EFFECTS OF DELAYED CASTRATION AND
RESTRICTED FEEDING UPON THE GROWTH
AND CARCASS CHARACTERlSTICS OF SWINE

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

Robert Edison Rust
1953

H".C'.5‘.""

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Fffect of Delayed Castration

i in; on ,he Growth
.3 Characterlstics of Swine

'1‘
’1
5—!
WV
i-
m
\U
v4
”r
J) *3
1—]
O
(f‘
'P
>44
’11
\l/
D- e

presented by
Hebert Liisnn Rust
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

I" o I: 0 degree in A"'I‘.‘°1_CT.'7 turc

5/4W

/ Major profeéd'

 

O«169

 

 

 

macrs 0F DELAYED CASTRATION AM). RESTRICTED FEEDING

UPON THE GROWTH AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF SWINE

By
Robert Edison BEEEH_.

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Animal Husbandry

1953

ACKNOWLEDGWI‘S

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Professor
L. J. Bratzler of the Animal Husbandry Department for his assistance,
guidance, and constructive criticism which was largely responsible for
the successful conduct of this eXperiment.

He is also grateful to Professors J. A. Hoefer and H. w. Newland, of
the Animl Husbandry Department for their assistance in planning this ex-
periment and securing the necessary experimental animals and eSpecially
to Professor R. J. Deans for his most welcome assistance in the slaughter
and cutting operations involved in this experiment.

To his mother, he is deeply indebted for her encouragement and

sacrifices which mde his entire college career possible.

II.
III.

IV.

V.

VI.
VII.

VIII.

TABLE OF CDI‘ETEI‘YI‘S

Introduction
Object of Study
Review of Literature
Experimental Procedure
A. Feeding Period Procedure
B. Cutti g and Slaughter Procedure
Results and Discussion
Eatperiment I
A. Feed Consumption
B. Daily Gain
C. Carcass Measurement
D. Slaughter and Cutting Data
EXperiment II
A. Feed Consumption
B. Daily Gain
C. Carcass Measurement
D. Slaughter and Cutting Data
Summary and Conclusion
Appendix

Bibliography

41
In
43
’48

61

114

I . INTRODUCI‘ ION

During the period 1913 to 1952 the value of lard dropped from 129 to
62 percent of the live price of swine as reported by.Ault (1953). This
decline in value means that the fatty tissue produced by the average 240
pound hog slaughtered at Chicago in 1952 would Cost the processor'$8.70,
while at the same time its market value would be only $3.63. The diff-
erence, $5.07 per animal, can only be recovered by lower prices to the
”producer for the live animal or higher preferred cut prices to the Con-
sumer. Above and beyond this, it represents a waste of livestock feed.
Feed is now being used partially by swine to help produce annually 350-
400 mdllion pounds of inedible fate for which there is no ready domestic
use. The edible fat, lard, can be marketed only at a severe-sacrifice in
price as was previously indicated.

This situation can resolve itself in one of two ways, either by find-
ing an increased use for fate or by reducing the production of them.
Science has done a remarkable Job in finding new outlets for surplus fats,
however, these outlets have fallen far short of the steadily increasing
fat surplus. The Solution to this problem.can perhaps be found in a
limitation of our animal fat production.

Since swine are among the chief producers of animal fats, it is logi-
cal that efforts toward the limitation of fat production be concentrated
in the field of producing leaner swine carcasses. To bring about a change
from.the type of swine existing in America today to a more desirable "meat
type" animal would require a considerable period of time if accomplished

through a genetic change alone.

This leaves the altema‘tives of ci‘iamgixs'; the
swine population thmugh the use of physiological
(iteration of the feeding practices oumloyed. It
methods, namely delayed castration and restricted

lowing reported research deals.

h)

fat-lean ratio of the
charges or thrmgh the
is with th of these

feeding, that the fol-

k0

II. OBJECT OF STUDY

In altering the present swine population to meet the nerhet dehnnd
for a "meat-type" hos, two methods have shown prondeo. These are delayed
castration, as indicated by the work of Souls (1950), and restricted feed—
ing. This research problemeas designed to investigate these methods and
to compare the effects on animal behavior, carcass chagaoterictics and

feed efficiency.

"‘7' ~‘ ~) ",r" f r-' 1 'r'..‘. u-w. :1r-‘1v't
. . . I ; t :h ‘ x I
.L.L.A‘ A....".~.A.«( ‘J... ‘JQ.A“\- fivk‘u

For centuries the practice of 03.5 trating ‘JIEIIG animals lSC‘d fo‘ the
production of meat or for work has been carried out bv CiVl 'il zed :L.
Castration of the male horse provided a more tract s‘aole animl the male
ox, an animal that fattened more readily, was more docile, and tours

daily 1m1a;ed; the male has 3, a Cuieter individual without the objection-

&

p.

in... t.

able boar odor and flavor in the meat; and the male sheep, an anizti': one»
again fattened more readily.

Bugoee and Simond (192C) reported a dro p of 3:1} percent in base me—
tabolism of a male dog (reported as calories per hour per square 1119.101 )
after castration, however, the normal female control used 3. owed a sizzdlar
drop of 3'}. percent during th 52:. period. These data, therefore, fail-
ed to prove that castration reduces the basal met aolism rate. It there-
fore appears that loweri ' of the basal metabolism rate is not the factor
responsible for the increased fattening ability or docility of castrated
animals.

Korenchevsky (1931i) , in an experiment using 222 male albino rats,
found that most castrated rats showed an 111033021236 in fat deposition, how-
ever, his findiz :s were not statistically sigrificmt ... Halt it 3.1;. (1936?)
found that castrated female rats gained and maintained greater body weight
than the cor trol femaleS. The castrated females also ate more total feed
but required less per gram of body weight. Again, no significant diff-

r~

erence between castrated males and norml male: was Louni- Ribinstein,

Abs: 31"101 and Kurlani (193 9) did find that cantration of the 1mm cure male

rat depressed somatic growth as determined by body weight and long th.
Body length evidenced the greatest amount of inhibition.

Weight and food intake curves of male and female rats castrated prior
to puberty were found to be similar to those of normal rats by Smidben'g
gt _a_]_._. (1939). Castration after the onset of puberty produced curves
similar to those of normal animals up to about thirty weeks of age at
which time the growth curve of the castrates flattened out and at forty
weeks of age the normal rats were found to weigh ten percent more than
the castratee. It was noted that the female rats castrated after puberty
required a lower amount of feed to produce the same weight increase than
did the Controls.

Since it was concluded that castration of the sale rat produced a
depression in growth, it became logical to assume that the artificial ad-
ministration of one of the male sex honnones to a castrated animal would
stimulate growth. Work reported by Turner it al. (19141) indicated that
this hypothesis right be false since they found no effect upon skeletal
saturation or body growth when testosterone propionate was administered
to castrated male rats. Rubinstein and Soloman (191}0) , however, found
that injection of 0.05 ms. testosterone propionate intmperitoneally
six days per week for 53 days beginning at 26 days of age increased the
body length and weight of castrated male albino rate over the control
castrates. They also stated that doses larger than that reported pro-
duced a depression rather than a stimlation of growth.

The preceding results could in no way be considered conclusive since
Simeon at El' (with) reported that testosterone propionate caused no in-
crease in body weight nor in skeletal growth when administered to hypophy—

sectomized male rate. If however, pituitary growth hormone was injected

U\

simultaneously'with the testosterone an increase in body weight and skele-
tal dimensions was found. The administration of testosterone propionate
to female rats produced no significant effects.

The same variability in results found in work concerning delayed cas-
tration and administration of testosterone in rats was found when this
work was transferred to large animals. Hunt (1938) in three trials using
75 ram.lambs and 70 wethers, found that at one year of age wethers averaged
one grade higher than rams at slaughter, had a lover percent lean in the
rib cut, had plumper legs and shoulders, and had a higher dressing percent
than the rams. These three trials were conducted first on pasture with
the lambs creep fed and finished in dry lot, second in dry lot from wean-
in3,and third on pasture and finished on dry lot with the rams and wethers
fed separately.

O'Mary _e__t 31. (1952) reported that the subcutaneous implantation of
testosterone propionate into wether and ewe lambs produced no significant
effect on average daily gain, weight of internal and external fat, nor
weight of internal.nnscle and fat combined. The carcasses of the testos-
terone treated lambs evidenced a significantly higher bone and connective
tissue content than the control lambs. Andrews, Beeson,and Harper (1949)
reported the administration of testosterone to wether lasts appeared to ink
prove carcass quality and increase feed efficiency over the ConthlS.

Burris st 31. (1952) reported that testosterone propionate increased
the rate of gain of heifer calves 0.5 pounds per day and steer calves 0.1
pounds per day over the controls. Testosterone treated females required
120 pounds less T.D.N. per 100 pounds gain than normal females and steers
30 pounds less than.normal steers. The control calves were found to have

a slightly higher dressing percentage and 0.8 percent higher percentage

 

 

 

_ o

v

.

.-
-o‘ "
-r-c

1.!

»n
ww" .'
. ‘ --

 

 

.. - A
"-- .’
‘~~.,.._
Q
~-..
"' ’.
.
v‘ ‘
..,_ ~.
. ‘ s.
"_~. 1',
-.
.
\.
~-.
«
, .
‘u.

of rear quarter than the treated calves. Andrews, BeesOn,and Johnson
(1950) found opposite results regarding the feed efficiency of testosterone
treated steers. The steers implanted subcutaneously with 100 m. testos-
terone were found not only to gain slower but required more feed per 100
pounds gain than the controls. No differences in the carcass grade were
found.

Since the experiment reported herein was in part Conceined with the
effects of delayed castration of swine, the author used as the basic
source of information a thesis by Soule (1950) concerning research con-
ducted at this station. He found that normal barrows, testosterone treated
barrows and 100 pound castrates had a significantly higher dressing per-
cent than JAO to 180 pound castrates and boars. The normal barrows, tes-
tes temne treated barrows and 100 pound castrates were, however, signifi-
cantly shorter in body length, had significantly thicker backfat and
higher live weight cut out. The boars were found to be significantly
longer in body, have less backfat, a higher percent lean area in the rough
loin, and a higher live weight cut out than all other lots. Boers and
180 pound castrates were found to possess a significantly longer leg length,
higher percent lean area of the rough loin and a higher percent live weight
cut out than the other lots. Significant correlation coefficients of
£8186 19.0738 were found between percent lean area of the rough loin and
live weight cut out and 138550 1.0602 between the percent lean and carcass
cut out.

Woehling gt a}. (1951) , using 43 pound feeder pigs implanted with 15
mg. testosterone at the start of the experiment and again 12 weeks later,

and similar size pigs implanted with 12 mg. stilbesteml at the beginning

of the eXperiment, reported no differences in carcass characteristics or
rate and efficiency of gain. Sleeth 33 El. (1953) also reported no effect
upon carcass quality or feed efficiency when testosterone, estradiol, or
a combination of these two hormones were administered to feeder pigs.
It may be concluded from.the evidence presented that increased muscular
development can be obtained in swine by delaying the castration of the
male till a weight of approximately 1&0 pounds is reached. The adminis-
tration of hormones to barrows appeared to have little effect and hence
Could not be expected to replace the procedure of delaying castration.
Since the procedure of delayed castration possessed some serious manage-
ment problems, it seemed logical that an alternative method, that of
alteration of the plane of nutrition, be investigated to see what it had
to offer toward a solution of the problem.of producing a leaner swine carcass.
In order to more thoroughly understand the effect which a limited
plane of nutrition will have upon the carcass, the progressive order in
which fat is deposited in the various areas of the swine carcass must be
understood. Hermond and.Nhrray (1937), studying twelve English breeds
and cross-breds, found the following order of subcutaneous fat deposition:
shoulder, rump, and loin. The rate of increase of backfat deposition
appeared to slow down as the weight of the sides increased, however, this
increase still maintained a faster rate than the rate of increase of the
weight of sides. These British workers also found that castrated males
and females had a thicker backfat than entire males and females and that
entire females had more fat than entire males, but castrated females had
less fat than castrated males. They also found that in all the breeds
studied, body weight was Kore of a determinant of dressing percent than

the breed of the animal.

Bonnet and Coles (1946), stud*' : the carcasses of 22 Yorkshire bar-
rows and L81 gilts, found female carcasses to be significantly longer,
heavier in the shoulder, lighter middled, heavier hammed, and to have
significantly larger lean areas of loin muscle than the barrows. The fol—
lowing highly significant Correlation coefficients were established: be-
tween 70 day'weight and rate of gain‘r.317 for barrows and-f.lhl for gilto,
length of side and thickness of shoulder fat -.H56 for males and -.231
for females, and length of middle and percent ham -.752 for males and
-.677 for females. In the case of the correlation of percent middle a)
shoulder a positive Correlation was found for males and a negative Corre-
lation for females. The opposite was true in the case of the correlation
of thickness of shoulder fat to area of loin in that a positive correlation
was found for females and a. negative correlation for males.

In a compariSQn of bears and barrows as to the live body measurements
of length, heart and flank girth, depth of body back of the shoulders,
'width of the loin and height at the shoulders, Winters gt El. (1942),
found bears to be significantly heavier at 12 weeks and bariows at 24 weeks
of age. No differences were found at 8 and 16 weeks. At 20 weeks one
breed of bearS'was significantly taller and one breed of boars was high;-
ficantly deeper than the comparable barrows. Differences were attributed
to skeletal Growth and deposition of fat, the former favOring the boars
and the latter the barrows.

McNeekan (1939) reported that bone developed first, followed by
muscle, and lastly fat, in the development of the swine carcass. He
found that a high nutritional plane (up to 16 weeks of age) followed by

a low plane of nutrition produced the most desirable bacon carcass. A

lO

lowshigh plane, on the other hand, produced the fattest pigs with the
poorest muscle development. The increase in muscle content in the high-
low pigs was due to an increase in muscle fiber size; the number of mus-
cle fibers remained the same. It was evident that the rapidly growing
pig produced a higher proportion of lean and fat to bone than the slow
growing P18-

Previous to this, D Pbekan (1938) reported that pigs receiving a
highphigh and a lOthigh nutritional plane were similar to each other. A
similarity also existed between the high-low and lowelow animals as regards
to carcass characteristics. He stated "tissue response to varying growth
rate of the body as a whole is differential and dependent upon the indi-
vidual growth relationship of the tissues." Crampton (1940) could find
no significant relationship between rate of gain and leanness or length
of carcass. Crampton and Ashton (1945) did find a significant correlation
of -.87, however, between daily'gain and area of lean eye. This, in effect,
confirmed McMeekan's conclusions. Since growth of a pig up to four rvranths
of age is largely bone and muscle, regardless of ration, full feed during;
this period would encourage the greatest growth of these tissues. Curtail-
ment of feed during the fattening period would cut down the arount of fat
in the carcass.

Winters at El. (1941) found results similar to McMeehan. They re-
‘ported that a low-low plane of nutrition (that is a low plane of nutrition
during the growing period up to approximately 12 weeks of age, followed
'by a low plane of nutrition during the fattening period) produced the
leanest carcasses as well as the nest efficient gains. There were no dif-

ferences between the high-low and high-high nutritional levels as far as

n
.".I
.,_.‘
o
.“
.A
I
, .u
.—4
,‘.. .
_‘..,
. .
.u ,— .
~ 4
.v‘ o
u
. u....,
‘ W‘s-
.. .-
.A _
.
flu...
' .-
‘ 0
.v“
‘ . ,.
' c
.w
' u
up
u
-
.. 0
, a
'o.
.. _‘
~.
'.
a
.4

 

 

 

11

efficiency was concerned. The high-low was leaner than either the high-
high or the low-high and was slightly higher in cut out. No difference
in carcass length was encountered between any of the treatments.

Brugnan (1950) found the distinct opposite results in that his low-
high animals showed the highest primal cut out and produced the leanest
carcasses. The wealth of evidence in contradiction of these results
leaves some doubt as to their validity.

A more complete report published by Moi-leekan (1940) presented the
following table representing the growth ratio of the animals subjected to

the various nutrition planes:

Wt. at Wt. at Days to

Plane of Nutrition Weaning 8 16 wits. reach
We. of age of age 200 lbs.
High-High 245 lbs. 100 lbs. 180 days
High-Low . 45 lbs. 100 lbs. 240 days
low-High 25 lbs. 50 lbs. 240 days
Low-low 25 lbs. 50 lbs. 300 days

In order to reduce the variation due to genetic differences, McMeekan
used closely inbred animals descended from full brother-sister natings.
These experiments were conducted entirely with barrows. McMeekan's ex-
periments established the fact that a relatively anterior to posterior
gradient is evidenced in the earliness of development of the organs.

