i n a l l four groups showed an i n c r e a s i n g trend of feed e f f i c i e n c y towards p a r t u r i t i o n . The gain i n body weight of a pregnant animal i s p r i m a r i l y caused by an i n -creasi n g weight of the foetus and by accumulation of the amniotic and a l l a n t o i c f l u i d s . The feed requirement i n the net energy sense, to make one pound of gain of the 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 mainly from muscle t i s s u e . The d i f f e r e n c e i n net energy requirements to make one pound of gain i n the p r o t e i n sense and f a t was shown i n the f i r s t part of t h i s t h e s i s . Table No. 26 contains a summary of the r e s u l t s ob-tained during the second w i n t e r p e r i o d . The feed e f f i c i e n c y per one pound of gain i s twice as small i n Group IV as i n 46 Group I - expressed i n pounds of T.D.N. Only a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e i n the 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 gain during t h i s period was made by the animals of Group I I , the highest cost was required by Group IV. The f i r s t three periods considered as one u n i t were the bases f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n presented i n Table No. 27. As can be seen from the r e s u l t s the animals of Group I I were most j p r o f i t a b l e according to the lowest cost per one pound of gain. The figure s , i n column three do not express the absolute value of the production cost of one pound of gain but are the means f o r comparison of a l l the groups. The cost of the a d d i t i o n a l gain i n Group I I - 944 pounds - was $71.53. This means that each a d d i t i o n a l pound i n Group I I cost 7.58 cents, so that the feeding standard of t h i s Group seems to be most economical. The a d d i t i o n a l 570 pounds of gain i n Group I I I were produced at approximately three times the cost of Group I I . This feeding standard as was stat e d p r e v i o u s l y would be j u s t i f i e d only i f the bred h e i f e r s were intended f o r s a l e . Even though the t o t a l gain of Group IV was 77 pounds lower than that of Group I I I the t o t a l cost of feed was $144.68 higher. The r a i s i n g of breeding stock on a high plane of n u t r i t i o n as Group IV was fed would be very u n p r o f i t a b l e f o r the rancher. The l a s t two months of the winter feeding period which were not included i n the previous c a l c u l a t i o n we're the peri o d of c a l v i n g . P r a c t i c a l l y a l l the calves were born between TABLE 26 SECOND WINTER PERIOD : SUMMARY OF RESULTS3 WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS. T o t a l feed con-sumption per group i n Lbs Hay Coneen. Group Number Average Body Wgt. T o t a l Gain of at the per per Animals Begin. End. Animal Group I 6 861.8 945. 83.2 499 I I 6 838.3 1034.5 196.2 1177 I I I 6 886.5 1145.3 258.8 1530 IV 6 851.5 1094.8 243.3 1460 16,581.6 12,816.6 5,233. Cost of Feed $ 168.52 232.63 , . 320/92 4,414.8 15,969.6 363.54 Feed E f f i c i e n c y per 1 Lb. of gain Hay Cone. TDN 33.8 16.9 10.9 4.4 8.3 6.5 7.1 8. 3. 10.9 8.6 & C a l c u l a t i o n s are based on the peri o d of 150 days up to the b i r t h of the f i r s t c a l f Cost of 1 Pound of Gain: $ 33.8 ... Group I t 19.8 ... 0 I I 4 20.7 ... " H I 0 24.9 ... " IV 4>» S3 TABLE 27 Group T o t a l Gain during the F i r s t 3 Periods T o t a l Cost of feed $ Average Cost of 1 Pound of gain A d d i t i o n a l Gain Cost of A d d i t -i o n a l Gain T o t a l Per 1 Lb. I I I I I I IV 2879 3823 4393 4316 3 1 6 . 9 2 3 8 8 . 4 5 5 1 5 . 1 7 6 5 9 . 8 5 1 1 . 10.16 1 1 . 7 3 1 5 . 2 9 944 5 7 0 7 7 7 1 . 5 3 126 . 7 2 144.68 7 . 5 8 2 2 . 2 3 fe 49 Cow Loss of Body Wgt. No. by c a l v i n g i n Lbs. 30 67. 31 91. 32 33 90. 34 107. 36 109. T o t a l 464. Average 92.8 38 105. 39 82. 40 125. 41 99. 42 43 150 T o t a l 561. Average 112.2 44 115. 45 130. 46 145. 47 134. 48 96. 50 168. T o t a l 788. Average 131.3 51 131 53 148 54 112 55 102 56 118 57 123 T o t a l 734 Average 122.3 A l l Groups Average 114 .6 TABLE 28 PARTURITION DATA C a l f Weight In Lbs In % of cow1 s body weight 31. 3.63 62. 6.07 59. 6.32 63. 6.05 67. 6.96 282. 29.03 56.4 5.81 55. 4.83 51.' 4.71 75. 7.03 50. 4.06 77. 6.78 308. 27.41 61.6 5.48 63. 5.29 70. 5.45 70. 5.74 71. 5.87 61. 5.80 81. • 6.40 416. 34.55 69.3 5.76 62 5.29 73 5.96 59 4.34 55 4.68 67 5.95 61 5.70 377 31.92 62.8 5.32 62.9 5.59 Sex of C a l v i n g calves Percent. H e i f e r H e i f e r H e i f e r B u l l H e i f e r 83.3# H e i f e r H e i f e r B u l l H e i f e r B u l l 83.35? H e i f e r H e i f e r B u l l d i e d B u l l H e i f e r d i e d B u l l d i e d 50$ (100$) H e i f e r H e i f e r H e i f e r B u l l B u l l H e i f e r 100$ H e i f e r s 63.6$ 79.17 B u l l s 36.4$ March 16 and May 1 1 except three which were born l a t e r on the pasture. The weight of the calves expressed i n percentage of the dam's body weight does not show any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the groups, the average being 5-59 per cent. (Table No. 2 8 ) . The average b i r t h weight of the calves was 6 2 . 9 pounds; the heaviest calves were born i n Group I I I , the smallest i n Group I , as was a n t i c i p a t e d . The lowest average of the b i r t h weight of the calves i n Group I was caused by calve No. 30 weighing 31 pounds. Although t h i s c a l f was s m a l l i t was kept w i t h the herd f o r the purpose of f u r t h e r e x p e r i -mentation. Of twenty-four h e i f e r s 2 2 gave b i r t h to c a l v e s ; however 3 of them died s h o r t l y a f t e r being born thus making the c a l v i n g percentage 7 9 . 1 7 $ . F i v e of the s i x cows i n Group I I I showed p h y s i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s at the c a l v i n g and re q u i r e d a s s i s t a n c e . One cow i n each of the other groups had the same c a l v i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . The highest l o s s of body weight through c a l v i n g was observed i n Group I I I , the average being 1 3 1 . 3 pounds. Of a l l the calves born 6 3 . 6 $ were h e i f e r s and 36.4 b u l l s . D. The Second Pasture P e r i o d The f o u r t h and f i n a l phase of t h i s feeding experiment had two main o b j e c t i v e s : to determine the i n f l u e n c e of l a c t -a t i o n on the growth r a t e and development of two-year o l d cows and to determine whether or not the two-year olds are able to produce a s u f f i c i e n t amount of m i l k f o r maximum growth of the ca l v e s . 51 A remarkable 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 four groups by study-i n g the l a s t segment of t h e i r growth curves. The cows i n Group I s i m i l a r l y as i n the f i r s t pasture p e r i o d - increased t h e i r r a t e of gain more than 100$ i n comparison w i t h that of the previous p e r i o d . A f t e r three -four weeks on pasture the d e c l i n e of the growth r a t e occurred always i n d i c a t i n g an ascending tendency. During the p e r i o d of 77 days on pasture - when the experiment was terminated -t h i s group reached the highest t o t a l gain i n weight - 605 pounds i n comparison w i t h 34-8 pounds of Group I I , 242 pounds of Group I I I and 165 pounds of Group IV. (Table 29). The h i g h d a i l y gain of t h i s group was probably due to i n s u f f i c i e n t r a t i o n at the beginning of 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 of n u t r i e n t s f o r growth and m i l k production a f t e r p a r t u r i t i o n . The i n h i b i t e d growth and l o s s of body weight was the r e s u l t . When placed on pasture t h e i r d a i l y feed intake was h i g h enough to a l l o w the cows to produce a s u f f i c -i e n t amount of m i l k as w e l l as to replace the body t i s s u e used 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 production. The maintenance cost of t h i s group was the lowest among the groups according to the lowest body weight at the beginning of the pasture p e r i o d . A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n was observed i n Group I I but to a l e s s e r extent. The maintenance cost was much higher because TABLE 29 CHANGES IN BODY WEIGHT DURING THE SECOND PASTURE PERIOD P . o p . o (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) Cow K-Value Body Weight T o t a l gain Average No. at the or l o s s d a i l y gain Begin. End i n 77 days l o s s 3 0 . 