A ¥ my uf it ~ : Re a 3 % = : 4 i y M we ss AN : : * ey Eee takes es nt to; A es Ay) { Yj P bd 8 C2 Bor Mm Pk OY «> (Or OF QUALITY IN MUTTON. By “. PP SAY DER. Michigan Avricultural College. 1902. 7 Hs G92 PROUDE CY |! OY OF QUALITY IN MUTTON. By “. PRP 8B 2 Y¥ DHR. Michigan Avricultural College. 1902 e THE PRODUCTION OF QUALITY IN MUTTON. In reviewing t’.2 experimerts in sheep feeding conducted during the last decade, I find only two that touch upon quality in mutton. Ali other sides of t= sVeiect have been investi- gated thorcvugr dy and renoowalodly, tut ibis cone feature seems not to “ave been con-idereéd. This is probably due to the fact that quality jin meat has not received much attention in the markets tili of recent years. Of the two experiments touching upon quality in mit.'on, one was condveted by Professor C. F. Curtiss at the Iowa Staiion, und the other by M. Maercker and Ae Morgun in Germany. The former was an experiment comparing narrow With medium and with wide rations. The subject of quality received only passing mention. The opinion expressed was that the mation of Jans fed on a rerrow ration with no corn was"a lit de more Juicy and tender than that of the corn fed lot." The experiment conducted or the continent had for its object, "to study the effect of various rations and factors on the result at slaughtering.” This was quite an extensive experiment with sheer und oxen. Tre results, though not con- Clusive, indicated thal the narrow rutton gave the greater increase und the more vuluetrle carcass, though the dressed percentage Wao note greut. These tvo experiments point to the same conclusions as are drawn fron t*e 2xperinert deseribed below. ine object cof this experiment was to produce carcasses possessed of quality rather than an excessive amount of fat. By quality in mtton we mean that character in a carcass that Causes th2 carcass to cut out the largest per cent of palatable food. The prime carcass is evenly and thickly fleshed. The meat is tender and juicy. There is an absence of loose bunches of tallow and t'e waste is reduced to a minimum. The ratio of fat and flesr in immature animals may be influenced by the character of tre food. The carbohydrate foods tend to produce fat and energy, while tie protein foods tend to produce growth and flesh. [t is flesk rather than excess of fat that the consumer desires. The markets are beginning to recognize this demand and to discriminate between tke well fleshed and the Overly fat aninal. It was cur purpose to produce carcasses that would weet the demand of the consumer. To accamplish this we fed rations that were high in their percentages of protein. To carry on the experiment, fifty-one grade Shropshire lamts were divided into three lots of seventeen each and kept under the same conditions in the old grade cattle barn. They were put in the pens on Oct. 28th, 1902, and fed till Jan. 20th, 1905, a period of eighty-four days. They were given water, grain and hay at 7 A. ie, and water, grain, roots and hay at 4 P. ii. each dey. Water was kept before them all the time. All the food and water was carefully weighed at each feeding time. The lambs mide fairly even gains throughout the feeding period. None were off feed. They were slaughtered at the college ty professional butchers and the live weight, dressed weight, weight of pelts and shrinkage, recorded. The s vor 1 a . 