Canadian swine producers have been particularly interested in produ-
cing a lean carcass suitable for the manufacture of Wiltshire sides for
export. Since barley is extensively grown in Canada, it has been used to

a great extent to replace corn in the fattening rations of swine. Ashton

12

(1950), reported that barley produced less fat, Kore loan, and firmer
flesh than corn. A cross-section of the bacon rasher showed a lean percent
of 39.8 where barley was fed, compared with 30.0 percent in the case of
corn. The percentage of muscle and fat appeared to be very well balanced.
A ndxture of cats and barley produced a carcass not quite equal to barley
alone,and oats alone produced an extremely lean carcass; one averaging
43.8 percent lean in the bacon rather. Wheat tended to have the reverse
effect upon the hog carcass by producing a greater fattening rate and de-
creasing the proportion of lean tissue. Wheat fed hogs showed an average
of 34.0 percent lean in the bacon rasher. Apparently, environment had
sons effect upon carcass production since leaner carcasses were produced
during the winter'nnnths than during the summer months. Ashton (1950)
also observed that an actual negative relationship between the annunt of
fat and muscle size was indicated.

In reporting on work at McDonald College, Ashton (1950) described
the results of restricting feed at 110 pounds weight to 80 percent of full
feed. Upon slaughter at 200 pounds it appeared that this restriction pro-
duced a larger eye muscle, a higher proportion of lean, and improved the
carcass grade over the full fed hogs. The limited fed animals were found
to gain slower, however. Ashton pointed out that the main drawback to
this method of limiting the feed was that the larger, more aggressive
animals would tend to be full fed while the weaker animals would be pushed
back from.the feed trough and actually face starvation.

Limiting the feed by addition of 25 percent oat hulls to oat groats
reduced the rate of gain from.1.75 to 1.52 pounds per day. This feeding

practice reduced back fat depth from.l.64 to 1.53 inches and increased

13

the area of the eye muscle by 0.3 square inches. The number of grade A
carcasses under the Canadian grading systeulwas doubled. Wheat plus 50
percent alfalfa; oats and wheat; and an oats, wheat, alfalfa mixture all
tended to increase the length of the feeding period and also increased
the area of eye nmscle, the percentage of grade A carcasses and reduced
the depth of shoulder fat.

A Considerable anhunt of Work relating to the effects of different
rations and limiting of rations upon the production of pork carcasses has
been done by Canadian workers. In 1942, Crampton reported that where fish
meal, milk powder plus yeast alone and in combination were fed with a '
basal protein supplement of tankage and linseed oil meal the type of pro-
tein had no effect on the carcass quality. Incidental to this study he
found that gilts showed 13 percent lauger eye muscle and a 4.6 percent
greater area of lean in the bacon rasher than barrows. The gilt carcasses
at 200 pounds did, however, appear softer and showed a higher percent fat
unisture.

Crampton and Ashton (1945) reported that barley fed with wheat re-
sulted in faster gains, greater backfat depth, decreased area of lean
and decreased percent of lean area in the bacon rasher. It appeared that
castrated male pigs suffered the adveise effects of high wheat levels more
acutely than the ferale pigs. Crampton and Ashton (1946) presented data
to further bear out the conclusions of Crampton (1941) that the type of
protein had no effect on carcass quality. In this trial tankage was used
as the source of animal protein. t was compared to various levels of
wheat germ.fed.with linseed oil meal. The basal ration fed was number
two barley plus a mineral mixture and cod liver oil. The growing ration

contained 16 percent protein and the fattening ration 13 percent.

Self vs. hand feeding has long been a topic of discussion annng
swine producers. Cramptnn (1937) found self fed hegfi to average 7/3 inch
shorter than hand fed and to average 409 pounds of feed per 100 nnundn
- an Cornered to 383 pounds for the hand fed pigs. The hand fed pigs
did require seven days longer to reach market weight than the self fed
groun. Since the hand fed animals received only what they wmuld readily
censure in a relatively short period or time they were limited fed tn a
certain extent.

In a recent report by Robiaen gt a}. (1952), limited feeding on pas-
ture produced a higher prinal.cut out, higher percent lean cute, less
backfat and higher value per 100 pounds of carcass cuts over full self
feeding and full hand feeding. In comparing ground oats and barley to
ground shelled corn and hulled eats, the more fibrous feeds prbduced the
superior carcass. Ground eats produced a carcass lower in backfat thick—
ness, higher in percent lean cuts and higher value per 100 pounds cf cer-
cass cuts. The aninals fed the less bulky ground barley were superior in
prduel cut yield.

‘ O ‘
_ ~~~~~~ '—

Nerkel et a1, (1953) jfigzlfi.j.f;"'r,ajg1_ '.}~<. L. ‘11}.ch MIN? 7-21 :‘2-11 01‘ Slit-11:3. Czlibljé; he“:
and grvund chin Cebu ta a 73 Dcrcent T.D.N. ration in order to lever t;
69 percent T.D.N. gave approximately the same results as limited hand feed-

ing (75 percent of full feed) in cost per hundred weight cf gain, cut out

value and U}3.D.A. carcass grade.

1v. ' man: 2121111. PROCEDURE

, 77:61'in . *‘-- '. -‘ “~-
Ilhg th‘1~‘-~A") L‘s—g... >- $

()
l
9

EQEDEHI

A

’i‘x-xenty-i‘eur October bear pigs-'-e1*esta1 ed on eXperinx-znt December 1;,
195]. at an av rage Wei- 3st f 35 p-I"1LL11d£“. At that time the pigs were weighed
and divided at random (11111;; feur lets. Purebred Chester white pigs frzn
clcselzr related sc..rs sired by related bears wer USGL. Care I: as taken tn
insure unifcrr dis trioutien :1f 81111711.. ls from t-1e ear: litter throughout
the fear lgtc. "v let ts (l and 2) were can rated at this time. All late
were placed on self-feeders c1é1ntainin3 a 16 percent protein ration con—
sisting of:

750 lbs. C1
12:) 12:. 3:1,,
50 lbs. Meat
50 lbs. :"
11+ lb;. P".I‘
15 le. 381

1 1b. Trac .., Mineral "°xt1“c

2'0 lbs. Fish delubles

2.5 lbs. hurci‘ac

1 lb. ?C(Rib1-1flavin, Pentathenic Acid, lJiacin)

.5 lb. I; 8; D Vita: Lin Feed Su;:j:ler.1snt per 1020 90111118 :11“ 171:1.

\()|

l ‘ A

The pigs were Continued on this feediz‘gprm-i‘bran 14111.1 21 ate-1341; :1? a; 1113311~

lately lOO pcunds was reached (Febn1ary 1:3). T 1r3ucn11ut the eXpei iment,

all pigs were reighed at tw we wee}: intervals. Water ‘1.-f6.Spl‘:1Vlded ad lib i’fiuz
At 100 pc unds avers. 3e weight, the ration was adj1.1sted. ts prtrvicie

13.13 percent protein by increasing the corn to ()2 pounds and reducing

the fish solubles te 10 pounds, soy bean oil meal to of) pounds, and meat

‘3 pounds 1161‘ 1010 pom- ds eI 111i1e1 f eel... The amunts of all

L.)

s craps ta

16

other ingredients remained the same. to l, 3 and 4 were self-fed this
adjusted ration for the remainder of the (ofperimnt. lot 2 animals were
fed 75 percent of the average feed consumed per animal by Lz-t 1 during
the preceding We week period. Records were kept of the feed consumed by
each lot from which feed efficiency was calculated.

Upon reaching a weight of 130 pounds, the pigs in Lot 3 were castrated.
One pig in this lot had been removed on February 6 because of illness.
When an average weight of 170 pounds was reached the pigs in Lot 4 were
castrated. One animl from this lot had been removed from eXperiment on
April 16 because of illness and the data from‘another pig were not used
since this animal was a cryptorchid and could not be completely castrated.
The designation of the lots was as follows: Lot 1, Normal Castrates -
Full Self Fed; Lot 2, Normal Castrates — Limited, Hand Fed 75 percent
of Lot 1; Lot 3, Castrated 130 pounds - Full Self Fed; Lot 1}, Castrated

170 pounds - Full Self Fed.

MED/{EMT II

Fifteen my and June gilts and fifteen barrows (castrated at the age
of six weeks) averaging 33 pounds were weighed and divided at random among
three lots (5 barrows and 5 gilte per lot). Since these pigs were from
litters out of related purebred Chester White sows by related boars, care
was taken to divide litternntes among the three lots. The feeding proce-
dure up to 100 pounds average weight was the same as in Ebcperiment I.
Throughout the second experiment all pigs were weighed weekly. Records
were kept of the feed consumed by each lot from which feed efficiency was

calculated.

17

The basal rations were the same as those fed in lExperiment I. The
Lot 1 animals were self-fed throughout the experiment.

At an average weight of 100 pounds, the Lot 2 pigs were hand fed 75
percent per pig of the feed consumed per pig by Lot 1 during the preced-
ing week. The lot 3 pigs remained on a self-feeder containing a mixture
of 70 percent basal ration and 30 percent finely ground corn cobs. This
mixture was calculated to supply the same annunt of TDN that the Lot 2
limdted hand fed animals received. The designation of these lots was:
Lot 1 - Full Fed - Self Fed; Lot 2 - Limited Fed - Hand Fed 75 percent

of Lot 1; lot 3 - Self Fed 70 percent basal, 30 percent com cobs.
B. Cutting and Slaughter Procedure

WRIMENT I AND II

The animals were taken off feed betwoen 220 and 230 pounds and given
access to fresh water for a period of 214 hours prior to slaughter. At
the time of slaughter, a live weight was obtained which was used as a
basis for calculating live weight cut out, live weight percent lean cuts,
dressing percent, and percent shrink. All hogs were slaughtered packer
style and chilled for 48 hours at which time a chilled carcass weight was
taken. All carcass measurements were made and recorded in millimeters.
The length of the body was measured from the Junction of the last cervical
and first thoracic vertebra to the anterior edge of the symphysis pubis.
The leg length was measured from the anterior edge of the symphysis pubis
to the coronary band. Backfat measurements were taken over the first rib
at the auction of the last cervical and first thoracic vertebra; over

the seventh thoracic vertebra; over the last rib at the Junction of the

last thoracic and first lumbar vertebra; and over the midpoint of the last
lumbar vertebra. The backfat thickness for each carcass was calculated
by averaging these measurements.

The carcasses were cut into primal cuts and the weights of each re-
corded. The Jowl, breast flap, neck bones, clear plate, and forefoot one-
half inch above the knee were removed from the 2-1/2 rib shoulder. The
resulting cut, the New York Style shoulder, was weighed as the first pri-
mal cut.

The ham was removed between the second and third sacral vertebrae on
a line perpendicular to the hind leg. The tail, flank, surplus fat, and
shank (at the hock) were removed. A skinned ham was made, leaving about
3/8 inch of fat on the skinned portion. This cut was then weighed as the
second primal cut.

The rough loin and belly were separated along a line beginning one
inch below the tenderloin muscle at the posterior end to about one inch
from the end of the backbone at the blade and. At this time, tracings
were made of the cross—sectional area of the right rough loin between
the last We ribs. A planimeter was used to determine the area of lean
and fat from this tracing and the percent of each was calculated. A chop
containing the last rib was removed from the rough loin and saved for
photographic records. The rough loin was weighed in order to determine
the loin index by comparison with the weight of the trimmed loin. The
fatback was removed from the loin leaving about a 3/8 inch covering of
fat on the loin. This cut, the trimmed loin, was weighed as the third
primal cut. The spare ribs were lifted from the belly which was trimmed

”bamw style" and weighed as the fourth and last primal cut. Of the

19

four primal cuts the skinned hazy New York Style shoulder and trimmed
loin were considered as the lean cuts in calculating the percent lean
cuts.

Analyses of variance and t-tests were calculated for carcass measure-
ments, primal cut yields, dressing percent, lean cut yields, loin index
and percent lean area of the rough loin, according to the methods of
Snedecor (1946). The harmonic mean method was used in the case of Ex-
periment II because of unequal subclass numbers. Correlation coefficient:
between percent lean area of the rough loin and both the carcass and live-
weight cutouts were determined. Feed efficiency for each lot in both ex-

periments was calculated. Statistical formulae used are shown in Table I.

?‘0

TABLE 1

FORMULAE USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Analysis of Variance: (Snedecor, 1946)

2
2 an-

SK - N ‘ Total sum of squares

$_3_3_{_)_+ &)2 - - - (SX )2 - C.T. = Between sum of squares

Corrected harmonic mean

Corrected ermr mean square = Error mean square Em. (1/ 'n + l/r.2 + l/nx1

t - teat

 

 

dm1_ m:-Yerrorn variance

-1113: m1 \ll7n+ l/n

(11:11)]. - 1112) (table for t =Significant level between means.

Correlation Analysis (Snedecor, 1946)

 

 

 

= regression equation

 

 

 

 

V. RIBI TS AND DISCUSSION

E'XPER II/IEII‘JT I

A. Feed Consul‘.1ption

All animals in the experiment were fed by lots and hence no statis-
tical analysis of the feed efficiency could be calculated. Lot 1, the
full fed normal castrates (Controls) consumed 533 pounds of feed per 100
pounds of gain. lot 2, the restricted fed normal castrates, consumed‘hl3
pounds of feed per 100 pounds of gain or 22.5 percent less than Lot 1 re-
quired. lot 3, the full fed 150 pound castrates, consumed use pound; of
feed finer 3.00 pounds gain r.“ pat‘cent 10,122; titan Lab 1. Lot 1}, the full
Ied 170 pound castrates, consumed‘417 pounds per 100 pounds of gain or
21.3 percent less than Lot 1.

From.these data it would appear that the restricted fed normal cas-
tratcs and the full fed 170 pound castrates had a decided advantage over
the full fed 130 pound castniton :16 the full fed normal.castrates, the
control lot. The full fed 130 pound castrates had a slight advantage
over the control lot.

The feed savings of almost one-fourth encountered in Lots 2 and.4
represent a considerable saving in the cost of production of the meat
produced since feed is the largest single item in the production cost of

market hogs. See Table 2 for feed Consumption data.

B. Daily Gain
Table 3 presents the results of the analysis of variance of the aver-
age daily gain. Lot 2, the restricted fed lot, was found to be slower

gaining with 1.3“ p(11€e per day as compared to Lot 1 (1.59 pounds per

h)
J

I

TABLE 2

FEED EFF ICIE‘AJCY

Total Total Total Avg. Feed per

Pig Feed Gain 33. Feed 100 lbs.

Days lbs . lbs . 1hr. Ca in
715 6034 1132 t .414. 533
872 l+708 1141 5.40 3413
624 4673 958 7.49 438
501 3165 759 6 . 32' 417

TABLE 3,
ANALBJB 0F VARIANCE OF

AVERAGE DAILY GAIN (1.138.)

Nadya-is of Variance

 

 

Source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
TCtal 46.93 " 46011” = .49 2O
Bewe‘i‘rz 2503'- + 1.1083“-
9.33 - 116.411 : .26 3 .086 6.14M
EI'I‘OI‘ = .23 17 .014
lot No. 1 2 3 )1
it 1. 59 1. 32M 1. 51+ 1. 53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant @ 5% :— 3.20*, a 1% = 5.18%

t - test

Difference to be significant between lot 1 and 2 = .014 (1/6 + 1/6) Xt =
(.068) (2.110) r- .111 e 5%

(.068) (2.898) 2. .20 1%

(Q)

Difference to be significant between lot 2 and 3 z .014 (1/6 4— 1/5) Kt z.
(.071) (2.110) a .15 5%
(.071) (2.898) .1 .21 e 1%

Difference to be significant between lot 2 and l) :- .0111 (1/6 + 1/11) Xt =9
(.076) (2.110) =: .16 f’ 5%
(.076) (2.898) .-.-...38 a 1%

Lot 2 significantly slower in rate of gain at the 1% level then lots 1,
3, and 14. See Appendix FI.

day), Lot 3 (l.% pounds per day) and Lot 4 (1.53 pounds per dry). The
differences between Lot 2 and theother lots were large enough to be sig-
nificant at the one percent level. It is conceivable to erpect that any
economic loss encountered due the reduced rate of gain of the 1145137240160
fed hogs would be offset by the increased feed efficiency. If both feed
efficiency and rate of gain are Considered togeidsor, however, the 170
pound castrates (lot 4) would have thoadvantage since they were alzr—ust as
high in efficiency as lot 2, and almost as high in rate of gain as t 1.
Lot 1 showed the fastest rate of gain with lot 3 0.05 and lot 4 C,’ v7

pounds per day slower in rate of g.”