0 0 7 8 6 4 842 9 6 9 1 2 7 ' 1 .65 . 0 0 0 4 6 9 31 . 0 0 4 6 8 6 8 9 4 9 8 8 9 4 1 . 2 2 . 0 0 1 2 1 0 32 . 0 0 3 8 8 6 9 6 4 1056 9 2 1.19 . 0 0 0 7 0 6 8 7 3 3 . 0 0 5 6 3 7 8 3 7 924 1.13 .000072 1.56 3 4 .004430 9 2 1 1041 1 2 0 . 0 0 0 6 8 4 36 . 0 0 3 1 3 1 8 4 3 9 2 8 85 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 0 4 8 8 T o t a l 5301. 5906. 605. 7 . 8 6 Average 8 8 3.5 9 8 4 . 1 0 0 . 8 1.31 38. . 0 0 2 3 2 9 1084 1 1 3 8 0 . 7 7 .000114 A 1 0 7 3 1 0 7 8 0.08 3 9 . 0 0 0 0 8 3 1 0 1 8 1024 6 . 40 .000471 9 7 8 1 0 1 1 33. 0 . 4 3 41 . 0 0 3 6 0 4 1142 1 2 3 1 82'} 117. 1.52 .000591 A 1 1 2 2 1150 28.) 42 . 0 0 2 3 6 9 1135 1 2 1 9 8 4 . 1 . 0 9 .000615 0 . 6 4 4 3 . 0 0 1 9 9 9 1 0 2 9 1 0 7 8 4 9 . .000135 T o t a l 6 3 8 6 . * 6560 3 4 8 . 4 .53 Average 1064 . 3 1 0 9 3 . 3 58. 0 . 7 6 A A f t e r p a r t u r i t i o n * 174 Lbs l o s t by c a l v i n g TABLE 29 (CONTINUED) Cow No. K-Value o u o Body Weight at the T o t a l gain or l o s s Average d a i l y gain Begin. End i n 77 days l o s s 44 .003043 1126 1175 49) 21 0.'27 -.000026 1149 1147 -28) 45 .002193 1194 1269 75 ) 7 0.09 1208 1201 -68 ) / 46 .003521 1145 1212 67 0.87 .000165 • 47 .002414 1072 1073 1 0.01 -.000446 48 .005386 942 1012 70 0.91 .000192 76 50 .004550 1076 1152 0.99 .000117 T o t a l 6555. 6797 242 3.14 Average 1092.5 1132.8 40 .3 0.52 o C5 51 53 54 55 56 57 .002791 -.000594 .004950: -.000124 .000154 .000730 •.000170 .000217 T o t a l Average 1069 1115 1066 1142 1230 1095 1070 1054 6584 1097.3 19 1133 64.) 1088 -45.) 1142 76. ) 6 Q 1135 - 7. ) 6 9 1243 13. 1153 58. 1060 -10. 1070 16. 6749 165. 1124.8 27.5 0.25 0.90 0.17 0.75 -0.13 0.21 2.15 0.36 5 4 the cows were about 180 pounds heavier than the animals of Group I . This o f f e r s an explanation of the s l i g h t l y lower r a t e of gain of t h i s group as compared w i t h that observed i n Group I . E n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t growth patterns were found i n Group I I I and Group IV. The change from the dry l o t to pasture 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 gain d u r i n g the f i r s t 2 - 3 weeks, the increase being much lower than that of groups I and I I . Group I I I c o n s i s t i n g of three l a c t a t i n g and three n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows expresses 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 of young cows. While the n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows followed 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 gain - expressed by the negative K-value on the growth curves. Only one exception can be pointed 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 trend of growth r a t e during the whole pasture p e r i o d . These heavy and f a t cows of 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 of grass to meet the h i g h main-tenance cost and m i l k production. No other r e s u l t could be expected than the l o s s of body weight or lower m i l k production. The second p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l be discussed i n connection w i t h growth r a t e of the c a l v e s . S t i l l another problem arose during the second pasture p e r i o d : whether or not the pasture provides grass i n s u f f i c i e n t amount f o r a l l experimental animals. A s i m i l a r c a l c u l a t i o n was c a r r i e d on as was done f o r the f i r s t pasture period (see Table V, Appendix V ) . The t o t a l dry matter requirement per acre was 3.07 tons. To t h i s f i g u r e i t was necessary to add 30$ to express the spoilage made by the grazing animals, so that the dry matter requirement per acre was 3.99 tons (^ 4 t o n s ) . I f we take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n that at l e a s t 10 calves were a l s o consuming grass and that the 7 acres of pasture produced a lower y i e l d per acre due to r e n o v a t i o n , we can conclude that the pasture d i d not produce a s u f f i c i e n t amount of grass f o r a l l the experimental animals. I t was necessary a f t e r the experiment was terminated, to feed the animals supplemental green forage. E. Growth Rate of Calves A l l calves were i d e n t i f i e d w i t h eartags having 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 of t h e i r dams. As can be seen from the growth curves (Appendix I) there 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 calves of Group I showed a higher r a t e of gain during the f i r s t 5 to 6 weeks; a f t e r t h i s p eriod the r a t e of gain de-c 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 of gain was not observed i n Group IV w i t h the one exception of c a l f No. 55. C a l f No. 30 was not considered as normal, weighing 31 pounds at b i r t h -that i s about one h a l f of the average b i r t h weight of a l l 56 c a l v e s . I t s r a t e of growth was s l i g h t l y lower than the average of Group I and i t d i d not change during the e x p e r i -mental p e r i o d . There was no evidence of any of the t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of dwarfism shown by t h i s c a l f a s i d e from i t s s m a ll s i z e . The growth patterns of the calves w i t h i n Group I I and I I I vary t o a l a r g e r extent: about 50$ show a s i m i l a r i t y to Group I and the other h a l f f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n of Group IV. The d i f f e r e n c e i n average r a t e of gain among the groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t - as i t i s evident from Table 30. Table 31 shows that the b i r t h weight of the b u l l calves was considerably higher than that of the h e i f e r c a l v e s . Table 33 presents a comparison of body weight of calves at the same age. I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that the calves of Group I reached a higher weight at any given age than Group IV, although the average b i r t h weight was p r a c t i c -a l l y the same. This 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 experimental data. Further work should be c a r r i e d out to confirm 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 obtained i n Groups I I and I I I do not express a true r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the groups since they were c a l c u l a t e d using data from only three animals. The body weight range of dams was too narrow i n t h i s experiment to draw any va l u a b l e conclusions on the i n f l u e n c e of body weight on the b i r t h weight of the c a l v e s . The TABLE 30 RATE OF GROWTH OF CALVES (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS.) Group C a l f B i r t h C a l c u l a t i o n K-Value Body Weight T o t a l Age Average Sex No. Wgt. Weight at the end Gain i n d a i l y of experiment Days gain I 30 31 34 .01217 182 148 137 1.08 F 31 62 63 .02774 336 273 136 2.01 F .01332 .00678 1.68 33 59 59 .02132 224 165 98 F .00888 34 63 63 .02071 247 184 98 1.88 M .00979 , 1.66 36 67 66 ,01888 227 161 97 F .00931 T o t a l 282 285 •v. 1216 931 8.31 Average 56.4 57 .01489 243.2 186.2 1.66 I I 38 55 56 .01609 106 50 39 1.28 F 39 51 49 .02162 172 123 83 1.48 F .01041 40 75 79 .01251 299 220 104 2.12 M 41 50 54 .01761 114 60 42 1.43 F 43 77 76 .01088 276 200 119 1.68 M T o t a l 308 314 967 653 7.99 Average 61.6 62 .8 .01485 193.4 130.6 1.60 -o TABLE 30 (CONTINUED) rroup Calf Birth Calculated K-Value Body Weight Total Age Average S< No. Wgt. Weight at the end gain in daily of experiment' days gain III 44 63 64 .01945 307 243 123 1.98 F • .00940 45 70 70 .01978 268 198 112 1.77 F .01632 68 .00899 47 71 .02239 205 137 88 1.56 M .00916 Total 204 202 780 578 5.31 Average 60. 67.3 .01507 260 192.7 1.77 IV 51 62 67 .01190 219 152 98 1.55 F 53 73 70 .01338 172 102 84 1.21 F .01042 54 59 57 .01579 229 172 91 1.89 F .01442 55 55 59 .01734 234 175 105 1.67 M .00979 1.16 56 67 65 .01125 158 93 80 M 57 61 62 .02990 105 43 18 2.39 F Total 377 380 1117 737 9.87 Average 62.8 63.3 .01491 186.2 122.8 1.65 VJI CO 5 9 TABLE 31 MEAN BIRTH WEIGHT OF CALVES ACCORDING TO SEX Bull calves . . . . 