4 te 1 : a 77 Cartvasses were oGolid gr orel3 Icts to nsat aéeaiers in the larger Cities througrout tre su e. We will Jeave our cése, as to wal ity 1 . “eet ‘ vr wolfe rou ~ - "fey ey tne Yq y of mulior prooduesd, te these dealers. -~ The following taubtles rresent, in a condensed form, the results oktained throughout tre experiment. --4--~- Table I. Rations. Eacn lot was fed clover hay, roots grain of the following mixtures. Lot I. Corn 3#, oats 1 #, Bran 14, Lot II. Corn 2#, Oats 1 #, Bran 1#, Lot III.Corn 2#, Oats 2 #, Bran 1#, The nutrative ratios of the rations Lot I. 1: 5.1 Lot IIe 1: 5. Lot III. 1: 4.9 and grain. The Oil Meal 1#. Oil Meal 1#,Barley 1+#. Oil Meal 1#. weréeé,-- Unfortunately no lot was fed on a wide ration, to be compared with these fed on the narrow rations. These rations did not differ sufficiently to lead one to anticipate a difference in the results. The results obtained can be com- pared only in a general way with the results of the conmon practice of feeding on a wide ration. Table II. Market Vulue of Feeds ysed. Clover Hay, $4.00 per ton. Bran, 14.25 per ton. Oats, 32 cts. per bu. Corn, 42 cts. per bu. Barley, 40 cts. per bu. Oil Meal, $30.00 per ton. 4 Roots, $2.50 per ton. -.5- - Tie valuation .et on teese feeds was that prevailing when tne feods were purcnased, or in the case of those raised on tne farm, wien the experducS vis carried on. The valuation placed on tre clover nay 2ay s en low but the hay was of avery poor Quality, so that, in reality, tnis figure is high. Preliminur, Period. (11 davs). Tavle III. Weignts and Gains. —... Oct. 25. ee Nov. 8. 0. ‘wt. "Wt. ro Wt. of 'Wt.per'Gain per'Gain per Lot. "of. Lot.' per head.’ Lot. ' head ‘head "head per ’ t t t t t aav e- 24 + + 6 a » . . ’ “. ee ee ee ee | “9 ee a -—-rorc -_ = a a I. "1312 ' 77.2 ' 1355 "79.7 ' 2.5 ' 23 t ? t t q ? II. "1348 r 79.3 ' 1409 "82.8 ' 3.5 r 32 ’ t ? g t t TIT | P1555 7966 1405 18205 Ne 6 Table IV. Feed and Cost. TY Hay 00 Gratin (7 Rodts "Water "otal ~~ "dost per '# per heud'# per head'# per nead'# per head'cost '100# Lot "per day "per dav 'per day ‘per day ‘per head'gain yt ee See “= 2 aS ze '°' 1.54 ' . 80 r 499 ' 4.5 ' 1.86 '$4.%32 ? t ’ t ? ’ Ir. * 1.56 95 ' 99 r 4.6 ' 1.92 ' 3.13 g ' f ! ’ f IIr-’ 1.45 ' 89 0 °9 r 4.7 ' 1.88 1 3.77 , ’ ? ! ’ 1 Avee 1-52 7 88 0 1 99 48 1 BB 574 The gains during these eleven days were ratner below the results of suceessful Te ding but tre cost of production was 4 acy 4 also quite low. No concslustons van ee pased with assurance ‘A. fx. a7 ~ oom A. ye we UE oy, freee rc? os . = + Mm - : on the results of the Thest Taw diss of a feeding trial. The @ conditions surrounding the aniimzls are cnanged, the food is Changed and tie animals are not weighed under the sale con- Gitions. Tre large gain of Lot I over Lot II and III, is prokatly due to inaccuracy in weights. Lot I may have been shrunk more at the first weighing, or better fi_led in the 4 second Welighirg tian bow ol we bvo Lots. TEST PROPER. (78 days) Teble V. Welgnts and Gains. Nov. &. Nov. 15 (7 days) ee Wit. “for ~“"Aver “gain “7 ~~“ We per" “Ave per (Gain per Lot ' lot ' per lamb ! ' lamb ' lamb ' lamb. I a T I. ' 1355 79.7 ' '1406 ' 82.6 ' 2.9 9 ? q ? q ? II. ' 1409 ' 82.8 ' '1450 ' 85.3 ' 2.5 t ? t ? t 1 III. ' 1403 ' CP, 5 ' ‘2451 t 85.54 ' 2.8 ' ? t f f ? ’ ! ’ t ' q ? t ! ’ t ! _ Nov. 22, (7 days) _...... Dec. 13, (21 days) | Wt. for the por 'G in per "Wt. per FAv. per °* Gain per Lot ‘Lot flint ' GLasio ‘Lamhb ‘lamb ' lamb FF Spot tte en age SE A Tg ee mg I- ' 1427 ' 83.9 ' 1.3 ' 1539 ' 90.5 ' 6.6 t f % ' ! t II. ' 1474 ° 86.7 ‘1.4 ' 1591 P9425 r 6.8 t ! ’ ’ t III.’ 1453 ° 85.4 ' el Pe1nss ft O19 ro. 5 __..