C. Carcass Measurements

An analysis of variance of carcass measurements shows no significant
difference for body length, Table 4; leg length, Table 5; nor average
backfat thickness, Table 6. Although no significant differences exist,
the delayed castrates, as well as the restricted fed animals, did exhibit
greater body and leg length and less backfat thiclmess than did the Control
lot. The restricted fed lot was found to have the greatest leg and body
length, possibly due to the fact that the slower rate of gain resulted in
a more mature animal at slaughter. In average back-fat thickness, the 170
pound castrates and the restricted fed hogs were nearly identical with
42.06 am. and 42.08 mm. reapectively. The 130 pound castrates were the
next fattest with 46.75 mm. of backfat, followed by the controls, the
fattest lot with 49.2 mm.

These results generally bear out those of Souls (1950) although he

was able to demonstrate sigmificantly greater body lezgth in his 140 and

TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF memes 01'"

BODY mom (11111.)

Analysis of ' Variance

25

 

 

Source s.s. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total 10714349.0 - 107071440 2 7205.0 20
Between 6122136.3 + 2541845.0+
20449003 - 1070711143 : 1737.3 3 579.01 1.650
Error = 5467.7 17 321.63
Lot No. l 2 3 4
R 702.17 726.17 713.00 715.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20, o 1% -.-. 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix GI

TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

L113 11113111 (11131.)

Analysis of Variance
Source 8.3. D.F. hgng.

Total -.-. 5719723.0 - 5712771.9 .: 6951.1 20

(‘1 D
{A

 

 

Between .1 32884083 + 1355121.8 +
1071225.0 — 5712771.9 ' : 1983.2 3 661.07
Error : 11967.9 17 29.»... 3.
Lot No. l 2 3 4
'11 510.8 539.8 520.6 517.5
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20, e 173 = 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix HI

TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

A 211011 BACFFAT music-ms (2111.)

Analysis of Variance

Source

0:
0:

 

 

D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 43992.94 - 42998.81 :: 994.13 20
Between = 25204.05 + 10927.81 1-
7077.01 - 42998.81 1 210.06 3 70.02 1.52
Error = 784.07 17 463.12
Lot No. 1 2 3 4
3? 49.29 ' 42.08 46.75 42.06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant @ 5% .-.-. 3.20, a. 15$: 5.18
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix JI

180 pound castrates over the normal castrates, and significantly greater
leg length in his 180 pound castrates over the normal castrates. He £1130
reported that the 180 and 140 pound castrates had significantly less. back-
fat than the normal castrates.

Hammond and Mirray (1937), studying various breeds of bacon pigs,
found castrated animls produced thicker backfat measurements than their

entire counterparts.

D. Slaughter and Cutting Data

An analysis of variance of dressing percent is presented in Table 7..
The lack of significant differences can probably be attributed in part to
the variable mount of fill which the hogs possessed at the time of slaughg
ter. This was true in spite of a uniform 24 hour shrink period during
which time the animals were allowed access to fresh water. Since Int 1
was the fattest lot, it Would be logical to expect that these hogs would
have the highest dressing percent. This was not the case, however, for lot
1 had the lowest dressing percent of the full fed lots; 73.03 percent as
compared to Int 3 with 75.38 percent, and lot 4 with 74.01percent. Of
all the Lots, Int 2, had the lowest dressing percent, 72.84 percent which
Would be expected since this was the thinnest lot.

Neither the live weight primal cut out (Table 8) nor the carcass
Priml cut out (Table 9) yielded significant differences when treated
statistically. This conflicted with the results of Soule (1950) who found
180 and 140 pound castrates to have a significantly higher primal cut out
than norml castrates.

Similarly, no significant differences were found in live weight and

““353 percent lean cuts, Tables 10 and 11, although in the case of car-

’39
I,

TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

DRfl} if) LNG PERCENT

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

source SOS. D.F. MoSqo Fe .
Total = 111901.00 - 114139.20 : 61.80 20 '
Between : 63837.20 + 28b.m.23 +-
21911.u0 - 114139.20 -.: 21.63 3 7.21 3.06
Err-or 240.17 17 2.35
Lot No. . 1 2 3 f It
‘1? 73.03 72.84 75.38 7u.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant@ 5% =3.20, @ 1% = 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix KI

TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

LIVE TJEIGHT PRBZ’LL CUI' OUTS

Analysis of Variance

 

 

Source 3.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total : 46762.71 - 46708.21 : 54.50 20
Between .-.- 26426.31 11359.28
89228.58 - 46708.21 : 5.96 3 1.99 .70
Error :48.% 17 2.86
Lot No. l 2 3 h
'1? 46.88 46.97 47.66 47.24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant@ 5% .-. 3.20, s 1% =-. 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix LI _

3 O

TABLE 9
AMLYSIS 0F vande or

CA \Cr'iSS PRII 11L CUE 0UP

Analysis of Variance

31

 

 

Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total 85557.17 - 85469.03 " 88.14 20
Between 4 ‘251.70 + 19988.90-I-
16233.31 - 85469.03 .-..- 4.88 3 1.63 .33
Error : 83.26 17 14.90
Lot No. 1 2 3 4
R 63.62 64.51 . 63.23 63.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant @ 5% = 3.20, e 1% = 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix MI

 

(.4)
(0

TABLE 10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

LIVE WEIGHT PERCENT LEAN CUTS

Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 26468.10 .. 26409.19 = 48.21 20

Between : 14800.94 + 6543.51 +

 

 

5073.00 - 26409.19 :: 8.26 3 2.75 .92
Error .-: 50.65 17 2.98
I-Ot N0. 1 2 3 LI»
'1': 34.53 35.71 36.18 35.61

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant (47 5% = 3.20, (a. 1% = 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix NI

TABLE 11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

CARCASS PERCENT mm CUTS

Analysis of Variance

 

 

Source s.s. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 48443.71 - 48353.28 -.-.- 90.43 20
Retireen = 27597 .15 + 11511.36 +
9259.25 - 48353.28 : 14.48 3 4.83 1,08
Error . := 75.95 17 4.47
Lot No. 1 2 3 4
2 46.85 49.04 47.98 48.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant 5% =3.20, c 1% = 5.18.
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix OI

cass percent lean cuts, the restricted fed lot and the 130 and 170 pound
castrates did produce a greater yield.

The analysis of variance of percent lean area of the rough loin is
presented in Table 12. Pictorial representations of a representative last
rib chop for each lot are presented in Figure 1. While no significant
differences were found to exist, the restricted fed animls as well as the
130 and 170 pound castrates were superior to the controls in that they ex-
hibited a greater percent lean area. In effect, this bore out the results
of Soule (1950) who found 180 pound castrates to have a significantly higher
percent lean area than normal castrates.

An analysis of variance of the loin index, Table 13, failed to show any
significant differences. This would be logical to expect since this index
represents a ratio of fat to lean, and, as already stated, the ratio of
fat to lean on an area basis did not show any significance.

A correlation coefficient (Table 14) between percent lean area of the
rough loin and live weight primal cut out of + .352 i .201 failed to show
significance. This contradicts the results of Soule (1950) who found a
significant correlation coefficient of «t .8186 i .0738.

The correlation coefficient between percent lean area of rough loin
and carcass priml cut out of -+ .466 1 .180 was found to be significant
at the 5 percent level, (Table 15). A scatter diagram representing this
correlation is shown in Figure 2. This agrees with Soule's findings of a

significant correlation coefficient of +.8550 I." .0602 for similar data.

TABLE 12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
PERCENT LEAN AREA OF ROUGH LOIN

Analysis of Variance

El)
.02

Source D. F. M. Sq . F.
Total = 29391.39 - 28808-26 = 523.13 20

Between '3 15401.24 4" 7200.25 +

 

 

6367.24 - 28868.26 : 100.47 3 33.49 1.35
Error = 422.66 17 24.86
Lot to. 1 2 3 4
’35 33.85 37.70 37.95 39.90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(C;
H
,5
II

v
0
'6:
O

F to be-signiflcant C52 5% =3.20,
ho significant difference exists.

See Appendix PI

 

r18. 1.

Cross Section of Bough Loin. Exp. 1. Lot 1 avg. lean areas»
33-89;, hos no. 433 loan area 533.19%. Lot 2 avg. lean area = 37.70%-

hcg no. 10-6 lean area =36.59$. Lot 3 avg. lean area =37.95%, hog no.
8L3 lean area =38.69$. Lot 4 avg. lean area =39.90%, hog no. 33LE,

36

TABLE 13

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

 

 

LOIN INDEX

Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 66689.70 - 66526.34 :: 163.36 20
Between 2. 37310.44 + 16078.99 ‘5‘

13176.74 - 66526.34 2 39.83 3 13.2 1.83
Error : 123.53 17 7.27
ICtr N00 1 2 3 u-

2 54.21 47.27 56.71 57.39

 

F to be significant @ 5% = 3.20, a 1%: 5.18.

No significant difference exists .

See Appendix Q I

TABLE 14
CORREIATION BETWEEN PERCENT LIVE WEIGHT CUT our (1:)

AND PERCENT LEAN AREA OF ROUGH IOIN (Y)

my: 36719.82 - 36720.36
V6450) (523.13)

 

: 52.46

V28510. 59

_ 59.46
‘ 168.85

=+.352
6r: l - (.352)2
719

.8760
.. W .3 _

 

= t .201

Correlation coef. to be significant C 19 d.f. : .433 3’? 536,2.549 (5? 1%.
Correlation Coefficient not significant.

See Appendix RI.

4,»

Tl‘iBLE 15
CORRELATION BETWEEN PERCENT CARCASS CUT OUT ()1)

AND PERCENT LEAN AREA OF ROUGH LOIN (Y)

my: 49772.32 - 49672.35
M88.14) (523.18)

__ 92.97

vii-6108 .68
: §%%%

3 +- .466“

 

Correlation coef. to be significant at 19 d.f. :- .443 @ 5340535119 .23: 10;,“- -

5r _ 1 - (.466)?

V19“

___ .7828
4. 358

.18

61 88.14 a 5? Y:Y_5__.__230 .13
20

.4 'Y.26 16

.100 v.15 . 115

5.115
Ya37.08+ .466 2.100 (x - 63.80)

 

1+
0

 

HI

II
P.) 41‘

i

.1: 37.08 + 1.135 (x - 63.80)
:37.08 + 1.1351: - 79.41

 

 

5e= 29397.39 ~7-35.331(778.61 - (1.135) (49772.32)

19
:‘V408 . 10
1‘9 ‘

.3 v 21.48 =t4.534% See Appendix SI.

 

(Y) Percent.Area of Lean

804%

70.4—

50.-

40.-

304-

 

Fig. 2.

40

 

i l 1 ! 4L
50 60 70 80 90

(X) Carcass Cut Out

Scatter diagram.Correlation between carcass primal cut
out and percent lean area of rough loin

1:1

mnm II

A. Feed Consumption

Since the annals in this experiment were fed by lots, no statistical
analysis of the feed efficiency could be calculated. Lot 1, the full self-
fed lot, consumed 401 pounds of feed per 100 pounds of gain. This lot was
designated as the control lot. Lot 2, the. limited hand fed lot, consumed
456 pounds of feed per 100 pounds gain, and lot 3, the lot receiving 70
percent concentrate plus 30 percent ground com cobs, consumed 1491 pounds
of feed per 100 pounds of gain. If the feed efficiency for lot 3 was cal-
culated on the basis of total concentrate consumed, the efficiency of
this lot would be 379 pounds of feed per 100 pounds of gain, thus showing
a marked increase in efficiency over the other two lots. The exact amount
of nutrients, if any, derived from the corn cobs could not be determined.
The lack of increase in efficiency of the limited hand fed animals over
the full fed animals may in part be attributed to We slow gaining, poor
doing animls in the limited hand fed lot. From the standpoint of feed
efficiency, limited hand feeding appeared to have no advantage over full
self-feeding. If ground corn cobs could be provided at a reasonable cost,
the feeding of 70 percent concentrate plus 30 percent ground corn cobs in
a self feeder might be advantageous, based on the results of this experiment.

This experiment failed to substantiate the results of mperiment I
in which the limited fed lot was found to be 22.5 percent more efficient
in its conversion of feed into pounds of body weight than the full fed

lot. See Table 16 for feed Consumption date.

13. DailyGein

Table 17 presents the results of the statistical analysis of the

P)

UL)

TABLE T?

FEED EFFICIENCY

Total

Feed Lbs.

Concentrate

75:32
77 19

7201

T”tal

1 ‘fiC)Q

‘w
*' "/J 5 . 1:)

1000 9.59

Avg. Da.
Gain Lbs. Feed Lbs.

Feed Per
100 lbt.
Gain

401

4 5f)

average daily gain. No significant differences were found between the
lots although the full fed lot had the highest average rate of gain. This
substantiated the results of Experiment I where the restricted lot was

enough slower in rate of gain than the full fed lots to be highly significant.

C. Carcass Measurements

The analysis of variance of body length, as measured from the Junction
of the last cervical and first thoracic vertebrae to the anterior edge of
the symphysis pubis, is presented in Table 18. Again, as was the case in
Experimt I, no significant differences were found to exist beWeen the
various treatments.

The same was found to be tme for leg length, as measured from the
anterior edge of the symphysis pubis to the coronary band. The analysis
of variance for leg length my be found in Table 19.

Although no significant differences were found to exist between the
lots for these tvm measurements, the restricted, hand fed lot was somewhat
longer in both body and leg length. The increased carcass length, thowh
not significant, could be explained on the basis of McMeekan' s (1939)
findings. He found that an animal receiving a high plane of nutrition
during the early stages of growth followed by a low plane of nutrition
during the fattening period tended to produce a greater annunt of muscle
and bone-and less fat.

The fact that no sex differences were found to exist would conflict
with the results reported by Bonnet and Coles (1946) in which fennles were
found to produce longer carcasses than Hales.

The analysis of variance of backfat thickness measurements is presen-

ted in Table 20. No significant differences were found to exist although

Anemia of Variance

TABLE

7'"

"0

ANALYSIS OF VARIMICE OF

mines}; DAILY can; (1.3.3.)

 

 

 

 

Source SOS. D.F. M. Sq .
Total = 9.71 - 9.55 r: .16 5
Sex : 9.60 - 9.55 : .05 1 .05
Treatments =- 9.69 - 9.55 .. .08 2 .Ch
SXT : .03 2 .015
Error 3' 23 .057
lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 1.59 1.17 1.31
Gilts 1.26 1.111, 1.10

it“ 1.42 1.16 1.20

 

 

 

 

 

-F to be significant 0 5% = 342*, e 1% = 5.66“

No significant difference exists.

See Appendix FII

' TABLE
ANALYSIS OF WARM-ICE OF

BODY LEIIGTH (111111.) -

Analysis of Variance

Source (2.3. D.F.
Total =.- 3367061.9 - 3366605.2 = 465.7 5
Sex : 3366629.2 - 3366605.2 =- 24.0 1

Treatment : 3366899.0 .. 33666052 = 293.8 2

 

 

 

 

SXT .7. 148.2 2

Error =- 23
lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 7460“- 75504 73904

Gilts 737.6 761.8 753.8

[ 2 742.0 758.6 746.6

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant @ 5%: 3.42%, e 1% = 5.66”
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix GII

M.Sq.

24.00
146.90
74.10
69.71

45

TABLE
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

‘S— LIZfC-TJI ( 1212.1. )

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source 8.3. D.F. H.530. F.
Total = 1778861.6 - 17784459 ‘* 415 7 5

Treatment = 1778721.0 - 177845.9 = 275.1 2 137.55 1.27
3:41: = 140.3 2 70.15 .05
Error "' 23 108.21

Lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 538 . 0 500.3 534 . o
JGilts 541.4 547.2 51.4.75;

E '13 540.0 ' 554.0 539.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be nignirn;;..;.z.@ 5% = 3.42% , (a: 1%.: 5.66“
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix HII

Analysis of Variance

Source

Total '2

Sex

9799.91 - 9767.93

9773.55 - 9767-93

Treatment :3 9793.10 - 9767.93

TABLE l
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

Amman moms THIChZIsEsS (111171.)

3.5. D.F.

= 33.98 5
1' ).62 l
3 25.17 2

 

 

 

 

311' : 1. l9 2
Error .1: 23
Lot No . 1 2 3
Barrows 113.65 39.05 41.25
Gilts 42 . 60 '37 .44 38 . 10
'x’ 43. 12 38.24 39.68

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant 0 5% :3.42, c 1% =5.66

N0 significance difference exists.

See Appendix J II

 

M.Sq.