7 0 . 1 Lbs Heifer calves . . . 61.4 Lbs TABLE 32 DAILY GAIN AT DIFFERENT BODY WEIGHT OF CALVES IN LBS. Group 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 I 1 . 7 3 1 . 9 3 2 . 0 7 2 . 3 8 II 1 . 3 5 1.69 2 . 2 6 2 . 6 9 III 2 . 0 5 1 . 7 5 1 . 8 3 2 . 1 2 IV 1 . 3 7 1 . 9 6 2.41 2.44 TABLE 33 COMPARISON OF BODY WEIGHT AT THE SAME AGE OF CALVES (WEIGHT IN LBS.) ' Group C a l f B i r t h Days Days Days No. Weight 30 60 90 I A 30 34 49 71 103 31 63 118 177 246 33 59 113 159 208 34 63 118 170 227 36 66 115 161 212 Average 62.8 116 166.8 223.3 I I 38 56 92 185 39 49 96 135 40 79 120 175 255 41 54 92 43 76 105 145 202 Average 62.8 101 151.6 214 I I I 44 64 115 170 226 45 70 108 176 220 * 46 70 158 47 68 121 209 *• 48 61 *• 50 81 Average 69. 114.6 168 218.3 IV 51 67 98 140 200 53 70 105 134 183 54 57 95 147 227 55 59 99 151 202 56 65 126 57 62 90 Average 63.3 97.4 139.6 203. A C a l f No. 30 was not included i n t o c a l c u l a t i o n s * Calves No. 46, 48, 50 died s h o r t l y a f t e r b i r t h highest average of the calves' weight at b i r t h was observed i n Group I I I . According to the growth r a t e of the c a l v e s , m i l k production of a l l two-year o l d cows was considered as s u f f -i c i e n t under the given management c o n d i t i o n s . Table 34 shows the weight changes of the cows over a time constant l a c t a t i o n p e r i o d . TABLE 34 THE INFLUENCE OF LACTATION ON BODY WEIGHT OF DAMS Group Average Body Wgt Average Body Wgt. Loss of Body before p a r t u r i t - 90 days a f t e r Weight i o n - Lbs. p a r t u r i t i o n Lbs. Lbs. I 964 958 6 I I 1132 1080 52 I I I 1204 1155 49 A 1171 1118 A 53 IV 1193 1135 58 A Data f o r n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows that l o s t t h e i r calves s h o r t l y a f t e r b i r t h . As i t i s evident from t h i s t a b l e the cows d i d not reach the body weight which they had before p a r t u r i t i o n during the f i r s t three months of l a c t a t i o n . The smallest d i f f e r e n c e was ob-served i n Group I , the.slowest recovery a f t e r p a r t u r i t i o n was shown by the cows of Group IV. According to these r e s u l t s l a c t a t i o n retarded the growth of the experimental animals. The data of n o n - l a c t a t i n g cows i n Group I I I supports 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 h i g h plane of n u t r i t i o n . / 62 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Four groups of weanling Hereford h e i f e r s were placed on four d i f f e r e n t winter planes of n u t r i t i o n f o r a period of two years according to the f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n : Group I - Low plane of n u t r i t i o n Group I I - Medium-low plane of n u t r i t i o n Group I I I - Medium-high plane of n u t r i t i o n Group IV - High plane of n u t r i t i o n During the summer seasons the h e i f e r s were kept on pasture p r o v i d i n g the same feeding l e v e l f o r a l l animals. The one year o l d h e i f e r s were bred during the months of June and J u l y . A l l animals were weighed weekly and feed consumption was recorded weekly. To i l l u s t r a t e the growth r a t e of the 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 animals by the method of l e a s t squares and t h e i r growth curves were constructed.;. At the end of the second winter p e r i o d a l l p a r t u r i t i o n data were c a r e f u l l y recorded and the r a t e of growth of the calves s t u d i e d . . From the r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s experiment the f o l l o w i n g conclusions can be drawn: (1) The f i r s t post-weaning winter p e r i o d i s very important i n regard to the feeding, l e v e l of young growing h e i f e r s . The medium-low plane of n u t r i t i o n (Group I I ) showed the best r e s u l t s from the economic poi n t of view. ( 2 ) Young h e i f e r s can be bred as y e a r l i n g s i f the previous wint e r - f e e d i n g l e v e l allows them to grow continuously and to reach at l e a s t 7 0 0 pounds body weight before the breeding period s t a r t s . (3) The g e s t a t i o n period d i d not r e s u l t i n a decreased growth r a t e of 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 year o l d h e i f e r s do not appear to be insurmountable i f the w i n t e r plane of n u t r i t i o n i s adequate. ( 5 ) The l a c t a t i o n period means a heavy d r a i n on the young female hence a high l e v e l of n u t r i t i o n must be provided i n terms of s u f f i c i e n t amount of pasture dry matter during the grazing season. ( 6 ) Average b i r t h weight of calves was 6 2 . 9 pounds, being higher f o r b u l l calves than h e i f e r c a l v e s . (7) Pasture dry matter requirements f o r beef c a t t l e may be c a l c u l a t e d from the f o l l o w i n g equation: DM = 0 . 1 7 W 7 (w i s animal weight given i n pounds) 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Amschler, W., Die Baby-Beef und Jungrindermast 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 of Fatness of C a t t l e Upon t h e i r U t i l i z a t i o n of Feed, Journa l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Research I I , 451-72. 3. Bechdel, S.J. Studies i n V e a l Production Pa. St a t e C o l . Ann. Rpt. Off. Doc. 14, 1916-17, 337-47, 1917. 4. B l a c k , W.H. and B. Knapp, 1938. A Method of Measuring Performance i n Beef C a t t l e . Proceedings of the  American S o c i e t y of Animal P r o d u c t i o n , pp. 72-77. 5. Brody, S., 1945, B i o e n e r g e t i c s and Growth Reinhold P u b l i s h i n g Company, New York. 6. Cole, L.Z. and T. Johansson. The Y i e l d and Composition of M i l k from "Aberdeen-Angus Cows". Jour. D a i r y Soc. 6:565-580, 1933. 7. Dickerson, G.E. and J.W. Gowen, 1947, H e r e d i t a r y Obesity and E f f i c i e n t Food U t i l i z a t i o n i n Mice. Science. 105:496-498. 8. G i f f o r d , W., The Value of 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. Jour. D a i r y S c i . 26:724, 1943. 9. G i f f o r d , W., Records of Performance Tests f o r Beef C a t t l e i n Breeding Herds. A g r i c u l . Exper. S t . U n i v e r s i t y of  Arkansas. B u l l 531, 1953. 10. Gowen, J.W. Inheritance i n Crosses of D a i r y and-Beef Breeds of C a t t l e . I I Jour. Hered. 11:300-316, 1920 11. G u i l b e r t , H.R. The Importance of Continuous Growth i n "Beef C a t t l e " C a l i f o r n i a Agr. Exper. S t . B u l l . No. 688, 1944. 12. G u i l b e r t , H.R. and Y.K. Loosli- , 1951. Comparative N u t r i t i o n of Farm Animals, Hournal of Animal Science 10:22-41. 13. Haecker, T.L., A n a l y s i s of Beef Carcasses. Minnesota 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 Influence of the Plane of N u t r i t i o n on the Maintenance Require-ment of 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. Ko h l e r , Untersuchungen ueber den s t o f f und Energie umsatz des erwachsenen Rindes der Erhaltungs - und P r o d u c t i o n s f u e t t e r , Land, Vers. Stn. 53, 1-16, 1900. .16. Knapp, B. J r . and W.H. B l a c k , Factors I n f l u e n c i n g Rate of Gain of Beef Calves During the Suckling p e r i o d . Jour. Agr. Res. 63:249-254, 1941. 17. Lush, J.L. Normal Growth of Beef C a t t l e , Texas Agr. Exp. S t a . B u l l . No. 409, 1-34, 1930. 18. M i t c h e l l , H.H., 1932, The E f f e c t of the Amount of Feed Consumed by C a t t l e on the U t i l i z a t i o n of i t s Energy Content. Jour. Agr. Res. 45*163 19. Morrison, F.B., Feeds and Feeding - 21st Ed. Morrison P u b l i s h i n g Company It h a c a , New York, 1949. 20. Moulton, CR., Normal Growth of Domestic Animals, M i s s o u r i Agr. Exp. S t a . Res. B u l l . 62, 1923. 21. Moulton, C R . P.F. Trowbridge and L.D. Haigh, Studies i n Animal 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. Mumford, F.B. The E f f e c t on Growth of Breeding Immature Animals, M i s s o u r i Agr. Exp. S t a . Res. B u l l . 45, 1921. 23. Petersen, W.E. Da i r y S c i e n c e , J.B. L i p p i n c o t Comp. New York, 1939. 24. Ragsdale, A.C and H.A. Herman, The Production of V e a l Calves, Mo. Agr. Exp. S t a . B u l l . 490, 46-57, 1945. 25. Waters, H.J., Capacity of Animals to grow under Adverse C o n d i t i o n s , Proc. Soc. Prom. Agr. S c i . 