—sCéDeww 22 (9 days) ecw coe cree: Be AS days) "Wt. for Avr. per'Guin pe "Wt. per ' avr. per'Gain per Lot Lot " lainao "lamb tlamb ‘laisy "lain oo 62 SM oe SSN ES I. 11541 ' 90.6 rel ‘1557 ' @1.2 46 q ’ ’ ? t II. ‘'1578 ' 92.8 tr -.1 "1597 * 94.0 "1.2 ‘ t t 1? ? ’ Tit. “1562 ' 91.9 0 ' 0 11598 94.0 8 21 --7- Jan. 3, (7 days) Jan. 10, ( 7 dazs) ee ee - o“ = = os « oo et ee ee Fm antena) ! Wt. for ‘Aver. per'Gain per Wt. ver ‘Avr. per ‘Gain per Lot 'Lot ~Latub La‘ib tla ib 'lLamo 'lamo rg yp T eng ee -- I. ' 1602 ‘ 94.2 ‘+ 3.0 ' 1651 ' 97.1 r 2.9 8 ; ’ ? q ? Tl. '1634 ' 96.1 ' P.1 ' 1671 ' 98.3 ' 2.2 ! q 0 ’ ? III.’ 1622 95.4 — Po1e4 8 165400 97.3 ' 1.9 Jane 19 and 20,(9 days) TT Wt. forTAver pe" Gain per Lot ' lot flank 1 lap ' | _—_ Gp ee ee I. 11.726 ‘101.5 '!° 4.4 ' e ! g ? Ii. 11752 ' 103.0 '! 4.7 t g ¥ ' t TET. "17670 104.0 07 67 tee The gains in this teple ss’ ow guite a variation from time to time and do not s;:em to be continuous. The irregularity is due largely, to «7.2 different conditions under which the lambs were weigned. On Dec. 22, they were weighed in the morning after resting over night without any feed or water. Usually tne grain was supplied before weigning and water was kept in the pen during the night. They were dipped Dec. 22, This accounts for tye sel? increase Prom Dec. 22 to Dec. 27. The weights on Jan. 19 and 20 were tesen seven hourse after the lands had eaten tre regulur fecd. It will be noticed that where & lot make a much smaller gain one week than the other lots it maxes, in most cases, a larger gain the next week. This varix*tion, fron time to time, is most likely due to an -~-8-.. unequal shrinkage of the three lots. A draught of water would eacount for itt ina some irsthunces. acle VI. Total gains. (73 dvs) Lot. Per lanc per period.Per lamb per day.% increase of gain I. a2 30 28.5 Il. 20.4 028 24.5 III. 21.4 029 25.9 Averase 21.35 229 26.0 Table VI shows tvat tne lamos made Pair gains and that the three lots varied but little in the results secured. Lot I, wrich was fed the largest amount of corn, made the greatest increase. Lot III, fed on two parts of oats as against one part of oats and one part of oarley fed to Lot II, made tne larger gain. However, to say that the difference in the increase was due to the difference in the rations, would be drawing conclusions from insufficient data. The grain may have been tne cause, but otner influences may have entered in. Table VII. Food Consumed. A. Hay. —5tal F'Total # '# per '# per Total otal —Teestl tor — Lot. "per lot'per lamb'lamb 'l1# gain'cost 'cost '100#'waste ’ er d vv e q ? Ne t ? pon dye eee POR dayt per #'per 1m gain’ in hay ' I. | 1501 ! 88.3 1.21 ' 4.03 '$3.00'$0.18 '$.80'16.5 II. ' 1526 189.0 1.1.2? . AAS . 3.08" .178 8714.3 III.' 1560 91.8 ' 1.24 . 4.23 . 3.12" .182 : 84! 9.8 Aver! 1532 ' 89.7 1.22 . 4.20 . 5.05! .18 : 84°13. Pa Dw -- — — “ PD - ee ME ee PD ee ee eee ea ee ee ee eee oe ee B. Grain ~-9-- ‘Total #'Total # '# per Lot per lot'per lamb! Lamb Ie ' 2277 IT. ' 2418 III.e' 2301 ? Aver! 2298 ->-— = = @ ee Ce. Roots. es -o = = » -_ = oe eee 2 - '100# gain ? a $5.65 6.22 6.29 '# per 'Cost 'Cost per'’Cost per '1# gain'per "lanb _---- bot rod r 6.11 $21.88'$1.24 ! ? t t 6.67 '21.64' 1.27 ' ! ? ? 6.33 122.05" 1.29 ' ? 6.37 re. 501 1 1.26 =! ‘ per day" ? ' 134 ' 1.833 ! t ? t ' 136.3 ' 1.867! 