5.62
12.58

.230

117

nu .
V e
.i

 

 

48

the limited hand fed and the Com cob - concentrate fed lots produced car-
casses with a lesser average backfat thickness than did the control, or full

fed lot. This is in agreement with the results reported by McMeekan (1939).

D. Slaughter and Cutting Data

There were no significant differences in dressing percent betwoen the
lots. The analysis of variance for these data is presented in Table 21.

Sindlarly, as can be noted in Table 22, no significant differences
were found between the lots for the percent live weight primal cut-out.

' This could perhaps be attributed to the high variability among the animals
as to the annunt of fill at the time of slaughter. In spite of the fact
that the animals were given a uniform shrink period of 24 hours prior to
slaughter, it was evident from the variation in the shrink during this 24
hour period that agreat deal of variation might exist in the amount of
fill at the time of slaughter.

The analysis of variance of percent priml cut out based on the cold
carcass weight is presented in Table 23. Lots 2 and 3, the restricted lots,
were found to have carcass primal cut outs sufficiently greater than Lot 1
to be highly significant. A high carcass primal cut out is associated with
leanness in the carcass and general carcass superiority.

The analysis of variance of percent of live weight in lean cuts (Table
24) showed no sigiifican‘t differences beWeen lots. It was noted, however,
that lot 2 was .91 percent and lot 3, 1.01 percent higher in percent of
lean cuts than the control lot. Highly significant differences were found
between the restricted lots and the Control lots when the percent of lean
cuts was calculated on a carcass basis. Table 25 presents the analysis of
variance of these data. This significance could be eXpected since the

percent carcass primal cut out data had already been found to possess simi-
lar significance.

49

TABLE I? 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

DRESSING PERCENT

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Source D.F. 8.3. M.Sq. F.
Total .3 33703.30 - 33697.52 = 5 5.78
Sex 3 33898.08 — 33097.52 = 1 .50 .58 .81
Treatment = 33701.07 - 33697.52 «'5 2 3.55 1.78 2.53
SXT = 2 1.07 .84 1.2::
Error ' = 23 . .69
Lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 75 . 89 75. 16 7b. . (39
Gilts 76.0u 73.06 74.81

35 75.97 71+.11 714.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant 0 5% = 3.42, e 1% -..-. 5.06
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix KI I

TABLE '32“:
liPJRILYESIEi (TB' 10k}?]r 1133i (5“

LIVE IIJLLG‘EH! PREILL CUT OUT

Analysis 01' Variance

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.... D.F.

Tote 1 = 11539-50 - 11535.65 = 3.35 5
Sex - 1I1533.‘3 - 11153:». )5 .58 1
Treatment: 14537.01 - 194535.55 : 1.3.6) 2
"5.1T := 1.91 i
Ermr :3 2"
Lot No. l 2 3
Barrows 48 . 62 5O . 35 1+9 . 63
Gilts 48 . 63 48 . 14 119 . 95

E 48.62 49.24 49.79
F to be significant ’3 55$" .. 3.112%- @310 = 5 66*!

No significant difference exists.

See Appendix LII

 

 

TABLE 33
ANALYSIS OF VARIAI-ICE OF

C:LRC.‘.;3S Pl-ZIIL‘KL CUT OUT

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Source 8.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 25957.63 - 2591.758 :2 10.05 5
Sex :: 259117.62 - 25947.58 = .04 l .04 .01;
Treatment: 25956.93 - 25947.58 :1 9.35 2 14.68 5.09
The . = .66 2 .33 .36
Error 3 23 _ .92
Lot No. l 2 3
Barrows 71+ . 05 67 . 00 60 .149
Gilts 63.96 65.98 67.09

‘X 64.00 (30.49" 60.79”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference to be significant F 563192 (t).=(.303) 2.069 2.63

’7‘

1%: 92 (t)=(.303) 2.807: .85
F to be significant at 2 and 23 d.f.' 196:5.66 ‘

5%: 3 .42
See Appendix MIT

TABLE ifli

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT OF LIVE WEIGHT IN LEAN CUTS

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Source
Total = 8382.11 - 8378.35 2: 3.76 5
Sex = 8378.79 - 8378.35 ..-.- .214 l .1111
Treatment : 8379.59 - 8378.35 :- 1.24 2 .62
SXT = 2.08 2 1.04
Error =3 23 .98
lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 36.76 38.72 37-43
Gilts 36.70 36.56 38.01;

E 36.73 37.64 37.711

 

 

 

 

 

 

F to be significant@ 5%: 342*, e 1% =5.66**

No significant difference exists.

See Appendix NII

.45
.63
1.06

TABLE

r) c:
L- J

“NYSE OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT OF CARCASS WEIGHT IN LEAN CUPS

Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

 

source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq.
Total -: 14928.50 - 14920.11 =: 8.39 5

Sex = 14920.28 - 14920.11 = .17 1 .17
Treatment = 14927.14 - 14920.11 = 7.05 2 3.52
SXT = 1.17 2 .58
Error - = 23 .29
lot No. 1 2 3

Barrows 118 .43 51. 53 50 . 16

Gilts 48.26 50.02 50.80

3? 48.34 50.78“ 50.48“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference to be significant 6 1% =‘Y.29 x t =

See Appendix on

\n
to

.59
12 . 121“”

2.00

.538 (2.807)=1.51
0 5%: .29 x t z: .538 (2.069): 1.11

Table 26 presents the analysis of variance of percent lean area of a
cross-section of the rough loin. While Lots 2 and 3, with 411.09 and 42.58
percent reopectively, were higher in percent lean area than Lot 1 (38.79
percent), no significant differences were found to exist. This follows
similar results encountered in Experiment I. Figure 3 is a photograph of
representative rough loin chops. Each of these chops was chosen as being
the nearest to the lot mean in percent of lean area.

In calculating the analysis of variance of loin index (Table 27) no
significant differences could be demonstrated. However, the two restricted
lots were found to have higher values, thereby indicating a more superior
carcass, than the control lot.

A correlation coefficient of +.l57 I .188 determined between the
percent lean area of the rough loin and the live weight percent primal
cut out was not significant (Table 28). This finding was in conflict with
that of Soule (1950) who found a highly significant coefficient of +.8186
1'- .0738 between similar data.

Figure 4 represents a scatter diagram showing the relationship between
carcass primal cut out and the percent lean area of the rough loins. The
correlation coefficient was + .683 ‘2'. .142, which was highly significant
(Table 29). The regression equation was Y= -70.18+ 1.702X and the stan-

dard error of estimate for Y was + 4.057 percent.

TABLE 26

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT LEAN AREA OF ROUGH LOIN

Analysis of Variance

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total z: 10544.69 - 10492.64 =: 52.05 5
Sex : 10508.81 - 10492.64 :2 16.17 1 16.17 3.10
Treatment 310522.45 - 10492.04 2 29.81 2 14.90 2.88
err = 6.07 2 3.04 .58
Error =‘- 23 5.21
Lot No. l 2 3
Barrows 37.71 43.30 39.52
Gilts 39.87 44.88 45.63

3‘3 38.79 44.09 42.58
F to be significant and 23 d.f. : 3.42 C 5%; 5.66 e 1%.

No significant difference exists.

See Appendix PII

ofimHoN‘N ““8“ go." “new 08 won A*RON#
“sons 83 .m>e m peg immésfleona 30H rim .8 won 350.: “nose seed .mbe m pen 3395mm
I see. soon To .8 was £36m n88 see.” .96 a can .m .5 .53 swoon to 838m $80 .m .3»

 

TABLE 27

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOIN INDEX
Analysis of Variance
Source 3.3. D.F. Mosq.
Total 2 19502.93 - 19479.18 2: 23.75 5
Sex 3' 19479.66 - 19479.18 : .48 1 .48
Treatment: 19498.84 - 19479.18 1:: 19.66 2 9.83
TXS 1:". 3.61 2 1.80
Error 23 3.34
Lot No. l 2 3
Barrows 55. 12 59 . 19 55 . 78
. Gilts 54.25 59.03 58.50
I 54.68 59.11 57.14

 

 

F to be significant 8 5%: 3.42 , 0 1%: 5.66
No significant difference exists.

See Appendix QII

--,\

fit)

TABM 2L5
CORRELATION BETWEEN LIVE WEIGEP CUT OUT (X)

HRHWTLBEIQHIWFMNQIUXN(N

my- 59085.95 - 59537.99
V(111.31) (825.04)
._ 47.66

91946.5124

 

 

 

 

)t'T’
: 30323
-= 1'. .157
Jay: 1 - (-157)2
V27
- .2121
3.190

:: 1; .LBS

Correlation coefficient to be to be significant at 27 degrees of freedom.
53: .367, 1% —-—.479
Correlation Coefficient not significanc.

g ,‘ . ‘1-
one nuoendix P -.

TiiJaLE 29
COT‘iR‘ieIIx';.TI-.’h; Bust-mm CARCASS CUT our (1;) .1383
1313208111 1.8.112 ARE. :1? ROUGH LOIN (1')

vav'r ‘ 70? (‘1 (i) . «i411. .— 1.21520 . 21*.

$132.98) (826.04)

.367, C 1% .470”

= :t
(ix-31m 6 EQW
2 . “'28"

= V4.75 = V2950
=".' 5.431

J

Y: 41.71 +.683 2.179 (x .. 65.74)

= 41.71 + 1.702 (x - 65.74)
41.71+ 1.702 x - 111.89

- - 70.18 41.702 x

 

 

66f128138 - (.7018) (1209.63) - (1.702)(79746.64)
- 27

_ 444.43

.. ”-27

= V 16.46

=1“. 4.057%

See Appendix SII.

)f Lean

(‘1') Percent Area

90 ir-

80‘”

\n
O
L

T

-1?
O

L.)
O

 

\

 

. .' s
50 60 70

('7
01.-
\O
(D‘-

(X) Carcass Cut Out

Scatter diagram correlation between carcass primal
cut out and percent lean area of rough lrin

60

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIKX'IS

1. Restriction of feed intake increased the efficiency of production
of pounds of pork when accomplished by limited hand feeding (75 percent of
:flfl1.feed) in Experiment I and by bulking the ration (70 percent concentrate,
30 percent ground corn cobs) in Experiment II. On the basis of the results
of this experiment the bulking of the ration with ground com Cobs might
inove advantageous if they Could be provided at a.noderete Cost.

2. Restriction of feed intake produced a slower rate of gain; enough
slower in Experiment I to produce a highly significant difference.

3. Both‘restricted feeding and delayed castration had the effect of
increasing leanness, primal cut out and lean cut yield, as well as a higher
percent lean area of the rough loin cross section. This sUperiority was
found to be significant for the restricted fed lots in Expeldment II.

14. Both Experiments I and II failed to present significant differences
in body length, leg length, average backfat thickness, and dressinf: percent.
5. A significant correlation Coefficient between percent lean area

of the rough loin and carcass percent primal cut out was found. A coeffi-
cient of+ .466 I. .180 in the case of Experiment I and +.'083 1'. .142 in
the case of Emperiment II. There was no significant Correlation Coefficient
between percent lean area of the rough lair. and live weight percent primal

cut out.

APPEI TDD; AI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEED DATA
1".“3. Feed/
In t. Final Total Total Daily Total 102) lbs.
Hog Ht. r! 3. Gain P15 Gain Feed Gain
No . L‘ 2 . Lbs . Lbs . Days Lbs . Lbs . Lbs .
Lot 1 13-2 51 22 170 102 1.57
13-7 to 227 187 117 1.50
11-2 35 234 199 131 1.52
2LE 23 221 198 131 1.51
ARE 23 2 3 195 12k 1.57
p5-6 3 220 183 110 1.85
Total 209.0 13E1.0 1132.0 715.0 603h 533
Avg. 34.8 223.5 188.7 119.2 1.58
Let 2 10-6 51 222 171. 131 1.31
1-15 #1 227 186 131 1.u2
1h-1 35 232 197- 152 1.30
12-2 27 220 193 166 1.16
SLE 2 23A 209 161 1.30
322 35 22 55 131 1.41
Total 21M) 1335.0 11E1.0 7372.0 11708 1+13
Avg. 35.7 225.8 15®.2 125.3 1.31
Lot 3 *11-5 50 227 177 119 1.h9
13—8 44 229 185 124 1.49
3-8 22 223 201 138 1.48
6L3 28 227 199 119 1.6
8113 31'. 230 196 124 1. 58
Total 168.0 1135.0 958.0 621;.0 I173 1188
Avg. 33.6 227.2 191.6 12u.8 1.59
lot 11 11-1 1:5 219 171; 131 1.33
11.4 30‘ 22 191 139 1.37
16-1 2-Q 227 199 119 1.87
33LE 30 225 195 112 1.74
Total 133.0 892.0 759.0 501.0 ” 3165 h17
Avg. 33.2 223.: 189.8 125.2 1.51

 

 

APPEEDII AII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Init. Final Total Total Ava. D: 3 I Feed F01
Hog ML. Wt. Gain P13 Gain Flt; 1L3 lrz.
1:2". ng. 1.116.. 17:5. Dug}- Lb; . . 7:: -. 34.....-
Lo t 1 51 1.1. 22 ' 17? 112 1 . 5.. '
2 22 223 201 159 1.26
Barrnw“ 8? 39 P94 185 1C5 1.70
54 40 22 183 96 1.91
101 44 22 178 124 1.t4
:ete1 195.0 1119.: 924.0 590.0 ’
“7;. ;;;nC> 223.8 1E123 119.2 1155
Let 1 32 27 22 194 196’ .99
94 2 223 198 140 1.41
311te 66 32 220 188 154 1.22
1017 34 220 86 130 1.43
15, 22 221 199 15< 1gfij .....
Tatal *49.0 1105.0 955.0 79.0
“v3. 23.0 221.0 193.0 155.; 1.24
t 3~t01 33 .0 2224.3 1389.1 137?.2 " 7582
Le: Avg. 33.5 “02.4 138.9 37.5 1.3 101

 

 

 

-i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7
hfi32 41 “9 226’ ::587 210‘" . 9

53 35 220 185 159 1.13
23a- Mm: 11.2 24 220 196 175 1. 12

:31 314 220 175 12.4 1 .42

4 35 222. 137 147 1521“,

Tjtal .77.0 110 .0 931.0 .31:;3
nvv. 35.4 221¢3 133:: 133x) 1.14
Int 2 710 30 224 94 90 .99

109 37 22 133 31 1.14
Gilta 98 28 22 192 161 1.19

95c 30 223 193 156 1.24
T'ta '25.0 7327.1 76: 0 *ETZ.‘ '
Avg. ‘3 .3 TGI. jC.j 13%.” 1.12
L~t T’tal 30:.0 1995.? 1893.0 ’“39}: 7719
Let L?;. 33.0 :21." 138.1 135.“ 1.14 :;6

J JD (.614 .0?