29. Ann Meeting, 190HI 26. W i l l i a m s , C.M. Master's Thesis (Unpublished) U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1952. 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY - CONCLUDED 27. Wood, A.J., The Role of Pastures i n Animal 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 , John Wiley and Sons, I?ic., New York, 1926. APPENDIX I Animal 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 i i i i i i i i i s i H i i i i i i i s i i i s i i s i i • • • • • • • • • B5S5S5SBS ssssss S H H S H : : : : : :ss: S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S B S S i l slSBSBB i l l SsssSsssisssa S S i i i i i i i i i i i i ^ i i l ii 30 35 40 45 50 55 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i y H ! B i i B t i i H E i M .11,1 • Ml IV .""U JS • ' I I . « • § g § l i i T i i 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 SSSS55SS5 •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I i i i i i i i i i i i i i ========= | | - SS5555S5S ssssssssssss: "SSS5S • ss.Es: • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • B••••••••••• ••••••••••• ssssassBsssa S S 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 • MMWHMJ SS5S l ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss 8,™ ii Si Is «v 3 Jo»! r-i! i i- >.! i f sunn n sssss ====== ::::::: :: • • • i n SSSSSBSSSSi ••••••••••• SS i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! Silas i 6-63^3 + :: s: HHIHIBB •SSSSSSSSSSSg i 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6 0 65 70 75 30 85 i [ B i l l Bil •••••••••a -s :::::::::: M l I : iiiiisiiiiiii i i i i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IBII L I ! • a EE •••••••••••a •••••••••••a ESSES rss sss ss: •••••• S3 ss ss:: i •••••••••••••••••• •••••••••• m •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• B tm ||||||||g|||||||||||||||||||||||||||===: iiilis si: • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• :s: :sss S IE i Il l l l l l l l l i l i l l l i l55lllllIS5§55S55 5ll§ll5555llg§§Sl§S5lII •• Ml ••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••• :::: • MS I |SE|: " [ass i l m s a f i B B S i ii i | i | i i i i | i i i | i p i -l l l l l l l l i l l i i P Grbup 2 Rniraal! No. Lyioi, « S.iq/Li r.90.107 t T T T T T i . : : I. J ± J J J W~ — — 50 55 60 65 7© 75 80 85 90 95 100 . — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ na.ana.Ma,. I i i i - E - - _ 5 _ i i i s i i i i ill l i l l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l l l l l i l l i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i SSSSSSSB •••••••• •••••••• •••••••• •••••••• •••••••• !====:== a m 'M .11 • • • • • • M B •»::•:::::•:: :::: •ii*_ii • • • • S5SS— • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M M H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M •••••••••••••MM ••••••••••••••••a ••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••a • • • • ••I M ~ I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l U l l l l l l l l l l l l l I l l l l l l l l l E IIIIIIHIillllilllll :===: ssssssssS •T-l • ' X T « a T . MMturm WM iii -ai !••••••••••••• • • i i i i m n ilili||i||i|S|||Sai| I M . ' n I ^ . M I i r i . , M I « • • • • • lililllilllHIIIIIIIIIIIII SSSSSSSB sias •••• B B S S • • M M I I I I I I I i l l l l l H I l I I I I I I mmmm ========= S5SSSS5SSS ":======:" i i i i i i i i i i i i i SSBB sSss M i l l i l l ! II i i l l l i i i i i i l i i l i i i l l l l i l i l l i l l l l l i l l i i l i i i i i l l i i i l l i l i l l l Si m a il • i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i • • • • • • • • • H I M •••• aas •••••••• •p. w • • • • M l 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 ..: — Ji... ••.••22SSSSSS5SS! lllffil|i|Pf:|iiill;lil ii l l iSii lL„„ sii=£sis§ss=isSs=i==ssiiii==i==EESE == sss i i i s i i i i i i i i i i i i 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iiiiisiiii ssssssssBssrsss ssssssssss :=====: i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i 5 s I I I I i Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii jiiii iisisiiiii l l l l l l l l i i l l l i l l i l i l l l l i l l i i l l l 'SS •••• l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i -iiliiiiiiisiiiii •== iiiiiiliiiii n • • • • • • • « • SSBSi ~m— • • • • • • • • • • • • ==================== ==================== Il l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l i === I i i i i i i l i i i i i IIMisllllillil §111 IIIIIIIIIII •••• • • • • I i n =========== SSS: I | i l l i i i i i i i i i S5SSSSSSS " H i si -mi— SS sssis sssss ••••• i i i l i i i i i i H ins Ii: !B!5 SSS 0 85 90 95 100 i i i i ! ^ • j |« • "I ;BB B B S B B B S S S S S S B B B B S B B B S S B B S B B S B B B B B B B B B B S B B S B B B S 5 S S S S S B B B S B S B B B B B B B S B B 5 S B B B B S B B S B S S B B S B S I II| IsBBBBBBS i I l i i i i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i i i l i i i i i i i l i i i i i l l l i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i ===== I ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H P T IIIIIIIIIIIIII mini •SSS SS iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i R j i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••a aaaaaaaaaa i i i i i i i l i i i i i i i i i i i -••• ••••••••••••••••••• -• • i aassssss : : : : : : : •••<•• • • • • • • • • • iiiiiiiiiiiil! HIP issssas :aaa S S B S B 55S55 S5S5S SSSS5SS55S! sss issssssssi mmmm iS S S S S s s s s s s s s s s s s BsisasBsiasasaas iSiiiSisipSJjS B S S S B S B B B B S B illiliilllllllllilUIIIIIii ^ J l i i s aaaaaaSSaaasaaaas I ^ J T ^ ^ O F g 4 p e r i m < l n t *N E S E H 11111111111 nTR4-rf f-1 1 i 1 Iii "11111 i H t W + r f r r ^ ^ T5 35 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 5 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 l i s i i s i i i i ====== EE:::::: I• » - . ) ! • • IMM • U l l l l l ' H I r SSSHSKSSSSKKSSS • • • • • • • • • • • • mmmMmmmmmmawm • • • • • • • • • <«M**JUie<.t»'..-»tk ••sr 111111111111111 :::::: ====== • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••H1IIIMI • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( ( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • H a i H . M t Bm i M i i i •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a •r •s: SSFS mm 11 BMl • • • • • • i B B S S l i H i l l i i I l l l l l l i l l i l l i l l l i l l l i i i l l l i l l l l 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 i l l l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l i i l l l l l l l l l l l H i l l mm «••••••• ••I •••••••••••••••MB * * i l l * . ! VM J l l Hi I B B B B B B B 8 B S S S B S S B B B S S B B B S =========== •TP | p | g H l R « M P i | f g J l J g l l i l N l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i i i i . ™ I— 'Mm • • • . » • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • IIS Is i i l l i i i i s is E3K SSSSSSiSSSSSSS s s i i i a s i i s a L ===== ::::::::•:::::::::::::: i n : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • mmmmm.mmmw-u'mamM'f.iMm • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • is! sss: S S A 5-BBSBSBSSBSBBSSB aaasaaaaaaa Si»iBm*«t*««i«™w SSft=S2S8J588' iSBSSSSSSSSSSBSSSSBSSS ========= • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BBBSBS: " BBSsaKiaSS£lSrt?iJ?K2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SBSSBSB ======= i i iis ===== ====:-••••I IB Bl iflyfli aa.aaa Ii3i • ••••••• • • • • • • • iniiHSiSn I mm : B B B B B S S B : • M l s •••«»«• ••••! = ====== BBSS' =========== •••••• • • • • • I IB B B B B B S B B Isssss :3s • "SS ========= l i i i i i i i i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iSSSSS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I sis!!aa:t:!sai m+mm-f EBB: • • • • • • • BBSS B B S SB iSSSSSSSS 5 n i l • • • • S [BBS • • • • • • • • • BBSS SB BBS • • • • • • • i l l 3 ssss ssss •••• •••• •>.i. a w • a ! ; s »: S m m m m m SSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSSSSS ssss: 5s:::: SS • • • • •::: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 9 B S B 9 B 9 J M B M J I 1 I I iiii i i i i i i isi • • • • • • • • • • • • • ssssss ••••• ====== sss •BBS •••• B B S S B B S S •••• • i i i s i i i s ========================== .