9 ? ? ' 135.4 ' 1.855! e ? t ' 135.4 ' 1.85 ' ‘Tota lL #'Total # '# per Lot 'per lot'per lamb'lamb per'il# gain'per - e +64 _ 7 ee nn NR RNR eRe ee eon eee eee —Trotal # "# per ee Il. L917 II. (1915 III. 1992 Aver' 1941 D. Water. Lot I. II. Tif. Aver “7 - _ to / - Se TT eee oo ‘day _ ? ~t "112.76 1.545 g f "112.60 '1.543 ? "T17.17 '1.804 t t "114.17 '1,.564 _————- a ee 6.05 per "Cost "Cost per’Cost per '100# gain t 5.15 5. 51 0. 47 ‘lot! Ce. ee, ee, ee ee | 2.09! t 2.49! 2.42! eo wD ww De oD ew ws ee 192.59'0.14 tlambd 0.14 0.147 0.142 t '#$0.64 0.68 0.68 0.66 2/3 per lamb" Lainb per'1# gain! '316.8 "314.6 ' 1565.7 1332.5 pr Oe ee - ee - Epa * 4.4 14.6 - a 4.3 16.1 ' §.0 17.1 ) 4.5 ' 15.9 ! --10-- Table VIII. Feed, Water, Dry Matter and Cost per 100# gain. Lot Hay Grain Roots Water Dry Matter Cost. I. 403 611 515 1460 933 $7.07 II. 435 6A 551 1610 1030 7.91 III. 423 633 547 1710 976 7.62 Aver. 420 637 537 1590 980 7.53 These figures show the eost cf nroduction to be very high. This is due to severi.l Pectors tnat could be eliminated in most feeding tests. The clover nay was musty. The lambs did not relisn it. This required a large proportion of grain in the ration. The tables show thut the cost of the grain used in producing 100# increase was 7.2 times as much as the cost of the hay. We can see how tne cost would have been materially lowered nad trie nay been of such a character that the lambs had eaten a larger amount of it and therefore a less amount of grain. Only a small per cent of the increase was made from tne cheap roughage ration. By far the largest per cent of tne increase came from the costly grain ration. This was due not only to i’.e inferior quality of tne hay, but also,to the rapidity witn which tne lambs were put on to tne grain ration. Keeping tne lamps in close confinement also raised the cost. Though the cost of production was very high, yet, we shall see, that they netted a considerable profit, largely pecause of the quality of Sne mutton produced. The cost of the roots amounted to only a meager sum. Tneir influence in «“eepins the lasnb's systems in tone, combined ye ye --]|-- with tue nutrients supplied, was certainly wortn a great deal more tnan tueir cost. The lambs consumed 4 1/2 pints of water each, per day besides the 1 1/2 pints of water taken in tre beets. The ratio of dry matter to Water consined was as 1: 1.62 . Counting also the witer contained in the Teed, the ratio is as l : 2.1/4. Table IX. A. Fifteen sheer sloveiitered «tx raours off feed. Lot I. Sex Live Wt. Dressed wt. Dressed %. Wt. of pelt. Pelt ~gen sey of careas:: E. 107.5 62.0 57.6 11.7 64 E. 99.0 52.5 53.0 13.5 . 56 W. 110.0 58.0 52.7 13.5 ~00 E. 126.5 66.5 52.6 14.5 237 W. 110.0 61.5 55.9 14.5 1.46 Aver 110.6 60.1 54.3 13.5 12.25 ~ 609 Lot II. W. 141.0 84.5 59.9 18.2 . 59 W. 107.0 57.5 53.7 16.0 ~43 W. 111.0 60.5 54.5 12.5 ~61 W. 107.5 55.0 51.1 16.0 »00 E. 86.0 44.0 50.0 10.5 » 00 Aver 110.5 60.3 53.8 14.6 13.2 32 Lot III. E. 118.” 64.5 54.6 16.2 46 W. 107.0 59.0 55.1 13.0 251 E. 93.0 48.0 51.6 13.5 52 W. 101.0 52.0 51.4 13.0 .9F We 112 59.0 53.2 15.5 . 1.6" Aver.106.2 55.6 53.2 14.2 13.4 ss --]2-. B. Six Sneep slaucntered, twelve hours off feed. Lot I. Z loss sex Live vt. Dressed wt. Dressed Nt. of pelt. % pelt.per day carcass W. 104.0 56 53.8 13.5 12.9 -O E. 97.0 50 51.5 13. 13.4 e21 We 116.5 58.5 50.2 18. 15.3 ~O E. 97.5 50. 51.2 15 15.3 -O Aver.103.7 §3.62 51.5 14.9 14.2 ~05 Lot II. W. 104.0 §2.5 54.5 17. 16.3 20 We 120. O 65.5 54.5 17. 14.1 0 Aver.112 59.0 54.5 17. 15.2 -O C. Twelve sheep killed wnen elernteen “ours off Peed. Lot I. W, 99.0 57 57.5 14.0 14.1 037 W. 90.00 51. 