31 43 220 77 130 1.36
Bazurnih 52 :3 22- L33 128 1.43

13 20 222 196 10 .22

85 32 ”20 187 147 1.27
fatal 183.0 1113.0 930.0 713.0 .
éyg. _j§.6 27?.6 136.3 “2.5 1.30 ‘_
Int 3 712 25 224 199 196 1.02

114 26 221 195 161 1.2
Gilts 95 32 219 187 163 1.15

106 :0 224 194 52 1.07

96 28 223_¥ 19 182 1.07 Cone.
Total 141.0 1111.0 970.0 824.5" 7201
AV3. 28.2 222.2 194.0 176.8 1.10 Corn Cbbs
Lot Total 324.0 2224.0 1025.0 139755' 2121
Int Avw. 32 4 222.4 190.0 159.7 1.18 Total

I,

 

 

AA..\A

11213171me BI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feed 3 Cold
Lot Slaughter Carcass
Hog . Wt. Wt. Shrink Shrink Wt. Dressing
No. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. fa Lbs. Percent
Int 1 13-2 221 205 16 7.2 159.5 717.39
13-7 227 215 12 5.29 152.0 70.70
11-2 234 220 111 5.98 161.0 73.18
HE 221 210 11 11.98 153.5 73.10
431: 218 206 12 5.50 155.0 75.24
.1 j-6 220 208 12 5.215 157.5 71.59
Total 13111.0 12611.0 77.0 311.1111 931.0 1138.20
Avg. 223.5 210.1 12.8 5.711 155.2, 73.03
Lot 2 10.6 222 213 9 7.05 155.0 72.77
1-15 227 220 7 3.08 150.0 70.00
14-1 232 218 11'. 6.03 162.5 70.5.1
12-2 220 203 17 7 .7 3 1117 . 0 72 .111
51.13 235 219 16 6.81 166.0 75.80
6RE 220 212 8 3.71 151.0 11.22
Total 1356.0 1258.0 71.0 31.311 35.5 1137.01;
Am. 226.0 2111.2 11.8 j.f?2 155.9 72.81;
Lot 3 11-5 227 2111 13 5.73 16015 75.00
138 229 215 111 o . 11 160 . 5 7 5 . 58
3-8 223 202 21 9.}:2 151.5 76.19
6LE 227 209 18 7 . 9 3 15:7» . 0 71 . 16
8LE 230 218 12 5.02 165.0 75.68
Total 1136.0 1058 .0 78. 0 371.111 797 . 5 37 0'. 91
Avg. 227 .2 211. 6 15.6 11..» 159 . .5 75 . 38
Lot 11 11-1 219 207 12 5.728 153.0 73.91
1141 221 209 12 5.113 150.0 721.64
16-1 227 212 15 0.111 150.5 73.82
331E 225 209 16 7.11 1511.0 73.88
TSta‘F 829.0 837.0 55.0 211.63 619.5 296.05
Mg. 223 .0 209.2 13.8 61.58 1511.9 71: .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

       

   

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX BII
DRESSING DATA
Feed Slaugh— Cold
Hog lot wt. tor wt. Shrink Shrink Carcass Dressing
n), 13,3, L138. 1 Lbs. 1 Wt.Lbs. Percent
Int 1 51 221 208 13 5.88 157.0 75.118
21 223 215 8 3.59 167.5 75.58
Barmws 82 224 211 13 5.80 161.5 76.511
511 229 218 11 11.80 159.0 72.91;
101 222 211 11 11.95 166.5 48.91 W
73121 1119.0 1063.0 56.0 25.02 806.5 379.15
Avg. _ 223.8 212.6 11.2 5.30 161. .8
Lot 1 32 221 211 10 11.52 159.5 75.59
911 223 209 111 6.28 159.5 76.32
Guts 66 220 209 11 5.00 162.5 77.75
1012 220 209 11 5.00 155.0 711.16
25 221 2111 1 16 . 6.40
Total 110 - 6 3. (633-0 3 "
A . 221.0 210.4 10. .79 1 .0 6.011
1‘36 "T“o'ta' '1 22211.0 2115.0 "169.0 18.99 1606.5 759.67
Lot Avg. 222.11 21.1.; 10.9 21.90 160.6 75.97
Lot 2 711 226 217 9 3.98 163.5 75.35
53 220 217 3 1.36 159.0 73.27
Barmws 112 220 2111 6 . 73 156 . 0 72 .90
81 220 210 10 4.55 161.5 78.33
222 216 6 2.10 16u.0 72.23
Tomi 1.6 2113 36.8 332 1g}; 375.76
g3. 22 . . . .0 . .1
lot 2 710 2211 2‘16 6 3.577 15875 73.3
109 220 223 3 1.34 161.0 72.20
cuts 92 220 21g 3 1.3». 1121.5 71.22
) 11222 w 2 7 41.14 3.0 75.11
m 88%.0 813.0 21.0 6.723. 637.25 292.316:
A . 221. 2 .0 .3 1. 159.3 7 .
fit Tow 1995.0 1916.0 5%.0 22.03 11411119 668.752
Lot A35. 221.7 216.2 6.1 2.115 160.11 711.11
mm 212 11 NS} W
31 220 203 17 7.73 150.0 73.89
Barmws 52 222 210 12 5.71 150.0 71.13
A3 222 211 11 11.95 161.5 76.51
85 226 218 8 . 166. 6.38
Tot-:61 11:13.6 1055.5 59.5 2g.g% 737.0 373.2%
A . 222.6 210.8 11.8 . 15 . 11.69
Lot 3 712 2211 209 15 2.70 fifl 73.68
1111 221 211 10 11.52 158.0 711.88
Guts 95 219 206 13 5.94 156.5 75.97
106 224 206 18 8.0!; 150.0 75.73
4:6 223 210 8 1 .0 8
Total 1111.0 028.0 8 é 3 .07
A . 222.2 2 .11 1 . .21 153.9 31.81

Lot A13. 222.5 292.6 12.8 5.12 156.6

 

74.75

65

APPE‘IDIX CI

CARCPSS IIEPSURE IE‘IT DAT”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carcass Leg Avert/3770 11 c:7_:_f__:+ . 111101.116 ;. in AA.
Hog length Length 161; 7th Last Las 1:

No . mm. mm. Rib Rib Rib L11 1111211‘ Avg .
16% 1 13—2 (885 500 71 55 AB 88 55 53
13-7 723 519 60 51 38 47 59.00
11-2 702 510 59 47 A0 45 h7.75
2L3 717 513 57 116 36 117 3:550
ARE 690 510 59 I78 170 1,17 2" .50
5-6 695 515 59 118 110 47 118. 50
Total I1213.0 3065.0 365.0 295.0 2112.0 281.0 29:1. 75
Ang. 702.2 510.8 60.8 119.2 210.3 116.8 11.9. :9
'Isz2 106 7115 5H7 50 171 31- 39 11.0. 00
1-15 752 539 115 40 26 32 35.00
L’s-l 7110 566 50 36 26 31 3.5.75
12-2 7'10 520 55 111 28 A2 111.50
513 (11713 5178 58 117 1', 51 50.95
6RE 702 I195 61 55 111 113 50.00
Total 11357.0 3215.0 319.0 260.0 107. 0 2 ,8. 0 252.50
Avg. 426.? 3‘3 .8 3...”? 133.3 2 .4,- 33. 33:".138
Int 3 11-5 705 507 59 719 37 713 117.00
13-8 730 540 58 115 37 112 115.50
3-8 699 513 61 11.9 35 113 117.00
6LE 715 529 59 1'19 37 11.3 217.00
813 716 513-!- 130 )7 5 270 1111 117 , ’f 5
Total 3565.0 2663.0 297.0 237.0 223.0 215.0 213.75
Avg. 713.9 550 ‘1 59.11 717.71 ’11:.1'1 113.0 '11
Lo», 7 11—1 710 ‘ 1‘. ' 73.1;- 31 7.3.1 279.110
11-?:- 700 ’ 5'33 .11 313 35 1’: .‘ ,3
1111-1 731 529 59 L13 :7 1. 2 1").75
33 719 5211 5? 38 ’27 33 37 '75
Total 2860.0 2070. 0 221. 0 167.0 1311.0 151.0 15‘ 5
Avg. 715.0 51.7 5 55.3 111.11 33 5 1’1 .06

 

ifoPE‘IDIX C I I

CARUSS MEASURE-{EH DATA

 

Carcass Leg Backfat Thickness in mm.
Hog Length Length let 7th last. Iast
No. mm. mm. rib rib rib lumbar Avg.

 

5t 1 51 755 550 52 ‘38 311 33 7310.140
21 761 5’42 57 ’40 34 40 ’49 .75

Barrows 82 725 525 59 47 38 48 48 . 00
. 51+ 757 520 60 1w. 38 115 116.75
101 E 5’46 ’48 38 34 41 1110.25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'T'J'tfi 3732 2693 276 207 178 212 218.25
lot 1 32 771 577 T19 31?? 27 35 3 .211
911 736 530 62 49 32 38 - 45. 25

611125 66 730 51111, 58 113 32 39 113.00
1012 713 515 60 118 1+3 51 50 . 50

.1 25 138 5111 1+2 35 35 118 110.00
Total 3688 2707 271 2 3 170 2111 213.00
113. 737.6 5111.4 511.2 2.6 331.0 112.8 112.60
lot Total 77120 5800 517 120 318' 126' ‘E3l.20
Lot Avg. 7112.0 5110.0 54.7 172.0 311.8 112.6 173.12
lot 2 1E1 778“ 620 38 28 22 26‘ ‘28.50
53 7218 535 119 115 32 38 111.00

Barrows 112 713 5+0 115 311 30 33 35.50

81 758 561+ 55 39 38 2m 44.00
1 7&0 545 55 115 39 116 110.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 3777 28011 232 191 161 187 195.25
£172. 7 .17. 560.8 116.11 38.2 2.2 37.11 39.05
lot 2 710 7 560 715 33 29 321 371775
109 7115 542 50 39 25 38 38.00
611138 92 722 51.18 30 39 25 28 35.00
______. 2 7 7 E89 55 111 32 38 211.50
Total 3 7 2 9 200 152 111 136 1779.75
A33. 761.8 517.2 50.0 38.0 27.9 311.0 37.14
Lot Total 6821 11993 71‘32 3113 272 323 3115.00
a 6 118.0 . . "
Lot 3
31 71111 557 50 34 311 32 37.50
Barrows 52 758 528 59 1+5 37 35 1111. 00
43 7113 542 58 39 33 35 111.24
85 3110 50 170 36 39 111.25
Tot-1211426313? 6 368 6 199 175 18% 6 21017.25
113.313.1145 . 53. 39.8 35.0 3 . 1.22
Lot 3 712 770 552 119 36 211 311 35.75
1111 741 527 50 39 34 44 111.75
Gilts 95 759 5113 1+8 35 29 38 37 . 50
102 728 523 32 37 34 33 110.25
9 771 75 31 27 3 35.25
782111 ‘5 ’ 3769 8 2757:”: EMS 178 6 m8 ( 191 190.50
Am. 753. .0 9.0 35. 29.1 38.2 38.10
Iot Total 71155 5393 513 377 323 3711 395.30

Lot Ag. 746.6 539.3_51.3 37.7 32.3 37.1.L 39.68

 

 

LOIN AREA AND VEIGIH‘ DATA

11;).

08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Total T5130]. T111. Rzgwgh

Hog Lean Fat Area Percent L011 Iain Loin

1‘10. Sq. in. Sal. 1:1. £31. in . Lean Lbs: Lbr: . Index

Lot‘I 13-2 3.h7 'h.97 11.Hh 30.33 20.7 3723’ 53.35
13-7 3.88 7.81 11.69 3.19 22.7 10.7 5h.55

11-2 1.22 6.91 11.1 37.92 20.5 37.5 59.53

2LE 3.71 7.34 11.55 33.12 20.3 3u.9 52.19

WEB 9.3 3.95 12.75 37.;3 20.9 33.3 51 57

5-6 1.36 _7.82 12.18 35.79 20.7 3?.“ 59 65

Total 23.9E’ £3.30 77.71 203.09 123:1 231:1 323.21
193; 3.99 7.30 11.79 33.35 29.; 35.6 :“.21
Int 2 10:6’ 3.93 '.3’ 10.71' 36.59 21.1 37.3 57.13
1-15 3.68 H.MH 3.1? 15.32 21.9 35.3 60.13

13-1 4.7“ 5.52 10.57 44.94 2* .3 11.9 *3 77

12-2 1.06 7.22 11.2 35 .99 23.0 9.3 50.52

512 4.06 13.13 1 .19 28 .02 23. 35.6 50 3c

6RE 3.72 -.31 10.53 3: 33 1). 9 37.5 53.3:

Total 21.20 ‘11.53 65.73 “2”19 131.; -.*11 13.33
Avg. 11 .03 N 2 10.496 3" ."0 25.5 39.1:- 57.27
Lot 3 11-5 H.12 7.16 11.28' 36. :12 21.7 35.1 55.08
13-8 1.10 7.37 11.17 35 .75 22.3 10.6 56.16

3-8 5.04 7.01 12.05 91.83 22.0 37.7 58.36

612 1.15 7.08 11.23 36.95 27.3 12.0 55.75

312 1.36 7.70 13.56 33.69 23.3 13.9 53.19

Total 22. 27 36.32 53.59 139.7H’ 112.193.6‘ L83.51
Ana, 1.45 7.26 11.72 37.95 22.5, 39.7 50.11
Iotlfi* 11-1 3.h3 6.68 10.11‘"’33.93 19.5 35.9 59.60
11.4 11 .51 1+ .49 9.00 50.11 21.9 3':. 1 53.211

16-1 3.88 6.15 10.33 37.5 20.7 35.9 57.66

1. 33LE n.67 7.54 12.16 37.99 22.1 30.3 50.75
Total 16.h9 25.16' ‘h1.60 159.59 85.0 11322 29.56
Avg-1. 4.12 6.29 10.110 33.90 21.2 37.0 57.3L

 

<39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21221117115: DII
LOIN AREA AND 1121:0211: DATA
116. 111..
Eng To tal Total To 1731 Trim. Rough
110. Loan Fat Area Percent Loin Loin Loin
Sqdn. $9. in. Schin. Lean Lbs. Lbs. Index
Lot 1 51 4.32 6.54— 10.86 39.78 23.9 2.0 56.90
21 4.42 5. 92 10.34 42.75 23.13 43.5 53.33
Barrows 82 3.93 8.15 12.08 32.53 21.6 41.3 52.30
54 3.46 6. 05 9.51 36.38 21.2 38.6 54. 92
__ 101 3.94: 6. 68 10.62 7.10 22.8 39.2 58.16
TOtal 20007 33031; 53.1.51} 11207 201106 275.01
Avg. 4.01 66 €97 10. 68 37.712.5 40 .9 .12 _
Lot 1 32 5.55 5 92 11.47 48. 39 23.6 40.3 55.5%
94 3.68 5 76 1’14 37. 02 20. 3 37.7 53.84
Gilts 66 5.30 6.88 12.118 43.51 24.9 45.4 54.85
1012 3.56 8.01 11.57 30.77 21.4 43.4 49 31
_ 25 5.05 76912.74 59. 64 22.3? 41. 0 II .39
Total 23.18 34.26 57. 40 199. 33 112. 5 207 .8271. 23
A . 4.63 6 8 11.48 .8 22.5 41.0 21. 25
Lot Total "43.21 ‘ 113. 3 7.7 12.1 546.84
Lot Avg. 4.32 6.76 11.38 38.79 22.5 41_._.2 54. 68
1662 41 6.73 5751 -.26 55.06 27.0 . 38.71 70.31
53 4.29 6.45 10.74 39.94 20.8 38.3 54.31
Bamws 42 4.75 5.53 10.2 46.21 22.7 37.3 60.86
81 4.21 6.99 11.20 37.59 24.1 41.9 575
.1. 4 4.64 7.66 1237.12 29.4 4.2. 3 52. 96
Total 24.64 32.111 567%) 216.52 117.0 198. 2 295.96 "
8113. 4.9:: 0.4;“ 11.36 41.30 23.4 39.159.19
lot 2 710 5.79 8.25 11. 95 47.7.9 74 .5 38.5 62.54
109 -’1.55 5.90 10.48 43.70 2.2.» 39 .1 57.30
Gilta 98 4.12 5.17 9.29 44.25 20.1 35.7 5-40
._ 56 4.97 6.39 11.36 42.7‘ 22:. If. 2 5;..29
Total 19.37 23.71 713.08 179.50 92.4 156.5 2; .13
A g 14084 5023 10077 MLGB 2;}..L «.3on 5,1. .03 *
fiatWE 44.01 55 .85 99.86 396.02 209.4 354 7 53C 09
Lot A-. 4 ‘ 6.21 11.10 44. _3-_.4

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not 3 3 0.19 9. 3 .- 0.5 39 0 52.5
31 4 57 5.74 10. 31 44.33 24.1 39. 8 60. 55

Bamws 52 3.31 6.13 9 .44 35.06 20.8 37.9 54.88
43 4.70 7.28 11.98 39.23 22.3 40.8 54.66

85 4.70 6.4 11. ' 42.15 23.0 40.51-58.23

120.1 20.89 31.79: 1' "Tlg' 197.61 110.7 198.4 278.88
53. 4.18 9.16 10.54 39-52 22.1 459-7 55.78
Lot 3 712 5.04 5.33 10.37 48.60 22.5 37.8 59.84
114 4.44 6.80 11.24 39.50 20.1 38.0 52.89

Guts 95 4.83 5.63 10.46 46.18 23.1 39.4 58.63
106 4.86 5.44 10.30 47.18 22.3 37.1 60.11

96 5.46 6.24 11. 0 46.67 23.0 37.7 61.01

26661 24 .63 2914‘ 55.07 228.13 111.0 189.8 292.48
4143. 4.93 5.89 11.01 45.63 22.2 38.0 58.50
Lot Total 45.52 61.23 107.751.25.74 221.7 388.2 571.36
1.013.415. 449.55 6.12 10.78 $42.58 22.2 38.8 51.44

70

49.3 93.350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Hm flag
Sam 3.3 WJH 3.9 :33 mdm NAN finm .wtq
SQ? 3&9 39mm mménm 369 $an clump $8.“ H38.
36m 5.? mfi. 8.3 :%S NOS 98 %nm 5mm ..
Sam no.3 map .236 3.5 3.8.” fiom mfim .73
mmém 8.3 mi. 84% wag: mdoa m4... mam +13
3.3 mmd: mé. mbAm 2am: Ram 99 09m and a pfi
Edd 3.? n6» 3.8 9.3.: mac.“ “.8 mam $5
$6 8&8 imam +95% mm.mmm mHon mama Em." 3.3.9.
3. 9.? m.om no.8 in? 0:42 mdm .18 3m
81% 8.3 ad. £18 8.2 imm Tmm m.mm mum
mmém 8.2 3.2. cm.mm 94.2 QR 9mm mém 9m
43% mm.S fit 3.8 3.2 0&3 m. mm mdw wk.”