-===: •••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • ••••••••••••••••••••••a i i i IM .IIJ. JM a H H i «r:»-ii«'ji i^i-! 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 i i i 555B ==== i i i s:sss»sssss::ssss ======= • • • • • • • • • • • • === ssssssssssssssssssssssssss • J'"' • i * :•<•:••• ! -iv ::: •••••••••••••••••••••••••• sEESsESEEEsEEEEsEEsssESSsE ••••••••••••••• SsliSSiSSSS SssSs Ssll i S S SSSSBS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '*e-i*-t»»is* rLW^ws:!!;^; sarins;.- v<iw-- •-•""M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • == s EE as i i i : SSS •••• 599 ::::::::::::::::::: Ba M B H U B B I H M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ^n^iil l i i l l l l i l l l l i l l i l l l l l i l l l l l i l l l l l l l i l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l i i i l i i l l l l l l l l l i l l l l i l ! IIIUHIi ':slBSSBS=s=s==::====:===::====a===::a==:a:===:::=:7^ -^:^ :7rn-Tsr?:E7::s= : : : : : : : : : ••a I::::::::::::::::::: !:£i::»s»s»»::::i I mm M :: BL • I a l "I/JIM iBBBS • • • • • • • • SS SssssBsEESaaasasiss-s. sssssEsEsssEssssiEEiEEEs iSSSSSi •••• ••••••••• • .11 • •••nrn,., n LJI i.IMB! "I ' i l l • Ml i.It IB H'l ::::•:::• 5 50 55 60 65 111 I 11111111111 i i i : -4 a:: Ml „ is"" ss a S S S S S S S S S S S S S ! EaaaaaaaaaaaL. MHMiHHHMMIIMH MM mm • M m iw • ••••••••••••••• iiiliiiiiiiHiiaiiHs iiiiiiiiiiii 1 HE i i J H H H j assaaBanbiH-Hii i ••••••••••••••••••I •:::::::::::::::::! 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ===== =============: • ita 10 11 12 13 sssssss: :ss: :ss: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a mmm » MUM mm mm mum mm mm mm mm • • • • • • • • • • a i H n n H H — = = = = = = = = SSI 2 3 liiai ^ i f i r a i i i l J H i ss! ! • • • ESSE B B S 3 S S B i i l l SSB S3 S • _ • 5? :ssssssss . B S S S S S S S • • • • • • • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ::s: •••• si! ==== sss: S! iiiiimiiiiiliii i i i •SS S S - 9 n i i i : : : : : • • • • • • • • • • mm =»:== i SE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 i i i i l i i l i i i i g i i p l I 13 1U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IIIIHIIil • i i i i i i i i i i ========= ••••••••a ••••••••a •••••• :::::: i l i i i ! Am sssssss ssssss ••••••• mm mn mmm ••••••• i i l l i i l l l i i l i l i i l i i l i i i l i l i l l i i i i l i i l i l i l i i l i i i i s. sss SSsiis: • • • • • • i •%. ii ' nur-ni • ir.i • • • • • • • • • • • • — • • • • • • • • ISKSS •BBS! • • • • • • • • • • • • • ============== 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 EL mpUfM ••••• ==== m sss i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ••••• •••••• EEEEEEEEEEEEEE sssssss a:::sss£s:sis£s8ssa:sss:s:ss i l i i i i i i i l l i i l i l l i i l l i l l l l i l l l i l l l l i l i l l l l i l EEEEEEEE^  mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmmmmm sss::: sssssssssssssssssss: • urn mmi I M I I • ! • f i l l I H i i • | H g | • i HHnip n H I MIS " • • • • • • • • • • • • SS ••••UN ss mm mm • • • • • I •• •••••• Aie of Animals in Weeks. 10 11 L2 13 14 16 17 JIl i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lL: i inHmiiui i i i i iu i i i imn s i i i i i i i i i i i iu i i i i i i i i i inmmii i i i i i i immiimm •SSS mmm» s i s s s i i i i I i mm M I a M i l • SSS • r r i « i _ •MM I - ! ! ! ESSE S  ssss ••••••• • I •••••• m i l l sssss ssssss sssssss :sss ••••••• •••••••• ••••••• •••••••• ======== 1 £=£==:==% s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i i i i M Q i i i i I I I I I I I I I ssssss iiiiiiigilissiiiiii ii likJI • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -••••••••••••••••••• saaasBBsssssssassas ssss! • • • • • • • • • • nana • • • • :::: ssss ssss «!!§§! \mr.mm r. •• ;s.r. ..-.?i.uss ••••• •••••••••••• I • • : . I ' • • • • • • • • • • • • i ssss - • m • 8•••••••• •••••••a ••••••••• ••••••••• i i i i i i i i i iisii EEs iii sss is ss SSS 55 Si mm mm mi SS SSS sssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssaaaasaaaaaassssaaasas I SSSSS Ssssss Ilium iSSS 2.SSB :sss i i i si SS SS sssssssssssssssssssss! sssssssssssssssssssr SS • • I SSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSS3SSS ssssssssssssssss •••••••••••••••• sissisisisisiiiiiisis IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ssss SS SSSSSSBSSSSSS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• SSSSSS i l l l l i i i i i i i H i m i l i l i i l l i l i l l l l i l i i i l l l l i l i l l l l i i i i i i i i i i s s i i i i i i i i i iii iiiliiliii :s sssss sssss1 :s ssssasssss JSSSS I B, , a II I B H SSS S5SSSSSSS 2 3 5 6 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 lk 15 1 6 1 7 18 19 2 0 21 S S S S S S S S sssssss: *m mm* • • • • .ssssssssssss: •••••••••••••• ss: •••••••••••••••••••a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • »• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••a ================================= S S S S S S : S = ========== ========== ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS • • • • • I - • « • • • • I II ••••• III :ssssssss:sssssssssssssss5r:sss» ••••••••••••• • r • M l • P 2 < •••••I M L i I — i l l ! l U I H I I -• I I • ii• , • m m I* i • I • • ssssssssss ssssssssss i l l l i i l l l l l I l l l l l l l l l H I I I i SSSS SSS SSS! SSS SSSS si EE I i | l |'.; | ii : 11 I |j • ii • II ssssssssssESinS' "sssi i ssssssss sss i 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 Hi i i m • •••••••••••• i S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••• iSSSSSSSSSI • • • • • • • S ::::::: : iisi H i t i i s i i i i i ss ssss : •••• 9 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .: s s i s si i l l l l l l l i i j i i i p i l l l l i i l l i r 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 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i f ^ ^ M F M = = = = = M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r = = = = ••••••••••••I ! B l I • • • • • • mmHMMMM w m « m i 4mut<«ft»i»»< ::::::::::::: ::: • • • • • • • IIIIIIIIIIII i ssssss • • • • • • • • • • • • • :::::::::::•:: H i :::::::::: ::»::::::::::::::•:::::: • • • • • • • • • • ••••• HMHianiiiitiiHiiwma • • » • • • • • • • • • • • -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M - - ! « ? « • • ( \«>M\*\.m*\m\m.*immm\m\m -• — • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ss ss -Aniifcals 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1$ 16 17 18 19 20 21 B m m <" 'S5BSSSSSSS I H I I I I i i i i i P » • • • SS8SS S EE::: s sssss: i l l i i i is 3 ii i i i i ik :::::: III • • • • ••I ss sss: sss! sss: Illllilillilllliiillllllllilllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i H I i i i i i i i i E r a i>.iH - -H H ss! s i l is s; s s s i l l sssssss: :ss: s: ssi sss — • — I ! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iisii ! "• sssss s7 ESS i sss sss ss i i i i i I B ] ! i i i i i i i i i l f i i i i i f f f j i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ssssssss iisiiiiiiiiisiiiii ========= '"SSSSSSSS! SSSsSSSSss 5S5SSSSSS5 SSSSSSSS •••••• ••••••• —!•• : I I H H m m i H I H l l I H j i i n j i i i i l i i l H ^ ^ ^ S H i l l s l SSSSSSSS sssssssssssssss • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • sss E S S S S j • • • • • • I l i l l M I -I m - M m S H S • "5 is mmmmoL ssss SSSEls S«.2.£l!i!l sssssssssssissss sss :s: sss sss ::: m i i i i i i I i i 1: • i i iiiiiiii ..ssss.. ======== llililiilliiillllilliiilliililllllllllljlll iiiiiiisissiiiiiis ssss SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ssssssssssss iiS i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iniiiii i i i i isj iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiisiill is 4€ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i liiiiiEiiiiEiiliiliiiiiii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ." Ess! is : I sssssss a :EEEE=EEEEEEE==========E== sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss SSSSSS5SSSSSSS5^3!I5«^^^HSSSB: s s 3 S i l ls . • • • • • • • • *J1W SSBBBB5SBSSBSBB5BB I ••••••••••••• iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiliili •••••••••••••••••• ssssssssss ========== 5 SSSSSSSS :sss: srsssas: • i -5 mm mm. : I SSSSSS sssss B i in • •••••••• s s * E i u I I i i i mm m un mm mm mm mm _ • • • BBS is! • Hi _IBL BSBSSSB 17 16 19 20 21 5 •==5.