56.6 12.5 13.7 98 E. 81.0 4§ 56.7 11.0 13.5 1.08 W. 98.5 57 59.6 17.5 18.3 ~00 E. 114.0 61 53.5 13.0 11.4 ere Aver 96.5 54.4 54,7 13.6 14.2 - 56 Lot II. Be 90.0 52.5 58.3 12.5 13.9 1.19 Ke 96.0 49.0 51.0 12.5 13.0 1.79 We 82.5 43.0 52-1 13.0 15.7 1.16 Aver. 89.5 48.1 53.8 12.6 14.2 1.38 --13-.. Lot III. , S lo:s Sex Live wt. Dressed wt. Dressed Wt.of pelt.% pelt per day of carcass W. 96. D4 56.2 12 12.5 1.85 E. 99 56 56.5 12 lz. 239 EK. 91 51 56.0 Ll 12.0 98 W. 95 53 55.7 15.5 16.3 ~ 66 Aver. 95.2 53.5 56.1 12.6 13.2 ~95 D. Twelve laurcos slaught2red twenty-four hours off feed. Lot I. E. 86 48 55.8 13 15.1 W. 81 43 53.08 13.5 16.6 W. 86 46.5 54.07 12.5 14.5 W.Hampl14.5 62.5 54.5 12.5 10.9 Ww Y 83.5 42.5 50.6 10. 11.9 Aver. 90.2 48.5 53.61 12.75 13.8 Lot II. W. 94.5 54.5 57.6 13. 13.7 E. 110.5 65.0 59.7 15.5 14. W. 86.5 46. 53.2 9.5 10.9 We 84.5 48 57.04 10.5 12.4 Aver. 94.0 535.6 56.9 12.1 12.75 Lot III. 5. 88 47 0564 13 14.7 W. 108.5 61. 56.2 16 14.7 W. 90.5. 49.5 54.6 14 15.4 Aver. 95.4 52.5 54.7 14. 14.9 _-l4-- E. Suma rv of A. 5. C. & D. Fifteen lambs slaughtered six hours o:f feed. % loss Lot Live wt. Dressed wt. Dressed Ge Wt.of pelt.% pelt.per day carcass I. 110.6 60.1 54.36 13.55 12.25 - 609 Ite 110.5 60.3 53.84 14.65 13.25 528 III. 106.2 56.6 53.16 14.25 13.41 ~827 Aver.109.1 59.0 53.78 14.15 12.97 - 588 Six lamps slaughtered twelve hours off feed. I. 112.0 59.0 54.4 17. 14.2 0.0 II. 1035.75 53.62 51.55 14.9 14.2 005 Aver.106.36 55.41 52.5 15.6 14.2 2033 Twelve lambs slaugi tered eignt en nours off feed. I. 96.5 54.40 546.78 13.6 14.2 - 566 II. 89.5 48.16 53.8 12.6 14.2 1.58 III. 95.2 95-50 96.1 12.6 13.2 -958 Aver 94.3 922 54 55.8 135.01 13.8 9 Twelve lumds I. 90.2 II. 94.0 III. 95.6 Aver. 92.7 Aver.100. 41 Ewes dressed slaugytered twanty-four hours off feed. 48.5 52.6 52.0 91.08 Wet:r.2rs " 93.51 56.9 94.7 54.4 54.2% 54.6% 12.75 12.1 14.3 12.92 135.7 135.8 12.75 14.9 13.7 13.35 ~ 407 ~-]15-- Tabie IX. Results of Slaughtering Test. A. Fifteen inmos slaughtered wien six hours off feed. B. Six " " " twelve hours off feed. C. Twelve " " " eighteen hours " " D. Twelve " " " twenty-four hours off feed. EK. Summary of A.,B. , ©. & D. Tabvel IX. gives tre record of tne slaughter test. The percentage of the @re:sed vaight did not increase as tne time off feed increased, as regularly as one would suspect, though there was a d2cided increase in the dressed per cent of those killed wren eignteen and twenty-four hours off feed over those slaughtered wnen six hours off feed. The lack of a proportion- ate increise may be due to individual peculairities, or to a difference in tre extent of the shrinkage. The percentage dressed out was higher tnan the average, but this alone does not show tne real superiority of tne carcasses. They possessed the most desirable qualities. The waste was reduced to a minimum. The flesh was evenly placed over the whole carcass. A large percentace of tre meat was placed on the most valuable cuts. The backs were thickly covered, the loins wide and thick, and tne leg of mutton full. The meat showed that beautiful mixture denoting tenderness and choice flavor. There were no loose bunches of tallow. The fat was inter-mixed with the lean, adding to the quality of both. -~-16-- Tavle X. Financial Statement. Debit. 51. Lanbs @ $3.50 per head, $178.50 Cost of feed, 86.78 Cost of putchering @15¢ per head, — _7.65 — ai DP eae oe Se $272.93 Credit. 5L carcasses, weighing 54.68# each,@ 10¢ per lb. $278.86 51 pelts @ $1.05 each, _ 53.55 = —-