JERM $5.? 9mm! 32% 8.: 042 .:m 98 EN m p8
can». .8. mm .18 R36 Had: $.03 Armm 93 .94
8.38 MEN? 9%: -npémm 53mm 0.8m m. :3 HRH H309
84m ca} 9% 8.8 3.? 98 m.% 0.? E6
3am S. 3 Nut. 3.8 8.3 ”.moa .18 aim an
m~.mm m».on m.:> ww.wm mm.m: o.mm o.mm :.mm «-ma
mad: morfi. mém no.8 :13 mdfl mgxum fimm 73
omfim owgmm 0.2. mode and: N63 ném WK 3..."

: .wm : . i o. p 3.6 3.3 9mm .18 .fi muoaf N pm
8%.. 3.3 .m .0618 8.3 fimm mom Him . 4

harem 8.5m m. 92H FAR mmémm Emma HAS 0.2: 38.
Ram «$3 m. mp 8.8 mi? 0.8 fiom cam m-“
mmém «To: mi. 8.8 3.: #8 m.om Hém mm:

3.? 2.3 9% 5.8 :33 mam Q8 98 am
39% 8.2 0.3. 3.8 232 v.03 mam fimm mAH
.Edm 8.3 v.2. Rib tn; fimfl «.8 atom v-3
83m 8.? .13 3.5 no.3 n.mm .8 0.8 «$4 H p3
33o: 3.3 38 .25 36 p8 £6 £6 can 33 no flog 33586 Hon . am .02
83 “o a .50 yo .3 53 H85 H85 5: .poa ugmia vogue oasis 393$ mom

 

 

350 50A 350 509 H309 mmuohdo 2.; 934

.mp9 38 8M0 pmmfio:

[EPEI [DEC RI I

CUETTI‘JG D1lx’..i.‘1“.

 

 

 

71

 

 

 

  

 

 

   

   

  
 

 

    

_ 1.7721297. 01‘ C111.“ .Th.‘ . Live Wt. Carcass
' Skixi- Belly Shoulder L511. 1251.211 P1117101 Primal
Hog nod ’1‘1’1171— Trinmcd 1‘:in0— Wt. 01‘ C111: C111.
No . Earn mud wad Cuba 011 t 00. 1..
Int 51 28. 5 23 .7 2- 5. 5 2"“ ”‘7'?"7753 ‘ ’7. 7:7 1
21 27.0 25.1 20.7 23.2 102.0 47.44 02.76
Barmws 82 28.6 26.0 26.4 21.6 102.6 48.63 63.53
54 28 . 5 24 . 1 17 . 3 21.2 101. 1 46. 38 .
101 31.6 27.1 27.8 22.8 109.3 51.80 65.65
161211 144.2 126.0 123.7 112.7 518.6 243.10 320778 "
A93. 28.8 25.2 24.7 22.5f 103.3 48.62 64.05
Lot 1 32 31.3 24.5 25.5 23.6 104.9 49.72 65.7
94 26.9 28.3 26.3 20.3 101.8 48.71 63.82
Gilts 66 27.2 23.8 27.3 24.9 103.2 49.38 63.51
1012 28.5 24.5 24.7 21.4 9C.1 47.42 63.94
2 329.8 24.4 26.1 22.3 102.6 47.94 62.75
Total 143.7 125.5 125.9 112.5 511.6 243.17 319.79
Avg. 2851‘ 25.1 26.0 22.5 102.3 45.63 63.96
Iot Total 287.9 251.5 253.6 25.2 1028.2 ' 486.27 61.0.02
Lot.A . 28.8 25.1 25.4 22.5 10 .8 48.63 64.00
I 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 
 

  

 

 
  
 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

53 27.1 24.5 27.1 20.8 99.5 45.85 62.58
Barmws 11.2 2.0 2’4 .8 “‘8 . " 22 .7 107 .9 50.12 69. 17
81 30.6 25.1 26.5 24.1 106.3 50.62 64.52
4 31.6 26.4 28.6 22.4 189.9 50.46 66.46

Total 157.6' 124.8’ 141.3 1 7.0 540.7 251.73 333.00“'
Avg. T 31.5 25.0 28.3 23.4 108.1 50.35 617.00
Lot 2 710 30.1 2415 28.9 24.5 10820 “—50.00 *68.14
109 29.7 25.8 27.7 22.6 105.8 47.44 65.71
Gilts 98 26. 20.8 25.5 20.7 99.9 46.04 64.60
‘56 29.0 24.8 27.6 24.6 106.0 43.07 65.33
Total 115.2 101.9 109.7 92.4 419.7 192.55 “63.54
Aug. :1. 28.8 25.5 27.4 23.1 104.9 48.14 65.89
lot Total 272.8‘ 226L7 251.0 209.4 960.4 *444.28 698154
Lot Aw . 30.3 2 23.3 106. 4.9.2 604
20.5 102. 16. 9 fl 5
31 30.7 24.4 26.5 24.1 105.7 52.07 70.47
Barrows 52 26.8 23.5 26.1 20.8 97.2 46.2 631.80
43 29.2 24.9 28.4 22.3 104.8 49.67 64.89
85 31.9 28.4 29.3 23.0 112.6 51.65 67.63

Raf 148. 3 128 .8 135.5 110.7 22. 248. 17 332. '

Avg. J 29.1 25.7 27.1 22.1 104.5 49.63 66.49
lot 3. 712 25.6 23.9 26.9 22.5 101.9 118.70 66.17
114 30.6 25.2 25.8 20.1 101.7 48.20 67.44
Gilts 95 29.6 23.5 28.2 23.1 104.4 50.68 66.71
106 30.4 24.9 27.6 22.3 105.2 51.07 07.44

96 30.1 24.3 27.5 23.0 104.9 49.95 67.68%
Total 149.3 121.8 13670 111.0 518.1 248.66 335.44
A - 2929 24.4 27.2 22.2 103.6 49,73 67.09
lot Total 2973.8? 250.4 271.5 221.7 104.4 496.83 067.88

2 2‘ 0 -2 2 '*

  

APPENDIX EII (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Lean Cuts Lean Cuts

Hog Total Lean 7% of Car- .7; of
No. Cuts; Lbs. cass Wt. Live Wt.
Int 1 51 77.9 49162‘ 37.45
21 70.9 47.32 35.77
Barmws 82 70.0 47.43 36.30
54 77.0 48.43 35.32
101 82.2 49.37 38.96
TBtdI 390.67 242.17 183.80
Avg. 78.1 48.43 36.76
lot 1 32 80.4 50.40 - 38110
94 73.5 46.08 35.17
1012 74.6 48.13 35.69
35 18.2 47.83 36431
Total 386.1 241.30 183.49
472- 77.? 48.26 36.70
Ibt Total 770. 483.47‘ 367.29
48.3 f 3

   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 75.0 47.17 34.56
Barmws 42 83. l 53.27 38.83
81 81.2 49.36 30.07
4 82.6 50.37 38.2
Tot517 ‘415.9 257.60 193.02
423. 83.2 51.53 38.72
Iot 2 710 84.4 53.54 39.07
109 80.0 49.69 35.87
Gilts 98 73.1 47.31 33 b9
56 81.. 349.82 37.59
Total 31817 200.06’ 146.22
AVB- 79 7 50.02 36 29
Lot Total 734.6’ 457.72 339.84
Lot A . 81.6 60 EB 25.27
Lot 3 104 75.4 7. 2 35.57
31 81.3 54.20 40.00
Emma 52 {3.7 49.13 35.10
43 79.9 49.47 37.87
85 84.2 350.57_ 38.62
16631 39415 250.79 187.16’
A . 7899 50.16 37.433
Lot 3 712 73.0 50.65 37.32
114 76.5 48.18 36.26
Gilts 95 80.9 51.69 39.27
106 80.3 51.47 38.98
_5 96 80.6 52.00 38.38
Total 396- 3 253 099 190-2
Avg. 79.3 50.80 38.04

 

73

APPENDIX FI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

AVERAGE DAILY 0.4m (LBS.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lot No. 1 2 3 u
1.67 1.31 1.49 1.33
1.60 1.42 1.49 1.37
1.52 1.30 1.46 1.67
1.51 1.16 1.67 1.74
1.57 1.30 1.58
1.66 1.41
311 9.53 7.90 7.69 6.11 31.23
i 1.59 1.32“ 1.54 1.53
cr "' 53% 46.44
Analysis of Variance
Source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 46.93 - 46.44 = .49 20
Between = 25.54 + 11.83+-
9.33 - 46.44 = .26 3 .086 6.1;...
Error : .23 17 .0174

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20*, @ 1%: 5.18"

A highly significant difference exists.

t-teet

 

Difference to be'aignificant between lot 1 and 2 =V.7)14 (1/6 + 1/6) Xt
(.068) (2.110) = .14 e 5%
(.068) (2.898) r. .20 @ 1%

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

AVERAGE DAILY GAIN (Continued)

Difference to be significant between lot 2 and 3 = .014 (1/6 4- 1/5) Xt
(.071) (2.110) = .15 5%
(.071) (2.898) :.21 e 1%

(:3

 

Difference to be significant between lot 2 and 4 {V3114 (1/6 + 1/4) Xt
(.076) (2.110) =.16 @ 5%
(.076) (2.898) 3.38 @ 1%

Lot 2 significantJJ slower in rate of gain at the 1% level than lots 1,

3, and 4.

APPENDIX F II
ANALYSIS (1“ VARIANCE OF

AVER‘lGE 11.-13:11, 02113 (1.85.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Variance

Total 85 =47.95 - 46.55 = 1.40
Between as =42.12 + 5.20 - 46.55 =- .77
lhmnr as =. == .63

Lot 1 2 3

Barrows 1.58 .89 1.27
1.26 1.16 11.36
1.76 1.12 1.43
1.91 1.42 1.22
1.44 1.27 1.27
3 SK 7.95 5.86 6.55
“i 1.59 1.17 1.31
. Gilts .99 .99 1.02
1.41 1.14 1.21
1.22 1.19 1.15
1.43 1.24 1.07
1.25 1.07

ax 6.30 . 4.56 5.52 36.74
1' 1.26 1.14 1.10

536.1422
0P = 29 = 46.55

’fi

flV

APPENDIX ( Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. 3.3. M.Sq.
Total 28 1.40

Between 5 .77

Ermr 23 .63 .274

Corrected Error Mean Square .-. .274 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)] = .274 (.208) = .057

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot Means
1 2 3
Barrows 1.59 1.17 1.31 4.07
Gilts 1.26 1. 14 1.10 3.50
2.85 2.31 ' 2.41 7.57
'x‘ 1.42 l. 16 1.20

 

 

2
Gr=SJéIm—= 9.55

Annuals of Variance

Source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 9.71 - 9.55 = .16 5

Sex = 9.60 - 9.55 =. .05 1 , .05 .88
Treatments: 9.63 - 9.55 = .08 2 .04 .70
321‘ z .03 2 .015 .26
Error 3 83 .057

F to be significant @ 5% = 3.424, @ 1% = 5.66“

No significant difference exists.

77

APPENDDC GI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

BODY 1.301711 (mt-n)

 

 

 

 

lot No. 1 2 3 g 4
l

723 745 705 ' 719
595 752 715 731

’ 690 . 702 730 710
702 740 716 700
717 730 699
686 688

' ax 4213 4357 r } 3565 2860 14995
3 702.17 , 726.17 713.00 715.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CI' = 2 = 10707144.0

Analysis of Variance

Source 8.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 10714349.';? - quOTW.O =7205.0 20

Bet-areal: 6122136.3 + 2541845.0+

1. (~30

2044900.0 - 10707144.0 = 1737.3

L)
\n
“1
('1
‘c-I

Error = 5467.7 17 321.03

F to be significant @ 5% = 3.20, @ 1% = 5.18. No significant difference
exists.

APPENDIX GII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

BODY LENGTH (111.1. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot 7 1 2~ ‘ 3
Barrows ‘ I 755 788 712
761 748 744
725 ' 743 758
757 758 743 y
734 740 740
' ex 3732 3777 w 3697 ' 11206
i 746.4 755.4 739.4
011128 771 783 770
736 745 741
730 F 752 t 759 A
l ,
7* 713 767 i 728 7
I
738 f F 771 7
7
SK 3588 3047 3759 10504
1: - 737.6 761.8 ’ 753.8 21710
(21110)2
01' = 29 = 1625255502
Total as = 16262374 - 162525552 = 9818.8

Between 88 ___, 13933613 + 2321052 - 16252555.2== 2109.8

Error 38= = 7709.0

APPENDIX ( Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. S. S. M.Sq .
Total 28 9818 .8
Between 5 2109 .8
Error 23 7709.0 335. 17

Corrected error M.Sq. = 335.17 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)] = 335.17 (.208) - 69.71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ 1 2 3
we 746.4 755-4 739.4 2241.2
ilts 737.6 761.8 753.8 2253.2
2 742.0 758.6 746.6
44 .4 2
(31' = = 3366605.2
Analysis of Variance
source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total =3367061.9 - 3366605.2 -.= 465.7 5
Sea: a 3366629.2 - 3366605.2 5 24.0 1 24.00 .34
Treatment at 3366899.0 - 3366605.2 , 293.8 2 146.90 2.11
3111 3 =- 148.2 2 74.10 1.06
Error 23 69071

F to be significant 0. 5% -.-. 3.42* 0 1% = 5.66“

No significant difference exists.

APPENDIX HI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

LEG 1111:0111 (m)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IOt NO. 1 2 3 1'.

519 51F? 507 521}
515 539 529 529
510 1195 540 5111
500 566 511+ 503
510 520 513
511 5118

ex 3065 3215 2603 2070 10953

if 3 510.8 535.8 520.6 517.5

10 3 2 .
cr = 2 -'- 5712771-9

Analysis of Variance
Source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F. .
Total = 5719723.0 - 57127713 =_ 6951.1 20
Between: 32884083 + 1355121.8 +

1071225.0 — 57127719 = 1983.2 3 661.07 2.26
Ener = 4967.9 17 292.23

F to be significant @ 5% a 3.20, e 1% = 5.18. No significant difference
exists.

APPENDIX HII
ANALESIS OF VKRIANCE OF

Ls: LENGTH (111111.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. 1 2 3
#errows 560 620 500
542 535 557
525 540 528
520 564 542
546 545 546
2693 2804 2673 8170
'1? 538.6 560.8 534.6
#611138 577 560 552
530 , 542 527
544 . 548 543
515 539 523
541 575
2707 2189 2720 7616
2 541.4 547.2 544.0 15786
g 151862 2

cr.= 29 = 8593027-4
Analysis of Variance
Total SS = 8607060.0 - 8593027.5 = 14032.6
Between 33 =7397164.0 1197930 - 8593027.4 = 2066.6
Error 33 =11966.0

APPENDIX
Analysis of Variance
Source D.F. 8.8.
Total 28 14032.6
Between 5 2066 . 6
Error 23 11966.0

(Continued)

M.Sq.

520.26

Corrected error M.Sq. = 520.26 [1/6 (1/4 5/5)]= 520.26 (.208) = 108.21

 

 

 

[ 1 1 3

karmws 538 .6 5012‘ - Q 534 .6 1634 .0

cute 541.4 547.2 544 .0 1632.6
sx 1080.0 1108.0 1078.6 3266.6
'1': 540.0 554 .0 539.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3266.622
01‘ " = 17784453

Analysis of Variance

Source

Total .-.: 1778861.6 - 1778445.9
Sex :.- 1778446.? - 1778445.9
Treatment a 1778721.0 - 177845.97
3101'

Error

F to be significant 8 5% = 3.42%

No significant difference exists.

($3)

$080 D.F. M.Sq.