=======^  lilillllllllilllillllllllllllllllllllllliiiilliiilllliiiliiliilliiiililUiiiiili APPENDIX I I Weight Records of Beef H e i f e r s Table I . Table I I . Table I I I . Table IV. Table V. Weekly Body Weight Record of Beef H e i f e r s F i r s t Winter P e r i o d - 161 Days. November 28, 1953 - May 6 , 1954. Weekly Body Weight Record of Beef H e i f e r s F i r s t Pasture P e r i o d - 160 days. Weekly Body Weight Record of Beef H e i f e r s Second Winter P e r i o d - 210 Days. Weekly Body Weight Record of Beef H e i f e r s Second Pasture P e r i o d - 77 Days. Weekly Body Weight Record of Calves TABLE WO. I WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS FIRST WINTER PERIOD - 161 DAYS NOVEMBER 28, 1953 - MAY 6, 1954 I I I I I IV >ifer No. Weeks 1 2 3 4 •5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 30 441 454 460 456 457 465 473 470 485 487 31 528 529 530 528 525 529 528 526 553 553 551 553 32 470 471 490 493 488 498 493 490 507 508 513 528 33 447 447 461 458 463 466 457 460 479 485 484 492 34 501 506 516 513 525 525 528 541 555 553 557 566 35 413 419 435 425 433 435 430 423 440 440 441 450 36 455 450 464 465 470 472 468 473 480 490 504 504 37 500 518 512 520 518 525 529 530 547 557 564 570 38 427 440 433 440 440 438 443 439 450 460 449 461 39 463 473 485 490 501 505 490 500 512 521 532 531 40 443 451 463 454 470 478 473 464 470 488 499 508 41 445 452 466 459 470 470 461 467 470 478 480 478 42 406 424 421 426 425 430 .. 425 431 445 460 456 470 43 455 468 473 479 482 475 468 477 483 493 500 500 44 472 486 499 509 513 532 540 540 547 547 567 561 45 489 489 500 505 525 535 532 541 545 551 575 565 46 488 498 503 509 517 532 550 543 548 560 574 572 47 439 452 464 463 470 488 488 485 494 496 514 520 48 413 425 444 440 448 450 459 463 470 473 489 479 49 451 459 475 487 488 498 494 497 507 511 523 520 50 426 443 452 450 460 470 466 474 481 484 492 503 51 440 450 443 462 483 480 490 500 520 522 534 547 52 430 461 455 450 480 486 495 503 509 514 527 547 53 467 464 473 485 489 498 481 491 518 527 522 548 54 471 476 484 488 516 532 545 566 583 600 617 630 5 5 441 460 448 450 463 468 473 490 510 519 549 550 56 450 458 434 452 458 456 454 477 483 490 510 523 57 400 420 413 430 438 438 443 459 472 485 500 496 TABLE NO. I. (CONTINUED) Heifer No. Weeks 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 502 505 495 520 516 540 539 552 563 565 560 575 31 567 565 561 575 575 589 600 606 615 623 620 610 32 548 535 527 545 546 554 560 568- 578 595 590 591 33 502 498 500 521 515 527 535 542 550 555 555 560 34 585 583 603 600 588 580 598 617 611 623 631 639 35 453 445 452 460 453 466 460 463 457 480 473 477 36 520 517 530 540 537 537 556 570 555 582 580 586 37 589 578 583 593 580 587 603 610 625 631 631 639 38 478 475 502 506 505 515 535 527 541 548 546 550 39 557 541 555 560 552 554 565 575 580 578 594 590 40 528 532 536 523 526 541 542 553 560 567 573 580 41 511 498 517 526 515 513 537 542 553 553 550 558 42 483 481 475 500 496 500 519 526 540 545 551 560 43 526 511 528 541 525 539 555 550 573 582. 572 580 44 577 586 607 608 610 628 632 630 636 633 650 660 45 584 586 610 627 615 648 647 641 665 676 685 696 46 587 595 610 615 596 601 632 627 632 656 659 670 47 530 520 544 546 530 550 563 565 563 580 590 590 48 501 504 505 506 500 .-530 520 525 542 525 545 554 49 535 532 548 562 547 581 585 576 598 592 607 615 50 525 : 518 537 545 541 555 555 560 586 582 595 600 51 566 568 56B 583 606 615 628 642 656 651 678 690 699 52 563 570 568 603 606 609 618 632 630 — 53 538 $50 550 552 560 556 571 590 587 577 590 606 54 641 660 663 675 679 724 702 720 750 758 780 780 55 575 570 585 603 610 630 642 655 666 683 699 705 56 542 544 562 568 573 587 593 603 605 621 630 642 57 515 510 523 546 543 560 568 580 577 582 605 615 II III IV 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 30 572 590 615 630 654 660 678 655 658 655 674 31 622 635 655 673 685 713 740 708 702 710 719 32 602 603 637 645 685 683 708 690 688 685 725 33 571 574 602 615 621 635 655 647 652 646 662 34 630 650 692 690 717 742 745 725 725 750 764 35 482 475 495 500 515 525 542 525 528 521 536 36 603 617 642 642 670 695 702 670 690 680 711 37 660 653 682 688 715 720 735 702 720 695 736 38 575 585 617 637 660 685 693 682 685 683 696 39 597 605 620 635 658 660 675 672 690 692 727 40 587 565 610 620 633 657 680 645 668 655 663 41 577 585 610 617 642 642 682 655 678 660 693 42 570 590 610 612 641 650 662 665 675 690 702 43 612 615 641 650 672 690 707 675 678 680 696 44 647 657 680 680 713 745 752 730 740 750 773 45 702 705 735 733 742 776 792 760 790 787 815 46 675 682 705 710 732 730 768 725 740 740 763 47 585 602 631 625 652 665 675 668 682 665 696 48 572 572 594 605 627 640 650 630 645 645 663 49 621 595 630 640 665 670 700 675 680 690 699 50 595 605 650 645 683 705 730 710 712 705 745 51 690 681 715 712 741 754 760 745 745 750 747 53 590 620 640 660 691 710 725 698 718 705 725 54 770 770 792 802 820 835 830 825 828 828 842 55 707 698 720 731 750 770 780 765 772 770 799 56 642 640 675 671 682 708 717 698 700 683 715 57 630 618 645 640 655 660 682 650 640 615 607 TABLE NO. I I . (CONTINUED) Group H e i f e r No. Weeks 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 30 688 687 672 701 695 720 743 737 755 777 786 31 738 748 746 765 762 792 813 821 831 856 881 32 725 730 747 763 775 795 822 826 830 847 864 I 33 683 692 697 712 712 725 746 746 746 785 785 34 788 800 785 793 810 834 852 859 862 894 900 35 554 575 575 582 587 615 616 628 628 661 631 36 725 738 720 715 721 740 752 778 798 819 828 37 758 761 767 790 782 790 827 836 831 879 872 38 733 741 721 751 760 775 806 812 813 859 866 39 730 725 735 750 750 775 782 795 795 837 835 I I 40 698 705 717 725 720 748 768 774 793 821 817 41 726 728 715 742 : 743 765 768 789 787 833 823 42 718 722 710 720 725 751 773 783 801 822 825 43 708 730 735 745 746 755 776 791 819 838 846 44 778 800 800 800 805 821 838 848 832 878 875 45 838 855 840 865 852 872 904 924 908 956 946 46 768 775 780 790 796 812 836 848 848 877 886 I I I 47 718 732 705 735 740 742 769- ; 771 750 777 789 48 689 695 685 700 703 720 736 747 742 778 765 49 726 730 741 761 740 771 792 797 786 832 839 50 760 800 780 790 792 807 818 830 821 866 873 51 765 760 770 790 785 796 818 825 817 831 825 53 730 750 750 770 770 800 831 848 859 876 874 54 838 868 870 880 870 893 867 898 917 917 930 IV 55 802 825 815 828 820 835 854 865 859 899 907 56 723 750 710 732 738 748 773 803 762 824 809 57 608 628 635 638 620 658 681 695 672 721 723 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 No. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30 815 795 805 820 832 810 832 831 850 830 815 822 848 843 855 31 905 890 900 915 928 910 935 953 962 942 970 985 990 982 990 32 895 860 875 905 880 875 900 900 929 888 884 914 918 920 915 33 815 810 795 825 836 820 838 856 879 868 871 879 900 880 890 34 920 916 920 943 944 923 957 965 978 979 978 987 1009 993 1005 35 640 655 660 Sold 36 835 820 817 835 871 840 860 851 878 870 882 892 913 910 915 37 890 895 910 Sold 38 860 845 850 860 880 875 897 901 939 889 905 925 949 937 955 39 825 842 845 860 879 861 888 895 909 870 908 929 955 945 963 40 810 815 825 835 852 850 880 878 900 872 879 909 928 934 950 41 840 842 850 855 873 860 886 895 915 875 921 933 965 958 965 42 810 826 850 855 864 868 886 891 923 885 920 932 961 951 955 43 850 850 880 885 911 885 926 937 969 942 973 990 1019 1008 1015 44 895 920 925 958 965 960 1002 998 1030 1021 1045 1085 1085 1079 1105 45 970 994 999 1015 1025 1010 1060 1074 1100 1082 1100 1138 1150 1150 1150 46 910 930 940 965 970 946 987 1002 1036 1029 1042 1073 1077 1082 1100 47 790 818 825 845 859 858 895 913 943 928 939 979 981 998 1010 48 780 794 800 825 824 821 858 877 896 888 885 900 913 921 920 49 855 867 865 S o l d 50 875 890 885 915 934 927 970 980 999 998 1005 1040 1042 1057 1065 51 855 865 860 880 905 885 905 917 940 952 958 972 1000 1020 1015 53 880 875 875 880 892 905 902 923 956 956 979 986 1011 1024 1048 54 925 962 965 985 996 1016 1016 1048 1082 1070 1091 1105 112a 1145 1160 55 910 920 928 940 953 941 960 970 1010 1008 1010 1029 1060 1060 1070 56 800 813 815 815 842 842 846 868 888 900 911 912 930 950 965 57 750 740 750 755 765 748 783 774 828 820 820 836 