N

1115.7 5

H

2 275.1 2

1440.3 2

ll

23

1% = 5.66“

03 1

.3
137.55
70.15

108.21

.003
1.27
.65

83

APPENDIX JI
ANALXSIS OF VKRIANCE OF

avmss 1310mm 111101111323 (131111.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot No. 1 2 3 4
49.00 40.00 47.00 37.75
48.50 35.00 47.00 45-25
48.50 50.00 45.50 42.00
'55-‘50 35.75 47.25 43.25
47.75 41.50 47.00
46.50 50.25
311 295.75 252.50 233.75 168.25 950.25
'1? 49.29 42.08 46.75 42.06
0.2 2
01' = 21 = 42998.81
Analysis of Variance
Source 8.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 43992.94 -— 42998.81 = 994.13 20
Betwoen .-. 25204.05 + 10927.81 1.
7077.01 - 42998.81 11 210.06 3 70.02 1.52
Error 7' 784.07 17 46.12

F to be significant 0 5% = 3.20, 0 1% = 5.18. No significant difference

exists.

APPENDIX JII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

1171711403 BI: (”SWAT TH ICIG‘L'FBS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 40.50 28.50 42.25
42.75 41.00 37.50
48.00 35.50 44.00
46.75 44.00 41.25
40.25 46.25 41.25
ex 218.25 195.25 4 206.25 619.75
'11 43.65 39.05 41.25
IGilts 38.25 34.75 35.75
I 45.25 38.00 41.75
39.00 35.50 37.50
50.50 41.50 4 40.25
#0000 35°25
8X 213.00 149.75 190.50 553.25
‘ 1' 42.60 37.44 38.10 1173.00
51173)2
0P = 29 = 47445-83
Analysis of Variance
Total SS 7.4839488 - 47445.83 = 949.05

Between as :: 41990.79 11 5607.76 - 47445.83 = 152.72

Error

-‘-’ 796.33

 

APPENDIX (Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. 3.8. M.Sq.
Total 28 949.05
Between 5 152 .72
Error 23 796.33 34.62

Corrected Error M.Sq. a 34.62 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)] .-.-. 34.62 (.208) = 7.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 43.65 39.05 41.25 123.95
Gilts 42.60 37.44 38. 10 118.14
sx 86.25 76.49 79.35 242.09
'1? 43.12 38.24 39.68
(242.09 2
cr = = 9767.93

Analysis of Variance

Source 3.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 9799.91 - 9767.93 3 31.98 5

Sex = 9773.55 - 9767.93 2 5.62 1 5.62 .78
Treatment 39793.10 — 9767.93 ‘5 25.17 2 12.58 1.75
SXT 7.: , 1.19 2 .60 .08

Error -.-.- ' 23 7.20

F to be significant 8 5% = 3.42 , 8 1% = 5.66

No significant difference exists.

APPENDIX .KI

DRESSING'PERCENP

ANALJSIS OF VARIANCE OF

(5;
LJ “\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lot No. 1 2 3 4
70.70 72.77 75.00 73.68
71.59 70.00 74.16 73.82
75.24 71.22 75.58 73.91
74.39 74.54 75.68 74.64
73.18 72.71 76.49
73.10 75.80
438.20 437.04 376.91 296.05 1548.20
3? 73.03 72.84 75.38 74.01
E5482012
CI' = ~ 21 = 114139.20
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total =114201.00-114139.20 = 61.80 20
Between: 63837.20 + 28412.23 +
21911.40 414139.20 = 21.63 3 7.21 3.06
Error 5 40.17 17 2.36

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20, a 1% a 5.18.

Guam 0

No significant difference

APPENDIX KII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

DRESSING PERCENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:. 1 1 1
Barrows 75.48 75.35 75.00
75.58 - 73.27 73.89
76.54 72.90 71.43
72.94 78.33 76.54
78.91 75.93 76.38
3X 379.45 375.78 373.24 1128.47
I
E 75.89 75.16 7 74.69 1
Gilte 75.59 73.38 73.68 A
76.32 72.20 I 74.88
77.75 7120 75-97
74.16 1 75.46 75.73
F
76.40 73.81
ex 380.22 ‘ 292.24 374.07 1046.53
2 76.04 73.06 74.81 2175.00
321754.00)2 4130622
CT = 29 5' 29 == 163125.00
Analysis of Variance
Total 33 = 163227.28 .. 163125.00 :: 102.28
Betwaen SS 1110822662 3. 83404.22 - 163125.00 : 26.28
5 5
Error 33 = 76.00

88

APPENDIX (continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. 3.3. M.Sq.
Total 28 102.23

Between 5 26.28

Emr 23 7‘3-00 3 . 30

Corrected Error M.Sq. 3.30 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)] .—. 3.30 (.208) = .69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 75.89 75.16 74.69 225.74
Gilts 76.04 73.06 74.81 223.91
3X 151.93 148.22 149.50 449.65
E 75.97 74.11 74.75
449.65 9

Analysis of variance

Source . . , D.F. S a M.sq F
Total 33705.30 - 33697.52 5 5.78

Sex 33698.08 - 33697.52 . 1 .56 .56 .81
Treatment 33701.07 - 33697-52 . E 3 55 l 78 9 53
SXII‘ ’3 L")? {H 1.2?
Error 23 , .09

F to be significant @ 5% a 3.42, 2 1% = 5.66

No significant difference exists.

APPENDIX LI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

LIVE WEIGHT PRII-151L CUI‘ 0er

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gt No. 1 2 V 3 4
47.77 46.76 47.20 47.94
47.12 45.55 47.91 47.36
47.91 43.16 47.71 45.70
48.05 51.47 48.42 47.94
45.73 48.28 47.08
44.71 46.62
ex } 281.29 281.84 238.32 188.94 990.39 1
'1‘ 46.88 46.97 47:66 I 47.24
0. 2
CI‘ = 21 = 46708.21
Analysis of Variance
Source 3.8. D.F. M.Sq. 1".
Total = 46762.71 - 46708.21 .-.- 54.50 20
Between :1 26426.31 + 11359.28 4.
8928.58 - 46708.21 5 5.96 3 1.99 .70
Error :: 48.54 17 2.86

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20, @ 1% = 5.18.

6118138 0

No significant difference

APPENDIX LII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

LIVE WEIuiiT PRBJAL CUT OUT

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
barrows 48.84 54.38 48.49
47.44 45.85 52.07
48.63 50.42 46.29
46.38 50.62 49.67
51.80 50.46 51.65
31: 243.10 251.73 248.17 743.00
31' 48.62 50.35 49.63
cilts 49.72 50.00 48.76
48.71 47.44 48.20
49.38 46.04 50.68
47.94 49.95
243.17 192.55 248.66 648.38
1' 48.63 48.14 49.73 1427.38
(1427.38)2 203741366
cr =2 29 29 70255.64
Analysis of Variance
Total $3 “370366.95 - 70255.64 = 111.31

“We“ 53 =61°03-‘+8 9268-88 - 70255.64 = 16.72

Error 33 3 94.59

APPENDIX ( Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source D.F. 8.8. M.Sq.
Total 28 111. 31
Between 5 16.72
Error 23 94 .59 4 . 11

91

Corrected mean =4.11 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)]= 4.11 (.208) : .85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3

Barrows 48.62 50.35 49.63 148.60
Gilts 48.63 48.14 49.95 146.72

3X 97.25 98.49 99.58 295.32

7 48.62 49.24 49.79

29 .32)2 '

CI' = = 14535.65
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 14539.50 - 14535.65 = 3.85 5
Sex 2 14536.23 - 14535.65 = .58 l .58 .68
Treatment = 14537.01 - 14535.65 .-.-. 1.36 2 .68 .80
sm- 21.91 2 .96 1.13
Error 3 23 .85

F to be significant 8 5% 3

No significant difference exists.

'.42* , 8 1% ..-: 5.66“

APPENDIX LUZ

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

CARCAAS PRIXAL CUT OUT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tot No. 1 2 3 4
67.57 64.26 62.93 65.06
62.22 65.06 63.48 64.15
63.68 60.60 63.40 61.38
64.59 69.05 63.03 64.23
62.48 66.57 63.30
61.17 61.51
ex 381.71 387.05 316.14 254.82 1339.72
1 63.62 64.51 63.23 63.70 '
. 2 2
CI‘ = 21 = 85469.03
Analysis of variance
Source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 85557.17 - 85469.03 = 88.14 20
Between = 49251.70 1— 19988.90+
+ 16233.31 .- 85469.03 a: 4.88 3 1.03 .33
Error 1 = 83.26 17 4.90

F to be significant@ 5% = 3.20, @ 1% .-. 5.18.

exists.

No significant difference

APPENDDC MII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

CARCASS PRII'JAL CUP OUT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barmws 6%.71 72.17 64.65
62.76 62.58 70.47
63.53 69.17 64.80
63.58 64.62 64.89
65.65 66.46 67.63
$1 320.23 335.00 332.44 987.67
3? 64.05 67.00 66.49
Gilts 65.77 68.14 66.17
63.82 65.71 67.44
63.51 64.66 66.71
' 63.94 65.03 67.44
62.75 67.68
“‘2 319.79 263.54 335.44 9133.77
31' 63.96 65.89 67.09 1906.44
2
$06441
cr “ 29 " 125347.12
Analysis of Variance
Total 33 = 125480.10 - 125347.12 = 132.98

Between $ =1080M-85 4' 17363.33 - 125347.12 : 31.06

Error SS .1. 101.92

APPEr-IDIX (Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. 8.8. M.So.
Total 28 132 .98

Between 5 31.06

Error 23 101.92 4.43

Corrected mean -.-. 4.43 [_1/6 (1/4 + 56)}: 4.43 (.208) = .92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 64 . 05 67 . 00 66 .49 197 .54
Gilts 63.96 65.98 67.09 197.03
128.01 132.98 133.58 394.57
‘1' 64 .00 66.49“ 66.79“
5394.57)2
CT = 6 = 25947 . 58

Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. IM.Sq.

Total 3 25957.63 - 259117-58 3 10-05 5

Sex ‘3 25947.62 - 25947.58 : .04 1 .04
Treatment; 25956.93 - 25947.58 2 9.35 2 4.68
TXS = .66 2 .33
Error 1‘ 23 .9?

Difference to be significant @ 576'- 92 (t) = (.303) 2.069 = .63

('9)

F to be significant at 2 and 23 d.f. 1%: 5.66

57!» :1 3.42

1%: 92 (t) =(.303) 2.807 = .85

AETWWDIX LI
ANALISIS OF VARIANCE OF

LIVE WEIGHT.PERCENT LEAN CUTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot No. 1 2 3 4
35.21 35.48 37.11 36.32
35.53 36.75 37.33 33.91
33.24 31.98 35.47 39.47
33.64 35.00 36.14 36.75
; 34.85 40.28_ 34.83
! 34.68 34.74 1
31: 207.15 214.23 180.88 ’ 142.45 744.71
'2? 34.53 35.71 36.18 35.61; ‘
$744.11)2
CI? = 21 = 26409.19
Analysis of variance
Source 8.8. D.F. Mtsq. F.
Total = 26468.10 - 26409.19 = 58.91 20
Between: 14800.94 + 6:43.51 +
5073.00 - 26409.19 =- 8.26 3 2,75 .92
Error -.= 50.65 17 2.98

F to be significant 6 5% = 3.20, o 13 .-. 5.18. No significant difference,

exists.

APPENDDC N II

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT OF LIVE WEIGHT IN LEAN CUTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 37-115 143-32 35-57
35.77 34.56 40.00
36.30 38.83 37.87
35.32 38.67 38.62
38.96 38.24 35.10
ex 183.80 193 . 62 187 . 16 564 . 53
'1? 36.76 38.72 37.43
Gilts 38.10 39.07 36.26
35.17 35.87 39.27
37.99 37.59 33.93
35.69 33.69 38.38
36.54 37.32
3X 183.49 146.2 190.21 519.92
E 36.70 36.56 38.04 1084.50
(1084.5012
or 29 = 40556.56
Analysis of Variance of
Total 33 =4o668.44 - 40556.56 = 111.88

Between 33 3: 35929-69

Error

393.68

APPEIIDDi ( Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. 8.8. M.Sq.
Total 28 111.88

Between 5 18 .20

Ermr 23 93 . 68 4 . 73

Corrected error M.Sq. =4.73 [1/6 (1/4 5/58 = 4.73 (.208) = .98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
[Barrows 36.76 38 .72 37 .43 112 . 91
Gilts 36.70 36.56 38.04 111.30
if 36.73 37.64 . 37.74
3224.21)2
01‘ = 6 = 8378.35

Analysis of Variance
Source _ 8.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.

Total 1:: 8382.11 — 8378.35 = 3.76 5

Sex = 8378.79 - 8378.35 = .44 1 .44 .45
Treatment = 8379.59 - 8378.35 :1 1.24 2 ' .62 .63
SH . . 3 2.08 2 1.04 1.06
Error 2 23 .98 '

F to be significant @ 5% >- 3.42*, @ 1% , 5.66“

No significant difference exists.

APPENDIX OI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F

CARCASS PECIENI' LEAN CUI'S

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eliot No. 1 2 3 4
49.80 46.81 49.03 48.65
46.92 50.75 48.80 45.88
45.47 54.03 47.29 48.05
45.96 44.90 47.82 49.87
46.32 50.00 46.97
1 46.62 47.74
‘ sx 281.09 294.23 239.91 192.45 1007.68 ,
46.85 , 49.304 47:98 48.11—
L10qz.68f
or 21 -._-.48353.28
Analysis of Variance-
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F
Total = 48443.71 - 48353.28 -- 90.43 20
Between :- 27597 .15 + 11511.36 +
9259.25 - 48353.28 .2 14.48 3 4.83 1.08
Error :1 75.95 17 4.47

F to be significant@ 5’. =3.20, 8 1% = 5.18.

exists.

No simifi cant difference

APPEI‘HDJI OII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT OF CARCASS WEIGHT IN LEAN CUTS

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Pamws ’49 e 62 57 0’49 47 ell-2
47.32 47.17 54.20
47.43 53.2 49.13
48.43 49.36 49.47
49.37 50.37 50.57
sx 242.17 257.66 250.79 750.62
'1? 48.43 51.53 50.16
Gilts 50.40 53 . 24 50. 65
46.08 49.69 48.18
48.86 47.31 51.69
48.13 49.82 51.47
47.83 52.00
sx 241.30 200.06 253.99 695.35
'16 48.26 50.02 50.80 1445.97
(1445.9712 w
(:1 == 29 == 72097.56
Analysis of Variance
Total as: 72171.51 — 72097.56 :73.95

Betwaen SS 362133.44 + 10006.00 - 72097.56 341.88

Error 88 :1 32.07

100

APPENDIX (Continued)

Analysis of Variance

Source D.F. S.S. M.Sq.

Total 28 73095
Between 5 41.88
Error 23 32.07 1.39

Corrected error M.Sq.: 1.39 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)]=1.39 (.208) «3 .29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
parers 48043 51053 50016 150012
Gilts 48.26 50.02 50.80 149.08
ax 96.69 101.55 100.96 3 299.20
'1": 48.34 ~ 50.78” 50.48“
2 .20 2
CI' ='— :2. 14920.11

Analysis of Variance

Source 8.13. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total :.— 14928.50 - 14920.11: 8.39 5

sex :-..- 14920.28 — 14920.11 = .17 1 .17 .59
Treatment: 14927.14 - 14920.11= 7.05 2 3.52 12.14“
SXT = 1.17 2 .58 2.00
Error = 23 .29

Difference to be significant 82 1",!» = .29 x t = .538 (2.807)=1.51

5.31,; 29 x t = .538 (2-099)=1-11

101

APPENDIX PI
ANALYSIS (r VARIANCE (F

PEECI‘EEF LEAN AREA (F ROUGH LORI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lot No. 1 2 3 4
33.19 28.02 38.69 50.11 '
35.80. 35.99 41.83- 33.93
32.12 44.94 36.52 37.56
37.92 35.33 35.75 37.99
33.73 36.59 . 36.95
30.33 45.32
sx 203.09 226.19 189.74 - 159.59 778.61
ii 33.85 37.70 37.95 39.90
CT = Sfl'g‘félfi = 28868.26
Analysis of variance
source 3.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 29391.39 - 28868.26 = 523.13 20
Between = 15401.24 + 7200.25 +
6367.24 - 28868.26 7. 100.47 3 33.49 1.35

\|

Error 422.66 17 24.86

F to be significant 62 5% a 3.20, @ 1% -.-. 5.18. No significant difference
exists.

102

APPENDIX PII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

PERCENT LEAN AREA OF ROUGH LOIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
Barrows 39.78 55.06 35.84
42.75 39.94 44.33
32.53 46.21 35.06
36.38 37.59 “9.23
37.10 37.72 42.15
188.54 216.52 197.61
E 37.71 43.30 39.52
hiits 48.39 47.70 I 38.60
37.02 43.70 I 39.50
43.51 44.35 I 46.18
30.77 43.75 47.18
39.64 46.67
ex 199.33 179.50 228.13
‘1 39.87 44.88 45.63 1209.63
(1209.63)2
01‘ == 29 -= 50455.34
Analysis of Variance
Total $3 = 51281.38 - 50455.34 .-_- 826.04

Between :13 :42650.74 + 8055.06 - 01: = 250.46

Error 33 =575058

103

APPEI‘JDIX (Continued)
Analysis of variance
Source D.F. 8.3. M.Sq.
Total 28 826.04
Between 5 250.46
Error 23 575.58 25.03

Corrected Error Mean Sq. = 25.03 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5)J= 25.03 (.208) = 5.21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3

811 77.58 88.18 85.15 250.91

3? 38.79 44.09 42.58

2
$250.91)

Analysis of variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total -.-: 10544.69 - 10492.64 = 52.05 5
Sex 10508.81 - 10492.64 = 16.17 1 16.17 3.10
Treatment :10522.45 - 10492.64 3 29.81 2 14.90 2.86
SXT = 6.07 2 3.04 .58
Error : 23 5.21

F at 2 and 23 d.f.: 3.42 @ 5%.

No significant difference exists.

5.66 6‘ 1%

APPEEDJX QI

ANALYSIS (F VARIANCE OF

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0m INDEX
Lot No. l 2 3 4
54.55 58.13 55.08 58.76
55.65 60.06 55.75 57.66
54.57 53.49 56.16 I 54.60
53.35 62.77 58.19 58.54
7 54.93 58.52 58.36
52.19 50.66
; 811 325.24. 343.63 283.54 229.56 1181.97
[ ‘56 54.21‘ ' 57.27 5671—; 57.39
11.81. 2
cr = 2 = 66526.34
Analysis of Variance
Source 8.3. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total = 66689.70 - 66526.34 =- 163.36 20
Between = 37310.44 + 16078.99 +
13176.74 - 66526.34 = 39.83 3 13.28 1.83
Error = 123.53 17 7.27

F to be significant @ 5% a 3.20, 8 17!. 215.18. No significant difference

exists .

APPENDIX QI I

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOIN INDEX
[ 1 2 3
[Earmws 56 . 9O 7O . 3 l 52 . 56
53.33 54.31 60.55
2.30 60.86 54.88
54.92 57.52 54.66
58.16 52.96 56.23
I EX 275.61 295.96 278.88 850.45
3i 55.12 59.19 55.78
HGilts 58.86 63.64 59.84
53.84 57.80 ' 52.89
54.83 56.40 58.63
49.31 58.29 60.11
54.39 61.01
Ex 271.23 236.13 292.48 799.84
E“ 54.25 59.03 58.50 1650.29
(1650.29)2
CT 3 . 29 — '5: 93912.31
Analysis of Variance
Total $ = 94396.29 - 93912.31 = 483.98

Between 88 380087.504" 13939.34 - 93912.31 3 114.53

Error SS

APPEJDIX
Analysis of Variance
Source D.F. S. 3.
Total 28 438 .98
Between 5 114.53
Error 23 369.45

Corrected error M.Sq.: 16.06 [1/6 (1/4 + 5/5fl: 16.06 (.208): 3.321

(Continued)

M.Sq .

16.06

10:;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3

EBarrows 55. 12 59. 19 55.78 170. O9
Gilts 54.25 59.03 58.50 171.78

sx 109.37 118.22 114.28 341.87

'55 54.68 59.11 57.14

(341.8722

CT = = 191179.18
Analysis of Variance
Source 8.8. D.F. M.Sq. F.
Total 3 19502.93 - 19479.18 :3 23.75 5
Sex -‘-"- 19479.66 .. 19479.18 = .48 1 .48 .14
Treatment: 19498.84 - 19479.18 .7 19.66 2 9.83 2.94-
m :- 3.61 2 1.80 .54
Error 33 23 3-311L
F to be significant at@ 5% =3.42*, 6 1% = 5.66“

No significant difference exists.

APPENDH RI

107

CORRELATION 3mm PERCENT LIVE WEIGHT CUT OUT (X)

ANDPERCINTIEANAREAOFRGXEIODW(Y)

 

x Y
47.77 33.19
47.12 35.80
44.71 32.12
45.73 37.92
47.92 33.73
48.05 30.33
46.62 1 28.02
48.28 35.99
51.-“'7 1 “09’"
43.16 .35.33
45.55 45.32
46.76 36.59
47.71 38.69 '
48.42 41.83
47.20 36.52
47.91 35.75
47.08 36.95
117,914, 50.11
45.88 33.93
47.36 37.56
#709” 37' .

 

 

 

 

my: 36ii208 . 36220036

 

59154.50) (523.13)

3 22.46

W
= 33.42

a +.352

Sx

A
34
V
n)
1

A
U)
:3
I’D
u

3.:

\\

990.39
778.61

\|

es 46762.71
== 29391.39
== 36779.82
‘ 47.16
= 37.08
= 21

98072.35
606233.53

1 - (.3522)2

Correlation coef. to be significant @ 19 d.f. = .433 @ 5%, .549 6 1%.

Correlation coefficient not significant.

APPENDIX RII

CORREIATION BETWEEN LIVE WEIGHT CUI‘ OUI' (X)

PERCENI‘ LEAN AREA OF ROUGH IOIN (Y)

 

 

1 Y
48.85 39.78

47.44 42.75

48.63 32.53

46.38 36.38 Sat :2 1427.38
51.80 37.10 Sy 1" 1209.63
49.72 48.39 81:2 = 70366.95
48.71 37.02 ' 832 -' 51281.38
49.38 43.51 Sxy 3 59685.65
47.42 30.77 3? = 119-2’2
47.94 39.64 '1? 41.71
54.38 55.06 N 29
45.85 39.04 (8102 = 203741366
50,172 4621 (SY)2 21463204574
50.62 37.59

50.46 37.72

50.00 47.70

47.44 43.70

46.04 44.35

49.07 43.75

48.49 36.84

52.07 44.33

 

 

 

APPEI‘HDIX ( Continued)

 

 

1MZ29 35.06
49.37 39.23
51.65 42.15
48.76 48.60
48.20 39.50
50.68 46.*
51.07 47.18
49.95 46.67
81 1427.38 SY‘ 1209.63

 

 

 

 

my: 22682.62 - 22231.22
14111.31) (826.04)

. _, 41.66
V91946.5124
= 41.66
303.23
+ .157

7;;
= _21359.
5.19
=t.188
Correlation coefficient to be at 27 degrees of Freedom significant

657. = .367, 0 1% = .479

Correlation coefficient not significant.

APPENDDC

110

CORRELATION 22114111317 21313011713 (34904.33 CU]? our (x)

 

 

ANDPERCENTIEANAREA (FROUGH LOIN (Y)

x Y

67.57 33.19 8x = 1339.72
61.17 32.12 Sy : 778.61
62.48 37.92 2

63.68 33.73 San : 85557.17
64.59 30.33

61.61 28.02 sf 2 29391.39
26.67 132.349

9.05 . 3x : 49772.32
60.60 35.33 y

24.26 36.59

3003 38‘ .i’ = 008
63.30 41.83 37
62.93 36.52 N :: 21
23.148 32.75 2

3o 3 '95 a = 1 8"" 068
24.23 50.11 ( ) 794 9
64.15 37.56 ( Y) 623333
65.06 37.99

 

 

 

my, 49172 .32 - 49612 .35
V(88.14) (523.13)
22:21

V46108.68

I-

-
9
—

 

2 .73
= + .466!

Correlation coef. to be significant at 19 d.f. =- .443@ 55*, 549 @ 11.“

6' r :1 - (.46632

76"

111

APPENDDi ( Continued)

=62.
.3

:i.180

6x _. 88.14 67- 523.13
" 20 "’ 20
a 4.41 =V26.16
=+2.100 =+5.115

5.11;»
Y =37.08 + .466 2.100 (x - 63.80)

2.37.08 + 1.135 (X - 63.80)
=37.08 +- 1.135X - 72.41

 

 

 

6.; 29391.39 - 635.33) (£8.61) - (1.135) 149772.32)
= 408.10

3

a 21.48
4.534%

11”.»:

APPENDIX SII
CORRELATION BETWEEN CARCASS CUT OUT (X) AND

PERCENT LEI'xN AREA OF ROUGH LOIN (Y)

 

 

x Y
64.71 39.78
62.76 42.75
63.53 32.53 ex ::. 1906.44
63.58 36.38
65.65 37.10 SY : 1209.63
65.77 48.39
63.82 37.02 ex? = 125480.10
63.51 43.51
63.94 30.77 3y? = 51281.38
62.75 39.64 .
72.17 55.06 SKY :: '79746.64
62.58 39.94 ._
69.17 46.21 X = 65.74
64.52 37.59 ._
66.46 37.72 Y 3‘ 41.71
68.14 47.70 -
65.71 43.70 N - 29
64006 M035 2 I,
65,03 213,75 (8X) = 3034513-47
64.65 36.84 2 _
70.47 44.33. (SY) = 149320474
64.80 35.06
64.89 39.23
67.63 42.15
66.17 48.60
67.44 39.50
66.71 46.78
67.44 47.18
67.68 46.67

 

Sx 1906.44 8y 1209.63

 

rxy2: 79746.64 - 79520.24
'V(132.98) (826.04)

__ 226.40

‘1f159846786

 

113

APPENDIX (Continued)

__ 226.40

- 331-713

:+.683H
Correlation coefficient@ 27 d.f. to be significant (63 5% = .367)@l% = .470**

6r:1-(683)2

0.
N
H
U4:
U.)
mm!
06
O~
.45:
00
:6
max
4%

=11- 2.179 =1; 5.431
_5______ 431

Y= 41. 71+. 683 1792. (X - 65.74)
=41.71+ 1.702 (x - 65.74)
=41.71+ 1.702 X - 111.89
- 70.18 + 1.702 1

6.2668126 - (-70.18) (1233.63) - (1.702) (79746.64)

=Y444.43
27
= $6.46

" $4.057 76

114

BIBLIOGRAPEY

 

Andrews, 1". N. , W. M. Beeson, and C. Harper. 1949. The influence of
stilbesterol and testosterone on the growth and fattening of lambs.
Journal affinimal Science, 8: 614. (abstract)

Andrews, F. N., W. M. Beeson and F. D. Johnson. 1950. The effects of
hormones on the growth and fattening of yearling steers. Journal
23 Animl Science, 9: 677. (abstract)

Ashton, G. C. 1950. The carcass quality of bacon hogs. Reprint from
Agricultural Institute Review, November, 1950.

Ault, W. C. 1953. Recent advances in the utilization of animal fats.
Proceedings 3; Ehg 2t}; Annual Resegh Conference, American Meat Inst.

Bennett, J. A., and J. H. Coles. 1946. A comparative study of certain
perfornance and carcass characteristics of Yofitshire barrows and
gilts. Scientific Agriculture, 26: 265-270.

3111311311, E. H. 1950. The effect of the plane of nutrition on the carcass
quality of a line of swine based on a cheater vhite and danish land-
race cross. Journal 93 Animal Science, 9: 601-606.

Bugbee, I. P. and A. Simond. 1926. The influence of testes on metabolism.
American Journal 93. 1511151092511, 75: 542-547.

Burris, M. J., R. Bogart, A. W. Oliver, and A. 0. Mackey. 1952. The
effect of testosterone propionate on rate of gain, feed efficiency
and carcass quality of beef heifers and steam. Journal of Animal
Science, 11: 789. (abstract) "" """"' "' """"‘""

Crampton, B. W. 1937. Self vs. hand feeding for mrket hogs with parti-
cular reference to effects on carcass measurements and quality.
Scientific Agriculture, 17 : 9, 529-539.

Cranpton, E. U. 1940. Hog carcass studies. Effect of early growth on
leanness of carcass. Scientific Manure, 20: 592-595.

Cranpton, I. H. 71941. Protein - mineral - vitamin supplemmts to barley
in market hog rations. Scientific Agriculture, 21: 1.0, 613-623.

Cranpton, I. W. and G. C. Ashton. 1945. Barley vs. wheat as the basal
feed in the bacon hog ration. Scientific Agriculture, 25: 7,

Crampton, R. W. and G. 0. Ashton. 1946. The effect on carcass excellence
of proportion of urinal protein in the hog diet. Scientific flotil-
ture, 26: 51‘5‘31'70

115

Hammond, J., G. N. Mirray. 1937. Body proportion of different breeds of
bacon pigs. Journal 9_f_' Agricultural Science, 27: 394-431.

 

Holt, 8., R. W. Keaton, and B. Vennesland. 1936. The effect of gonadec-
tony on body structure and body weight in albino rats. American
Journal 93 2111614351, 114: 515-525.

Hunt, W. E. 1938. Effect of castration of lambs on their development
and quality of meat. University of Maryland Agricultural Erperi-
ment Station Bulletin, 417: 259-278.

Korenchevsky, V. 1934. The manifold effects of castration in sale rats.
Journal _g_f_' Pathology and Bacterioligl, 38: 231-246.

McI-ieekan, C. P. 1938. Shape of growth curve as a controlling factor in
conformation and anatomical composition of the animal body - swine.
American Society 9}: Animl Production, Proceedings. pp. 337.

 

McMeekan, C. P. 1939. Improvement of carcass quality in pigs. {griml-
ture, 46: 238-243.

McMeekan, C. P. 1940. Growth and development in the pig with special
reference to carcass quality characteristics. Journal 93: 135‘ ricul-
tural Science, 30: 276-569.

Merkel, R. A., R. W. Bray, R. H. Gmmmer, P. H. Phillips, and G. Bohstedt.
1953. The effect of limited feeding upon growth fattening and car-
cass characteristics of swine. Progress Report - University of Wis-
consin, Animl Husbandry Department.

O'I-iary, C. C., A. L. Pope, G. D. Wilson, R. W. Bray, and L. E. Casida.
1952. The effects of diethylstilbestrol testosterone and proges-
terone on growth and fattening and certain carcass characteristics
of western lambs. Journal 2; Animal Science, 11: 656.

RObison’ We 11., In E. Kunkle’ and V. Re Cahille 1952. The influence Of
various factors on or to the yields of pork cuts. Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station, Department of Animal Science, Mimeograph Leaflet
NO. 780

Rubinstein, H. 3., A. R. Abarbanel, and A. A. Kurland. 1939. The effect
of castration on body weight and length of the sale albino rat.
Endocrinologyr 25: 397-400.

Rubinstein, H. S. and M. L. Solomon. 1940. Growth stimulating effects of
testosterone propionate. Proceedings 93 Society 2}: Experiments}
Biolggy and Medicine, 44: 1942-443.

 

11:83

Sandberg, H., D. Perla, O. M. Holly. 1939. The effect of castration in
albino rats on nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine, sodium, and potassium
metabolism and on changes in weight and food intake. Endocrinology,

24: 503-509 . '

Simpson, M. D., W. Marx, H. Becks, and H. M. Evans. 1944. Effect of
testosterone propionate on the body weight and skeletal muscle sys-
tem of hypophsectionized rats. Eidocrdmlofl, 35: 309-316.

Sleoth, :4. H., A. M. Pearson, H. D. Wallace, D. H. Krori‘, and Kgr.
1953. affects of injection of testosterone estradiol and combina-
tion of the We upon growing, fattening swine. Journal of; Animl
Science, 12: 322-329.

Snedecor, G. W. 1946. Statistical Methods. Fourth Edition. The Iowa
State College Press, Ames, Iowa.

 

Soule, R. P., Jr. 1950. Effect of testosterone and castration on the
growth, and carcass characteristics of swine. M.S. Thesis, Michigan
State College. 89 numb. leaves.

Turner, H., E. Lachmn, and A. A. Hellbaum. 1941. Effect of testosterone
propionate on bone growth and skeletal maturation of normal and cas-
trated rats. Endocrinolm, 29: 425-428.

Winters, L. M., R. E. Comatock, G. F. Jordan, and C. M. Kiser. 1942. The
effect of sex on the development of the pig 1. Differences in growth
between boars and barrows by the same lines of breeding. Journal of
Animal Science, 1: 41-47.

 

Winters, L. M., C. F. Sierk, and J. N. Cumdngs. 1949. The effect of
plane of nutrition on the economr of production and carcass quality
of swine. Journal 2.1... Animal Science, 8: 132-139.

Woehling, H. L., G. D. Wilson, R. H. Grummer, R. W. Bray, and L. E. Casida.
1951. Effects of stilbestrol and testosterone pellets implanted into
growing, fattening swine. Journal of Animal Science, 10: 889.

its

a”

L-

_; I8

'1‘

4‘!

 

 

”'CITI'I‘fllfllijslfll‘fliflfil[[ifljlflffligfiilflflylflfflilflf“