861 870 875 TABLE NO. I I I . (CONTINUED) No, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 852 858 835 835 836 862 795 832 845 808 830 831 829 857 846 31 1015 1014 995 1000 1006 991 900 900 915 887 875 892 869 881 890 32 900 922 915 910 925 932 940 936 945 918 931 960 933 953 950 33 905 909 895 908 930 901 920 930 930 896 891 850 839 870 810 34 1012 1030 1010 1025 1025 1005 1015 1030 1030 999 1004 915 944 926 910 36 929 940 940 940 945 931 930 935 955 930 920 935 827 833 840 38 959 981 955 979 1000 988 1020 1005 1025 1017 1035 1060 1058 1072 1058 39 972 999 978 1005 1038 1002 1030 1026 1030 1008 1035 1052 1060 1080 1015 40 957 980 975 1000 1041 1003 1030 1032 1045 1041 1045 981 969 980 942 41 1000 1015 1000 1020 1039 1030 1082 1070 1110 1083 1105 1127 1134 1160 1130 42 965 990 985 1002 1038 1020 1055 1045 1075 1052 1100 1106 1085 1128 1092 43 1045 1065 1050 1060 1109 1090 1100 1105 1110 960 1017 1013 1010 1027 1020 44 1113 1136 1140 1167 1182 1156 1190 1214 1110 1106 1100 1128 1102 1120 1120 45 1154 1200 1205 1218 1250 1217 1230 1260 1280 1140 1175 1177 1171 1220 1195 46 1121 1149 1150 1172 1193 1180 1210 1065 1100 1100 1117 1143 1137 1145 1123 47 1020 1048 1065 1083 1101 1086 1110 1131 1140 1143 1162 1178 1142 1075 1063 48 943 956 965 987 1000 988 995 1017 1040 1021 1021 948 953 981 978 50 1072 1129 1120 1149 1177 1140 II52 1180 1200 1185 1196 1218 1195 1251 1105 51 1029 1037 1050 1075 1099 1064 1100 1106 1130 1131 1158 1159 1086 1096 1094 53 1060 1057 1090 1107 1138 1109 1139 1144 1170 1172 1185 1178 1228 1102 1102 54 1144 1187 1180 1212 1244 1234 1245 1265 1289 1294 1296 1286 1300 1229 1220 55 1071 1095 1100 1092 1123 1108 1130 1153 1158 1160 1060 1086 1106 1116 1084 56 970 1004 995 1021 1042 1027 1050 1052 1075 1062 1087 1057 1096 1096 1010 57 890 915 " 920 938: 967 936 950 972 985 1000 1015 1004 1030 1008 1007 I I I I I IV 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 30 842 890 940 940 950 965 965 937 971 960 972 31 935 900 910 961 955 929 958 960 970 970 1000 32 964 990 1020 1045 • 1022 1030 1043 1043 1043 1042 1062 33 838 865 915 938 918 927 930 908 917 922 930 34 977 960 1015 1008 1022 1000 1017 1035 1025 1038 1042 36 878 860 910 913 905 908 925 914 917 910 945 38 1084 1090 1140 1134 1153 1059 1088 1072 1076 1070 1092 39 1010 995 1040 1038 1016 1018 1037 1019 1030 1010 1020 40 975 955 1000 1000 1000 996 998 990 1006 1008 1005 41 1140 1165 1220 1221 1122 1125 1140 1141 1123 1150 1155 42 1130 1155 1185 1189 1210 1192 1206 1208 1192 1210 1229 43 1031 1040 1060 1078 1086 1076 1074 1071 1073 1072 1084 44 1126 1150 1175 1146 1182 1173 1171 1152 1163 1160 1166 45 1189 1205 1250 1257 1257 1217 1205 1193 1208 1192 1212 46 1147 1170 1205 1196 1215 1212 1206 1200 1202 1205 1225 47 1078 1080 1115 1093 1106 1081 1098 1085 1056 1060 1098 48 946 970 1020 995 1012 1005 1015 992 1000 1010 1018 50 1079 1105 1150 1134 1150 1157 1165 1141 1142 1150 1155 51 1076 1080 1110 1138 1113 1122 1111 1081 1103 1080 1102 53 1073 1090 1150 1135 1141 1155 1152 1107 1161 1130 1135 54 1211 1220 1260 1246 1232 1251 1260 1239 1228 1225 1246 55 1082 1105 1120 1123 1138 1125 1141 1138 1107 1130 1155 56 1032 1050 1090 1090 1088 1107 1090 1040 1045 1032 1065 57 1021 1032 1085 1068 1068 1075 1092 1075 1066 1082 1020 TABLE NO. V. WEEKLY BODY WEIGHT RECORD OF CALVES C a l f Date of Weight Sex March March A p r i l A p r i l A p r i l A p r i l A p r i l May May May No. B i r t h 30 Mar. 16. 31 F 31 Mar. 17. 62 F 46 Mar. 24. 70 M 44 Mar. 29. 63 F 43 Apr. 3. 77 M 45 Apr. 8. 70 F 55 Apr. 16. 55 M 40 Apr. 18. 75 M 48 Apr. 22. 61 F 33 Apr. 22. P F 34 Apr. 22. 63 M 36 Apr. 25. 67 F 51 Apr. 25. 62 F 54 May 1. 59 F 47 May 3. 71 M 53 May 6. 73 F 39 May 9. 51 F 50 May 10. 81 M 56 May 11. 67 M 41 June 17. 50 F 38 June 21. 55 F 57 J u l y 25. 61 F 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 20 30 39 44 .5 49 53 61 64 66 70 78 68 82 99 112 122 133 140 152 180 187 Died 68 82 90 107 120 133 144 158 74 90 92 108 111 114 129 71.5 80 92 106 106 116 129 55.5 69 77 81 104 111 75 101 106 120 131 Died Died 59 68 81 95 108 63 73 82 105 H I 71 81 100 109 69 75 85 91 60 70 81 69 90 101 73 75 83 52 67 68 68 TABLE NO. V. (CONTINUED) C a l f No. Date of B i r t h Weight Sex May 28 June 4 June 10 June 17 June 24 J u l y 1 J u l y 8 J u l y 15 J u l y 22 90 100 109 109 112 130 135 146 158 210 237 245 250 262 281 292 310 320 172 185 198 203 223 244 253 272 280 141 160 172 182 190 211 215 226 240 150 165 174 183 192 212 222 235 250 120 135 152 153 166 180 193 202 215 150 170 -183 188 196 225 221 242 260 123 136 147 148 162 180 183 198 205 130 150 160 165 175 168 198 215 230 125 140 149 145 160 180 188 203 208 112 125 137 138 146 173 175 188 192 100 110 118 124 129 155 170 183 200 112 125 136 136 142 163 171 180 192 90 102 115 112 117 132 137 145 156 72 90 102 109 119 133 145 145 152 75 85 96 96 101 122 122 133 142 50 63 76 81 93 98 58 71 80 87 90 J u l y 29 30 31 46 44 43 45 55 40 48 33 34 36 51 54 47 53 39 50 56 41 38 57 Mar. 16 Mar. 17 Mar. 24 Mar. 29 Apr. 3 Apr. 8 Apr. 16 Apr. 18 Apr. 22-Apr. 22 Apr. 22-Apr. 25-Apr. 25-May 1 May 3 May 6 May 9 May 10 May 11 June 17 June 21 J u l y 25 31 62 70 63 77 70 55 75 61 59 63 67 62 59 71 73 51 81 67 50 55 61 F F M F M F M M F F M F F F M F F M M F F P. 175 336 303 273 270 235 282 226 257 226 211 218 203 177 175 166 110 105 68 APPENDIX I I I Weekly Feed Consumption Records of Beef H e i f e r s Table No. I . Dry Lot - Phase I Table No. I I . Dry Lot - Phase I I . TABLE I WEEKLY FEED CONSUMPTION RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS NOVEMBER 28, 1953 to MAY 6, 1954 GROUP NO. I . (7 ANIMALS) Week Hay Concentrate Hay Concentrate No. Per Animal i n Lbs. Per Group i n Lbs. 1 65. 455. 2 65. 455. 3 65. 455. 4 65. 455. 5 70. 490. 6 80. 560. 7 85. 595. 8 90. 630. 9 90. 630. 10 98. 686. 11 98. 686. 12 98. 686. 13 98. 686. 14 98. 686. 15 103. 721. 16 103. 721. 17 103. 721. 18 103. 721.. 19 108.5 759.5 20 108.5 759.5 21 108.5 759.5 22 108.5 759.5 23 109. 161 days 2,120. Lbs. 14,840. Lbs. TABLE I . (CONTINUED) GROUP NO. I I . (7 ANIMALS) Week No. Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs. Hay Concentrate Per Group i n Lbs 1 52.5 2 52.5 3 52.5 4 65. 5 52.5 6 52.5 7 52.5 8 56. 9 56. 10 . 56. 11 63. 12 67 .2 13 67 .2 14 67 .2 15 67 .2 16 67.2 17 67 .2 18 67 .2 19 67 .2 20 67.2 21 67 .2 22 68. 23 68. 14. 367.5 14. 367.5 14. 367.5 14. 455. 14. 367.5 14. 367.5 14. 367.5 14. 392. 14. 392. 16.1 392. 16.1 441. 16.1 470.4 16.1 470.4 16.1 470.4 16.1 470.4 10.5 470.4 17.5 470.4 17.5 470.4 20.3 470.4 20.3 470.4 20.3 470.4 23.5 476. 23.5 476. 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 .5 161 days, 1,460. Lbs 383. Lbs 10,220. Lbs 2,681. Lbs, TABLE I . (CONTINUED) GROUP NO. I I I . (7 ANIMALS) Week. Hay Concentrate Hay Concentrate No. Per Animal i n Lbs Per Group i n Lbs. 367.5 156.8 367.5 156.8 367.5 156.8 392. 171.5 392. 171.5 392. 179.2 392. 179.2 392. 186.2 392. 186.2 392. 186.2 441. 200i9 470?4 200.9 470 .4 200.9 470 .4 200.9 470 .4 200.9 470 .4 215.6 470 .4 215.6 514.5 230.3 514.5 230.3 .514.5 230.3 514.5 245. 516. 245. 515.1 245 .7 1 52.5 22.4 2 52.5 22.4 3 52.5 22.4 4 56. 24 .5 5 56. 24 .5 6 56. 25.6 7 56. 25i6 8 56. 26.6 9 56. 26.6 10 56. 26.6 11 63. 28 .7 12 67.2. 28 .7 13 67.2 28 .7 14 67.2 28 .7 15 67.2 28 .7 16 67.2 30.8 17 67.2 30.8 18 73.5 32.9 19 73.5 32.9 20 73.5 32.9 21 73.5 35. 22 73.7 35. 23 73.6 35.1 161 days 1,467. Lbs 654. Lbs. 10,269. Lbs 4,578. Lbs TABLE I . (CONTINUED) GROUP IV. (7 ANIMALS) Week Hay , Concentrate Hay Concentrai No. Per Animal i n Lbs Per Group i n Lbs 1 14. 63. 98. 441. 2 14. 63. 98. 441. 3 15. 50.. 105. 350. 4 14. 63. 98. 441. 5 14. 66.5 98. 465.5 6 14. 66.5 98. 465.5 7 20. 66.5 140. 465.5 8 28. 70. 196. 490. 9 28. 70. 196. 490. 10 28. 84. 196. 588. 11 28. 88.2 196. 617.4 12 28. 92.4 196. 646.8 13 28. 92.4 196. 646.8 14 28. 92.4 . 196. 646.8 15 28 85.4 196. 597.8 16 28 96.6 196. 676.2 17 28* 100.8 196. 705.6 18 28 10O-V8' 196. 705.6 19 28 100.8 196. 705.6 20 28 100.8 196. 705.6 21 28 109.2 196. 764.4 22 28" 108.7 196. 761.1 23 28 108 .7 196. 761. 161 days 553. Lbs 1,840. Lbs 3,871. Lbs 12,880. Lbs. TABLE I I WEEKLY FEED CONSUMPTION RECORD OF BEEF HEIFERS OCTOBER 15, 1954 to MAY 14, 1955 GROUP I. (6 ANIMALS) Weeks 1 2 3 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 Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs 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. 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 134.4 210 days 3,959.2 Lbs Hay Concentrate Per Group i n Lbs. 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 23,755.2 Lbs. TABLE I I . (CONTINUED) GROUP I I . (6 ANIMALS) Weeks Hay Concentrate Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs Per Group i n Lbs. 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. 1 93.1 38.5 558.6 2 93.1 38.5 558.6 3 93.1 38.5 558.6 4 95.2 39.2 571.2 5 95.2 39.2 571.2 6 97.3 39.9 583.8 7 95.2 39.2 571.2 8 97.3 39.9 583.8 9 97.3 39.9 583.8 10 100.8 40.6 604.8 11 97.3 39.9 583.8 12 98.7 40.6 592.2 13 100.8 40.6 604.8 14 102.2 41.3 613.2 15 102.2 41.3 613.2 16 102.5 41.3 615. 17 104.3 42. 625.8 18 106.4 42.7 638.4 19 104.3 42. 625.8 20 106.4 42.7 638.4 21 107.8 43.4 646.8 22 106.4 42.7 638.4 23 109.9 43.4 659.4 24 107.8 43.4 646.8 25 109.9 43.4 659.4 26 109.9 43.4 659.4 27 109.9 43.4 659.4 28 109.9 43.4 659.4 29 109.9 43.4 659.4 30 109.9 43.4 659.4 210 days 3,074. Lbs 1,242.1 Lbs 18,444. : TABLE I I . (CONTINUED) GROUP I I I . (6 ANIMALS) Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs. 63.7 77.7 63.7 77.7 65.1 79.1 65.1 79.1 65.8 80.5 67.2 81.9 65.8 80.5 68.6 83.3 70. 84.7 71.4 86.1 70.0 84.7 71.4 86,1 72.8 87.5 72.8 87.5 72.8 87.5 74.2 88.9 74.2 88.9 76.3 91.7 76.3 91.7 77.7 93.1 79.1 93.8 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 77.7 93.1 2,183.3 Lbs 2,629.9 Lbs Hay Concentrate Per Group i n Lbs. 382.2 466.2 382.2 466.2 390.6 474.6 390.6 474.6 394.8 483. 403.2 491.4 394.8 483. 411.6 499.8 420. 508.2 428.4 516.6 420. 508.2 428.4 516.6 436.8 525. 436.8 525. 436.8 525. 445.2 533.4 445.2 533.4 457.8 550.2 457.8 550.2 466.2 558.6 4^ 4.6 562.8 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 466.2 558.6 13,099.8 Lbs 15,779.4 Lbs TABLE I I . (CONTINUED) GROUP IV. (6 ANIMALS) Weeks Hay Concentrate Hay Concentrate Per Animal i n Lbs Per i Group i n Lbs. 1 31.5 114.1 189. 684.6 2 31.5 116.2 189. 697.2 3 31.5 116.2 189. 697.2 4 31.5 116.2 189. 697.2 5 31.5 118.3 189. 709.8 6 32.2 118.3 193.2 709.8 7 32.2 118.3 193.2 709.8 8 32.9 119.7 197.4 718.2 9 33.6 121.8 201.6 730.8 10 34.3 123.9 205.8 743.4 11 34.3 123.9 205.8 743.4 12 34.3 123.9 205.8 743.4 13 35. 126. 210. 756. 14 35. 126. 210. 756. 15 35.7 128.1 214.2 768.6 16 35.7 128.1 214.2 768.6 17 36.4 130.2 218.4 781.2 18 37.1 132.3 222.6 793.8 19 37.1 132.3 222.6 793.8 20 37.8 134.4 226.8 806.4 21 38.5 135.8 231. 814.8 22 37.8 134.4 226.8 806.4 23 38.5 135.8 231. 814.8 24 38.5 135.8 231. 814.8 25 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 26 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 27 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 28 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 29 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 30 39.2 137.9 235.2 827.4 210 days 1,069.6 Lbs 3,837.4 Lbs 6,417.6 Lbs 23,024.4 Lbs APPENDIX IV Ingredients of the Concentrate Ration Proximate Composition of Roughage and Concentrate TABLE I FORMULATION OF Supplement "A" - fed to Pens I I I and IV Refuse Screenings 1500 pounds Dehydrated Grass 300 " Molasses 160 " S a l t 20 " Bone Meal 20 " 2000 Pounds CONCENTRATE PELLETS Supplement "B" - fed to Pen I I Refuse Screenings 1600 pounds Dehydrated Grass 100 " Molasses 100 " g a i t 20 " Whale * M e a i " ! ! 180 " 2000 Pounds TABLE I I PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATE AND HAY Constituent Hay Concentrate P e l l e t s Supplement "A" Supplement "B" P r o t e i n Fat F i b r e N.F.E. 11.8 0.9 27.6 34.2 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 Screenings 1800 Molasses 100 S a l t . 25 Whale S o l u b l e 50 Calcium Carbonate ,, .25^ 2000 TABLE IV PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATE AND HAY Constituent Hay Concentrate P e l l e t s P r o t e i n Fat F i b r e N.F.E . . . . . . . . APPENDIX V Table I . Table I I . Table I I I . Table IV. Table V. Table V I . Net Energy Value of Gain N.E. cost of Animal Growth Monetary e v a l u a t i o n maintenance and growth c o s t . C a l c u l a t i o n of pasture dry matter intake Dry Matter Requirement of animal on pasture Summary of r a t e of gain data. TABLE I NET ENERGY VALUE OF 1 POUND OF GAIN USED IN CALCULATIONS Body Weight of Animal N.E.Value of 1 Lb of Gain Lbs. C a l . 100 - 500 1,500 500 - 750 2,000 750 - 1000 2,600 TABLE II TOTAL NET ENERGY COST OF ANIMAL GROWTH Group Feeding Period Number of Days B i r t h Weight Lbs F i n a l Wgt Lbs Total Gain Lbs Average d a i l y Gain Maintenance N.E.Cost Therms N.E. Value of Gain Therms To t a l N. E. Cost Therms I Summer Winter 210 210 75 550 1000 475 450 2.26 2.14 1,480 2,326 712.5 1,150. 2,192.5 3,476. Total 420 1000 925 2.2 3,806 1,862.5 5,668.5 II Summer Winter Summer 210 210 126 75 475 800 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. Total 546 1000 925 1.69 4,612.4 1,770. 6,382.4 III Summer Winter Summer Wimter 210 210 175 133 75 425 570 875 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 Total 728 1000 925 I.27 5,612.6 1,750. 7,362.6 IV Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer 252 168 175 175 210 75 375 400 650 675 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. 1,546.5 947. 1,624. 1,525.5 2,455. Total 980 1000 925 0 . 9 4 6,200.5 1,897.5 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 LABOUR COSTS A Group Amount of Feed Cost of Feed and T o t a l i n Pounds labour i n $ $ I Creep feed 500 12.50 Concentrates 2,520 50.40 Hay 2,520 12.60 Pasture 15.00 Labor during winter 5.00 . tt ,. 9,5*50 I I Creep feed 400 10.00 Concentrates 1,890 37.80 Hay 2,688 13.44 Pasture 25.00 Labor during winter 5.00 91.24 I I I Hay 6,412 32.04- -Concentrates 665 13.30 Pasture 30.00 Labor during winter 10.00 85.34 IV Hay 5,477 27.40 Pasture 45.00 Labor during winter 10.00 82.40 A Values used f o r c a l c u l a t i o n Net energy value of feeds: 1 Lb of Hay 450 C a l . 1 Lb of Concentrate 850 " P r i c e of feeds: 1 ton hay $10.00 1 ton creep feed 50.00 1 ton concentrate 40 .00 Pasture expenditures: (Labor, taxes, etc) $15.00 per animal per season Labor during w i n t e r - feeding p e r i o d : $5.00 per animal TABLE IV CALCULATION OF DRY MATTER INTAKE Log w D.M. Log D.M. w X y xy x^ 900 2.954-2 18.33 1.26316 3.731627 8.727297 900 2.9542 21.45 1.33143 3.933311 8.727297 1100 3.0414 21.74 1.33726 4.067143 9.250114 1100 3.0414 24.02 1.38057 4.198866 9.250114 1300 3.1139 24.03 1.38075 4.299517 9.696373 1300 3.1139 27.41 1.43791 4.477477 9.696373 18.2190 8.13108 24.707941 55.347568 N « 6 £ X Y = a , £ x + £ £ x l * 55.347568b * 18.219000b * 55.347568b 24.707941 = I8.2190a 8.131080 = 6 a 24.707941 = 18.2190a t24.690024 = 18.2190a 1 55.321994b .017917 = .025554b b = .7011 8.131080 = 6a * 12.77406 a = -.77383 Log D M = log .77383 *• .7 log w Log D M = log .22617 * .7 log w D M = .#168 x W 7 D M = .jfcL7 W3 x 3.0365 • 500 Lbs. D M 0 13.17 Lbs. r 700 Lbs. D M — 16.67 Lbs. s 900 Lbs. D M B 19.89 Lbs. s 1100 Lbs. D M 22.88 Lbs. s 1300 Lbs. D M = 25.72 Lbs. mm 1500 Lbs. D M S 28.40 Lbs. TABLE V Pasture P e r i o d No. I No. 2 DRY MATTER REQUIREMENT OF ALL ANIMALS ON PASTURE (WEIGHT GIVEN IN LBS) Average body wgt of a l l animals Number of animals on pasture Grazing season Days 728 27 H e i f e r s 160 1 B u l l 1062 24 Cows 1 B u l l 19 Calves 77 Number of Animal days 4,480 1,925" AA Dry Matter requirement per animal per day n (DM=.17W') i n Lbs. 17.14 22.32 Pasture acres 14 14 D.M.Require- D.M. Require-ment per ment per per a l l groups per season Ton 38.40 AAA 42.96 1 acre of pasture Ton 2.743 3.07 A one h a l f of the grazing period (Experiment terminated). M. calves not included AAA C a l c u l a t e d f o r 154 days - (whole grazing period) TABLE VI SUMMARY OF RATE OF GAIN DATA FOR THE FOUR FEEDING PERIODS: A - i n pounds B - i n percentage of body weight (KxlOO) A. Group Pe r i o d 1. Weanling Winter P e r i o d 2. Y e a r l i n g Summer Per i o d 3. Y e a r l i n g Winter Pe r i o d 4. Two Year Old Summer I I I I I I IV 0.73 0.83 1.04 1.51 1.41 1.53 1.46 1.08 0.55 1.30 1.73 1.62 1.31 0.76 0.52 0.36 B. Group I I I I I I IV Pe r i o d 1. .140 .162 .192 .271 Per i o d 2, .301 .296 .270 .223 P e r i o d 3. .064 .150 .179 .177 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